It was Lenin who said “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” In recent times, it has felt as if each year could be a century. The certainties which have long comforted us have long since lost their power. We have become the ‘playthings of circumstance’, and conventional means seem ill-equipped to provide any answers.

However, there are those who have been prepared for such anarchy; those who have even played no small part in bringing about such times. From country to country, candidates and political parties anathema to the values we grew up on are making inroads - if not seizing power outright. A controversial remark or friendship which would have been disqualifying a generation ago now merely adds to the attraction. For the time being there are those with longer memories and miles on the clock to keep the rebels in check - but for how long? For revolutionaries think in decades and centuries, and are now ready to reap the fruits of their labors.

How then have we reached this point? I will tell you. Democracy is a slow moving and imperfect beast. Time and time again, concentrated movements have seized power directly or intimidate broader power structures to adopt their positions out of fear. That works as a short-term measure, and has served as the traditional modus operandi for insurgent political movements. What is more rare is when these movements use every inch gained as a means to remake the system of politics writ large.

The Democratic Party is the perfect example of this in action. Today, alarm bells are a ringing over the so-called ‘hostile takeover’ of the party by the Democratic Socialists of America and their proxy forces. Quite frankly, that is a misrepresentation of what is happening. There is nothing hostile about it. This is the generational change which is downstream from years of careful incursion.

To look at El-Sayed or Talarico or Mamdani for that matter as the problem is to mistake their elevation as manifestation not evolution of an underlying current. Before them, it was the ‘Squad’, and before them Bernie Sanders. Before Sanders, it was the network of intellectuals and activists who infiltrated every local party branch and who made sure the voice of their movement was heard. In other words, every wave has brought more supporters to their cause.

In 2016, Sanders garnered over 13 million votes. In 2020, Sanders was joined by Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic Primary - ultimately pulling the Biden/Harris ticket in a more left-leaning direction, and pulling the entire primary onto their terms. Sanders and Warren may have lost on paper, but they won on the ideas and principles. Superficial analysis of the primary would tell us that Joe Biden’s victory was a victory for centrism but that would be wrong, for the ideas of Sanders & Co were brought inside the tent of the mainstream democratic party. Concurrently, at the 2018 midterms, the first four members of the so-called ‘Squad’ - the progressive wing of the Democratic party - were elected and began building a power base in Congress. Though PAC money has defeated some of their later adherents, the beachhead has been established and is not going anywhere.

Each election, more and more ideologues have gained power. Every primary takes more and more resources to stave off the inevitable. Summer Lee. Greg Cesar. Maxwell Frost. Each small victory changed the reality on the ground, shifting the center of power from the center to the Left and then Left again. This means that grassroots support would no longer presumptively be for establishment figures, but would be viewed through the prism of ‘democratic socialist’ principles. By focusing on the grassroots, such forces know that their hold on power is guaranteed for generations.

Meanwhile, there were (and are) many more traditionally liberal or progressive forces in the party only too happy to flirt and present themselves as allies (as opposed to adherents). The only difficulty being that revolutionary movements pay little regard to the lies we tell ourselves. These lies and justifications are what have gifted us a Communist Mayor of New York City.

The late Ronald Reagan once said that the person who agrees with you eighty percent of the time is a friend, not a traitor. What then of the person who agrees with you a lot less? What of the person who believes in a broad church or a big tent large enough for substantial disagreement or divergence of opinion? As history tells us, such persons and thinking are a poor match for a motivated insurgency such as the one sweeping the Democratic party. For a movement which is now seeing their well-worked strategy reaping rewards, why would they accommodate or compromise with their opponents?

In the absence of a counterrevolutionary movement, it is only a question of when not if Rome falls…

We are at an inflection point where the true scale of the coup is becoming apparent. It would be a mistake to think that a revolution needs to convince every last dissenter. The appearance of victory and supremacy will rally countless converts. Indeed, the choice remaining for those on the Left and / or liberal side of the aisle is this: get in line, or make a stand. Politics is not exactly a profession renowned for bravery. We can be sure of plenty Damascus moments which will only further hasten their ascendancy.

For the revolutionaries, the uphill climb is levelling out and there are white whales to be hunted: Schumer, Fetterman, Torres, Schneider - to name but a few. Dissenters who have passed the point at which they could have surrendered, and whose only use now is to be made an example of for failing to bend the knee.

Make no mistake about it, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is in their sights - but the revolution is patient. The question now remaining is this - are there enough Americans beyond the Democratic party to resist them? Only, time will tell…

One of the cheapest and most oft-repeated lies of the Palestinian movement is the so-called power of the ‘Jewish lobby.’ This does not begin or end with AIPAC. Rather, it is an easy charge to make where a government fails to make the Palestinian cause their raison d'être. In the UK, France or the broader EU, the evils of this invisible hand are maligned - notwithstanding the fact that the so-called ‘influence’ of this lobby has done little to stymie the tide hostility towards Israel evident in the foreign policies of these respective powers.

Why then is the charge deployed with such frequency? It is deployed to deflect from a rather uncomfortable truth, the Palestinian lobby is far more potent than the Israel lobby has ever been - with a network of NGOs, shadowy figures, dark money and politicians working assiduously to ensure that the Palestinian cause is the issue the West cannot be distracted from. Nowhere is this potency more evident than in Ireland.

Only a few short weeks ago, the Journal.ie - a progressive publication known for its antipathy towards the Jewish state - broke the news that ‘the Irish government’s new €53m jet may struggle to land in fog and bad weather because it was ordered without a navigational system which is made by an Israeli company.’1 This is a jet meant to chaperone senior politicians and officials in security, but what does it say that the Irish government is willing to go so far as to endanger themselves and others so as to avoid using Israeli tech? Never mind that Ireland imported over $3.9B in goods from Israel in 2025 - including technological equipment.

This speaks to a deeper rot, a pattern of thinking which could not rationally be arrived at but one which is the product of rigorous preconditioning. These are the fruits of extensive lobbying. Indeed, between January 2016 and May 2026, 255 lobbying returns were filed with the Lobbying Register in Ireland, on behalf of the 'Palestinian Lobby'.

For all the dog-whistling and tropes about the power of the 'Jewish lobby' globally, there is a strong the network of Palestinian Advocacy organisations, NGOs and elected officials which aggressively lobbies Irish policymakers on behalf of the 'Palestinian cause'.

The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign filed 133 returns in this period for lobbying on a range of issues, from sanctioning the Jewish state to more funding for a network of Palestinian charities... For reference, Apple filed 79 returns during this period and Amazon (one of the largest companies in the world) filed circa 200 returns.

Before his election to the Oireachtas, Patrick Costello filed a number of returns for lobbying on behalf of Sadaka, on the 'occupation of Palestine.'

More recently, we now see a number of charities who are engaging in flagrantly political lobbying on behalf of the Palestinian movement, including ActionAid Ireland, Comhlámh and Christian Aid Ireland.

It's also worth noting that each return is not necessarily relating to one single meeting or engagement, for example one return filed related to lobbying on behalf of Palestinian pertained to meeting(s) with 17 TDs and Senators, whilst others referred to mass lobbying campaigns targeting entire Oireachtas or an entire Council.

Furthermore, these engagements are often the first touch-point which then inspire further actions (committee sessions, parliamentary contributions, legislation, motions etc). There are also engagements which fall outside the lobbying register, such as meeting with staffers not recognised as DPOs.

The 255 returns filed represent a fraction of the Palestinian lobby's impact and influence in Irish politics and society.

So next time we wonder why Ireland is so obsessed with the Palestinian cause and demonising Israel, here is your answer. It is the result of an aggressive and well-executed lobbying campaign which has presented this faraway issue over which Ireland has no influence as a foremost issue of national priority.

The use of historical tropes surrounding 'Jewish money' and 'Jewish power' is merely a smear tactic to distract from the very real and sinister efforts on behalf of the Palestinian cause. We would do well to remember this…

As America and Israel wage war against the regime in Tehran, one would think that President Trump’s rage would be reserved solely for this odious enemy of America. One would be wrong - instead, President Trump appears to be most angry at the betrayal of America by a once steadfast ally. It was none other than Winston Churchill who believed America and Britain shared a common destiny to stand united against tyranny. It is no small mercy that Churchill was spared witnessing the fracturing of that shared destiny by perhaps the most unpopular Prime Minister and government on record.

The refusal of the United Kingdom to allow the United States to use her military bases to strike Iran - following the protestations of the ‘very tough’ Ed Miliband & Co. - has made Britain the laughing stock of the free world. Furthermore, this betrayal did not even spare Britain the wrath of the dying Iranian wasp who proceeded to strike British allies and bases. Failing to either come to the aid of her allies or respond to the strikes, Britain’s allies look on astonished - as Starmer still tries to convince his own government that they ‘ought to do something.’ At the moment the best anyone in power in Britain can think of is for British naval ships to do a ‘sail-by’ - to send a message of disapproval to the tyrants in Tehran.

For decades, Churchill & Britain have served as paragons of courage and resilience in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Today? Starmer has denigrated Britain to the level of an irrelevant afterthought. This falls from grace was not lost on the American President, Donald Trump, who quipped: “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.”

Why did the UK not join or support the US-Israeli operation against the Iranian regime? I think the reason has less to do with Starmer's professed dedication to international law, and more to do with Zack Polanski. Polanski's Green Party are an insurgent force on the British Left who are unapologetically Corbynite and who are determined to realign Britain with the darker forces in this world. Polanski and his henchmen (apologies hench-persons-of-unspecified-gender) are out-flanking Labour, by pushing flagrant sectarianism. The Gorton & Denton by-election showed that this strategy will work with the right demographics.

Just as Gaza was used as a wedge issue by sectarian MPs against Labour candidates, Polanski is using practically any action - right or wrong - against Palestinians as an excuse to target the incumbent Labour government. However, this dangerous perversion of British society will not end well. All of a sudden, Britain will no longer be able to act against her enemies - for fear of the backlash from fundamentalists at home. In an attempt to head off further attacks by the Greens, Starmer is not just denigrating the Labour Party, but the United Kingdom on the world stage. In this hour, when good took on evil - it will be remembered that a Labour Prime Minister. declined to answer the call for political gain.

After the Allied victory over the Axis powers, Britain did not abandon her post - instead she led the charge against communism until the collapse of the Berlin Wall, championed democratic values in the European Union, and was integral to the defence of Ukraine. The world today needs Britain in the fight against evil at home and abroad. Her loss to the free world is a cause for celebration in the dark corners of this world.

Ever since the establishment of Northern Ireland in 1921, there have been few who have wished for it to succeed. Prior to World War II, both Nationalism and Unionism were all-Ireland movements - so the fledgling Northern Irish state was almost always destined to be subsumed into a larger territory.1 During World War II, Lord Craigavon argued for the British to retake the South on account of the belief that Ireland had fallen under the influence of the Nazis. Meanwhile, the republican movement launched armed insurgency after armed insurgency to bring about unity by force. The North was either to be the fulfilment of Republicanism’s prophecy, or the anchor which would eventually steer the Free State back into the embrace of the Union. Why then would anyone significantly invest in a temporary state of affairs?

Sadly, in the present day, there are more people interested in the failure of Northern Ireland than it’s success. It was the infamous Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland, Charles Haughey, who referred to Northern Ireland as a ‘failed political entity’ in a 1980 party conference speech. Whether this was his usual playing to the republican gallery or sincere conviction, this belied a commonly held attitude amongst republicans which underpins much contemporary thinking.

The Republican narrative is that Northern Ireland is a failed colonial outpost which has never served the interests of its people, and should only be met with abolition. Never mind the fact that it has been Republicans who have waged war against the fledgling dominion since 1921, with wave after wave of guerilla campaigns by the IRA of the day. The level of encouragement and involvement from Southern leaders towards these campaigns is a matter of historical debate, but what is clear is that people in Northern Ireland who were Catholic or Republican were actively encouraged to remain apart from their new home. Catholics/Republicans were encouraged not to integrate, not to associate with Protestants/Unionists - in other words, not to get too comfortable for help was on the way…

Yet, today, the First Minister of Northern Ireland is Michelle O’Neill of Sinn Féin. The largest party in the Stormont Assembly is Sinn Féin. None of these things connote any sort of meaningful majority which favors reunification, but what it does indicate is that the forces of grievance in Northern Irish politics have the power to improve their situation - but choose not to.

Indeed, there is ample evidence that it is their determination to not only not improve the situation on the ground - but to obstruct the progress and development of the region.

Only a few weeks ago, 300 multinational roles in Northern Ireland were axed due to the relevant Sinn Féin Minister’s obsessive hatred of Israel. As Israel and America take on the evil of the Iranian regime, Michelle O’Neill refuses to attend British government security briefings - which includes updates on the safety of Northern Irish persons in the region.

Furthermore, Sinn Féin and others within the Republican movement have cultivated and defended a culture of hostility towards the police in Northern Ireland - to the point whereby Catholic enlistment in the PSNI is at its lowest levels since 2013. Despite extensive PSNI appeasement of republicans, the green line still holds strong; in other words, ‘good republicans’ boycott the institutions of Northern Ireland - particularly the police.

Meanwhile, one of the foremost priorities of the veteran Sinn Féin Minister, John O’Dowd, is to allocate £100 million from the Stormont 2026-2030 budget towards the development of Casement Park. This is a redevelopment being funded now by the British government, the Irish government and Stormont for the benefit of the GAA, and let’s be honest for persons of a particular cultural tradition. This is a stadium that will play host to a handful of competitive games a year, with all bumper clashes transferred down to Croke Park to further enrich the GAA.

Time and time again, Sinn Féin find every way to either hamper the prospects of Northern Ireland or divert the region’s limited resources into partisan projects. In all fairness, the republican are very upfront about their rejection of Northern Ireland. The party refuses to represent their voters in Westminster, In another life when I was a political advisor, the official line was that all communications were not to say ‘Northern Ireland’ but ‘North of Ireland.’ A seemingly subtle but undeniable act of rejection.

Why then are Sinn Féin and the broader republican movement regarded as equal partners in governing Northern Ireland? There seems to be this attitude that because Sinn Féin put down the gun (eventually), they should be appeased with power to ensure they don’t return to their violent ways. Sinn Féin’s only solution has only ever been to make every Northern Irish problem an ‘all island’ problem. This must end.

Northern Ireland was never meant to succeed, but succeed it has. Through terrorism and neglect, this under-appreciated corner of the world has endured and has every ability to thrive. However, it is not being served well by either its institutions or many of its politicians. The Northern Irish people deserve better. The temporary state of affairs is over. Catholics and republicans are not hostages. Northern Ireland is here to stay.

From the reestablishment of the State of Israel in 1948, to the election of Menachem Begin in 1977, successive socialist Prime Ministers had been willing to make territorial concessions to the Arabs - for little in return. Even under right-wing Premiers such as Begin (Sinai) and Sharon (Gaza), the willingness to trade territory for peace (or the hopes of peace) continued.

The relative peace and cooperation with Egypt has been the sole success story from this policy. In totality, the Arabs have always been more interested in terror and war to take advantage of this predisposition.

Why then is the international community so focused on territorial concessions as a precondition for peace in the region? If this was the key to peace, why have the Arabs for so long declined to turn it?

Because, this was never about peace. This was never about land. This was, is and always will be about the temerity of the Jewish State to exist. It was Abba Eban, who quipped that “[t]he Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity” - but maybe they never sought the opportunity in the first place? Maybe, just maybe, peace has not been on the mind of Arabs for some time (if ever).

Furthermore, what evidence is there that the Palestinians will change their ways if granted a state in Gaza and Judea & Samaria? There is none.

Instead, there is ample evidence that if the Palestinians were given unfettered autonomy in these areas that they would use it to bring about the destruction of the Jewish State.

Indeed, what have the Palestinians done to deserve a State? Since the creation of the Palestinian ‘movement’ in the 1960s, this movement has worked towards one objective - the destruction of Israel. From the Lebanon War, to the Intifadas, to the daily terror attacks, to October 7th, the Palestinians have made it clear - coexistence is not on their minds.

In 2005, the Sharon government dismantled settlements in Gaza & Northern Samaria, destroying the homes of 8,000 Israelis. What did Israel get in return? A Hamas terror state on its doorstep and PA-controlled Territories in Judea & Samaria riddled with terrorists. Tearing Jews from their homes has done nothing more than further invite Palestinian terrorism. Yet somehow, settlements are a greater barrier to peace than Palestinian Terror...

Why must Israel agree to coexist with those who want nothing more than their destruction? Why must Israel reward their terrorism with statehood? Why is the world’s only Jewish State expected to gift her enemies the means of their destruction...

When Menachem Begin stood at the Western Wall after Jerusalem’s recapture the day prior, it had been two decades since he had last laid eyes upon the Kotel. The leader of the Irgun and founding father of Likud could hardly contain the emotion of the moment.

For Begin had joined the Eshkol government on the eve of war as a Minister without Portfolio, and it was partially by his actions that recapturing of Jerusalem was even considered - let alone actioned. The chutzpah of such a thought can hardly be conceived of, days earlier Israel was a nation awaiting an executioner, only to then be delivered from such destruction to the redemption of Jerusalem.

At such a moment, Begin hurried to the newly liberated Western Wall - bringing with him, a prayer of his composition precisely for that very moment. Surrounded by the lions of the IDF, he recited this prayer:

“O G-D of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Lord of Hosts, be Thou are help.

Our enemies encompassed us - they encompassed us and arose to destroy us as a people.

Yet their counsel came to naught and their evil was not accomplished.

For there has arisen in our Homeland a new generation, a generation of liberators, a generation of warriors and heroes.

And when they went forth to engage the enemy there burst forth from their hearts the call which echoes down the generations, the call from the father of the Prophets, the redeemer of Israel from the bondage of Egypt: ‘Arise up O Lord and let Your enemies be scattered and let those that hate You be put to flight.’

And we scattered and defeated them, and flee they did.

The routed enemy has not yet laid down his arms.

The Army of Israel continues to pursue and smite him.

Lord, G-D of Israel, watch over our forces who, with their arms, are forging the Covenant You made with Your chosen people.

May they return in peace - children to their parents, fathers to their children, and husbands to their wives.

For we are but the surviving remnant of a people harried and persecuted, whose blood has been shed like water from generation to generation.

Today we stand before the Western Wall, relic of the House of our Glory, in Jerusalem the redeemed, the city that is now all united together, and from the depths of our hearts there arises the prayer that the Temple may be rebuilt speedily in our days.

And we shall yet come to Hebron - Kiryat Arba - and there we shall prostrate ourselves at the graves of the Patriarchs of our people.

We shall yet reach Ephrat at the approaches to Bethlehem in Judea.

There we shall pray at the tomb of Rachel and we shall recall the prayer of the prophet: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, wailing and bitter lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children, for they are not. Refrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your labor says the Lord and they shall return from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for your latter end, and your children shall return to their borders.’”1

The assembled troops responded with a resounding '“Amen!”, before bursting into song and dance. Three days later, Israel would complete the reunification of Jerusalem and the reclaiming of Judea & Samaria. The prayers of Israel were heard those days, and may they forever be. Amen.

My appearance on the ‘Still Irish’ Podcast, hosted by Killian Foley-Walsh - with my frequent co-author, Professor Seth Barrett Tillman:

Who is going to ask the hard questions on the unfeasible proposal to extending presidential voting rights to Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland?

Whose going to pay for this proposal? Whose going to prosecute instances of election fraud? Is a proposal which won’t move the needle on Irish unity one iota really worth it?

Proportional representation is no more democratic, fair or transparent than the electoral processes in either America or the UK.

And much, much more…

Listen in & make sure to subscribe to Ireland’s podcast of record - ‘Still Irish’ with Killian Foley-Walsh: https://www.youtube.com/@StillIrishPod

The acclaimed British Author & Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, once wrote: “Since it is so likely that they [referring to children] will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.” How can one expect children to meet the darkness head on when they have no examples of light to draw upon? I wager that a substantial part of the reason for the current air of despondency that hangs heavy in our midst, is that there are few of these brave knights and scant few examples of heroic courage to rally the forces of good on this earth.

In ages past, when dark forces were on the move, a champion for good could always be counted upon to step forward. David slew Goliath. Wellington thwarted Napoleon. Churchill triumphed over the Bohemian corporal. Reagan consigned the evil empire to the annals of history. Alas, darkness never rests and only retreats to wage war another day.

That day is today, and no champion is forthcoming. War has returned to Europe’s shores. Islamist terrorism is waging an intifada in the Middle East. The West seems more inclined to sue for good terms for surrender, than fight the good fight. Our times demand a champion who will go on to the end.

This is why Britain matters.

Over the course of the twentieth century, Britain stopped and rolled back the attempted conquest of Europe by no less than two tyrannical powers. Furthermore, Britain served as an anchor for Europe - rooting Europe in a tradition of liberty, which has since been abandoned after Brexit.

However, the Britain of today is not the Britain of yesteryear. Pick up a British newspaper today and you will be greeted with an almost universal message: the United Kingdom is not in a good way. There have been a number of horrific attacks in recent times, from the Southport terrorist attack, to the Heaton Park synagogue attack, to the stabbing spree on the train from Doncaster to London. Meanwhile, there seems to be an epidemic of criminals being let loose from prison or homicidal “activists” returned from abroad. The historically-unpopular Labour government is finding more and more inventive ways to plunder its people. The thin blue line has been coopted as the agents of a censorious social agenda. Cracks have well and truly set in to the very foundations of society.

For many former colonial rivals and colonies, Britain’s decline is to be celebrated and hastened. To the evil powers who wish to rule over this earth, Britain’s retreat herald’s their victory.

When I attended a Young America’s Foundation’s (YAF) National Conservative Student Conference (NCSC), over the course of the week, the most frequently used quote by speakers and students alike was one by President Reagan: “Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction.” Whilst I may have laughed then about how many times that quote could be repeated in a calendar week, now I realise this was an urgent warning. Freedom is never guaranteed, and one complacent generation is enough to consign freedom to the history books.

Freedom in Britain is but a generation away from extinction (if not closer), and if her light goes out - so will the lights all across Europe. To use another famous quote from the Gipper: “If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” The here in this quote has always been understood as America, but I submit that if freedom dies in Britain - it will not stand anywhere. This is why Britain matters. In a time of cruel enemies, our world needs Britain at her best. Let not the forces of hell rejoice, instead let British bravery and courage be the light to brighten our destiny in the face of darkness.

As I am sure you may have seen, the Labour Government has finally delivered upon one of it’s top priorities in government: the release of Egyptian extremist, Alaa Abd El Fattah. If ever a single issue or case summed up how out of touch a government this was it. At a time when immigration is a top political issue and the threat of Islamist terrorist attacks hangs in the air, the British Prime Minister is out publicly celebrating a man who is anything but compatible with British values and democracy.

The revelations today of what this man has called for and of course believes is shocking - he has spoken in support of:

• taking over towns and raping women,

• perpetrating genocide against Whites,

• random shooting of white males (to inspire more fear),

• advocating killing police,

• killing Zionists,

• unleashing a campaign of mass punitive violence against white people,

• more suicide bombings,

…and the list goes on….

The evidence is clear - this man should not be in Britain. This man should not have been given British citizenship. Certainly, no British government should have been advocating for anything other than throwing away the key on this individual. However, it would be too easy for all of us to lay the blame solely at the feet of Starmer & Co. This is a stain on all our houses, and nearly every strata and sector of our society is implicated.

As pointed out by Jonathan Sacerdoti, though it may have been Starmer who brought Alaa Abd El Fattah to Britain - it was the previous Tory government which granted him citizenship.

Furthermore, 100 members of both the Commons and Lords signed onto a letter in December 2024 pressing the then Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, to release him. MPs and Lords from nearly every political party supported this plea.

The usual Hollywood suspects of course added their voice to the chorus of voices calling for his release, and build up the myth around his sacrifices for democracy. There would have been countless officials, immigration officers and advisors who would either have turned a blind eye to his extremist views or who simply didn’t their jobs properly (calling into question the entire vetting procedures for citizenship). Now of course the truth comes out, but El Fattah is now a British citizen on British soil - in other words too late.

Meanwhile, born and bred British citizens, Lucy Connolly and Joey Barton, were convicted and given custodial sentences (albeit Barton’s was suspended) for so-called “offensive posts” More than 12,000 Britons are arrested for social media posts every year. Surely, according to the government’s own censorious agenda, any one of El Fattah’s calls for violence and bloodshed should be enough for not only his imprisonment - but also should have been enough to oppose his entry into the country. Instead, he is celebrated as a crowning achievement of Labour in government…

When are we going to learn? Not every story is true. Not every prisoner is innocent. Not every asylum seeker is genuine. Days after the Bondi Beach massacre, an unapologetic extremist is being brought to British shores - at the behest of the British government. Britain is less safe with his arrival, and yet El Fattah’s arrival is being applauded by the usual suspects. El Fattah is the symptom, and our political class is gripped by illness. Time will tell whether we can deliver a cure before more extremists come to our shores.

Appendix 1 - Alaa Abd El Fattah’s Social Media Posts:

Ever since WWII, when British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, commended British “restraint and poise with which history will find few parallels” for not having invaded neutral Ireland whilst they “left the de Valera government to frolic with the Germans and later with the Japanese representatives to their heart’s content”, the question of the role Britain plays in Ireland’s defense has been a thorny one. The safety and security we derive from our so-called old enemy is the dirty secret of Irish politics which few are willing to admit to.

Indeed, in February 2024, former Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Leo Varadkar, went so far as to dispute the notion that neutral Ireland derived any security from British armed forces. When grilled by an attendee at the Munich Security Council 2024 over British interventions (real and hypothetical) to protect Ireland from foreign incursions (most notably by the Russians), the only derisory response Varadkar could muster was that “they [Britain] would be doing it to protect themselves, not us.”1

From De Valera to Varadkar, we as a country simply cannot admit that we have outsourced the defense of the realm to the very power we sought to oust from this country by force. Yet, at the same time, the state’s own barristers are before the Irish courts to prevent a secret defense pact between the Irish State and the British government to allow the RAF into Irish airspace to pursue hostile aircraft from being made public.2 How might I ask can the Irish state’s own legal team be in court defending Ireland’s security pact with Britain on one hand, but the political leadership of this country boldly deny that Britain’s safeguarding of our skies actually occurs or if it does occur afford us any benefit?

Quite frankly, this is childish behavior. Ireland is a nation which holds itself up as a model of diplomacy and multilateralism, and which criticised Brexit for disregarding the Anglo-Irish relationship. Yet, this is also a country which refuses to invest in our own defense - to the point where a Defense Commission said - in a damning report - that the state’s security forces offered no credible protection to the state from attack.3

In March 2022, I wrote an article on this very topic (extract below) and the situation has only gotten worse:

“Ireland is an outlier in terms of our Defence spending, as highlighted by the Commission report. In 2017, our Defence spending amounted to little over €900 million per annum – 77% of which went on pay and pensions. In 2022, our spending will have risen to €1.1 billion – 73% of which be spent on pay and pensions. For context, the Health Budget for 2022 will be €22.5 billion, the Housing Budget amounting to nearly €6 billion, over €9 billion on education, and more than €23 billion on social protection. In our names, the Irish government will spend €111,346,648,000+ to remedy and support society. Defence spending makes up less than 1% of that spending. When broken down further, 0.2% of our annual spending goes towards our defensive infrastructure – if even. That calculation is merely the % not spent on pay and pensions.

To put it plainly, our Defence Forces are the chosen department of neglect by the Irish government. The Ministerial Portfolio attached to Defence, is often more ceremonial and consists of daily praise and deployment of Irish peacekeepers – whilst covering up their shoddy treatment upon their arrival home.

The Irish Ranger Wing were deployed to Kabul to rescue 36 people from the clutches of the Taliban, whilst Defence Force Servicemen are forced to sleep in their cars at home because they cannot afford rent on their current salary.

Our Naval Service has to routinely postpone seagoing missions due to lack of manpower, whilst those that do deploy do so with the bare minimum crew. Indeed, most of the time, we have only five available ships at any given time but do not have the requisite number of qualified personnel to man them properly. Manpower is so lacking that one family emergency is enough to ground an entire mission.”

Against this backdrop, we begin to understand why the Irish government is so reluctant to admit our reliance on Britain for our security: because it serves to highlight the Irish government’s complete abdication of duty. In reality, we want to have our cake and eat it - we don’t want to invest in our defense forces, we want to be safe, we are happy for Britain to provide security for us but we just don’t want to admit Britain is the reason we are safe. It would seem we are perfectly content for the British taxpayer to fund our defense, but we don’t have the decency to at least thank them for it.

The world over - one time enemies have become friends in the pursuit of better security. One only has to look at the Abraham Accords or China and Russia’s defense cooperation for evidence.

We - as a nation - should not be ashamed to say we rely on Britain for our security. Furthermore, I think we need to be realistic - Ireland is not good at defense. This is not, for one moment, a slight upon the incredible bravery and public service of our troops, but an indictment of the lunacy of our decision-makers and pencil-pushers alike. To this end, we should swiftly negotiate a comprehensive defense pact with Britain - which involves formal cooperation and, where possible, integration of our respective security forces. Ireland should formally contribute to the UK defense budget, and in return Britain should guarantee our security. This would allow us to more easily upgrade our defense infrastructure and hardware, which we are struggling to do on our own, and afford us the benefit of Britain’s vast intelligence apparatus and military resources.

Dark times lay ahead, and the time for inconsequential labels and petty denials is over. If we have any respect for ourselves and our allies, we must be honest about our security relationship with the UK and decide what is best for our people. The answer is clear, we just need to be willing to ask the question.

Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, LLB* & Professor Seth Barrett Tillman**

On the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, on Yom Kippur, Jihad al-Shamie—a Syrian immigrant turned British citizen in his teens—allegedly launched a heinous terrorist attack against the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester. His actions—directly and indirectly—would claim the lives of two congregants (Adrian Daulby 53, and Melvin Cravitz 66) and seriously injured others. As is to be expected, this attack was met with the usual bland statements of solidarity, condolence, and condemnation, and the necessary calls to action. All this follows the same typical Je suis Charlie Hebdo pattern, and all totally useless.

However, one particular statement did not conform and invited swift criticism. It was a cri de coeur, posted as a LinkedIn video, by Gary Neville—a former Manchester United footballer, a current media pundit, and, perhaps, a future British Labour politician in the making. In his video giving his thoughts on the attack, Neville had this to say about Slow Horses the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack:

When I was driving to Salford City last night, going down Littleton Road, I seen probably 50 or 60 Union Jack flags. And on the way back I went down the parallel road, Bury New Road, which has got the Jewish community right at its heart and they’re out on the streets, defiant, not hiding or in fear.

I just kept thinking as I was driving home last night that we’re all being turned on each other. And the division that’s being created is absolutely disgusting. Mainly created by angry, middle-aged white men, who know exactly what they’re doing.

Later on in the video, he continued:

I have been building in this city for 15 to 20 years, and nobody has put a flag up. So why do you need to put one up now? Quite clearly it’s sending a message to everybody that there’s something you do not like. The Union Jack flag’s being used in a negative fashion is not right.

Finally, he stated:

We need to check ourselves . . . because we are being pulled right and left. Brexit has had a devastating impact on this country and the messaging is getting dangerous, extremely dangerous—all these idiots that are out there spreading hate speech or abuse in any form. We must stop promoting them.

Unsurprisingly, this video explaining his thoughts, which managed to draw a link between a terrorist attack and “angry, middle-aged white men,” and between the Union Jack and Brexit, was roundly condemned. Putting aside the partisan and tone-deaf nature of Neville’s comments, one has to ask: Did Gary Neville have a point?

The central thrust of Neville’s screed is that speech which takes pride in one’s cultural identity and national narrative is a threat to public safety. How so? Some migrants, their children, and recently naturalized citizens will feel threatened by such expressive speech and conduct. In other words, speech begets violence, or, to put it more strongly: speech by natives invites violence by non-natives. The natural corollary of this is that abandoning the symbols of national pride and identity will deprive would-be terrorists and other criminals of a key motive for launching future attacks against the natives.

Indeed, Neville’s conception of how the world works goes further; he posits a clear nexus between a specific criminal/terrorist attack and common expressions of national pride, some of which had underpinned the Brexit referendum vote and operation Raise the Colours—Raise the Union Jack. One cannot help but wonder, were the forces, institutions, and people so offended and opposed to traditional expressions of national pride consulted by Neville on this matter, and was this their proffered solution? Or, are these merely the anticipated terms of cultural surrender—suggested by Neville—authored personally by him as the only means to usher in the future multicultural utopia by pacific means. In short, for Neville and his supporters, peace—at home—is worth any price, including giving up some (of your, and not his) expressive free speech rights.

Whatever the evidence supporting Neville’s beliefs is, assuming it exists at all, such evidence does not make a case that any moral and courageous people should countenance. The politics of diminishing national pride, oikophobia, and removing symbols of national identity from public spaces has been tried and tested before, not just here but world-wide, and always to no avail. To quote Churchill, “[a] love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.” At a time when the British nation is, at best, unsettled, it is only natural that its people turn to their traditions and sense of identity for reassurance and inspiration.

Nevertheless, there are many in positions of power and influence who share Mr Neville’s beliefs. This is the same thinking which sees national borders as unnecessary barriers, and who regard integration as, at best, only slightly preferable to separate-but-equal multicultural spaces with communities living in de facto cultural, linguistic, and, in the not-so-distant future, legal ghettos. Indeed, for Neville and those who share his world view, it is those who bitterly cling to their identity and who oppose the unstoppable march of demographic change, who are the source of current unrest. That is the reason, in the mind of Gary Neville, that the intransigent natives are to be blamed for the wrongs of Jihad al-Shamie.

Personal self-abnegation, as well as societal-wide cultural surrender, is not a long-term strategy. It is not even a short-term one. A thoughtful man once said that “you cannot eat a flag.” And that is true, but it is just as true that you cannot overcome all violence and hatred with submission. It is now merely a question of remembering that second truth before it is too late.

* Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, Government Relations Consultant, former Political Advisor within the Irish Parliament

** Seth Barrett Tillman, a U.S. citizen, and Associate Professor, Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology, Ireland / Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad

----------------

Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Did Gary Neville Have A Point?,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 11, 2025, 15:27 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/did-gary-neville-have-point.html>;

Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, LLB* & Professor Seth Barrett Tillman**

On October 24, 2025, the candidate of a united Irish Left—Catherine Connolly—convincingly won (with 63 percent of the vote) the presidential election. This will ensure that the legacy of the arch-socialist incumbent, Michael D Higgins, will be secure for another seven year presidential term. However, all is not well in the Emerald Isle. Less than 50 percent of the electorate deigned to turn out and vote. Furthermore, there was a record number of spoiled votes cast—213,738 votes or 13% of the vote—which was more votes than that received by, Jim Gavin, the candidate nominated by Fianna Fáil, the leading party in the current government. Indeed, much of the debate surrounding this election focused, not on the candidates, their biographies, and their political positions, but on whether the presidential nomination and election process is fit for the modern age.

To quickly summarize: this is what happened. There were officially three candidates on the ballot. Two candidates were affiliated with each of the two major parties in the governing parliamentary coalition. The third candidate, Catherine Connolly, a left-wing independent candidate, was broadly supported by the primary opposition parties. One of the two government-affiliated candidates, Jim Gavin, called off his campaign a mere 27 days after being nominated due to a decades-old rental dispute over approximately $3,500. It is alleged that Gavin, a landlord, failed to repay a deposit owed his tenant. Beyond mere commercial dishonesty, any overreach by a landlord against a tenant has deep resonance with the Irish public in connection with the national narrative of the natives’ being displaced by foreign (that is, English) landlords. Despite withdrawing his name, Gavin remained on the ballot.

The other major party in the governing parliamentary coalition, Fine Gael, nominated Heather Humphreys. Although Humphreys had a long vitae, she struggled to explain her and her party’s recent political achievements and her and her party’s vision for the future. In contrast to the two government-affiliated candidates, the Irish left and parliamentary opposition was united in its support of a single independent candidate. By American or British standards, there was no conservative candidate on the ballot. Why? As we explain, the Irish presidential election process is a closely guarded process: an agreed contest of sorts between candidates already within the political “beltway” of acceptable opinion. And this presidential contest was no different, but finally the rules of the game have come under scrutiny.

To provide a little context, there are three paths to being placed on the presidential ballot. First, you are the current or a former President of Ireland, and you have only served one term. Second, you secure the support of at least twenty serving members of the Irish national parliament (the “Oireachtas”). Third, you secure the nomination of at least four local authorities: city or county councils. Even a cursory glance at these pathways confirms one common denominator—any candidate must have significant political support from within the existing national and local elected bodies to secure a party-affiliated nomination or a place on the ballot as an independent. Indeed, the threshold of Oireachtas support, that is, twenty members, would preclude all but the three largest or dominant parties of Fianna Fáil (in government), Fine Gael (in government), and Sinn Féin (the largest opposition party), from nominating a candidate outright. All other parties have fewer than twenty seats in the current parliament. Furthermore, there are few local authorities whereby any single party has an outright majority. As a result, this pathway is also weighted towards candidates with the support of the parties within the governing coalition in the local authority. More importantly, where a national party has chosen a presidential candidate through the support of its Oireachtas faction, the national party will direct its whips to stymie other candidates’ efforts to gain support through the local government pathway. City and county councillors who intend to advance up from local government towards a seat in the Oireachtas have every incentive to obey direction from their party’s whips.

At present, the parliament is dominated by three parties (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Sinn Féin)—two of which, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are the primary parties in the current government. Of the 174 members of the lower house (the “Dáil”), 125 members hail from one of these three parties. The Dáil elects the Taoiseach—the head of government or prime minister. All this power in the lower house affords these parties substantial power to shape the political agenda and the public political narrative, and to narrowly define the Overton window for acceptable opinion and policy. Elected by a system using the transferable vote (as used in Alaska’s most recent congressional contest) and proportional representation, the lower house is comprised of members from 43 constituencies from across the country, where each constituency elects three to five members.

The upper house (the “Seanad” or senate) is comprised of 60 members. Six members are elected by graduates of certain Irish universities. 43 members are elected by five vocational panels, in which members of the Oireachtas and local councillors are entitled to vote. And 11 members are chosen by the Taoiseach. The privilege of designating these 11 members to the Seanad has the effect of strengthening (or salvaging) the government’s majority in Seanad.

For any of the remaining, smaller parties and independents outside of the three dominant parties, agreement with ideological allies on a consensus presidential candidate would be the only concrete path forward for a candidate seeking a position on the ballot. For more conservative or center-right voters, that is, center-right by something approximating American standards, within the 174 members of the Dáil and the 60 members of the Seanad, there are just maybe ten solid members and perhaps another ten squishes. A valiant effort was launched to place a conservative candidate, Maria Steen, onto the ballot at the eleventh hour. Despite support from the entirety of the center-right or conservative bloc in the Oireachtas, Steen was two signatures short of the 20 members needed for a nomination . . . having failed to persuade two independent Senators to support her inclusion on the ballot—even in the interests of wider democratic choice.

Read the full article - “An Insiders’ Club: The Path to the Irish Presidency” (Times of Israel, September 30th 2025) [LINK HERE]

In his 2006, the famed atheist, Richard Dawkins, published his international bestseller - “The God Delusion.” As the title suggest, this is a full-scale assault on the very existence of G-D, and any argument in support of that belief. Indeed, one of the areas that Dawkins fervently attacks, is that limitations upon scientific knowledge is indicative of G-D’s existence. Haughtily, Dawkins retorts that it is only a matter of time before that knowledge is attained and G-D’s existence disproven: “…gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.” Many years after this book’s publication, the limitations upon science remain the same and Dawkins regards himself now as a “cultural Christian.” However, I don’t think Dawkins was entirely wrong - he just didn’t realise what he was right about.

“…as science advances…God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do…” That is the prophecy Dawkins should have delivered, and the true G-D delusion he should have diagnosed. Today, we live in a world where the frontiers of science and technology are expanding at such a rapid rate - that society hasn’t even gotten our laces tied, to catch up. AI is the buzzword of our generation, and is quickly supplanting the need for general human thought or effort. Pharmaceutical innovations have assiduously worked to numb our generation to the very experience of living and convincing us that the answer to any problem is to be found in a pill. “Merciful death” can be brought forward, and availed of at any point. Men can become women or hybrids, and vice-versa. It seems no matter where one looks - there is an innovation of science or technology or sometimes both, which further erodes humanity’s function upon this earth.

Acceleration, progression, advancement, exploration, discovery - this is modernity’s crusade. To expand our abilities, our knowledge, our control. To many, this is a giddy and exciting time, one where the future holds nothing but 4-day weeks, universal basic income, no pain and robot waiters.

Herein lies the source of our undoing - the true G-D delusion. Science’s advancement has made us arrogant, and allowed us to usurp G-D’s role in our lives. Sorry, correct that, science has deluded us into assuming G-D’s role in our own lives. Think about it - what is modern Western society’s primary appeal? Freedom. Now that freedom used to exist within a culture and society which had honored tradition and was grounded in religious beliefs and values. Today, that same foundation does not exist. Today, that freedom is planted in very different soil - the society we live in is one dominated by celebrity (major, minor and every variation in between) and where no is a word we have developed an allergic reaction to. Books are for decoration and social media, rather than personal development. Knowledge is derived from seconds-long snippets (or “reels”) pushed by social media algorithms.

As intoxicating as progress seems, we would be foolish to think that this rapid advancement will not come at a cost and fundamentally alter our societies. Indeed, today’s progress is being paid for with tomorrow’s promise. Without thinking, we may be condemning ourselves to a technological middle ages - one where knowledge is kept in ivory towers and false prophets play G-D.

After October 7th, there has been the a co-ordinated effort to capture the ‘means of education’ and embed the Palestinian narrative in the hearts and minds of the younger generations.

After October 7th, there has been the a co-ordinated effort to capture the ‘means of education’ and embed the Palestinian narrative in the hearts and minds of the younger generations.

This is virtue signalling being funded by union members dues, rather than focusing on substantive issues such as school infrastructure or class sizes, the NASUWT are instead dedicating yet more time and energy to obsessing over a conflict hundreds of miles away and upon which their ‘solidarity’ will have no impact.

Read the full letter - “NASUWT sends a chilling message to teachers that it blindly supports the Palestinian cause and is a cold place for anyone who supports Israel” (Belfast Newsletter, December 1st 2025) [LINK HERE]

On Monday, Dublin City Council was due to vote on a motion to rename Herzog Park in Rathgar - the penultimate stage in a months-long witch hunt by the Left on Dublin City Council, to erase Jewish history in a small corner of Dublin.

Named in honor of the former President of Israel and son of Belfast and Dublin, Chaim Herzog, in 1995 to mark the tri-millennium of Jerusalem, the park has a special place in the hearts of dwindling Jewish Dublin. Due to some backdoor political wrangling on the part of the government parties on the council, the report on renaming Herzog Park has now been withdrawn but a vote may still go ahead…

Sadly, as one friend pointed out to me, this was not the first sinister attempt to erase Herzog’s ties to this land. In 2014, after a series of attacks, a blue plaque from the Ulster History Circle had to be removed from the birthplace of Chaim Herzog in Belfast. The plaque was removed indefinitely out of concern for safety of the local community. It seems there are some elements on this island who wish to make it very clear that Herzog is an unwanted son of Ireland, and that the Herzog dynasty’s legacy in Ireland is one to be forgotten.

Read the full article - “Chaim Herzog: Ireland’s Unwanted Son” (Belfast Newsletter, December 1st 2025) [LINK HERE]

At the time of writing, I have just finished reading the powerful account of Viktor Frankl’s experiences during the Shoah in “Man’s Search for Meaning.” An essential read, recommended by many including my wife and Charlie Kirk, this book served as the perfect tonic - quickly dispelling any feelings of self-pity or despondency. At a time when despondency seems to be the zeitgeist of our generation for history’s record, Dr Frankl’s unapologetic message is one of empowerment, that in every moment there are choices to be made as to what sort of person one will be. Indeed, one particular passage has stuck with me:

“There were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you become the plaything to circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity.”

In a world where our very fortunes seem to be the plaything of cliques and oligarchs, what more powerful message could there be?

The world we live in today is one where the skies are ever darkening. There are enemies both outside ours borders and within, who seem to be acting with impunity. Autocrat and terrorist alike seem to be enjoying a prolonged and bountiful harvest! Our fortunes are not our own - the basic staples of our parents’ lives, namely owning your own home and having a decent-sized families, are becoming the stuff of fantasy and myth to our generation. With misfortune on all fronts and with our powers to chart our own course seemingly constricted, how could one not help but give into despondency’s temptation? Is it not easier to become circumstances’ plaything? Why give the world a chance? Why try better your standing? Why not look for someone to blame, rather than for a path to change?

Many would tell you that it is. Our society today rewards the hustle, the quick buck, the scam. Sophistry is our creed, with Socrates quelled long ago. Rome burns, whilst Nero tunes his fiddle. Books are for ornaments, the elderly for pity, faith for ridicule. Every day, we are imbibing a toxic potion of our making. One that tells us that image triumphs over reality, and one where meaning and truth are for decoration on the sides of coffee mugs - not for actual pursuit. No wonder that our generation is one in the grips of anxiety and depression. In such a pit, the light is but another thing out of reach. Herein lies the issue. Despondency has triumphed. The everyday and material have enslaved our better angels. We have truly forgotten what life’s pursuit is all about.

Beyond writing powerfully of his experiences in the camps, Frankl pioneered his own school of psychotherapy - called logotherapy (often referred to as the third Viennesse school). The central thrust of this therapy, and really of Frankl’s philosophy, is that man’s true purpose is to find meaning in life. Indeed, as attested to by Frankl, even in the worst of circumstances, life’s meaning is to be found. Albeit, our times are not the best, they are not the worst either. However, why our times seem so bad is because we’ve stopped asking the right questions - what does it all mean? What is G-D’s plan for me?

The first step to ‘taking back control’ - as Nigel Farage puts it - is to reject the status quo. Reject the Overton window set before you. Caste off the victimhood and the self-pity. Set yourself against the secular world. Indeed, the late Charlie Kirk did so by undertaking one of the most counter-revolutionary acts conceivable - observing the Jewish Sabbath and turning completely off from the digital world for 25 hours. Why play by the rules set before you? In a world where consumerism and the digital compete to dull your senses, why not instead pursue those hallmarks of a good and virtuous life - faith and family? Setting a stake in this world is the first step to recovery, the first step to becoming more concerned with answers over grievances. The tough part is that that first step can only be taken by each individual - no podcast or influencer can do it for you, or tell you how to do it better. That first step is the first step in pursuing your true purpose in life - to find meaning.

On Sunday, as Jews went to their local synagogue in St John’s Wood in London, they were greeted by what can at best be a hate march. Pro-Palestinian radicals, including the Palestine Pulse network, rallied a band of their zealots to intimidate and harass British Jews as they go to and from their place of worship. What was the pretext for this call to arms? Well, St John’s Wood Synagogue dared to have an event which talked about Aliyah (i.e about Jews emigrating to Israel). For the activist classes, this was simply too much and ample justification for their fury.

This is not about debating the merits of Israel on national radio or in newspaper columns, or in constructive dialogue with friends, family or acquaintances. This was flagrant intimidation. This was about the Palestinian cause which has come to dominate progressive politics at the expense of all else, and their refusal to relinquish the power they have amassed since October 7th.

This was never about Gaza or the plight of Palestinians. This has always been about Israel and her destruction. Phase One of this well-funded operation was to isolate Israel from the rest of the world and undermine traditional support for the Jewish State - now they move to Phase Two, with the Jewish diaspora firmly in the crosshairs.

Phase Two of the global, activist effort against Israel is to cut the chord between Jews and the Jewish State. The groundwork has already been well-laid in this regard, how many videos or comments have you seen from Palestine accounts which claim to show a Holocaust survivor or a prominent Jew denouncing Israel? A clear choice is being presented to every Jew - particularly those in progressive spaces - be a good Jew and denounce Israel, or be a bad Jew and stand with Israel. Only look at Sunday’s protest, regardless of whether one or twenty Jews were present, the propaganda machine was in full-swing to make this protest about being the right kind of Jew (see poster below).

Increasingly, for Jews involved in centrist or Left-wing politics, the only path to redemption and their continued inclusion in progressive circles, is not only denounce Israel and her supporters - but use their ethnicity and heritage to do it. Meanwhile, for religious or conservative (politically) Jews, the message being broadcast into that synagogue was this: Israel is putting you at risk. Abandon Israel and you can go back to praying in peace. The means change, but the end does not.

As if to add insult to injury, the Metropolitan police came out to say that they had no legal power to stop the protest from going ahead. The message was clear - the thin blue line meant to protect us all would only look on, as British Jews were targeted because of their beliefs and race. Why wouldn’t the Palestinian cause feel emboldened when their deliberate targeting of a place of worship is met with such fearfulness by police authorities? Only weeks ago, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned from a football match on false pretenses by police, but somehow a hate march can’t be stopped from targeting a Shul? Weeks on from a terrorist attack on a synagogue in Manchester, the best that the police can offer is an escort to the protestors?

This shows one thing - the British police are afraid of the Palestinian movement in this country. Only when their hands are tied from inaction, as in the case of Palestine Action being designated a terrorist group, will they in fact act. Two paths lie before us - one of resilience, whereby courage is mustered to stand up to this cabal of evil rotting our society from the inside out; and one of surrender, where the Jewish people in Britain are broken - divided between those who leave and those who stay on their knees. The choice of ours, and the time for choosing is before us. The decision can be put off no longer.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s resounding electoral triumph a year ago, his allies and critics alike proclaimed his victory over the powers of wokery, with some going as far as to say the Left was now out of power for a generation. They could not have been more wrong. Fast forward to the present day, and the Left is on the march - the world over. Democrats trounced the GOP in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, the United Left in Ireland installed a radical as President, a British Labour government is taking the country back into the dark ages - before the reforms of Thatcher. Meanwhile, the right is fracturing. Nowhere more so than in the United States of America.

One would have thought a year in to the second Trump Presidency - the American right would at the very least be celebrating the return of law and order to America’s borders and streets, the projection of American power on the world stage, and the reversal of the devastating economic and social policies of the Biden Administration. Instead, the American right has descended into the depths of conspiracy and despondency - undermining the Trump Presidency and sparking a full-blown civil war.

When did this begin? I’ll tell you. It began with Israel’s surprise bombing campaign on Iranian military and nuclear targets in June 2025. The operation achieved unprecedented success, with the Israeli Air Force soon enjoying complete aerial supremacy over Tehran. Seizing upon the opportunity to capitalise on Israel’s success, President Trump authorised strikes on Iranian nuclear sites - following months of fruitless negotiations. Contemporaneously, the tired old tropes of America becoming involved in ‘regime change wars’ and ‘fighting Israel’s wars’ were trotted out - most notably by Tucker Carlson, Matt Gaetz and Candace Owens. Never mind the overwhelming success of the operation and the fact America, Israel and the West writ large share many of the same enemies, this was a broadside against the Patriarch of the MAGA movement, but for what reason?

Of course, it is their right as Americans to dissent, to criticise, to object - but these are people whose star was launched by Trump’s success. Was this merely good-faith dissent, or an attempt to hold true to the ‘America First’ agenda? I think not - I think this was the first step for these actors and others like them to move beyond Trump. It’s a slow and delicate walk, one whereby they are turning on their benefactor but must do so without incurring the wrath of either Trump or his base. The net effect of this however is to demoralise conservatives, and undermine the political support necessary to enact the reforms of Trump 2.0. Surely, the objective of becoming involved in politics (be it through direct involvement or by commenting) is to advance your preferred policies to improve the country - why then, a year into a Republican presidency, are so many figures on the right either abandoning Trump entirely or diverting public attention away from where it really matters?

The answer is - popularity. Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the fringe right have seized their opportunity to shatter the Overton window of conservatism and remake conservative politics according to their preference. Crucially, however, this is not with a view to building a political movement to win power and effect their preferred changes. Rather, this is about cultivating a cult following which is insulated from the politics of the day. This is about forsaking responsibility, and instead opting for the ease of judgement. For you see, popularity is not compatible with power. Popularity is a crop to be harvested in order to attain power, but no sooner is power attained must the expenditure of political capital (aka public support and/or popularity) in pursuit of particular policies begin. In the new found world of conservative celebrity, diminishing one’s popularity in order to effect change is a poor business decision. As we have seen with Candace Owens, it is far easier to retreat into the land of conspiracy and demagoguery - since launching her unholy crusade against Israel, Erika Kirk and TPUSA following Charlie Kirk’s assassinations, , her viewership and subscriber levels have soared. Her actions are actually inhibiting the ability of the authorities to prosecute Kirk’s murderer, and inciting violence against countless innocent people. However, she has no interest in power - audience size is her deity, popularity (or notoriety) her addiction, scandal her purpose. And, tell me this, who is the better for her actions? No one - bar Candace Owens.

Similarly, Tucker Carlson has cultivated this façade of being an independent voice within conservatism - but has used his platform to shock and awe his audience for views. Launching his own crusade against Zionists, Jews and NeoCons, Tucker has assiduously worked to dampen the enthusiasm of the MAGA base for the foreign policy achievements of President Trump. It is far easier to be the eternal critic, than dare step in the arena and Tucker knows this. That is why he interviewed Nick Fuentes, why wouldn’t he? The Groyper movement is significant block of disaffected young men who are permanently angry with the powers that be. Tucker’s interview wasn’t about reconciliation or ‘just asking questions’, it was about market expansion. He knows these dalliances will make him unpalatable to vast swathes of the American public, and new GOP voters - but why should he care? His following has been further grown, and continues to weeks later - with the American right tearing itself to shreds over his latest scandal, rather than focusing on bettering the country. There’s bad politics, but there’s no such thing as bad publicity when attention is one’s lifeblood.

The late great Charles Krauthammer once wrote: “Politics is the moat, the walls, beyond which lie the barbarians. Fail to keep them at bay, and everything burns.” Well, on the American right, the moat has dried up and the walls crumbled, the barbarians are in the city and must be met head on. At stake is a choice for the American right, what is more important - power or popularity? Responsibility or viewership? Policy or followers? The Left have dispatched their dissenters and set their eyes on the relentless pursuit of power, America and the world should hope that the American Right decides opposing their pursuit is a worthy cause. Otherwise, the future is very dark indeed.

With only a few short weeks until Michael D Higgins vacates the office of President, there will be many who will cheer his departure – from Dublin to Jerusalem. The Irish President has used his office to espouse dangerous rhetoric about Israel, from dismissing claims of antisemitism as a ‘PR exercise by the Israeli government’ to calling for an international force to march on Jerusalem. His 14-year tenure cannot end a day too soon.

However, such celebrations will be short-lived if the ‘United Left’ candidate, Catherine Connolly, manages to secure at least another seven years for the anti-Western, socialist force dominant in Irish politics. Only this week, she rebuked British Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, for stating that Hamas should form part of any Palestinian government because Hamas is “part of the fabric of the Palestinian people”. When her comments were criticised, she defended her stance – going on to say that “history did not start on 7 October” and Israel would have to disarm alongside Hamas.

In launching her campaign, Connolly has made it clear that Palestine will be to the forefront of her campaign – we should believe her.

Between May 2021 and July 2025, she raised Israel in the Irish Parliament over 200 times...regularly slandering Israel as a “terrorist state“ or “an apartheid regime.” When serving as Deputy Chairperson of the Lower House of the Irish Parliament, she tabled questions to then Minister for Foreign Affairs on “Jewish control” and “Jewish supremacy.”

Oireachtas Website - Parliamentary Question (18 January 2023) [LINK HERE]

Oireachtas Website - Parliamentary Question (5 October 2021) [LINK HERE]

Previously, she questioned then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin, on why the Irish Embassy in Tel Aviv signed the local EU Statement on Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. A month after October 7th, she sounded the alarm over 100 Israeli engineers coming to work for Intel in Ireland and had already accused Israel of “genocide.“ During the Covid-19 pandemic, she demanded an explanation for why Israel had been exempted from the list of countries required to enter mandatory hotel quarantine upon arrival in Ireland. Issue after issue, the record of her obsessive persecution of the Jewish State grows long.

Read the full article - “Worse Than Michael D Higgins?” (Times of Israel, September 30th 2025) [LINK HERE]

With only weeks to go until the Irish Presidential election, the proposal to extend voting rights to Irish citizens residing in Northern Ireland (NI) has resurfaced. In May, Sinn Féin’s motion to that effect was passed by the Stormont Assembly. Then, in June, a similar Sinn Féin motion was passed, unanimously, by the Dáil.

For context, in the NI 2021 census, more than 630,000 people living in NI self-identified as “Irish”. Among these are a substantial number of adult Irish citizens who would have the right to vote if they were resident in the Republic. Extending the right to vote to such individuals would be a considerable administrative task. Indeed, putting to one side the attractiveness of this measure to the substantial constituency of Irish nationalists, on both sides of the border, there remain significant questions that should be asked and answered before any such plan is put into effect.

Read our full article & analysis here: “Shall Irish Citizens Residing in Northern Ireland Vote for the President of the Republic of Ireland?” (Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd & Seth Tillman, 19th September 2025, Newsletter (UK)).