Sports, in a culture overrun by cynicism, can beckon us towards sincerity. It’s where effort is legible and camaraderie is felt. At its best, it’s where grace in defeat, and humility in victory, and shared admiration and respect, and fun, can all exist. It’s where we can push the boundaries of human achievement, or simply awe at our fellow beings who do. In a crisis of carelessness, sports can invite us to care.

And that’s why I’m so disappointed in Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Antetokounmpo recently fired off the news: “Everyone is online. The internet is full of opinions. I decided it was time to make some of my own,” the NBA superstar wrote. “Today, I’m joining Kalshi as a shareholder. We all on Kalshi now.”

Antetokounmpo made the announcement that he’d be joining the prediction market company one day after fans had traded $23 million on his own future, as to whether he would go to another team or stay with the Milwaukee Bucks. Antetokounmpo is one of the most famous athletes in the world, worth tens of millions of dollars, and has the luxury to be able to uplift or be part of anything. Why choose this?

Subscribe now

His entry into a market with bets related to his own career smudges the fidelity of sport, and grants legitimacy to markets causing so much harm.

Here is how co-founder Tarek Mansour described the aspiration of Kalshi: “The long-term vision is to financialize everything and create a tradeable asset out of any difference in opinion.” An apparatus that could “resolve differences of opinions on anything.”

Read more

As Donald Trump and JD Vance continue their sweeping rampage from Minnesota and Texas to California and Maine, Republicans are running straight into an electoral catastrophe. What the right has long thought of as its gimme issue – a bell they could ring in times of tightening polls – has become an albatross for the party desperate to hold on to a shred of the power it grasped in 2024. Even still, Republicans are foolhardily rearing to funnel even more taxpayer dollars into the disastrous project.

What elected Republicans need to understand is that no matter how valiant they think their project is, no matter how right they think they are, politics is about persuasion. They may believe they have a mandate by barely winning the 2024 elections, but that’s not how the real world works – no less when the American public now widely rejects the execution of their promises. Republicans’ radical policies are one thing; their uncompromising stubbornness in face of the consequences is another.

And their refusal to see this reality is not helping their cause.

Subscribe now

Much of the media attention toward Republicans’ radical “immigration” policies have only recently ramped up. But the downward spiral of their popularity has been in effect for months. It began with the Trump-Vance administration’s kidnapping of pro-Palestine and pro-peace college students, like Mahmoud Khalil – and its unlawful efforts to deport residents like Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a dystopian mega-prison in El Salvador.

Then, Trump initiated his fanatic deployments of masked federal agents to American cities and towns nationwide, culminating in the horrific murders of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. Rather than the administration walking back from its reckless policies, the killings have been followed by reverberating displays of radical violence, including the kidnapping of children; repeated instances of wrongfully and cruelly detaining US citizens; and the targeting of journalists and local police officers.

Read more

The Department of Justice’s latest release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein implicates many, many individuals – and also adds to the increasing pile of evidence suggesting ties between the infamous, well-connected pedophile and the Israeli government.

But much of the media has either remained silent on the connections, or has focused solely on other possible links. In the past week, there has been a glut of coverage suggesting Epstein may have been a Russian spy or asset. But over the course of months, barely any of the same outlets, particularly in the US, have covered Epstein’s eyebrow-raising links to Israel. Notice anything from a Google Search of “Epstein Mossad” from today?

Subscribe now

Ehud Barak

The Epstein Files – which have still not been completely released – have countless indications of Epstein’s ties to Israel. Some of them, cheekier than others.

In a 2018 email, as Epstein sought to arrange a meeting between former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, he appeared to joke: “you should make clear that i dont work for mossad. :)”

The exchange is one of thousands of documents linking Epstein to Ehud Barak.

Read more

WASHINGTON DC, USA – In what diplomats and historians of yore dubbed the “shining city on a hill,” the United States of America now appears to be anything but. The nation is a powder keg.

Regime ruler Donald Trump is mired in yet another scandal, as shocking footage captured his agents executing an unarmed 37-year-old civilian and mother of three in broad daylight. The erratic behavior of the land’s embattled sovereign has ratcheted up as he continues to further withdraw himself from public life, and his nation from the global stage.

Subscribe now

On Wednesday, in the placid region of Minneapolis, Minnesota, state agents brutally killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. The victim was in her vehicle, attempting to flee masked government agents, whom Trump has deployed all across the nation to terrorize the populace. As she appeared to heed orders – even waving at other agents’ vehicles, yielding and welcoming them to pass her – an agent emerged as she moved to depart. As she turned the vehicle away, the agent aimed his weapon at the woman’s head and fired, three separate times.

While footage clearly shows the victim attempting to avoid the agent, the state has nonetheless dubbed the victim a “domestic terrorist.” The regime has quickly disseminated state propaganda insisting the victim deserved to be killed.

Read more

There is no more perfect embodiment of vice signaling, and its embarrassingly hollow cowardice, than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth – an alleged serial drunkard and sexual abuser working for Donald Trump, a man found liable for sexual abuse and former friend of the world’s most infamous pedophile – posting memes about attacking boats in the middle of the ocean, and then pinning it all on a subordinate when the going gets tough.

Much hay has been made about “virtue signaling” over the past decade (often, ironically, by some of the most unvirtuous people in public life). A disorienting panic, given how much of US politics in recent years has brought unseen levels of vice. And what was sometimes hidden before is not just out in the open, but winked and nodded at daily.

Subscribe now

In one sense, it’s refreshing for the villainry festering in the swamp to be expressed more honestly. On the other hand, they think there’s an appetite for this.

Are they right?

‘A Classic Franklin Story’

Amid the Trump administration’s illegal onslaught on what it alleges are “drug boats,” reports have unveiled that the US struck a ship in the Caribbean Sea a second time to kill two shipwrecked survivors, in order to comply with an alleged order by Hegseth to “kill everybody.”

The revelations prompted a few Republicans to support an investigation into the matter, though some members of Congress are going as far to say Hegseth may be responsible for war crimes. (That hasn’t stopped Trump from repeatedly joking about people not wanting to go fishing anymore.)

The administration’s response to the “double-tap” report was scrambled. At first, the Pentagon said, “This entire narrative is completely false.” And then, when asked about it himself, President Trump said, “I don’t know anything about it.” He later said he wouldn’t have wanted a second strike and that Hegseth said he didn’t do it.

Share

Hours later, Hegseth responded with the scruple of a wolf in winter:

The leader of the world’s largest military force – the self-proclaimed “Secretary of War” – responded to allegations that he directed a war crime by posting an AI-generated meme of a children’s character firing a missile at a boat in the sea.

Days later, after the US surpassed 20 strikes, Andrew Kolvet, executive producer of the ‘Charlie Kirk Show’ and close friend of the late commentator, tweeted: “Every new attack aimed at Pete Hegseth makes me want another narco drug boat blown up and sent to the bottom of the ocean.”

Hours later, Hegseth responded: “Your wish is our command, Andrew. Just sunk another narco boat.”

The entire arc of the US military industrial complex – the most benevolent interpretations of its aims, the most horrific realities of it, the foolish wars, the trail of crimes, the smoke, the mirrors, and everything in between – have all led to this: The commander of the planet’s most powerful military force killing people for the sake of a tweet.

Cruelty Isn’t Just the Point

We saw the brute immorality of the Trump presidency immediately in its first iteration years ago. Then, Adam Serwer’s seminal essay argued how cruelty was the point of Trump’s MAGA movement. It was a means to bond those in the in-group on the basis of gleeful dominance of those whom Trump and his allies mock, harm, and marginalize.

Share

Now, that dynamic has metastasized into the second Trump administration’s – and the Republican Party at-large’s – garish, pathetic performance of supposedly “based” politics online.

It’s not enough to send masked agents to round people up in the streets, or silence students who criticize Israel. They want a camera crew and dystopic fancams to document and share the carnage in social-media videos (even as artists slam Trump for using their songs in them).

It’s not enough to disappear people to shadowy prisons both here and abroad, on the flimsiest of bases. They want photo-ops in front of the prisoners.

It’s not enough to haphazardly strike small boats in the middle of the ocean. They want content.

But a disturbing aspect of this is how committed they are to the show. In years past, I recall discourses surrounding the idea of “virtue signaling,” which, generously, was criticism pointed at the act of performing decency or morality without necessarily acting in accordance with those values. (I say “generously” because some used the term as a catch-all to lazily dismiss progressives in broad strokes as unseriously committed to their purported beliefs; I still, however, think the term is useful for those it actually does apply to. The Israeli military celebrating Pride month or ExxonMobil commemorating Earth Day come to mind as easy examples.)

But we’ve come to a point when virtue signaling’s opposite – “vice signaling” – is far more prominent in its presence, and far more destructive in its practice.

Nowhere do I see a ruling government official – or anyone in their bloated, self-absorbed media apparatus – appealing to universalist values, or mutual care or respect, or anything that could be mistaken as shared virtue. (Nor do I see anyone in the ruling party even signaling to pretend to care about those things.) Everywhere, though, I see people in charge who are supposed to represent a culmination of our collective wills, and who instead are embodying only the worst possible impulses in us – and blaring it as loudly as possible.

Share

What does it say that the ruling party relishes in cruelty not just as some sort-of half-flung effort to mobilize their base, but in having it define their every act?

Are You as Cruel as They See You?

Our collective order has supported or tolerated all manners of cruelty. Still, it’s also true that the most cruel ventures of the US government have been done at the behest of the most powerful, and at the expense of everyone else. And it’s difficult to ascribe blame to a populace subject to the restrictive imagination of a two-party political system, and an accompanied hyper-partisan, corporate-controlled media environment. But while systems can shape the structures around us, they do not define us. They push, pull, and propel us, but they do not compel us.

The ruling party in the United States is apparently counting on voters to be as soulless as its members are. As with many other issues on their watch, some of their own supporters are uncomfortable with the strikes. Many, though, are still behind the violence.

Too often, conversations about what we choose to be part of in this society collapse into partisanship. If I am to criticize one party, it can be seen as demanding you support the other. But can’t we at least have enough dignity to reject such a false choice?

If I ask you to look at masked agents separating mothers from their babies, or the government using your taxes to fund a genocide and to silence those who protest it, or the powerful’s relentless lust for greed and power and their rank indifference toward your welfare or happiness – I am not asking you to have an opinion on people I’m not talking about. I’m not asking you to become a card-carrying Democrat. I’m simply asking you to have enough self-respect to determine what you’ll allow to be done in your name.

In the current iteration of our two-party system, I am not demanding you vote for something. I’m simply asking you what you’ll allow to be done with your permission. Because, putting aside whether the opposition earns your vote, it’s a whole other thing for you to actively put your name behind the people currently in power who are counting on you to be as cruel as they think you are.

Share

And responding to these horrors go beyond just voting every two years. Because politics and democracy mean more than that. It’s about how we relate to each other, how we see each other, what sort of society we want to be part of. Politicians aren’t the only people who can blare their morality (or lack thereof) at us. I see you and you see me. I want to care for you, and I think you do for me.

All this vice is being signaled to you, loud and clear. How will you respond?

Have any tips or information for us? You can text Prem on Signal at premthakker.35.

Check out more from Zeteo:

Every Thanksgiving, at least in the US, there’s routine fodder plated up as an appetizer: ‘Here’s what experts say’-style articles providing tips to script away discomfort. Be careful whom you invite. You don’t have to argue about everything. Agree to disagree. Leave politics off the table. Compromise. And so forth.

This advice is not always necessarily wrong. But the genre feels degrees away from the guidance politicians get from overpaid suits-and-ties: Sanitize your views, pre-empt tough conversations, smooth over possible friction by ‘meeting someone where they are’ – which they translate to ‘watering yourself down.’ It’s all about appearing pragmatic, respectable, realistic.

Sometimes, it feels like we put on those ties, too. Instead of just saying what we think, we hyperfocus on what we believe other people think. Fixating on polls and whether something helps a political party overshadows the stakes of an issue itself.

Subscribe now

We don’t talk about displaced migrants, we talk about campaign ads. We don’t talk about poisoned lakes or dying bees, we talk about how a hypothetical median voter feels about kids defacing a glass-protected painting in an act of climate-inspired protest. We don’t talk about 20,000 killed children in Gaza, we talk about how discussing this or that does not help your cause.

Talking about politics can feel so steeped in secondhand opinion it becomes unclear what we ourselves think. When we behave this way, we aren’t fueling productive discourse. We’re just mimicking the same political class that’s helped make us feel so polarized in the first place.

Read more

If you’re not already a Zeteo subscriber, sign up today to ensure you get the newsletter in your inbox every weekday. If you’re already a Zeteo subscriber, but you haven’t seen ‘First Draft’ in your inbox yet, go to your ‘manage subscription’ page on Substack, scroll down to ‘notifications,’ and toggle the button for ‘First Draft’ on (so that it’s red).

Imagine a country where kids are taught to sing songs about genocide, where prominent politicians and pundits go on national television to echo Nazi rhetoric, where polls show a majority of the public wanting the expulsion of an ethnic minority. Well, of course, you don’t have to imagine such a country. It’s Israel. And yet, according to Donald Trump’s peace plan, it’s Gaza, not Israel, that needs to be “deradicalized.”

The very first bullet in Trump’s 20-point “peace plan” states: “Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.” The plan says nothing about deradicalizing Israel, which, in addition to carrying out a genocidal assault and blockade on Gaza, has attacked seven of its neighbors in the past two years. And it only took hours for Israel to violate it.

Subscribe now

In the two weeks since the ceasefire was signed, Israeli forces have killed at least 93 Palestinians in the enclave, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health.

It should come as no surprise that the Trump plan would almost immediately lead to Israeli violations. If a government spends two years committing a genocide, with unconditional support from the US, how seriously would it then treat a deal to stop committing said genocide, if it’s also brokered by the US, which still pretends it was never a genocide in the first place?

What is a “peace plan” if the party that has all the power isn’t forced to end its violent occupation and root out its radical elements?

Violent Mob of Combatant-Aged Men

Read more

Last year, Bari Weiss’s The Free Press slammed CBS News. This year, Weiss is running it.

In October 2024, CBS was mired in strife, after anchor Tony Dokoupil compared author Ta-Nehisi Coates’s book that discussed Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, The Message, to something that could be found “in the backpack of an extremist.” The Free Press criticized CBS for the reckoning, publishing audio from an editorial meeting featuring internal discussions on the matter.

Subscribe now

Now, one year later, Weiss is overseeing those same meetings, and has Dokoupil interviewing accused war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with little pushback.

The arc underscores how Weiss’s ascendance to editor-in-chief of CBS appears more tied to her views on Israel, than any practical rationale. According to eight staffers across the newsroom, Weiss’s first 10 days at CBS betray the fact that she has no television experience, the sense that she knew little about the company’s machinations before starting, and her own pro-Israel biases.

A Roundtable Dud

Read more

The Republican official who appears to have played a role in the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night comedy show once railed against censorship against “late-night comedians” and suggested that Donald Trump was responsible for “political violence.”

After that Republican, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, threatened to take action against the network over comments Kimmel made earlier this week about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, ABC pulled the late-night comedian off the air “indefinitely” on Wednesday.

During his Monday monologue, Kimmel said: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Kimmel did not explicitly say the man accused of killing Kirk, Tyler Robinson, was conservative. But many on the right condemned the comments, with Carr saying during a podcast interview, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” He argued that broadcasters “have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.”

Subscribe now

Not long after Carr’s comments, Nexstar – an owner of ABC affiliate stations nationwide that is currently seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion acquisition – said that it would preempt Kimmel’s show “for the foreseeable future." And not long after that, ABC announced the late-night host had been pulled off the air.

Carr’s apparent unprecedented role in getting the comedian taken off-air is a dangerous escalation in the administration’s already-rampant assault on speech. It is especially jarring when you look at the long list of times just in the past five years that he’s revered free speech, specifically comedy and satire. Take a look:

Satire is one of the ‘most important forms of free speech’

Defending a candidate who posted a lightly manipulated video from the 2020 Democratic presidential primary debates, Carr wrote in February 2020 that political satire “is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech,” and “challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people in to the discussion.”

He added:

“From Internet memes to late-night comedians, from cartoons to the plays and poems as old as organized government itself - Political Satire circumvents traditional gatekeepers & helps hold those in power accountable.

“Not surprising that it’s long been targeted for censorship.”

“This isn’t a close call or a slippery slope,” he continued. “Shutting down this type of political speech - especially at the urging of those targeted or threatened by its message - would represent a serious threat to our freedoms and ability to hold those in power accountable.”

‘Less speech means more power’

In January 2021, in response to Discord banning a server tied to the GameStop stock surge, Carr lamented: “Less speech means more power for established gatekeepers.”

‘Concern for the future of freedom of speech’

Read more

WASHINGTON, DC – My colleague Liam Mann and I spent the dreary, overcast day roaming around Washington, DC, to get a better sense of what President Donald Trump’s federal “public safety surge” looked like. Much of the day was spent talking to residents and capturing the bloated law enforcement presence sprawling across the city. But in a matter of minutes, things sprang into action.

We were in Columbia Heights, a busy neighborhood in Northwest DC, speaking to two residents who expressed concern about the increased police presence in their communities, the frightening and brutal abductions of their neighbors, and the ensuing atmosphere of fear looming around them. One of the residents, a doctor, told us how her patients were essentially deciding between healthcare and abduction.

And then, all at once, chaos ensued. Just a block over, we began hearing yelling and chanting.

Subscribe now

Liam and I ran over and saw a ruckus surrounding some masked federal agents decked out in camouflage outside the Columbia Heights metro station. We approached them, as dozens of residents yelled, telling them to leave their neighborhood. We followed them down the escalator into the station, asking what brought them to the area and what crimes they were responding to. Residents continued to yell and jeer at them, asking them how they thought history would look back on them, and saying they themselves looked like gang members.

The officers went up and down the escalators repeatedly, perhaps to out-escalate the residents, perhaps to just figure out where to go next. Eventually, they resigned to staying down inside the metro entrance. We followed them and emerged upon a puzzling scene: Officers and agents from various agencies gathered around a man. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Federal Bureau of Investigation. Police. All standing around.

I asked one of the masked agents what was going on. He ignored us. I then approached one of the local DC police officers. He was the only officer throughout the entire day who answered our questions. I asked what was going on, and he told us there was a fare evader. We were puzzled. Almost 10 officers and agents from the FBI and HSI rushed the metro stop for an alleged fare evader, a crime so minimal it doesn’t even warrant a fine larger than $100?

Subscribe now

I asked the officer why HSI and the FBI were responding to fare evasion. He first said they weren’t; it was only the local police who responded. It was a confusing response, given all the agents we just saw at the scene.

We then got into a lengthy back-and-forth. I asked if and how the police were coordinating with other agencies. He deflected, saying the police were just trying to keep people safe from crimes like gun violence. I repeatedly tried to re-focus the conversation on ICE and other federal agencies’ roles. He said he can’t speak to other agencies, while maintaining that they were all supporting each other.

Minutes later, we were back outside the metro station, and the public chanting was even louder. The agents we had seen earlier were across the street, being pushed back by a huge crowd of residents demanding they leave. And that's seemingly all it took. Soon, the federal agents zipped out of the area, in a smattering of unmarked vehicles.

We spoke with one woman, Morgan, who was among the crowd. She told us the increased presence had left many terrified. Breaking into tears, she discussed how the agents were taking her neighbors.

“I’ve seen them, purposely, walk up to Latino-Americans that don’t speak proper English and then say to them, ‘you don’t speak English, you’re going with me’ – [they] don’t ask no name, no citizenship, no anything,” she said. “It’s heartbreaking to see that these people come here to make their life different in America, and it’s being sabotaged,” she added.

Share

To Morgan and others we spoke with, Trump’s takeover isn’t about making DC safer. That’s why such a large crowd was so adamant in pushing the agents out of their neighborhood.

“Let’s try to stick together as a community, unite as one,” she said. Residents aren’t against finding ways to achieve public safety, but to them, anonymous masked agents in the street abducting people isn’t the way.

Have a tip for Prem? Send via email or Signal (premthakker.35).

Check out more from Zeteo:

In 2022, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee pumped $2 million into a House Democratic primary, to help North Carolina politician Valerie Foushee beat a young Muslim pro-Palestinian woman, Nida Allam.

Two years later, Foushee flew to Israel on an AIPAC-planned trip to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But this week, Foushee, along with another Democratic beneficiary of AIPAC, Oregon Rep. Maxine Dexter, announced she wants the US to stop sending offensive weapons to Israel and that she will no longer take money from AIPAC for the upcoming campaign season.

Subscribe now

Foushee is now part of at least 30 members of Congress who have signed onto Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez’s “Block the Bombs” Act to halt offensive weapon transfers to Israel. The rise comes after a historic vote last week, when a majority of Democratic senators voted in support of at least one resolution to stop weapons transfers to Israel (19 Democrats who signed a letter calling for more aid into Gaza did not vote for either resolution, including Sens. Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, and Cory Booker, who all fraternized with indicted war crimes suspect Netanyahu last month).

Then there is the other side of the aisle, where no Republican senator voted for the two resolutions, and no House Republican has signed on to Ramirez’s measure. Republicans, by and large, have maintained unconditional, unceasing loyalty to a foreign nation that has taken billions of US tax dollars for the sole purpose of inflicting violence.

Elected Republicans’ slavish support for the Netanyahu government was only underscored when they fled Washington early to avoid voting on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files. Some then almost immediately began their summer vacation, meant for members to return to their districts and serve the people who pay their salaries, on an AIPAC-funded trip to Israel.

House Speaker Mike Johnson even visited an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, becoming the high-ranking US official to ever do so. (There was also the yearly Democratic freshman member trip to Israel too, but multiple Democrats refused to go on it, according to a source familiar with the arrangements.)

On the Republican side, however, there are two dramatic, high-profile exceptions to the pro-Israel sycophancy.

Read more

What is the liberal establishment more focused on: the cancellation of a late show, or 2 million starving Palestinians?

Last week, CBS and Paramount Global announced that they were canceling ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,’ but claimed it was not “related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”

The announcement came just three days after Colbert, a staunch critic of Donald Trump, criticized Paramount for settling a $16 million lawsuit with Trump, and as Paramount seeks to complete a merger with Skydance Media that must be approved by the current administration.

Subscribe now

Given the eyebrow-raising circumstances – and the dangers of media companies and other firms continuing to settle or deal with the rogue Trump administration – many in the media and Congress have rightly scrutinized the developments or called for inquiries.

At the same time, it is difficult not to compare the attention on the cancellation of Colbert’s show to the attention given to what appears to be another threshold-breaking moment in the Israeli-imposed mass starvation in Gaza.

Take the media, for example. A look at media segments using the Internet Archive reveals a stark contrast in attention.

Read more

Three episodes over the last nine days underscored the US bipartisan establishment’s unparalleled commitment to Israel – and their utter disdain for anything that gets in the way of it.

Including Americans.

‘I Am Pro-Israel’

First, last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges, visited Washington, DC (for the third time since “anti-war” Donald Trump was re-elected). Amid the fanfare and revelry, I asked seven Republican senators if they knew how many Americans had been killed in the past 21 months by the government they were sending blank checks to.

Each senator either had no idea, or no interest in the question itself.

Subscribe now

When pressed on whether she had any insight into Americans killed by the Israeli military,

Maine Senator Susan Collins responded, puzzlingly: “I am pro-Israel.”

A US senator was asked about US citizens killed by a foreign country. She responded by saying she supports the foreign country.

Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin responded that he did not know, and that he hadn't "even given it much thought.”

Two days later, on Friday, Israeli settlers – tolerated and protected by the Israeli government – brutalized 20-year-old American Sayfollah Musallet. The settlers, as well as Israeli forces, blocked ambulances from reaching Musallet, and another Palestinian they attacked, Mohammad al-Shalabi, for hours.

Both were killed.

After Musallet was killed, I reached out to the same seven senators, asking for their reaction to it and giving them more information about the previous six American victims they apparently didn't know about.

Read more

“Muslim terrorists.”

That’s what newly elected Republican congressman Randy Fine called Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), as well as New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.

The first instance came in response to Omar’s tweet on Tuesday:

“This is Benjamin Netanyahu’s third visit to DC this year.

War criminals should not be welcomed by any president or Congress.

He should be held accountable for his crimes, not platformed. Beyond shameful.”

Fine, who represents Florida, responded by saying:

“I'm sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists.

The only shame is that you serve in Congress.”

The comments sparked a rare condemnation from House Democratic leadership – Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Katherine Clark (Mass.), and Pete Aguilar (Calif.) called on Fine to apologize.

Subscribe now

And Fine, who refers to himself as the “Hebrew Hammer,” has only doubled down since.

“The Hamas Caucus is upset. Boo hoo. I guess they weren't listening when I said the Hebrew Hammer was coming,” Fine said in response to the condemnation.

Fine then complained about Jeffries having “no issues” with Omar calling Netanyahu (who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges) a war criminal, but taking issue with Fine for his comments.

Fine’s comments come after a man shot two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses, killing one lawmaker, her husband, and their dog. The man allegedly had a longer hit list that included Omar.

Later, Fine claimed that “Jihadi Jeffries and his Hamas Caucus” were trying to distract from an alleged increase in violence against ICE agents (who are currently pursuing a mass shadowy operation of sweeping Americans off the streets with no due process).

Subscribe now

Will Fine Be Censured?

Fine has continued his vicious screed against his colleagues, with no pushback from his fellow Republicans (who have been very concerned with “civility”). He has also met relatively little material pushback from the rest of the political apparatus.

Consider November 2023, and the entire media and political ecosystem frenzy to punish Rep. Rashida Tlaib – the only Palestinian member of Congress – for using the phrase “from the river to the sea,” a call for Palestinian freedom and liberation from Israel’s illegal and violent occupation.

As a result, Tlaib was indeed censured – with these 22 Democrats joining Republicans to do so:

• Steve Cohen (Tenn.)

• Jim Costa (Calif.)

• Angie Craig (Minn.)

• Don Davis (N.C.)

• Lois Frankel (Fla.)

• Jared Golden (Maine)

• Dan Goldman (N.Y.)

• Josh Gottheimer (N.J.)

• Greg Landsman (Ohio)

• Susie Lee (Nev.)

• Jared Moskowitz (Fla.)

• Chris Pappas (N.H.)

• Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.)

• Pat Ryan (N.Y.)

• Brad Schneider (Ill.)

• Kim Schrier (Wash.)

• Darren Soto (Fla.)

• Ritchie Torres (N.Y.)

• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.)

• Frederica Wilson (Fla.)

Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed since Tlaib was punished for calling for her people’s safety.

This time around, Fine is smearing and vilifying his own colleagues and making broad, violent statements about an entire religion. And while Fine’s comments about Omar have drawn much attention, other comments (let alone from the past) have gotten relatively little attention.

For example, this week, Fine also referred to Rep. Tlaib and Democratic nominee for New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani as “Muslim terrorists,” too.

Share

While some Democrats, alongside leadership, have issued sharp rebukes of Fine’s comments, few – Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Arizona Rep. Yassamin Ansari – have publicly called for his censure.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has not responded to questions about whether leadership may move to censure Fine.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who once wanted his colleagues to sign a “civility pledge” with him, did not respond to similar questions.

I reached out to the 20 Democrats who signed onto that resolution who are still in Congress, about Fine’s comments.

Only three responded.

When asked if they would support or introduce a censure resolution against Rep. Fine:

• New York Rep. Ritchie Torres said: “I would support it.”

• New York Rep. Pat Ryan went further, saying: “Congressman Fine’s comments are disgusting and bigoted — he deserves to be censured for his Islamophobic remarks.”

• New York Rep. Dan Goldman added to the pile, noting Johnson’s supposed commitment towards civility, as well as the recent attack in Minnesota. "Congressman Fine's racist bigotry towards a colleague is patently unacceptable and warrants censure by the House,” he said. “If Speaker Johnson truly wants to lower the temperature, as he claims, then he must publicly condemn this rhetoric that further fans the flames of political violence plaguing this country, including recently in Minnesota.”

Importantly, the stark difference between how much of the media and political apparatus (namely, Republicans and moderate Democrats) were willing to censure Tlaib, and not Fine, is not just about hypocrisy or consistency.

Because, on one hand, Tlaib was punished for warning of the mass suffering that would come to her people, and pleading for the government she is part of not to be complicit in it.

She wasn’t listened to. And then 2 million of her people were displaced. More than 50,000 were murdered.

On the other hand, Fine has thus far been unpunished by the same people who castigated Tlaib, while he has vilified an entire religion and demonized his colleagues – all under the flag of cheering for that same genocidal violence that has afflicted the people Tlaib was trying to defend.

The unequal treatment is doubly so, given that one member’s humanity is punished while another’s inhumanity is tolerated, even celebrated.

Sign up here to make sure you get my column, ‘Subtext with Prem,’ in your inbox. Please share your thoughts in the comments, and feel free to send tips via email or Signal (premthakker.35).

Check out more from Zeteo:

Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2002, urged US politicians to invade Iraq: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."

As always is the case with Washington, Netanyahu got his wish. And we saw the consequences: hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers killed – to the tune of trillions in US tax dollars spent.

Netanyahu was helped by some of the most overconfident, blood-thirsty, and prominent figures in American public life, doing everything they could to make sure Americans’ taxes funded a devastating war premised entirely on lies: that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that the US needed to pursue regime change to win the so-called "War on Terror," and that doing so would promote democracy in the Middle East.

And now, after Israel’s Trump-backed bombing of Iran, the gang’s all back!

Israel’s drastic escalation in Iran – after inflicting a genocide in Palestine, and bombing Lebanon, Yemen, Syria – portends to open up into total war. Netanyahu may publicly use Iraq War-esque euphemisms about liberating Iranian people from the “regime,” but his own defense minister promises that “the residents of Tehran will pay the price.”

While many prominent Iraq War-era Democrats have remained mum, conservative figures are in total war hawk overdrive. They’re scrambling to sell you on another disastrous war. Their appetite for war is endless – and their eyes are leering at the next meal.

Here’s what they said back then, compared to what they’re saying now, and why you should never listen to any of them ever again on anything related to issues of war and peace or the Middle East:

Newt Gingrich

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was straightforward decades ago. Repeatedly, after 9/11, Gingrich insisted that the US must “replace Saddam.” And this week, Gingrich is beating the same drum, calling for regime change in Iran.

“The replacement of the theocratic dictatorship in Iran with a secular government committed to peace with neighbors, prosperity for Iranians and a non-nuclear future is the only outcome of the current Israeli-Iranian war that would be a success,” Gingrich insisted.

David Frum

David Frum is the author of the neoconservative 2004 endless war manual, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, and a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. He helped coin the infamous term “Axis of Evil” used by Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address to gin up antagonism against Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (and a speech that was instrumental in spurring the horrific invasion of Iraq).

Two years ago, Frum wrote a somewhat mea culpa about the Iraq War. While acknowledging the huge mortal and financial cost, he still hedged: “Where would the United States, Iraq, and the region be today if the U.S. has left Saddam in place in 2003?”

But it seems Frum’s tepid mea culpa didn’t even register in his own head. He fell back into place, supporting Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza (an act he has said was “inevitable”) – and then last week, he welcomed Israel’s attack on Iran as the sign of a “free Iran,” and proof that “forcibly” disarming an adversary is better than diplomacy alone.

Sean Hannity

Read more

WASHINGTON DC, USA – Tensions in the United States of America have reached new heights as the nation’s embattled ruler, Donald John Trump, lashes out beneath the pressure of the citizenry, media, and international observers.

Trump – who has faced an array of scandals, including being found liable for sexual abuse, state and private corruption, inciting an insurrection, and being impeached twice – has come under new fire after he unleashed a shadowy state-sanctioned kidnapping regime against dissidents and common laborers.

The surveillance state apparatus kicked into higher gear quickly into Trump’s second term. Almost immediately, the leader issued executive orders laying out plans for mass deportation and surveillance of Americans’ speech. Accordingly, the strongman began building up a long-controversial island prison facility, kidnapping students who had expressed discontent with the regime’s funding and backing of war crimes in the Middle East, and disappearing migrants to a gulag hosted in the nation of an authoritarian bedfellow, with no due process or held-up justification. He has also instituted a sweeping travel ban against 12 nations.

Subscribe now

Now, the regime has massively expanded its shadowy operations, much of it coming to a head in recent weeks. The governing party – held together by a coalition confronting mass protest and rapidly shifting public opinion – has overseen a ratcheting up of detention and deportation operations, with state agents detaining people and children at immigration hearings, foster care, on their way to high school volleyball practice, and work sites. The operations have chilled courts, stymied work projects, and mobilized thousands in communities across the nation to demonstrate against the regime.

Masked administration agents even brutalized and detained a 9-month pregnant woman, an American citizen, accusing her of somehow obstructing their operations. She was hospitalized upon her release so doctors could monitor her and her baby’s health. Her due date is next week.

The murky nature of the already-controversial arrests has quickly led to a possibility legal advocates and the citizenry had feared: a man wearing a black cap emblazoned with the regime’s flag, black sunglasses, and a faux black operational vest impersonating a state agent, tying up a defenseless woman, and stealing $1,000.

The regime unleashed chaos when the beleaguered autocrat’s agents detained David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, as he protested against an immigration raid in Los Angeles, California. The move sparked thousands to take to the streets in protest, which the administration responded to militantly – resulting in a violent approach backed fully by party hardliners.

The administration has deployed thousands of National Guard troops, as well as hundreds of Marines – soldiers who typically deploy to fight wars overseas – to respond to the pro-liberty demonstrators.

Read more

This week, Zeteo contributor Greta Thunberg set sail with brave individuals from around the world in an attempt to break the US-Israeli siege of Gaza and bring aid and hope to starving Palestinians. They’re doing this just weeks after a similar flotilla was attacked – allegedly by Israel – and 15 years after Israeli forces attacked the inaugural flotilla, killing nine people.

Pretty stunning display of bravery, no less when you consider something even more mind-blowing… Senator Lindsey Graham’s response:

Yes – a senior Republican senator is apparently jokingly (or not) calling for the demise of people trying to feed a starving population.

Earlier on Sunday, Graham praised Ukraine’s drone attack on Russian military assets, noting that “Russia indiscriminately kills men, women, and children,” and so it was “time for the world to act decisively against Russia’s aggression.”

Then an hour later, the prominent Republican stumbled over himself to seemingly joke about a nation that’s indiscriminately killing men, women, and children attacking volunteers acting decisively against its aggression.

The warped logic, wildly insulting to the intelligence or basic morals of the Americans he serves, is one thing. As with their comical hypocrisy, the refrain about the modern Republican Party that “the cruelty is the point” is baked into US politics. But the extent to which these threads undergirding American conservatism are put into total overdrive when it comes to Israel is jarring to any observer.

Subscribe now

Because, to be clear: Graham, a US senator, paid by our taxes, is apparently calling for a government that’s killed at least 54,000 (and likely, far more) Palestinians to bomb a boat carrying food to a starving population (or, if I’m being incredibly generous, he is just hoping the ship sinks). It’d be one thing if Graham was operating in the already-broken framework of the draconianism we’re used to: egging on the detaining of protesters and cheering for the bombing of Gaza under the auspices of “eliminating Hamas.”

Think how far we’ve come: pointing out Israel’s bombing of humanitarians was a “blood libel.” Now, it’s a punchline.

Here, we reach the endpoint of it all: a Republican, sealed off in his grotesque, hermetically-sealed bubble, finding it not only appropriate, but actively helpful in his (and his Israeli friends’) PR crusade to buoyantly rejoice at the idea of 12 volunteers – including a young college-aged person – being bombed, and left to tread in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.

That psyche comes from somewhere. That poisonous bubble Graham is in isn’t algorithmic, like a bubble you or I could fall into – it’s constructed over years of being lobbied, wined, dined, brought in line, and hammered to know who is human and who is not. It’s a “moral” framework so bereft of any actual engagement with morality that it’s straight-up alien to you or me. Regardless of your stance on Israel or Palestine, Graham’s giddiness at the idea of a “helper” suffering is just reptilian. It’s a “brain rot” in its truest, most vulgar sense.

And a big part of this bubble are people like Arsen Ostrovsky:

Now, unfortunately, seeing a blue check-clad user calling for Israel to attack “the little jihadi @GretaThunberg” is not an aberration of Elon’s Twitter. But it’s a little more eyebrow-raising when you consider who this person is.

Arsen Ostrovsky is an “international human rights lawyer,” “proud Zionist,” and CEO of the International Legal Forum – an organization that’s received money from the Israeli government (which takes money from US taxpayers) in its pursuit to target critics of the Israeli government. Such a man – an icon of the types of interests that flood the halls of Congress on the daily, fueling that grotesque bubble Graham is submerged in – was even hailed by the Biden administration as a proponent of its work to counter antisemitism.

Which is to say, Graham and Ostrovsky’s tweets represent the outgrowth of a seemingly unsustainable feature of modern American politics.

Subscribe now

Politicians themselves are surrounded by an entire ecosystem that has largely only maintained its Zionism, if not doubled down, contrary to the trajectory of the rest of the nation.

People from conservative maverick Rep. Thomas Massie and the beloved Ms. Rachel, to United Nations officials and even previously-reluctant genocide scholars, and many in between have criticized the Israeli government, condemned it for its war crimes and genocidal acts, and spoken out in ways diametrically opposed to the insular, mutant, and ever-shrinking bubble that Graham and Ostrovsky are part of. Millions have expressed their discontent, and continue to do so despite the repression. As they do, politicians only double down on the project – thus spurring more people to find the project disconcerting, and so on.

So how does this monstrous cycle – of rhetoric; radical violence; and subsequently more radical rhetoric and more radical violence – end?

Think of it this way. Israel has already attacked one aid flotilla, and it is suspected of attacking another just weeks ago. What’s stopping them from doing it again?

What if Graham and Ostrovsky get their wish?

And to what end do we allow that possibility to grow likelier and likelier?

Share

Sign up here to make sure you get my column, ‘Subtext with Prem,’ in your inbox. Please share your thoughts in the comments, and feel free to send tips via email or Signal (premthakker.35).

Check out Greta’s message from the flotilla….

And read more about the history of Gaza aid flotillas:

Donald Trump's second first 100 days have been demonstrably worse than his first first 100 days (listing all the horrors here would bury the rest of this article, so you can listen to Mehdi try in 100 seconds here).

But the Democratic Party's mostly lackluster failure to counter Trump makes it all even more dire. There have been some Good – brave, politically potent, or actually consequential – acts… but there’s also been a whole lot of Bad, and Ugly. Take a look:

The Good

Senator Chris Van Hollen's Trip to El Salvador

Maryland’s Van Hollen was the first Democrat to fly to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland father who has become a symbol of Trump’s inhumane and authoritarian mass deportation policy. Imagine that: a politician doing something in response to Trump on an issue pundits resignedly laud as “Republicans’ issue.” Instead, Trump’s approval has cratered, in large part because of immigration.

Other members, including Reps. Yassamin Ansari, Robert Garcia, Maxwell Frost, and Maxine Dexter soon followed, visiting El Salvador and adding to the pressure on Trump and his co-conspirator, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ Tour

Read more

At a Columbia University gala, students wearing keffiyehs were allegedly called terrorists, told to “go back to Gaza,” and grabbed, pushed, and had their keffiyehs snatched by other students. At one point, students reportedly sang the Israeli national anthem, some flipping off those wearing keffiyehs, “obstructing the main walkway out of the event.” After the gala, five men allegedly verbally confronted two students, including one who had said they were a Jewish student with different views on Israel, and proceeded to kick and punch them.

Nearly a year later, and it appears no one has been held accountable for the alleged assault.

The incident didn’t get much media coverage, and no congressional hearings – but perhaps that shouldn’t be a surprise, given it’s one of now a mountain of examples illustrating whose “safety” universities and Congress really only care about: pro-Israel students.

Subscribe now

Chronicle of violence

The alleged gala attack is cited in a massive 335-page report released earlier this week by Columbia University’s senate – composed of both students and faculty. The document meticulously chronicles the school administration's response to the pro-Palestine and anti-war student protests over 15 months.

Along with the alleged attack, that timeline includes the school blaming students for hosting a rally for Gaza, where they could then be attacked with a noxious spray by pro-Israel students (and paying out $395,000 to one of the perpetrators), hiring private investigators to enter student residences, siccing the police onto its own students – twice, and creating unaccountable university committees tasked with overseeing student discipline and rule enforcement.

The timeline also looked at the parade of several members of Congress (both on campus and in DC) calling for a crackdown on student protesters, and two group chats: one of billionaires and one of pro-Israel alumni and current faculty, including a dean – where participants discussed efforts to push the school to crack down harder on students.

So, in many respects, the report is a chronicle of the violence tolerated, encouraged, and enacted under the flag of “student safety.”

And the university’s response to the gala attack underscores just who is – and who isn't – worth keeping safe on campus.

The students who were affected by the alleged gala attack, and their parents repeatedly reached out to the university, according to the Columbia Senate report, to little avail.

“[Y]ou removed and interim suspended (pending Columbia’s investigation) over 100 students for occupying a lawn for 30 hours,” parents wrote in one email. “It has now been almost 72 hours since you were presented with detailed descriptions, witnesses, videos, and the names of Columbia students who physically assaulted, harassed, and tried to remove the clothing of other Columbia students at the GSSC Gala… Surely you agree that these actions are far more serious than chanting slogans on a lawn.”

Evidently, the administration disagreed. They got no substantive response to their appeals to the school.

One of the students targeted, granted anonymity to speak freely, told Zeteo that the university seems to offer “preferential treatment with which students are entitled to protection,” which makes them feel like a “lesser student” in the eyes of the administration.

Share

The source explained that they and other victims had not come to the gala together or coordinated to wear keffiyehs.

The student told Zeteo a repeat incident happened weeks later, at another school gala, where students allegedly poured alcohol on the heads of a group of pro-Palestine students, many of whom were Muslim. “That's the kind of thing that we enable when we let these things pass without any consequences,” they said, noting they recognized some of the alleged attacking students at graduation “getting awards and getting recognized for good character.”

Many of the attackers, the group alleged, were former Israeli military officers.

Columbia did not respond to specific questions about the Senate report or the alleged attack, but said it “stands firmly behind the decisive actions it has taken to combat discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism and to protect the safety and well-being of our community.”

An Excuse for a Crackdown

The Columbia senate report only examines incidents up until the end of last year, meaning recent events, including ICE's presence on campus and the Trump administration's detention of student protest leader Mahmoud Khalil at his university housing are not included.

The authors noted that senior administrators, with the exception of former President Minouche Shafik, refused to be interviewed “to clarify and explain their often unusual and sometimes extraordinary actions: broad suspension of students without proper due process; calling the NYPD onto campus twice to arrest students; and the surveillance of students and faculty.”

But why would they clarify? What is there to explain? These contradictions: violence and escalation at the behest of “student safety” – and ultimately, to defend violence in Palestine – are perhaps not contradictory at all to those enacting it. Top officials at elite institutions like Columbia may not be ‘complying with’ or ‘obeying’ external influences like the Trump administration as much as they are welcoming the excuse to ‘reluctantly’ go along with an escalating crackdown on academic freedom.

Share

In other words, top university officials, namely trustees, are far from blameless, or even bystanders.

Last year (less than two weeks after the alleged attack against Columbia students wearing keffiyehs), centrist political group No Labels hosted a call headlined by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who spoke with close to 300 attendees, including trustees from several schools, about how Congress could crack down further on student protesters – and even how the FBI could get more involved.

There are also the aforementioned group chats: the billionaire chat, which discussed ways to press Columbia’s trustees to take action; the alumni chat, in which participants referenced correspondence with the likes of the president, trustees, and donors.

And there’s also the simple evidence: trustees nationwide refusing, again and again and again, to even entertain student votes to disclose investments, or divest from companies tied to Israel, or recognize Israel’s genocide of Palestine. And when students protest the stubbornness, trustees respond with violence to defend the violence they’re invested in.

“Good faith”

The inanity continues. Look no further than this week, when Columbia students – led by Jewish students – chained themselves to a campus gate (one already long-locked amid the school’s relentless shutting down of its previously open campus). The students were demanding accountability for the arrest of their former classmate, Mahmoud Khalil.

Amid the action, students had one of their classmates reach out to the administration via email, according to communications seen by Zeteo, to relay requests in “good faith” in hopes “to avoid any further escalation.”

The demands included: releasing a statement “acknowledging the unlawful and shameful abduction of Mahmoud Khalil by plainclothes police officers” on campus (in the same spirit that Tufts released a statement expressing support for Rumeysa Ozturk); investigating which trustee(s) gave Khalil’s name to the government, and publishing the findings publicly; and committing to being a sanctuary campus not just in name, but to demilitarize the campus and bar federal enforcement agencies from it.

“The protesters have requested that I act as a negotiator in order to avoid retaliation towards Palestinian and Jewish students,” the student wrote in their email.

Just over an hour later, the Jewish and other pro-Palestine students got a response. Columbia public safety officers brought out bolt cutters to separate students from the gate. They first targeted Palestinian student Maryam Alwan, who had only just joined the protest. Then they dragged away the others – including the Jewish students – one by one.

Share

The preponderance of the evidence leaves little doubt: Washington and universities nationwide do care about student safety. But only for one group: those who are pro-Israel.

Consider all the Jewish students who have been targeted and brutalized by this campus crackdown. Has there been any concern for them? Consider Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who, when asked about anti-Zionist Jewish students in the Columbia encampment during his parachuting visit to the campus last year, simply said, “I don’t know who’s in that camp.”

This was during a visit when Johnson and co. were supposedly addressing the encampment and meeting with victimized Jewish students!

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s an individual who knew Mahmoud Khalil, writing a letter of support for him to the court:

“Mahmoud has protected Jewish students at Columbia like myself more than the university ever has. He has even protected us from the university itself. To punish him under the pretense that this kind, brave, gentle person somehow endangered us is the most egregious lie I’ve ever heard.”

Sign up here to make sure you get my column, ‘Subtext with Prem,’ in your inbox. Please share your thoughts in the comments, and feel free to send tips via email or Signal (premthakker.35).

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with a comment from Columbia University.

Check out more from Zeteo:

Wherever Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez go from here will be seen as a long-awaited inflection point in American democracy. Or a foreseeable retraction back to what got us here in the first place.

Because the duo – long-disrespected and now begrudgingly acknowledged by the establishment – is electrifying historic crowds left dispirited and de-energized by that same dismissive status quo.

Over the course of just three days, more than 86,000 people in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada came to rally with the “radical” pair. In Denver, Colorado, Sanders boasted that 34,000 people attended – the largest rally he has ever had.

All in a non-presidential election year.

Subscribe now

While the energy is now being celebrated by people of varied ideologies, it’s worth emphasizing that this exact mobilization was the premise of Sanders’ 2016 campaign. And his 2020 campaign. This level of mass mobilization could’ve happened before. One can imagine how different reality – for millions in the US and billions across the world – may have been.

But that was then; this is today, when the question now is: where will Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez channel all this voltage towards?

Independence

“One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party,” Sanders told the New York Times earlier this week. “There’s a lot of great leadership all over this country at the grass-roots level. We’ve got to bring that forward. And if we do that, we can defeat Trumpism and we can transform the political situation in America.”

The sentiment harkens back to what Sanders had said on Nov. 6, after the Democrats’ nightmare loss to Trump, again.

In an attention-grabbing statement, Sanders castigated the party for failing to meet the moment, and its heightened contradictions: disastrous wealth inequality; an explosion of artificial intelligence and productivity and innovation, yet no corresponding increase in quality of life; the wealthiest nation having no guaranteed healthcare; billions to Israel’s violence, despite mass opposition.

“Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign?” Sanders posed.

“In the coming weeks and months, those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions,” Sanders concluded. “Stay tuned.”

And now here we are.

Read more