Long War

THE A-FRAME:

The populism horseshoe: A venerable political theory helps make sense of modern political attitudes (John Sides – October 8, 2025, Good Authority)

Why would we expect populist attitudes to be more prevalent at the ideological extremes? First, let’s define populism. Tamaki and Jung, building on other work, define it as “a thin-centered ideology that divides society into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups – ‘the pure people’ and ‘the corrupt elite’ – and argues for politics to be an expression of the general will of the people.”

The ideological extremes are thus expected to be more populist because of certain cognitive tendencies. The far left and far right often share an “us vs. them” view of the world – even if they define “us” and “them” differently. Both groups also tend to oversimplify the world, and hold on to their simplified views with confidence. They are cognitively “rigid.” And they are particularly hostile toward those they view as opponents.

On top of that, the far left and far right are both “people-centered” in their way. They distrust authorities and “elites.” Thus, they valorize “ordinary people” as the only reliable and worthy decision-makers.

ESCAPING THE TRUE BELIEVERS:

How I Got Pulled into Charlie Kirk’s Movement—and Why I Left: Turning Point USA gave me purpose. But it took years to unlearn the politics I once accepted without question (Caroline Stout, Wendy Kaur, Oct. 1, 2025, The Walrus)

You were in high school when you joined Turning Point USA. What made you want to get involved?

I was involved with my local Republican Party. At this point, Charlie was going around fundraising. He held a kind of recruitment meeting for young people interested in politics in Houston. That was the first time I met him, when he made his pitch for Turning Point. His refrain was: “We only focus on limited government and fiscal responsibility. That’s it. We don’t focus on social issues, because that divides us.” That was really digestible for me at the time, because I really wasn’t sure where I stood on some social issues. And it’s easy to get behind fiscal responsibility and limited government. So it seemed pretty innocuous to me. […]

How much responsibility do you think Kirk bears for the climate of fear and outrage that has reshaped American politics?

When MAGA started to take over, Kirk really leaned into its rise. He was very ambitious, and so there was a major shift in his rhetoric during the first Trump administration. Early on, he even gave an interview emphasizing the importance of viewing policy through a secular lens. But in recent years, his message became much more aligned with Christian nationalism. That evolution tracks closely with the broader rise of Christian nationalism in politics and with MAGA. I wouldn’t place all the blame on him, but the embrace of nationalist and fascist rhetoric—anti-immigration, xenophobia, and Christian nationalism—is something for which he does bear responsibility.

ALWAYS BET ON THE dEEP sTATE:

A Reagan-Appointed Judge Just Wrote a Blistering Anti-Trump Decision (Noah Lanard, 9/30/25, MoJo)

Young, who is 85 years old and was appointed to the bench four decades ago, begins by quoting a postcard he received on June 19 that reads: “TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS …. WHAT DO YOU HAVE?” Young replies in the ruling:

Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,

Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case—

The judge goes on to write that the case he is deciding is “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court.” He concludes that there was not an “ideological deportation policy” targeting pro-Palestine speech. Instead, there was something more sinister:

[T]he intent of the Secretaries was more invidious—to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.

By defending that policy, Young writes, the president has violated his “sacred oath” to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That Trump is “for all practical purposes, totally immune from any consequences for this conduct,” Young adds, citing the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision, “does not relieve this Court of its duty to find the facts.”

EVERYTHING MAGA TOUCHES DIES (profanity alert):

Lowry and McIlroy exhibit true greatness to win Ryder Cup epic in the Bethpage circus (Gavin Cooney, 9/28/25, 42)

And so this victory was as great an exhibit of character and quality as this writer can ever remember witnessing in Irish sport.

The hostility with which both were subjected was absurd. The New York crowd has been hurling out grotesque personal insults all week, with many of the marshals around the course not just tolerating it but tacitly approving it, with a few seen grinning along with the latest moronic insult.

Walking the fairways was like listening to a series of Truth Social posts being read out loud in New York accents. The abuse was cutting and personal, involving not only their players but their wives and families, all of whom were inside the ropes. The players’ wives were briefly led away from the match for a couple of holes when the atmosphere was at its most unhinged.

McIlroy said he would be willing to put up with the abuse once was not allowed to unsettle his swing. The rowdy locals were not forced to abide by these rules, and so McIlroy had to step back from a morning swing when one American fan yelled Freedom! as he addressed his ball. McIlroy told him to “shut the f**k up.”

It’s fair to say all were given the freedom to act like a twat.

CONSERVATISM SEEKS TO CONSERVE LIBERALISM:

The American New Right Looks Like the European Old Right: When conservatives reject constitutional limits on executive power and foment civil conflict, what exactly are they conserving? (Jack Nicastro and Phillip W. Magness, 9.26.2025, reason)

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Illustration featuring (left to right) Auron MacIntyre, Curtis Yarvin, Carl Schmitt, Yoram Hazony, and Darryl Cooper | The Auron Macintyre Show, Tucker Carlson / YouTube, Illustration by Adani Samat
(The Auron Macintyre Show, Tucker Carlson / YouTube, Illustration by Adani Samat)
There was a time when the American right was conservative: appreciative of inherited wisdom, skeptical of rationalism, wary of excessive government power, and against radical change. Exemplified by figures like William Buckley Jr. and Ronald Reagan, American conservatism is, in the words of The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg, a political philosophy that defends “the revolutionary ideals of classical liberalism.”

The New Right is not interested in defending these distinctively American ideals. Drawing instead on collectivist, nationalist, and even monarchist traditions from continental Europe, this New Right seeks to wield the tools of government to advance its own social, cultural, and religious priorities. For years, the New Right, by its own admission, has rejected the tenets of classical liberalism, including individual liberty, mutual toleration, and limited government. But, following the recent assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, the New Right has doubled down on its authoritarian tendencies by reviving the cultural teachings of Carl Schmitt, one of Nazi Germany’s chief legal minds.

Not only is the Right’s ideology anti-conservative and anti-American, it’s anti-Christian.

COMPLETE WITH THEIR OWN CHEETO NAPOLEON:

‘Animal Farm’ Never Gets Old: Orwell’s classic turns 80. (Cathy Young, Sep 26, 2025, The Bulwark)

The Soviet parallels in the novel, in which animals on a farm run by the drunk and abusive Mr. Jones band together to drive out their two-legged oppressors and set out to build a haven of freedom and equality for all beasts, are very explicit—right down to specific characters, events, and symbols. Napoleon, the crafty boar who eventually becomes Animal Farm’s totalitarian dictator with a personality cult, clearly represents Stalin; his rival Snowball, who co-leads the revolution but gets outmaneuvered, forced into exile, and branded a traitor—and blamed for everything that goes wrong on the farm—is Trotsky with trotters. (Early on, there’s also a Marx-Lenin mashup: Old Major, the wise boar who inspires the revolt before dying and has his skull reverentially displayed on a post, much like Lenin’s mummified body in the mausoleum in Red Square.) The farm’s flag—a white hoof and horn on a green field—echoes the red flag with the hammer and sickle. Like the early Soviet revolutionaries, the animals throw themselves into enthusiastic labor to make their experiment work, and normal practices turn into political projects: “the Egg Production Committee for the hens,” “the Clean Tails League for the cows,” and “the Whiter Wool Movement for the sheep.”

Soon, the resemblances turn much darker. In an episode that clearly echoes the Holodomor, the mostly man-made famine Stalin used to break the back of peasant resistance to collectivization (and crush Ukrainian nationalism), hens who resist orders to surrender their eggs for trading are starved into submission. Later, the purges and show trials begin. As the assembled animals watch in horror, four pigs who had criticized Napoleon earlier are dragged before him by his pack of trained hounds, confess to treasonous collaboration with Snowball, and are at once dispatched by the same dogs. […]

But in 2025, Americans may be reading this novel with somewhat different eyes than in times gone by, when strongman rule, cult-like worship of leaders, and reality-denying propaganda were things that happened somewhere else. Today, it’s hard to read Orwell’s mordant description of the extravagant panegyrics to Napoleon (“two cows, enjoying a drink at the pool, would exclaim, ‘Thanks to the leadership of Comrade Napoleon, how excellent this water tastes!’”) and not think of the examples we are witnessing daily—from the downright idolatrous sensibility common among Trump’s base to administration officials falling all over each other to heap praise on Trump at a cabinet meeting, or a member of Congress telling reporters Trump is “never wrong,” or press secretary Karoline Leavitt gushing, “Cracker Barrel is a great American company, and they made a great decision to Trust in Trump!” Likewise, when Orwell wryly notes that the animals “had nothing to go upon except Squealer’s lists of figures, which invariably demonstrated that everything was getting better and better,” one can’t help thinking of Trump firing the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner who wouldn’t deliver that message.

The rewriting of slogans, the insidious conspiracies invoked to explain anything that goes wrong, the propaganda chief convincing the other animals that things they saw with their own eyes didn’t happen or happened very differently: The parallels are all over the place.

While the normals keep the aspidistra flying…

WHY THE rIGHT IS SO GEEFUL ABOUT HIS MURDER:

Charlie Kirk, Martyrdom, and America’s Authoritarian Apostles: The entanglement of fascist politics and Christian imagery is not new, and it is dangerously powerful (Adam Gurri, 25 Sep 2025, Liberal Currents)

Despite the obvious tensions between fascism and Christian virtues, the entanglement of fascist politics and Christian imagery is not new. It is dangerously powerful, especially in the contemporary context of an American Christianity in the grips of a right-wing identity crisis. I want to elaborate on the way MAGA has portrayed Kirk since his assassination and connect it to the warped, spiritually dessicated version of Christianity that undergirds Trumpism today. I hope to highlight how degraded our moral situation has become.


I have seen more than a few allusions to Horst Wessel in the days since Kirk’s killing. Wessel, a young Nazi and member of the SA, was murdered by members of the Communist Party of Germany in 1930. His death became a rallying point for Nazi Party, and they adopted a march for which he’d written lyrics as the party anthem.

The references are apt. Kirk is being valorized in service of a fascist project. But I want to turn in particular to the way historian Tom Holland examines Wessel’s martyrdom, in which he stresses the explicit Christ allegory, as an especially helpful point of comparison.

As Holland observes in his book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, Nazi leaders were quick to grasp the utility of Wessel’s death and to wield it to great effect. He writes how Josef Goebbels understood the Christian power in making Wessel a martyr, even as the Nazis despised much of what Christianity stood for. Goebbels went so far as to proclaim at Wessel’s funeral service that he would rise once again. Holland writes:

A shudder ran through the crowd, “As if God,” one of the mourners later recalled, “had made a decision and sent his holy breath upon the open grave and the flags, blessing the dead man and all who belonged to him.” One month later, Goebbels explicitly compared Wessel to Christ.

Since his killing, right-wing rhetoric around Kirk has become increasingly religious. In one hearing, Representative Troy Nehls of Texas declared “I would say if Charlie Kirk lived in Biblical times, he’d have been the 13th disciple.”

Hard to see Christ organizing Identitarian groups.

THE AEESOMENESS OF ANTI-IDENTITY:

Days of Awe (Robert Zaretsky,| September 25, 2025, The American Scholar)

Yet perhaps we do not need alpine guides, but instead moral guides to experience this emotion. As a historian of France under the Nazi occupation, I cannot help but return, time and again, to the case of André Trocmé. He was a Protestant pastor and an ardent pacifist in the village of Chambon-sur-Lignon, a dot on the map of the rocky and austere Massif Central region in south-central France. Eighty-five years ago, that dot soon became a haven of safety for men, women, and children who were in fear for their lives.

In 1940, Trocmé and his equally remarkable wife, Magda, launched their effort to rescue as many Jewish refugees as possible who were fleeing Vichy police and SS officials. From his pulpit, Trocmé used his pulpit to spur les Chambonais to action. “Tremendous pressure will be put on us to submit passively to a totalitarian ideology,” he warned his parishioners. Yet, Trocmé continued, the “duty of Christians is to use the weapons of the Spirit to oppose the violence that they will try to put on our consciences. … We shall resist whenever our adversaries demand of us obedience contrary to the orders of the gospel. We shall do so without fear, but also without pride and without hate.”

Over the next four years, while Vichy collaborated with the Nazi implementation of the Final Solution, Trocmé and his congregation were, in every sense of the phrase, as good as their word. They made, in fact, their word flesh. As a growing stream of Jewish refugees, as well as French Jews whom Vichy had denaturalized, fled to Chambon, the townspeople opened wide their doors. They created safe houses, forged identity cards, sheltered, fed, and educated thousands of desperate Jewish men, women, and children.

The moral imperative of caring for children was the driving force in the young life of Trocmé’s nephew, Daniel Trocmé. He had come to Chambon to be a teacher, but he eventually found himself in the role of their protector. When the police captured his group of students, the young Trocmé refused to abandon the children. Instead, he kept them close, calming them as best he could. And he died with them at the extermination camp of Maidenek. Daniel Trocmé freely chose to follow the same ethical teaching expressed by his uncle. (In fact, Trocmé and his fellow pastors were also arrested and sent to a concentration camp, but they were mysteriously released a few months later.)

In his landmark account of Chambon, Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed, the late American philosopher Philip Hallie was obsessed by a single question: Why did goodness happen not only in Chambon, but also the surrounding towns and villages? Historians, psychologists, and philosophers have since widened and deepened the search for an answer to this question. It turns out that the nature of goodness is perhaps even more difficult to isolate than is the nature of evil. But if one had to boil it down, it might come down to the words spoken by André Trocmé to a French officer who had demanded the whereabout of the Jews the pastor had hidden. “We do not know what a Jew is,” Trocmé replied. “We know only men.”

HE PREACHED HATE:

Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’: The far-right commentator didn’t pull his punches when discussing his bigoted views on current events (Chris Stein, 9/11/25)

On immigration
America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 22 August 2025

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024

On Islam
America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 30 April 2025

We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 24 June 2025

Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.

– Charlie Kirk social media post, 8 September 2025

BUFFOONERY IN FANCY DRESS:

The “Debate Me Bro” Grift: How Trolls Weaponized The Marketplace Of Ideas (Mike Masnick, 9/17/25, TechDirt)

The fundamental issue with “debate me bro” culture isn’t just that it’s obnoxious, it’s that it creates a false equivalence between good-faith expertise and bad-faith trolling. When you agree to debate someone pushing long-debunked conspiracy theories or openly hateful ideologies, you’re implicitly suggesting that their position deserves equal consideration alongside established facts and expert analysis.

This is exactly backwards from how the actual “marketplace of ideas” is supposed to work. Ideas don’t deserve platforms simply because someone is willing to argue for them loudly. They earn legitimacy through evidence, peer review, and sustained engagement with reality. Many of the ideas promoted in these viral “debates” have already been thoroughly debunked and rejected by that marketplace—but the “debate me bro” format resurrects them as if they’re still worth serious consideration.

Perhaps most insidiously, these aren’t actually debates at all. They’re performances designed to generate specific emotional reactions for viral distribution. Participants aren’t trying to persuade anyone or genuinely engage with opposing viewpoints. They’re trying to create moments that will get clipped, shared, and monetized across social media.