On the 16th of July, at the invitation of Marco Rubio and the US State Department, representatives of over 60 countries gathered to hear Rubio annonce that “the counterterrorism architecture of the free world, built over a generation against jihadist mass murder, should be rebuilt and aimed at the domestic left”, wherever it might show itself, for “the left”, in its many incarnations, is the implacable enemy of the “West” and its civilization.
This is a distinctive and unique evil. It has always been driven by a hatred above all else, a hatred for civilization itself. It is a revolt of the worst against the best, a revolt of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good. It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, who cannot create, who cannot achieve great things, and take their revenge upon the world for their own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can. This is what radical leftism is. It may wear various different slogans and ideologies across place and time. They can call themselves anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist or communist or anarchist or Marxist. But the fundamental character is always the same. It’s always the same.
It is a poisonous resentment cloaked in the language of equality and justice and liberation, an overwhelming need to tear down what greater men have built, to wreck what is beautiful and what is right on behalf of people who are only filled with ugliness and have nothing else to offer the world. Through violence and through terror, they once again seek to impose their ugliness on all of us. The old dogma was wrong. The old dogma was wrong; none of this is driven by idealism. It is not utopian. In fact, it is the opposite.
If the threat comes from “within”, the “left” is nevertheless “transnational”, with financial and ideological support coming from countries such as Iran and Cuba. (“Cuba’s assault on the United States was never, at root, a quarrel over economic policy or sovereignty or even ownership of a particular territory. … It was a revolution against western civilisation itself – waged, in part, via the novel and insidious method of persuading the children of the west to turn against their own inheritance. … Today, Cuban agents and operatives maintain a foothold in hundreds of front groups, activist organisations, solidarity centres, and ideological NGO and nonprofit networks. These groups collectively represent one of the single largest, most sophisticated and dangerous vectors for hostile foreign influence in modern American history.” – from Cuba: Capital of 21st-Century Communism, published by the US state department, July 20, 2026. The report blames Havana for everything from “the George Floyd riots to the rise of antifa to the explosion of pro-terrorist activism on American college campuses”) In other words, if the “indigenous left” of the USA is fundamentally a threat, it is ultimately a foreign, un-American threat which must be dealt with on a global scale through the construction of a new, “anti-leftist” global order.
After Rubio’s intervention, the stage was given to the White House deputy chief of staff, Steven Miller, whose words unveiled a much more radical vision.
It’s very important to understand that left-wing political terrorism seeks as its ultimate end the overthrow of our system and form of government. …
Left-wing terrorism always ends in bloodshed, misery, and suffering. It only can travel in one direction. There’s no point at which the left-wing terrorist is satisfied with his gains and ceases progressing. Inevitably, left to run its course, it always becomes a gulag. It always becomes the mass imprisonment of political enemies, the stripping of their rights and freedoms, inflicting immense pain, humiliation, suffering in order to establish complete and total control – control through psychological and physical and actual terror. And we have to understand that that is the scope and the extent of the threat that we face.
As Secretary Rubio also pointed out, this is an international network. Antifa, as an example, operates in dozens of countries all throughout the world. They share common networks of funding and organization and information sharing. And so, all of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement entities should be collaborating and coordinating and working together in order to root out these organizations.
One of the hallmarks of left-wing violence and terrorism is its completely pretextual and disingenuous appeal to civil liberties in an effort to shield its own violence. This is the tactic that the left always uses to try to protect itself from facing criminal punishment. It is essential that we are wise enough and strong enough to understand that these appeals must fall on deaf ears. When the leftist, who does not believe in freedom, who does not believe in civil rights, who does not believe in any ordered notion of justice, protests that we are violating his rights, understand that he is lying to try to persuade people who are not closely following the political scene that some injustice has been perpetrated against him.
We must stay the course and be completely unflinching in the pursuit of justice against these enemies of civilization. If the left is allowed to use the real or actual threat of violence to destabilize our institutions, then those institutions cannot and will not succeed. …
Nothing that we do works if the threat of violence and terror goes on unchecked. Our political systems don’t work. Our judicial systems don’t work. Our legal systems don’t work. Our jury trials don’t work.
At the same time, we have to understand there’s a real threat that those who are not themselves terrorists – but who support left-wing violence – will create the conditions that allow that violence to go on without any meaningful inhibition. So, to be specific, we’ve seen some of our nation’s cities in America, like Washington, D.C. and New York City, something – again, it’s an American term, but it’s known as jury nullification. This is when a person is obviously guilty of a crime but the juror, because they’re ideologically sympathetic to the perpetrator, will not sentence them to the crime which was obviously committed.
We’ve seen in the United States, again and again, individuals who are part of left-wing organizations who’ve committed assaults against ICE officers or federal law enforcement, who’ve been brought to court, where clear evidence has been presented against them, that the jury has refused to convict for purely political reasons. When you’ve reached that point, it demonstrates how deeply the cancer has begun to infest your society, where people have created an internal rationalization structure to justify unsanctioned violence against the state and state actors to achieve a political end.
We have to use every lawful and legitimate tool that we have to demonstrate that justice will be served and delivered, and to prove that these kinds of tactics and techniques will ultimately fail. If the leftist learns and observes that their violence and criminal activity helps and ultimately succeeds in achieving their desired political end, they will be endlessly emboldened.
Here in the United States, we’ve seen a growing and deeply alarming increase in attempted assassinations against public figures, most notably, of course, the multiple assassination attempts against President Trump, the successful assassination attempt against Charlie Kirk, many others. This is a fatal cancer to civilization. And the greatest risk that we have is that our institutions have grown too soft and too cowardly to be able to defend themselves against a mortal threat.
If your civilization is your home, you must defend it with the same passion and force as if an enemy intruder is inside your own house where your family lives. That is the level of dedication and urgency that is required. And the greatest threat is that even though there are far more of us, there are far more people who believe in order and civilization and liberty and the rule of law, is that if we are softer than those who seek to end us, then the smaller but more radical minority will succeed.
It is easy to dismiss what I am saying and to say surely it cannot be that bad; it cannot be that dire. But again, I point to the examples in our own country, where, for example, our Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has been duly statutory authorized to carry out routine enforcements of immigration law, has been subjected to an over 8,000 increase – 8,000 percent increase in violent assaults. These are not one-off episodes. This is repeat, systemic, organized, funded insurrection, an armed resistance against the federal government. There was a sniper from a sniper’s nest who, using an assault rifle, tried to shoot ICE officers in Dallas, Texas.
These are the episodes that we’re talking about, where we have had repeated, direct, violent attacks on federal law enforcement in order to veto the ballot box with violence. And the leftist justifies this violence to himself by saying that they alone are the arbiters of what is right or wrong – not the law, not history, not civilization, not public opinion, and certainly not God. The leftist assumes for himself judge, jury, executioner.
But let’s not pretend for a moment that these radical leftists, these terrorists, are operating from a place of sincere political conviction. Sure, there are plenty of useful idiots that they use who may believe these discredited ideologies. The leftist is fundamentally motivated by envy, by hatred, by jealousy. The leftist looks at what is beautiful and what is good and what is natural and is filled with envy and hatred. The leftist looks at a perfect family with a perfect life and a perfect job and perfect kids that goes to church every Sunday and is filled with a feeling of inadequacy and jealousy, and they covet. And they turn those emotions ultimately into a desire to subjugate, to oppress, and to inflict pain and suffering.
It’s not a coincidence that when you look at these violent antifa demonstrations and you see any photograph of those who were assembled – to be blunt, not one of the people that is demonstrating looks like a normal person. Not one looks normal. They’re all deformed in some way – in their appearance, in their dress, in their mannerism. Why is that? Why? If you look at two photographs and you see a normal American in the street and you see an Antifa protest, why do the people that are violently demonstrating – why is there not one normal-looking person among them? Every one of them, through the course of their life and their decisions, has scarred their body and their appearance in many different ways, to the point in which their outer appearance becomes a manifestation of their inner hatred.
Trust your instincts to all people and across all civilizations. You know what normal is. You know what beautiful is. You know what good is. You know that families are right. You know that children are precious and beautiful and must be protected. You know that the criminal and the junkie and the predator is a threat to normal, healthy living. This so much deeper than issues about taxation and regulation, although they’re incredibly important. It’s about normal, healthy, ordered living.
And the violent leftist, for these deep-seated reasons, going back to the earliest wisdom taught to us in the Bible about coveting – and I’m not talking about rich versus poor. I’m talking about a much deeper kind of coveting – coveting people who are morally superior, who are superior in the simple, truthful way they live their lives, people that they look at who are happy and ordered and peaceful and contributing to their communities. That burns an ember in them, and that’s how you end up with the horrors we’ve seen throughout history, where good families are dragged out into the street and executed.
However much it might be of interest to analyse Miller’s phantasmatic paranoia, let us set aside the temptation to psychologise what he said and consider it a consequent political project. What Miller, Rubio and others of their kind object to on “the left” is not their purported violence – the violence unleashed by the Trump administration should be enough to convince anyone -, but the very idea of political equality and its place as a foundation stone for anything that can be called a democracy.
We can argue about the virtues or vices of “democracy”, or about the different kinds of democracy, but anyone on the left – understanding by this term a broad, diverse and historical reality – would have to be mad to jettison the idea of it and its complex history altogether, and to not see that at the heart of the fascist project, among other things, is the denial of political equality and with it, any kind of democracy. To quote Umberto Eco and his essay, “Ur-Fascism“:
Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler. Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.
It is perhaps then not surprising that Donald Tump would close the day with a speech to the nation, informing everyone that the country’s election system is “so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it. It is not defensible.” So much then for elections, for they are acceptable only when the election results correspond to the results desired and unacceptable – because undermined and corrupted by agents of foreign interests – when the outcome proves indigestable.
Again, quoting Eco:
Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view — one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People. Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples” — “maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
Until then – until what remains of any semblance of democracy, or better yet, politics, is killed off – the US administration, under Trump’s orders and according to Stephan Miller, will “direct, for the first time in American history, all of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to work together to disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute these political terrorists that are operating in our country.”
Suggested Reading (and the inspiration for this post):
Robert B. Shpiner, “Three speeches on a single day signaled a dying American democracy”, The Guardian, 22/07/2026
A new hunting season has been declared (pt. 2), or the normalisation of fascism
On the 16th of July, at the invitation of Marco Rubio and the US State Department, representatives of over 60 countries gathered to hear Rubio annonce that “the counterterrorism architecture of the free world, built over a generation against jihadist mass murder, should be rebuilt and aimed at the domestic left”, wherever it might show itself, for “the left”, in its many incarnations, is the implacable enemy of the “West” and its civilization.
If the threat comes from “within”, the “left” is nevertheless “transnational”, with financial and ideological support coming from countries such as Iran and Cuba. (“Cuba’s assault on the United States was never, at root, a quarrel over economic policy or sovereignty or even ownership of a particular territory. … It was a revolution against western civilisation itself – waged, in part, via the novel and insidious method of persuading the children of the west to turn against their own inheritance. … Today, Cuban agents and operatives maintain a foothold in hundreds of front groups, activist organisations, solidarity centres, and ideological NGO and nonprofit networks. These groups collectively represent one of the single largest, most sophisticated and dangerous vectors for hostile foreign influence in modern American history.” – from Cuba: Capital of 21st-Century Communism, published by the US state department, July 20, 2026. The report blames Havana for everything from “the George Floyd riots to the rise of antifa to the explosion of pro-terrorist activism on American college campuses”) In other words, if the “indigenous left” of the USA is fundamentally a threat, it is ultimately a foreign, un-American threat which must be dealt with on a global scale through the construction of a new, “anti-leftist” global order.
After Rubio’s intervention, the stage was given to the White House deputy chief of staff, Steven Miller, whose words unveiled a much more radical vision.
However much it might be of interest to analyse Miller’s phantasmatic paranoia, let us set aside the temptation to psychologise what he said and consider it a consequent political project. What Miller, Rubio and others of their kind object to on “the left” is not their purported violence – the violence unleashed by the Trump administration should be enough to convince anyone -, but the very idea of political equality and its place as a foundation stone for anything that can be called a democracy.
We can argue about the virtues or vices of “democracy”, or about the different kinds of democracy, but anyone on the left – understanding by this term a broad, diverse and historical reality – would have to be mad to jettison the idea of it and its complex history altogether, and to not see that at the heart of the fascist project, among other things, is the denial of political equality and with it, any kind of democracy. To quote Umberto Eco and his essay, “Ur-Fascism“:
It is perhaps then not surprising that Donald Tump would close the day with a speech to the nation, informing everyone that the country’s election system is “so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it. It is not defensible.” So much then for elections, for they are acceptable only when the election results correspond to the results desired and unacceptable – because undermined and corrupted by agents of foreign interests – when the outcome proves indigestable.
Again, quoting Eco:
Until then – until what remains of any semblance of democracy, or better yet, politics, is killed off – the US administration, under Trump’s orders and according to Stephan Miller, will “direct, for the first time in American history, all of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to work together to disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute these political terrorists that are operating in our country.”
Suggested Reading (and the inspiration for this post):
Robert B. Shpiner, “Three speeches on a single day signaled a dying American democracy”, The Guardian, 22/07/2026