On Yom Kippur, the holiest day in our Jewish calendar, Manchester was shaken by a terror attack that forced multiple synagogues to cancel their services. According to a statement from Manchester Reform Synagogue, all Yom Kippur gatherings were immediately suspended "for security reasons," with police deployed to the scene of another synagogue where the attack took place. The decision underscored the severity of the threat, leaving congregations in shock on a day meant for prayer, reflection, and atonement.
Eyewitness accounts describe the horror: an elderly Jewish man was stabbed outside his synagogue, collapsing in a pool of blood just as he was about to enter for Yom Kippur services. The attacker, reported to be wearing what appeared to be a suicide belt, was confronted and shot by armed police. Footage circulating online shows officers shouting for people to move back as they closed in on the assailant. This attack has intensified concerns about the surge of antisemitism in the UK, with critics pointing to the vulnerability of Jewish communities and warning that government inaction and appeasement have emboldened extremist violence. The cancellation of sacred services across Manchester stands as a grim symbol of fear interrupting faith.
In the haunting aftermath of the Manchester synagogue attack, one image has emerged that captures both the tragedy and the resilience of a people who have endured centuries of persecution. Against the backdrop of flashing police lights, cordoned-off streets, and heavily armed officers responding to the day's violence, a Jewish man stands wrapped in his tallit, head covered, holding his prayer book. He continues his Yom Kippur prayers undeterred, embodying defiance in the face of those who would see Jewish faith extinguished.
This solitary act is more than ritual—it is testimony. It declares that even amid bloodshed and terror, Jewish life and devotion persist. The juxtaposition could not be starker: violence meant to silence, answered by whispered prayers rising steadfastly into the air. In that moment, the man's prayer becomes not only personal but communal—a living memorial to those wounded, a quiet resistance to hatred, and an affirmation that the Jewish people will not be broken, even when our holiest day is desecrated by those who seek our destruction.
But this image of solitary defiance — powerful as it is — cannot obscure the larger reality of how Britain arrived at this moment. The attack was not random. The threat was not unpredictable. What happened in Manchester is the visible manifestation of a deeper institutional rot, one that has metastasized quietly through the very structures meant to protect public safety and civic life. When synagogues must close on Yom Kippur, when armed police shoot suicide bombers on British streets, when Jewish prayer becomes an act of physical courage — we are witnessing not just terrorism but systemic failure. And the evidence of that failure is not hidden. It is on display in the institutions themselves.
Some would say Britain today finds itself somewhere between a caliphate and Nazi Germany, and all because of radical Islamists who have embedded themselves into the very heart of its institutions—including the **National Health Service**. The mask slipped when Dr. Said Masih Noori, a physician employed in the UK, openly declared: *"I am a Muslim. Daily, I treat Jews, and I have taken a Hippocratic oath that outlines my responsibilities… However, I must admit that if I had the power, I would vanish every Jew."* That such a statement can be uttered by a medical professional, sworn to heal without prejudice, underscores the magnitude of the crisis. This is not the rhetoric of an outlier; it is the echo of an ideology that has fused Islamist radicalism with genocidal antisemitism.
The Manchester synagogue attack cannot be viewed in isolation; it is part of a larger and more dangerous pattern—a *global intifada* that radical Islamist voices have openly called for. The chilling reality is that this ideology is not only present on the streets but has infiltrated the very institutions meant to safeguard public life. When a British doctor, entrusted with saving lives, can publicly boast that if given the power he would "vanish every Jew," it lays bare the depth of hatred that has metastasized into the professional and civic fabric of the UK. Such rhetoric reveals the ideological rot: antisemitism dressed in the veneer of respectability, normalized under the protection of democratic freedoms that it seeks to destroy.
Even more alarming is when individuals with histories of championing radical causes ascend to positions of power. Shabana Mahmood, now the UK's Home Secretary with authority over immigration, visas, and borders, was filmed at a rally calling to "globalize the intifada." The convergence of such voices in both governance and public service exposes how extremism is no longer confined to the margins. It has seeped into mainstream structures, emboldening violence like that seen in Manchester. The attack on Yom Kippur was not just an isolated act of terror; it was the bloody punctuation of a movement that has declared its intent to extend the intifada worldwide, threatening the security of Jewish communities and the integrity of Western societies alike.
This incident reminds me of a haunting story told by veteran foreign correspondent and television anchor **Leland Vittert** — a stark, on-the-ground vignette that illuminates the mental mechanics of the global intifada. Vittert, who reported for Fox and other outlets from Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories, recounts an encounter with a young Gazan woman who had survived catastrophic burns after an early childhood accident and was subsequently treated in Israeli hospitals. Having received life-saving care, education, and the prospect of a different future, she nonetheless returned to Gaza and was recruited as a suicide operative. Video from her checkpoint attempt shows her arriving in a vest with multiple targets pre-selected by her handlers; when the device failed to detonate she was detained, treated again, and ultimately interviewed by Vittert.
What Vittert describes is chilling in its moral clarity: confronted with the footage and the kindness she had received, the woman did not repent — she said she had "almost tasted Paradise" and that, if given the chance, she would do it again. Her explanation was absolute and categorical: those she intended to kill were *infidels*, *evil*, *the enemy*. Vittert's conclusion — that this was not a grievance that would be mollified by charity or medical care, but a theology of annihilation — crystallizes the interior logic driving jihadist violence. The story exposes three cognitive pillars of that logic: **sacralized martyrdom** (suicide framed as transcendent reward), **totalizing dehumanization** (the enemy stripped of moral worth), and **strategic symbolic targeting** (choosing sites — even hospitals — that maximize psychological terror). Read through that lens, the Manchester attack is not a lone outburst of criminality but part of an ideological campaign in which rage, ritualized violence, and a theological narrative of purification converge to justify atrocities against civilians.
This is the logic we must interrogate — a transnational jihadist mindset that sacralizes murder, dehumanizes entire populations, and weaponizes victimhood into a global campaign; having seen its moral calculus up close in Gaza and on the streets of Manchester, the question becomes not only who our enemy is but how the world chooses to judge the defense mounted against it — a question that Scott Galloway later frames with brutal clarity.
Scott Galloway — professor at NYU Stern School of Business and a frequent commentator on geopolitics and media — offered a blunt formulation of the asymmetries at play. Paraphrased here, he said:
> "2,200 American servicemen were killed at Pearl Harbor. We went on to kill three and a half million Japanese, including one hundred thousand in one night. Two thousand eight hundred Americans died on 9/11. After 9/11, we went on to kill 400,000 people in Afghanistan and Iraq. We were not accused of genocide.
>
> If Mexico had elected a jihadist cartel to run their country and they invaded Texas and, on a per-capita basis, killed 35,000 people — the population of the University of Texas — and on the way back took a freshman class hostage and hid them under tunnels, what would we do? It'd be the Great Sonoran radioactive parking lot.
>
> Yet Jews are not allowed to prosecute a war the way others have been allowed. Israel is not allowed to prosecute a war; instead it is constrained, and criticized, even as it prosecutes that war more humanely than many. The ratio of combatant to civilian deaths is lower than it was in Mosul, lower than it was in Japan, lower than it was in Germany. There is a different standard for Jews and Israel: they are allowed to be attacked, but unlike America or other Western nations that have been attacked this viciously, they are not allowed to win a war. It's a double standard."
>
> — **Scott Galloway, NYU Stern**
Put plainly, Galloway's narrative — shocking in its rhetorical violence but clarifying in its logic — is meant to expose an asymmetry in global moral accounting. The preposterousness he highlights is twofold. First, the claim that Israel is committing "genocide" against an adversary that has initiated widespread attacks reverses agency and collapses a defensive response into an act of criminal intent. Second, the international script that adjudicates proportionality and legitimacy is applied unevenly: historical examples show major powers acting with far greater lethality and far fewer sustained accusations of genocidal intent when responding to mass attacks on their citizens.
This asymmetry—the double standard Galloway exposes—is not merely a matter of rhetorical unfairness or media bias. It reveals something deeper about the nature of the threat we face and why Western responses have been systematically weakened. When we examine the broader pattern, three critical points emerge from this analysis. First: **this is America's enemy too** — the jihadist ideology that sacralizes murder, that dehumanizes civilians, and that seeks globalizing campaigns of terror is not confined to one region; it threatens Western capitals and societies. Second: **Israel is fighting that enemy under extraordinary constraints** — legal scrutiny, global media pressure, diplomatic limitations, and asymmetric rules of engagement constrain its operational latitude in ways other states have not experienced in comparable conflicts. Third: **the "genocide" narrative is weaponized** — it functions as a political cudgel that both delegitimizes legitimate self-defense and narrows the room for effective, proportionate military and political responses. This dynamic helps explain why attacks like Manchester are not isolated outbursts but elements of a broader, ideologically driven campaign that aims to stretch, silence, and ultimately delegitimize Jewish self-defense on the world stage.
And now, with grim immediacy, we return to the present. The attack in Manchester is not an abstraction but the lived consequence of the very ideology we have been tracing — the globalized intifada. On Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, a terrorist armed with a knife and what appeared to be a suicide belt struck outside a synagogue, stabbing an elderly Jewish man before being shot by police. Worshippers were forced to abandon their sacred services as synagogues across the city shuttered under emergency order.
The scene is almost unbearable in its symbolism: blood staining the entryway to a house of prayer, police shouting warnings to retreat as the suspect was cornered, and congregants robbed of their holiest observance. As one commentator put it, *"That's what globalize the intifada means."* It is the translation of an ideology into carnage on the streets of Europe. And it is a warning. Every act of appeasement, every government that capitulates to radical Islamist narratives, every indulgence of antisemitic incitement cloaked in political rhetoric, only feeds the cycle. Weakness is not met with peace, but with more violence.
This is the reality Jews now face not only in Israel, but in London, Paris, Manchester, and beyond — a coordinated ideological war that seeks to make every synagogue, every prayer, and every Jewish life a target. And in this, Israel is not alone. This is not only Israel's fight. It is the West's fight.
Is it possible that *Project 2025* has been designed as a kind of institutional "immune response" — not only to progressive cultural trends inside America, but also to the global intifada of radical Islamist hatred that seeks to destabilize the West? Is it possible that the Heritage Foundation's blueprint, with its emphasis on infusing government with biblical principles, centralizing executive power, and remaking immigration policy, represents a Christian-political defense mechanism against an ideology that proclaims *"convert or die"* and targets Jews and the broader West as infidels?
Is it possible that Charlie Kirk's mobilization of young Christians, Donald Trump's alignment with Christian-nationalist policy directions, and the codified framework of Project 2025 together form an emergent immune system — a civilizational countermeasure to the jihadist doctrine of extermination? Is the double standard that demands Israel absorb attacks without victory part of the same existential crisis facing the Jewish diaspora worldwide, now intersecting with America's own fight for survival? And finally — is this moment, with Manchester's blood still fresh, the point at which the West must decide whether to mount a coordinated immune response or succumb to the very ideology that declares it evil, the enemy, and marked for destruction?
## **The Uncomfortable Alliance: When Civilization's Defense Comes from Unexpected Quarters**
Before answering these questions definitively, I need to be transparent about my own position — because many who follow my work have expressed confusion. They see someone who has built platforms around science, technology, and human potential supporting Israel and Netanyahu, yet maintaining distance from certain aspects of contemporary American conservatism. Let me clarify.
I am not animated by religious fundamentalism. My intellectual foundation lies in what I call **programmable sovereignty** — the idea that governance itself can be reimagined through technological innovation, competitive systems, and emergent frameworks that optimize for human flourishing. This encompasses the charter cities movement, Trump's "Freedom Cities" proposal, and what Thiel's ecosystem calls "competitive governance" — treating traditional nation-states as legacy systems ripe for reimagining. What binds Israel and America, in my view, is not only ancient texts but **shared technological excellence, innovation ecosystems, and forward-oriented values**. In an ideal world, the primary force countering jihadist ideology would be science, rational discourse, and universal literacy — not religious revival of any kind.
Yet we must reckon with an uncomfortable empirical reality: **at this precise moment in history, the most organized institutional response to radical Islamist expansion and resurgent antisemitism is coming from frameworks that don't align perfectly with my preferred philosophical toolkit.** Project 2025, Christian mobilization efforts, and immigration policy hardening represent something I wouldn't have designed from first principles. But here's what matters: when democratic institutions and secular progressive movements fail to mount coherent defense against an ideology that explicitly calls for civilizational annihilation, *something* fills that vacuum.
This is not about embracing every element of that response. It's about recognizing functional realities. When NHS doctors openly declare genocidal intent toward Jews, when government officials call to "globalize the intifada," when synagogues must cancel Yom Kippur services because the threat is immediate and lethal — the question shifts from *should* we respond to *how*. If scientific institutions, liberal intelligentsia, and secular progressive frameworks had mounted unwavering defense of Enlightenment values and Jewish life, perhaps we'd be having a different conversation. But they didn't. They equivocated. They relativized. And in many cases, they collaborated with the very forces now attacking synagogues in European capitals.
**So we find ourselves evaluating imperfect options.** Project 2025, whatever its theological elements or structural approaches, represents an *immune response* — perhaps imperfect, perhaps overreaching in places, but functionally oriented toward civilizational survival. The Heritage Foundation's blueprint, border security intensification, civic mobilization efforts — these aren't necessarily my first-choice tools. I would prefer defense mechanisms rooted in **computational governance, AI-informed threat assessment, science-literate discourse about ideology and violence, and the kind of competitive governance models** that Thiel and others have pioneered in charter cities and technological innovation zones.
Yet we must engage with empirical realities rather than preferred abstractions. Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA and affiliated platforms have achieved what many dismissed as impossible: the first episode of The Charlie Kirk Show featuring Chris Daughtry and Erika Kirk crossed **1 billion views** — a feat never before accomplished in digital broadcasting. What began as campus activism has become a movement with global reach. You may not admire every aspect of this mobilization, but ignoring billion-view movements is how civilizations lose. The numbers demand engagement with reality: this isn't fringe rhetoric confined to ideological margins — this is **mass mobilization** achieving reach that rivals or exceeds traditional institutions.
The immune response we're discussing isn't theoretical speculation. It's operational, scaling, and demonstrably reaching populations across generations. Whether one agrees with every tactical choice, the functional reality remains: when existential threats emerge and established institutions fail to mount coherent defense, alternative frameworks will organize — and when they achieve billion-view reach, they've transcended the category of "fringe movement" and entered the realm of civilizational force. Critics who dismissed this as irrelevant noise have been proven wrong by observable metrics.
But theoretical preferences don't intercept suicide belts. When one side declares extermination as divine mandate and the other responds with academic seminars and land acknowledgments, the jihadist doesn't pause to appreciate our nuance. He strikes. He kills. He declares victory.
This is why I stand firmly with Israel and Netanyahu while maintaining intellectual independence on American political alignments. Israel embodies principles I deeply believe in: **technological supremacy, operational excellence, rational self-defense, and the refusal to subordinate survival to performative diplomacy.** Netanyahu, whatever his domestic political complexities, understands that existential threats require existential responses. The strategic frameworks for defeating Hamas and securing Israeli sovereignty represent outcome-oriented governance — the kind I respect regardless of which administration implements them.
**The honest position for someone committed to science, technology, and human potential is this:** we don't have to love every aspect of the forces currently defending Western civilization to recognize that they're the ones who showed up. The jihadist ideology manifesting in Manchester doesn't care about our philosophical commitments to secular rationalism or our preferred governance models. It cares about conquest. And when the alternative is civilizational capitulation to forces that view pluralism as blasphemy and coexistence as weakness, even imperfect immune responses become necessary.
I'm not asking anyone to abandon their values or embrace frameworks they find unsuitable. I'm asking them to see the strategic landscape clearly. The long-term goal remains building **rational, science-driven, technologically superior alternatives** for civilizational defense. But until that infrastructure exists and functions at scale, we must work with the immune systems that actually mobilized to confront the threat. This isn't idealism — it's survival calculus. And survival, as Israel has demonstrated across decades of existential pressure, requires making strategic choices between imperfect allies and existential enemies.
The convergence we're witnessing — between traditional religious frameworks and technological modernity, between constitutional governance and emergency response, between pluralistic values and civilizational self-defense — may not be elegant. But it's real. And it's necessary.
## **The Civilizational Reckoning**
With that context established, we can now answer those questions with clarity. Yes — the alignment is unmistakable, and it crystallizes around what can only be described as a **Clash of Civilizations**. The global intifada of radical Islamists, preaching *"convert or die"* and sanctifying the slaughter of Jews and Westerners as divine mandate, represents not a localized insurgency but an existential campaign. Its logic is absolute: there is no co-existence, no compromise, only annihilation or submission. Against this, Israel stands on the front lines, not merely defending its own citizens but carrying the burden of Western civilization's survival.
And here is where *Project 2025*, Trump-aligned policies, and the cultural mobilization energized by figures like Charlie Kirk intersect. Whether by intent or by instinct, they function as an **immune response** to the ideological pathogen of jihadism and antisemitism. The language of Project 2025 is steeped in Christian-nationalist framing — a return to biblical principles, the reassertion of Judeo-Christian identity in governance, the hardening of immigration and security policy. While critics decry it as authoritarian or exclusionary, its adherents see it as the reawakening of the West's immune system against forces that have declared war on its very existence.
The double standards at play underscore the existential crisis. When America responds to Pearl Harbor or 9/11, it does so with overwhelming force, killing millions in Japan and hundreds of thousands in the Middle East — and yet it is not accused of genocide. Israel, however, when it fights back after massacres of its citizens, is uniquely branded as genocidal. This inversion is not accidental. It is a weapon of narrative warfare designed to weaken Israel, to delegitimize its defense, and to fracture Western solidarity.
Thus, the crisis is not only military or political, but civilizational. It is about whether the Judeo-Christian West retains the will to defend itself against an ideology that openly proclaims its intent to erase it. It is about whether the Jewish diaspora, once again caught at the fault line of history, will be defended or abandoned. And it is about whether America and its allies will recognize that Israel's war is also their war — that the survival of Jewish life, Western liberty, and the moral order of civilization itself are bound together in this conflict.
In this light, the Manchester attack is not an isolated tragedy. It is a microcosm of the greater struggle: synagogues shuttered in fear, blood on holy ground, police facing down a would-be suicide bomber, and the world debating whether Jews even have the right to defend themselves. The immune response must be equal to the existential threat — or the pathogen will spread unchecked. The question is no longer *if* the West is in a civilizational clash, but whether it has the resolve to survive it.
**But make no mistake: this is not a distant horror confined to European streets or Middle Eastern battlegrounds. This ideology—this theology of annihilation—is already here, metastasizing in American soil.** To believe we are somehow immune, insulated by oceans or exceptionalism, is to indulge in the most dangerous form of denial. The same radical Islamist networks that call for globalizing the intifada do not recognize borders; they recognize only targets. American synagogues, American Jews, American communities—these are not abstractions on some future battlefield. They are present realities, vulnerable nodes in a campaign that has already demonstrated its reach from Paris to Pittsburgh, from London to Los Angeles. The infrastructure of hatred does not announce its arrival with fanfare; it embeds quietly, infiltrates patiently, and strikes suddenly. Those who dismiss the Manchester attack as "their problem" fundamentally misunderstand the nature of ideological warfare: **there is no "over there" when the enemy's stated objective is civilizational conquest.** The blood spilled on Yom Kippur in Manchester is a warning written in the universal language of violence—a language that knows no translation barrier, no customs checkpoint, no safe distance. America is not watching this unfold from the sidelines. America is already in the arena.
## **Brooklyn's Swastikas: When Hatred Invades the Sacred**
This reality touches even those closest and dearest to me — my friends, family, those most sacred — and in places as insular and historically protected as **Brooklyn**. Just last week, in the very heart of Jewish Brooklyn, a stark reminder emerged that the ideology we've been tracing is not abstract theory but lived experience on American streets.
Every weekend, my friend walks her son to synagogue in what is considered one of the "safest" areas of Brooklyn for Jews. The streets are lined with synagogues, kosher bakeries, and bookstores. The sidewalks echo with children's laughter, the hum of Yiddish and Hebrew, and the rhythm of prayers woven into daily life. Here, people live with authenticity, connected to their roots in ways both tender and unshakable. This simple ritual — step after step — binds generations together.
Her son, who outwardly appears ultra-Orthodox with his tzitzit swinging as he walks, is one of the kindest souls you could meet. But it's more than simple kindness. He goes out of his way to show warmth and generosity to anyone who crosses his path, regardless of religion, race, or background. Innocence radiates from him, not as naiveté but as a deep openness to the humanity of others. Though he may have heard stories of the Holocaust or the blood libels, to him they are tales of bygone eras, shadowed chapters of history that no longer belong to his world. To him, walking to synagogue is joy, safety, and belonging.
And yet this past Shabbat, as they walked, they stumbled upon two swastikas: one large, spray-painted across the sidewalk, and another on a barricade in the road.
My friend froze inside. She caught the look on her son's innocent face while trying to mask the storm of emotions on her own. In that moment, hatred invaded their sacred ritual. A simple act — a mother walking her child to pray — collided with the ugliest reminder that the stories he thinks of as "long ago" are not as distant as they seem.
**The paradox is cruel: in the very heart of Jewish Brooklyn, in the very place meant to feel safest, antisemitism carved itself into the pavement.** What her son had filed away as history reemerged before his eyes, fresh and undeniable. This is not Manchester. This is not Paris. This is **Brooklyn** — where Jewish life has thrived for generations, where synagogues dot every block, where one should be able to walk to Shabbat services without confronting symbols of genocidal hatred spray-painted at children's eye level.
On a personal level, the heartbreak is profound. She wants her son to grow up proud, not fearful. She wants him to feel synagogue is a sanctuary, not a target. She wants his innocence — his willingness to meet every person with kindness — to stretch as far as possible before the world imposes its shadows. Watching someone you care deeply about navigate this violation — the moment when a mother must mask her horror to protect her child's sense of safety — cuts to the bone.
But on a civilizational scale, this moment is a warning. **Antisemitism is not confined to history books, nor to violent events far away. It is here** — on sidewalks where Jewish children walk, in neighborhoods where Judaism thrives, in places where one should feel safest. The stories of "bygone eras" are finding ways to write themselves back into the present, and they are doing so in **Brooklyn**, in the heart of America's largest Jewish community.
When hatred infiltrates spaces of innocence, it seeks to fracture more than walls and pavement; it seeks to fracture the human spirit. But what those who scrawl swastikas fail to understand is this: every time Jewish families walk forward — every time they choose prayer over fear, kindness over hate, continuity over erasure — they are undoing hatred's work. That walk, even shadowed by swastikas, becomes a vow: **we will not stop walking. We will not stop living our Jewish truth.** And as long as families keep stepping forward, hand in hand, they transform symbols of hate into reminders of resilience — both personal and civilizational.
This is what "globalize the intifada" means on American streets. This is what happens when civilizations fail to mount adequate immune responses to ideological pathogens. This is why the Manchester attack, the NHS doctor's genocidal admission, and the swastikas in Brooklyn are not separate incidents but **interconnected manifestations of the same transnational campaign**. And this is why the question is no longer whether the threat exists, but whether the West — and America specifically — has the resolve to recognize it, name it, and respond with the civilizational seriousness it demands.
My friend and her son will walk to synagogue again next Shabbat. I walk with them — in spirit and in reality. The swastikas may be painted over, or new ones may appear. But the walk continues. These are the civilizational and personal choices we are confronted with: to retreat into fear or to advance into faith, to allow hatred to fracture community or to insist on continuity despite it. Because that is what survival looks like — not the absence of threat, but the refusal to be paralyzed by it. Not the erasure of hatred, but the determination to live fully despite it. Not surrender to those who seek our destruction, but the stubborn insistence that Jewish life — in Manchester, in Brooklyn, in every corner of the diaspora — will not be extinguished.
## **The Choice Before Us: Information War Meets Human Reality**
The swastikas in Brooklyn prove the pathogen is not contained. It spreads not only through violent actors but through **information warfare** that has convinced millions of well-meaning people that the greatest threat to peace is not jihadist ideology but Jewish self-defense. Manchester's blood and Brooklyn's spray paint are connected by something more insidious than coordination: a **global narrative infrastructure** that reframes every act of Jewish survival as aggression, every defensive response as genocide, every assertion of the right to exist as colonialism.
Consider the cognitive dissonance: you can watch TikTok videos proclaiming "Free Palestine" that rack up millions of views, algorithmically boosted by platforms optimizing for engagement. You can see university campuses erupt in coordinated protests demanding divestment from Israel. You can scroll through Instagram infographics reducing 4,000 years of Jewish history to a simplistic oppressor-oppressed binary, wrapped in the aesthetic of social justice and progressive solidarity. This is the **information war** — slickly produced, emotionally manipulative, and devastatingly effective at converting legitimate concern for Palestinian suffering into fuel for a movement that, whether intentionally or not, aligns with the very ideology that puts knives to Jewish throats and spray paints swastikas where children walk.
Then you can read the story we just told. A mother and her son. A weekly walk to pray. Two swastikas on the pavement. A child's innocence confronting history that isn't supposed to be here anymore but is. **This is not propaganda. This is not narrative warfare. This is human reality** — the kind that doesn't fit into infographics, doesn't go viral on TikTok, doesn't get algorithmic amplification because it's too specific, too Jewish, too uncomfortable for those who've convinced themselves they're on the side of justice.
The "Free Palestine" movement asks: *What will you do for Palestinian liberation?* But it rarely asks the follow-up question: **What are you doing about the ideology that declares Jewish extermination a religious duty?** What are you doing about the NHS doctors who openly fantasize about vanishing every Jew? What are you doing about the government officials calling to globalize the intifada? What are you doing about the swastikas in Brooklyn, the blood in Manchester, the synagogues that must close on Yom Kippur because the threat is immediate and real?
If your answer is "that's terrible, but Israel's response is disproportionate" — you've missed the point entirely. You've allowed the information war to so thoroughly colonize your moral imagination that you can witness genocidal intent, see it manifested in violence from Gaza to London to Brooklyn, and still conclude that the problem is Jewish self-defense rather than the theology of annihilation driving the attacks.
**This is the choice before us:** Do we engage with human reality, or do we remain captured by information warfare that has convinced us to invert victim and aggressor? Do we recognize that a mother unable to walk her son to synagogue without confronting swastikas is not a metaphor but a **civilizational symptom**? Do we understand that the Manchester attack, the Brooklyn hatred, and the "globalize the intifada" chants are not separate phenomena but **coordinated expressions of an ideology that will not be satisfied by Israeli concessions, will not be mollified by territorial compromise, and will not stop until its theological mandate is fulfilled**?
The immune response we've discussed — imperfect as it is, uncomfortable as some find it — exists because **someone recognized the pathogen and mobilized**. The billion views Charlie Kirk's platforms achieve exist because millions of people are desperate for frameworks that don't gaslight them into thinking the threat isn't real. The Project 2025 infrastructure exists because **failure to defend produces consequences**, and those consequences eventually force response.
You may not like the aesthetics of that response. You may prefer it came from scientific institutions, progressive movements, or secular frameworks rather than Christian nationalism and MAGA mobilization. But preferences such as these are luxuries In a time like this. My friend walks her son to synagogue past swastikas. The Jewish man in Manchester prayed in his tallit amid police lights and blood. An elderly Jewish man lay in a pool of his own blood after being stabbed in a terror attack in Manchester just as he was about to enter his synagogue on Yom Kippur. **That's what "globalize the intifada" means.** These are not abstract policy debates — they are the lived realities of people navigating a world where "Free Palestine" has become cover for "exterminate the Jews," whether those chanting it understand that or not.
So here is the question for you, the reader: **What will YOU do?**
Will you continue scrolling past slickly produced propaganda that tells you Israel is the villain while ignoring the ideology openly calling for Jewish annihilation? Will you maintain the comfortable belief that this is a conflict between equals rather than a civilizational clash between those who sacralize murder and those defending the right to exist? Will you dismiss the swastikas in Brooklyn as isolated incidents unconnected to the "globalize the intifada" movement you've been told represents justice?
Or will you **engage with the human reality** we've laid before you? Will you recognize that when a mother cannot walk her child to pray without confronting symbols of genocidal hatred, something has gone catastrophically wrong with our civilization's immune system? Will you acknowledge that the information war has been so successful that millions now reflexively side with an ideology that would execute them too, given the chance, simply because it has successfully branded itself as liberation rather than extermination?
**Every walk to synagogue becomes an act of civilizational defiance.** Every refusal to retreat becomes a vote for survival. Every moment we choose human reality over algorithmic propaganda becomes a small victory against the forces seeking to erase Jewish life from the earth. The question is no longer whether the threat exists — Manchester's blood and Brooklyn's swastikas have settled that debate. The question is whether the West, and America specifically, has the moral clarity to see what's happening, the courage to name it without euphemism, and the resolve to defend civilization against an ideology that seeks its annihilation.
My friend will walk her son to synagogue again next Shabbat. I walk with them — in spirit and in reality. This is the choice we are all confronted with: to stand with those who insist on living, praying, and existing despite the hatred, or to acquiesce to the information war and to hatred that would convince us the real problem is their refusal to disappear quietly.
The swastikas are still there on the pavement. The blood today was real on the synagogue steps. The only question is whether we're willing to see them for what they are.
Are you willing?
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-2345-5390
Posts
0 Comments