Showing posts sorted by date for query NAZI. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query NAZI. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

‘Hateful, Bigoted’ Chip Roy Introduces MAMDANI Act in Congress

“Blatant Islamophobia aside, Roy’s staff probably wasted days trying to land this acronym,” said one observer.



Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) speaks at a House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 4, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Apr 20, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Journalists and rights advocates reacted on Monday with a mix of bemusement and anger over US Rep. Chip Roy’s display of “blatant Islamophobia” as the Texas Republican introduced a bill that appeared as intent on personally targeting New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani as it was on unconstitutionally expelling immigrants from the US over certain political and religious views.

“Blatant Islamophobia aside, Roy’s staff probably wasted days trying to land this acronym,” said Ravi Mangla, press secretary for the Working Families Party, after Roy unveiled the Measures Against Marxism’s Dangerous Adherents and Noxious Islamists (MAMDANI) Act.

According to Roy, the legislation would enact “sweeping” changes to US immigration law that would deport, denaturalize, and deny US citizenship or entry to any immigrant “who is a member of a socialist party, a communist party, the Chinese Communist Party, or Islamic fundamentalist party, or advocates for socialism, communism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism.”



The bill was introduced nearly four months after Mamdani was sworn in to office. Roy had suggested that the political rise of the democratic socialist, who is a Muslim immigrant from Uganda, risked bringing what he believes to be “Sharia law”—actually a broadly defined set of personal theological and ethical guidelines rather than a national law—to the US.

In reality, Mamdani has taken steps toward enacting a universal childcare program, opening a network of city-owned grocery stores to compete with corporations, and convincing the state to tax the second homes of wealthy New Yorkers.

The legislation introduced Monday comes days after a Washington Post analysis found that Roy has been particularly fixated on promoting the view that allowing Muslims to immigrate to the US and practice their religion—in accordance with the US Constitution—will harm the nation.

Including one recent post that explicitly said, “No more Muslims,” Roy has posted from his campaign and official accounts about Muslims, Islam, and “Sharia law” more than 244 times since January—more than any other member of Congress, including Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who has faced called to resign for numerous anti-Muslim comments that have attacked public figures like Rep. Ilham Omar (D-Minn.).

The Council on American Islamic Relations said in a report last month that last year, it received 8,683 complaints from people facing anti-Muslim bias or attacks—the highest number of complaints in a single year since the group began compiling civil rights reports in 1996. Employment discrimination was the most common complaint, with immigration and asylum discrimination and hate incidents rounding out the top three.



Gun control and human rights advocate Cameron Kasky said that “many moderate Democrats and the mainstream media have played a pivotal role in normalizing this dangerous, escalatory Islamophobia.”

A number of influential establishment Democrats suggested Mamdani’s victory in the mayoral race last year could endanger Jewish New Yorkers, and refused to endorse him. Party leaders also continue to support arming Israel—which has spent the last two-and-a-half years attacking Palestinians in Gaza and has now returned to assaulting Lebanon—claiming the Israeli government needs US weapons to defend itself against other countries and groups in majority-Muslim countries in the Middle East.

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) warned that while Roy’s bill targets socialists and Muslims whom the congressman says subscribe to “fundamentalism,” the party will likely “expand their list of targets—little by little, hoping you do not notice—until their is no one left to stand against their agenda.”

Fascism,” she said, “ALWAYS requires a public enemy.”

Named for Mamdani, GOP Bill Would Strip Citizenship From People Who Advocate for Socialism

History tells us, over and over again, that once you give the government the power to disappear people for what they read, write, believe, or advocate that power never stays trained just on the original targets.



US Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Rep. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) participate in a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on April 01, 2025 in Washington, DC. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet and the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government held a joint hearing to investigate judicial overreach and limits on federal courts.
(Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)


Thom Hartmann
Apr 21, 2026
Common Dreams


Republicans are at it again, and it’s hard to overstate how chilling this is and what it tells you about the direction people in this Party want to take America.

Texas Congressman Chip Roy is preparing to introduce legislation he’s calling the “MAMDANI Act,” named after Zohran Mamdani, the recently elected democratic socialist mayor of New York City, that would let the federal government bar entry to, deport, and strip naturalized citizenship from any person who advocates for or is “affiliated with” what Roy calls “totalitarian” movements. The list includes, from Rep. Roy’s webpage:
“[A] socialist party, a communist party, the Chinese Communist Party, or Islamic fundamentalist party, or advocates for socialism, communism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism.”

The bill targets people who “write, distribute, circulate, print, display, possess, or publish” material supporting socialism or any of those other ideas.

“Possess?” That single word means that owning a copy of Marx’s Das Kapital, or a pamphlet from a Palestinian solidarity group, or a battered paperback of Howard Zinn — or maybe even one of my books on the New Deal — would be enough to make a green-card holder or a naturalized citizen “inadmissible or deportable.”

“Affiliated with?” That would prevent anybody who’s ever affiliated themselves with the Democratic Socialist Party in New York that Mamdami ran on behalf of (along with the normal Democratic Party; New York has fusion voting so you can run on two parties simultaneously) from staying in America. Gone to a meeting, rally, or put yourself on their mailing list? You’re toast.

“Write?” That means they’re coming for me, and for you if you’ve ever echoed in writing the kind of sentiments that Republicans call socialism, including food stamps and school lunches, free college, public libraries, a national healthcare system, police and fire, and highways that don’t have tolls. (When billionaire David Koch ran for vice president in 1980 on an antisocialism agenda, he called for the end of all these forms of “socialism”.)

“Distribute?” And they’d be coming for Substack, too, it appears. Along with your local bookstore or library.

We haven’t seen anything this sweeping since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, when then-President John Adams had roughly 30 newspaper editors and publishers thrown in prison for attacking him. Ben Franklin’s grandson was arrested for publishing an op-ed calling the president “old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, Toothless Adams.” A town drunk in New Jersey was arrested for criticizing him while imbibing in a bar. Adams’ overreach lost him the election of 1800 to his then-political enemy Thomas Jefferson, who openly opposed the Acts.

But here we are again, and here’s another dangerous overreach on the GOP’s part in this legislation: Roy’s bill explicitly forbids judicial review of any inadmissibility, deportation, or denaturalization decision made under it.

In other words, if this law passes then no court can stop or second-guess the government: no habeas corpus, no meaningful appeals; just an order from the Attorney General or some twit at ICE or Homeland Security and you’re on a plane or stuck in a hellhole “detention facility,” possibly for the rest of your life.

That’s not immigration policy, that’s the architecture of a police state, and it’s modeled on how the Nazis stripped citizenship from German Jews and political dissidents in 1935 under the Reich Citizenship Laws.

I’ve walked through Berlin’s Topography of Terror museum, and the documents on display tell the horrific story of how that the lawyers who drafted those Nazi laws studied America’s own racial and political exclusion laws for inspiration.

Now Republican Chip Roy wants to bring them back to America as Republicans try to reinvent or country in the image of Trump’s mentor Putin’s Russia or — as the authors of Project 2025 openly suggest — Orbán’s Hungary.

The bill’s namesake, Mayor Mamdani, became a U.S. citizen in 2018 after moving here from Uganda as a child. He hasn’t been credibly accused of any crime, and as the Brennan Center for Justice meticulously documents, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the use of stripping people of their citizenship as a political weapon like Putin now routinely does and Trump loves to threaten.

That goes all the way back to trying to overturning the 1943 Schneiderman Supreme Court ruling, which held the government must prove “lack of attachment” to the Constitution by “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence. Disagreeing with someone’s politics doesn’t cut it by a long shot. But Roy and his allies aren’t interested in the existing jurisprudence; they want to write new laws that nullify that decision (and common decency) altogether.

Roy told Breitbart his target is what he calls a “Red-Green Alliance” of socialists and Islamists, and a summary from his office goes further, claiming current immigration policies — echoing clearance Thomas’s recent speech that I wrote about yesterday — have produced “dangerous levels of opposition to classical American political doctrines, like free-market capitalism.”

That’s an extraordinary admission, because Roy isn’t proposing to deport people who commit crimes, or who support terrorism, or even who lied on their citizenship applications. He wants, instead, to strip of citizenship and then deport people who don’t sufficiently believe in the unregulated, low-tax version of the so-called free market capitalism advocated by the rightwing billionaires who now own the GOP.

This is a loyalty test for an ideology rather than a country, and, as I lay out in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, it’s the kind of legislation the robber barons of the 1920s and the John Birchers and McCarthy movement of the 1950s dreamed of but could never ram through Congress and neither Taft nor Eisenhower would ever have signed.

We’ve actually run a smaller, more local version of this experiment before, and it ended in disgrace. The Palmer Raids of 1919 and 1920 saw roughly 10,000 immigrants rounded up without warrants and 556 of them deported, including the anarchist Emma Goldman, all for the crime of holding the wrong politics.

The Communist Control Act of 1954 put into law by Republicans at the height of McCarthyism, was eventually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1973 and most of its provisions repealed. Each time we’ve tried this sort of neofascist thing the country looked back in shame, having relearned that the First Amendment doesn’t have an exception for people who say we should tax the morbidly rich to build and support a middle class.

History tells us, over and over again, that once you give the government the power to disappear people for what they read, write, believe, or advocate that power never stays trained just on the original targets.

There are nearly 25 million naturalized citizens and 12.8 million green-card holders living in the United States today, and every single one of them would, under Roy’s bill, be subject to having their citizenship reviewed and potentially revoked based on some rightwinger complaining about them to a federal bureaucrat or police agency or the discovery of a book in their house.

It would threaten millions of legal permanent residents and visa holders working in our hospitals, building our houses, teaching our children, designing our electronics, and even farming our food. The fear alone is the point: if you’re a naturalized citizen or green-card or visa holder and you want to attend a Free Palestine rally, a labor union meeting, or a tenants’ rights organizing session, you’d now have to ask yourself whether some aide in Stephen Miller’s office might decide that constitutes “advocacy for socialism.”

And it’s one of dozens of similar laws that have been proposed by Republicans in recent years.

Presumably, this is the sort of thing that the billionaire who funded JD Vance’s rise to the Senate and vice presidency meant when he famously said, “I no longer believe freedom and democracy are compatible.” That’s the billionaire whose company now compiles information on Americans on behalf of the Trump regime.

Call your member of Congress through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you oppose the MAMDANI Act and any legislation that creates thought, publishing, and speech crimes, then use the ACLU’s action tool to make sure your senators hear from you, too.

Support the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has been on the front lines fighting Roy’s earlier “Sharia-Free America Act,” and back the American Immigration Council as it readies the inevitable legal challenges. Get involved with Indivisible and your local Democratic Party to make sure the 2026 midterms send Roy and every co-sponsor of this bill back home permanently.

The Constitution doesn’t defend itself and neither does freedom; that work belongs to us, and the time to engage with it is right now.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Thom Hartmann is a talk-show host and the author of "The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream" (2020); "The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America" (2019); and more than 25 other books in print.
Full Bio >





The Jingoist States of America: Our Cruel Mistreatment of Asylum Seekers

At such a moment in history, a movement that connects the dots between our many struggles is certainly the way forward. The plight of refugees—and how we treat them as a society—is a story that connects us all.


People from El Salvador and Honduras who are seeking asylum in the United States sit outside the El Chaparral border crossing in Tijuana, Mexico.

(Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

TomDispatch



In late March, I sat in the gallery of the Supreme Court for the first time in my life. Throughout my 30 years of grassroots anti-poverty work, I’ve joined countless protests and vigils outside the Court. In 2018, I was even arrested and held in detention for praying on its palatial steps. Now, I was seated with a clear view of the nine justices of the nation’s highest court. I was there as a guest of immigrant rights lawyers, as their team made oral arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the most significant case on the right to asylum in decades.

In February, the Kairos Center (the organization I direct) authored an interfaith amicus brief on that very case, alongside 31 denominations and organizations representing faith traditions practiced by billions worldwide. Those groups, including the Alliance of Baptists, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Hindus for Human Rights, the Latino Christian National Network, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reconstructing Judaism, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, and the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, joined together to declare that our societal obligation to provide for persecuted outsiders is a universally shared moral principle.

Although the case has largely flown under the public radar, there is indeed a lot at stake. Filed on behalf of asylum seekers, Noem v. Al Otro Lado focuses on the legality of a 2018 Trump border policy blocking access to the U.S. asylum process for people arriving at the border with Mexico. Immigrant rights advocates argue that such a turnback policy, under which immigration officers physically stop people seeking safety at official border crossings from setting foot on U.S. soil, flouts decades of settled federal immigration law and our society’s most deeply held legal and moral values.

For more than a century, the government has been required to undertake a legal process of inspection when people seek asylum at official ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border (as they must inspect all noncitizens seeking admission to the United States). That requirement is supposed to ensure that this country doesn’t send vulnerable people back into danger without first allowing them to seek protection. A wide range of immigration lawyers and legal experts argue that the first Trump administration’s turnback policy, euphemistically called “metering,” directly undermined the government’s responsibility to process such asylum claims. As a result, vulnerable children, families, and adults were regularly forced to remain indefinitely stranded in perilous conditions in Mexico.

Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared it unlawful, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the case. Should the government win (which is all too possible given the hyperpartisan nature of the current Court), the consequences are sure to be grave and far-reaching. The Department of Homeland Security would have the legal backing to turn away untold thousands of desperate people at the border, potentially clearing the way for even more expansive border closures, while further intensifying the jingoistic nationalism that defines the Trump administration. Alongside other landmark cases this term, like Trump v. Barboza, in which the government seeks to undo the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, the results of Noem v. Al Otro Lado are likely to reveal the lengths to which the Supreme Court is willing to backstop the president’s assault on democracy, including accelerated attacks on the rights of vulnerable populations.

The day I was there, the existential stakes of that case and the larger societal crisis in which it was unfolding did not seem to concern the court’s conservative justices. I had the words of George Washington (written in 1788 to the radical Dutch republican Francis Van der Kemp) in my mind as I sat in the gallery: “I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”

Unfortunately, having heard the statements and reactions of some of the judges, I fear that the majority of the Supreme Court may no longer agree with that foundational vision for this country.

Courtroom Friezes and Draconian Law


The first thing that struck me on entering the Supreme Court gallery were the stone friezes on the walls of the room. Designed by Adolf Weinman more than a century ago, those large marble reliefs, featuring what he called the “great lawgivers of history,” tower over the space. Among them are prominent religious figures like Moses (holding a scroll of the Ten Commandments), King Solomon, Confucius, and a rendition of the Prophet Muhammad (that is entirely unrecognizable). The friezes also include Roman Emperor Octavian (otherwise known as Caesar Augustus, Jesus’s great nemesis), French King Louis IX (leader of the seventh and eighth crusades), and Draco (a Greek jurist whose legacy lurks in the word “draconian” because of the extreme measures he took to punish minor offenses).

As I stared at those figures, I reflected on the message they convey about the complex civilizational lineages from which the Supreme Court and our legal system derive their authority. In our amicus brief, we reflected on those varied lineages as they pertain to the right to seek asylum:
“Our asylum laws are the modern embodiment of a deeply rooted religious, cultural, and historical heritage that has consistently affirmed society’s obligation to provide refuge for those seeking safety. Asylum reaches back to some of the earliest moments of recorded human history. It was practiced throughout the ancient civilizations that forged the foundation of Western society. This tradition can also be found in the form of church sanctuary asylum, a mainstay of European culture for over a millennium.

“Our very nation began as a haven for persecuted political and religious minorities. This tradition is present throughout our history, from the practices of Native Americans to the Underground Railroad to modern times. Congress adopted our current asylum laws in significant part due to the efforts of faith-based groups seeking to uphold deeply held societal, moral, and cultural principles.”

Despite such deeply held and ancient principles, I couldn’t shake a sense of impending doom as I scanned the faces on the friezes and those of the justices. I thought of the awesome and awful power of Rome, depicted throughout the gallery, and its draconian reign of “peace” (or what Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently termed “delivering peace through strength”). And I recalled the worsening anti-democratic and pro-oligarchic turn our own Supreme Court has taken in the Trump era.

Just consider the rulings from the past few years: the Court has essentially given immunity to the executive branch (although the Court is supposed to be a critical part of a federal system of checks and balances), criminalized homelessness (although the U.S. claims to be a nation of opportunity and prosperity for all), and degraded voting rights (cutting off the legs of our democracy).

Before oral arguments began in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, I was under no illusion that the Supreme Court delivers equality, freedom, and justice for all. And yet, on an issue as basic and legally sound as the right to seek asylum, I was still shocked by the flippancy of the court’s conservative judges. For hours, they rocked in their chairs, physically broadcasting their disinterest in the case. Rather than take seriously more than 100 years of legal precedent and hundreds more of long-established societal practice, they seemed to enjoy getting into hyper-specific and cherrypicked semantic and rhetorical arguments with Kelsi Brown Cochran, our lawyer.

In preparation for that day, I had brushed up on the history of U.S. asylum law. An important story in that history is the S.S. St. Louis, a ship that in 1939 was carrying 930 refugees from Hamburg, Germany, fleeing the Nazi regime, who were first denied entry to Cuba and then to the United States, only to be returned to Europe, where many of them were taken to the Nazi death camps.

Reflecting on that story at a pre-hearing press conference, Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, a plaintiff in the case, offered this explanation:
“The right to seek asylum is not a policy preference or a loophole — it is a legal right and a moral commitment forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Seeking asylum is not like taking a number at a deli counter and waiting for your turn. You cannot ask someone fleeing rape, torture, or death threats to wait in danger indefinitely because a government has decided their lives are inconvenient. We filed this case because the United States has an obligation to follow its own laws — laws duly enacted by Congress. The question before the Court is whether those laws can be set aside by executive action, or whether they remain binding at the border, as written.”

In their apparent willingness to flout precedent and condemn modern-day asylees to harm or even death, the conservative justices unselfconsciously aligned themselves with American nativism and European fascism of the 1930s. If, in their final decision, they uphold Trump’s turnback policy, they will be affirming that, were the S.S. St Louis to sail again today, the ship would still be denied entry and its passengers asylum.

The Moral Crisis Is Not “Border Surges” But the Closing of the Border

The morning of those oral arguments, the Kairos Center and other faith organizations held an interfaith prayer vigil on the steps of the Supreme Court to call attention to the case. Reverend Michael Neuroth, director of the United Church of Christ’s Washington D.C. office, put the matter vividly: “Welcoming and protecting the stranger is not a minor tenet of our faith but is a foundational moral obligation in each of our traditions. Dismantling the right to asylum is morally wrong, strategically short-sighted, and increases insecurity here in our nation. We must be a nation of compassion, a place of refuge to those in need.”

The vigil was organized in the heart of the “holy season” amid Ramadan, Passover, and Easter. As billions of people globally engage in rituals of remembrance, repentance, deliverance, and liberation, our prayers and petitions focused not only on the legal precedent for the right to seek asylum, but on the moral imperative to do so. For Christians, protecting and welcoming the immigrant is one of Jesus’s first and most powerful teachings. It’s also among the highest moral commands of the Torah. As the prophet Jeremiah reminds us, “Do no wrong to the foreigner and do not shed innocent blood.” Asylum and societal hospitality are well-recognized rights within Islamic law and theology, a fundamental Hindu and Buddhist tenet, and part of Native American spiritual teachings.

In our interfaith amicus brief, we wrote: “As the many faiths practiced by this country’s citizens teach, a society that does not protect the least among us is a failed society.” As faith leaders, we had in mind not only the right to seek asylum, but the many ways the Trump administration has deepened and intensified a moral crisis at the heart of our society. We were thinking about the ongoing attacks on immigrant communities — from ICE-led campaigns of terror to family and child detention in places like Dilley, Texas. There was also the stripping of life-saving healthcare and food support from millions of Americans through cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the criminalization and forced deprivation of LGBTQ+ people; and the prosecution of anillegal war that threatens the lives of so many in Iran and the broader region, as well as the livelihoods of billions of us across this globe.

In Noem v. Al Otro Lado, the Trump administration is attempting to mask its cruelty and despotism through banal legal arguments. By focusing semantically on when protections start for asylum seekers and debating the meaning of the term “arrives in” (as in this country, of course), its lawyers were ignoring the illegality and immorality of border agents blocking asylum seekers from crossing the U.S.-Mexican border and the larger question of whether the United States can any longer be a place of safety and protection for all families “yearning to be free” of violence and persecution.

The government is, of course, hoping that we don’t make the connections between the stripping away of asylum rights, the larger issue of immigrant rights, and the many other ways that it’s targeting “the least among us.” That’s a mistake we can’t make and where the teachings of our many faith traditions have encouragement to offer. In Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and more, love, justice, and peace are not parceled out only for certain people in certain places. Across our religions, all life is sacred, full stop!

No Turning Back for Anyone


Intermixed with the important lawgivers of history in that marble frieze in the Supreme Court gallery are engraved winged personifications of “Peace,” “The Rights of Man,” “History,” “Authority,” “Fame,” and more. Those winged characters form what looked to me like a Greco-Roman “choir of angels,” proclaiming “law and order” at the expense of rights and dignity for us all.

Sitting there, I reflected on just who was not in that room listening to those arguments or forcing the Supreme Court justices to face the very lives impacted by their decision. I thought about all those who will never have access to that courtroom, or justice of any sort for that matter, the millions of people struggling to fight for their communities and a future where everybody is in and nobody is out.

Those people are — or at least should be — our hope. They are the true “choir of angels” who came out for the recent No Kings Day demonstrations and are standing up for the rights and dignity of communities all over the country. They are also the people who are increasingly giving Donald Trump historically low approval ratings. And here’s the truth of these times: this administration has nothing to offer everyday people, other than hardened borders and wars that nobody wants.

At such a moment in history, a movement that connects the dots between our many struggles is certainly the way forward. Therefore, it seems fitting that the coalition that came together to fight this case and protect the rights of asylum seekers calls itself “No Turning Back.” It reminds me of a song by Emma’s Revolution that I’ve sung many times at protests and gatherings. Its key lines are a reminder of what we all need to keep in mind in this deeply disturbing Trumpian moment of ours:

“Gonna keep on moving forward
Keep on moving forward
Keep on moving forward
Never turning back
Never turning back”


© 2023 TomDispatch.com


Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis
Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis is co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign. She is the author of "Always with Us?: What Jesus Really Said about the Poor" (2017).
Full Bio >
























Hardt, Michael. Multitude: war and democracy in the Age of Empire /. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. p. cm. Sequel to: Empire. Includes index. ISBN 1-59420 ...

Empire / Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. p. cm. Includes bibliographical ... 4.3 The Multitude against Empire. 393. Notes. 415. Index. 473. Page 11. PREFACE.

Sunday, April 19, 2026






The dirty secret Europe's far right doesn't want Trump to know


U.S. President Donald Trump with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in the White House on November 7, 2025 (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok/Flickr)

April 19, 2026 
ALTERNET


President Donald Trump has done his best to curry the favor of Europe’s far right, but after seeing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán go down to humiliating defeat despite Trump’s support, the far right now wants to put daylight between itself and America’s leader.

“President Donald Trump’s offensive behavior toward Christians and his unnecessary and unpopular war in Iran isn’t just splitting his political base at home — it’s also alienating his allies abroad,” wrote MS NOW’s Zeeshan Aleem on Sunday. “Right-wing nationalists in Europe are becoming more and more wary of association with Trump and growing inclined to keep him at a distance to protect their own political projects. The trend marks a blow to Trump’s aspirations of creating an international bloc of right-wing nationalist states that work in concert to quash the left.”

Aleem ticked off a number of prominent Italian conservatives who are denouncing Trump including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a number of German lawmakers from the far-right Alternative for Germany party, Romania’s European Parliament member Diana Sosoaca and French far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Their criticisms have ranged from his meddling in European domestic politics, his invasion of Iran and his attacks on Pope Leo XIV.


“Those bold criticisms speak to how incredibly damaging Trump’s war on Iran has been for his standing within his movement,” Aleem observed. “The surge in global oil prices is politically radioactive; far-right leaders and parties in Europe affiliated with Trump risk becoming associated with the energy crisis unless they take steps to create distance from him.”

Indeed, as recently as last week, the United Kingdom’s Brexit champion Nigel Farage downplayed his relationship with Trump, who he once said was ushering in “the beginning of a golden age,” by instead saying “I happen to know him, but that’s by the by.”


Overall, this pattern speaks to how Trump’s brash approach to governance has alienated America’s European allies.

“Trump, for so many people, epitomizes the ugly American — somebody who is bumptious and vulgar and ignorant about foreign cultures,” former Time Magazine editor Rick Stengel said in a recent podcast appearance on The Bulwark with former Daily Beast editor-in-chief John Avlon on Sunday. “So I think people sort of have come to the end of their patience with America.”

Ironically, Trump has aggressively courted the European far right as his natural ideological allies. Trump appointee Susan B. Rogers was selected as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in large part to ingratiate herself to the far right, such as by describing German migrants as “barbarian rapist hordes,” falsely claiming Sweden’s immigration policy has caused sexual violence (“If your government cared about ‘women’s safety,’ it would have a different migration policy”) and incorrectly stating that “advocates of unlimited third world immigration have long controlled a disproportionate share of official knowledge production.”

Rogers even met with members of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) Party, which espouses an ideology widely perceived as neo-Nazi.

MAGA's 'self-appointed crusade' in Europe falls flat as Vance left reeling: analysis

Ewan Gleadow
April 19, 2026 
RAW STORY


Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks at Uline Inc., in Alburtis, Pennsylvania on Dec. 16, 2025. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

MAGA supporters were dealt a devastating blow earlier this week and will struggle to recover from it, a political analyst has claimed.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a far-right autocrat who has led the country for 16 years, conceded defeat in April 2026 to opposition leader Peter Magyar, marking a stunning rebuke to Trump-backed authoritarianism in Europe. Endorsement from Vice President JD Vance was not enough to win Orban the election, marking an embarrassing moment for Donald Trump's administration and the MAGA movement.

Salon columnist Andrew O'Hehir believes Orban's election loss will set the MAGA movement back, but not stop them from attempting to pool their resources in Europe. He wrote, "It wasn't a great week for the far right’s self-appointed crusade to reconquer Europe as a fairytale paradise of whiteness and Christianity.

"Maybe that’s because that whole idea is vaporware, rooted in a nonsensical social and historical vision and devoted to a losing battle against economic and demographic reality. But that quality of noble, doomed struggle toward impossible goals is both the far-right movement’s fundamental weakness and the source of its power and danger."

O'Hehir went on to suggest that MAGA's backing of Orban and the subsequent election loss highlighted an undermining of Trump's own support during his second term in the Oval Office.

He wrote, "Viktor Orbán, the pudgy poster boy for 'illiberal democracy' and object of a mysterious man-crush by legions of American conservatives, suffered a catastrophic electoral defeat in Hungary that felt, at least for a day or two, like the global MAGA movement’s Waterloo moment.

"As for Donald Trump, what is there to say? The entire world is over him, big time, and it’s the unique curse of America’s narcissistic self-regard that we’re still stuck with him, dominating the headlines day after day with his empty, contradictory and randomly-punctuated blather.

"Trump heads into the latter stages of his presidency as a damaged and toxic figure, a human AI-meme desperately trying to spin his way past the massive humiliation of the Iran war he chose to fight and the global energy crisis he single-handedly created.

"As for the ambitious schemes to reshape Europe’s political map variously proposed by JD Vance, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and Elon Musk, among others, to this point none have amounted to more than flatulent rhetoric."

Uncovering Gold’s Secret History – Book Review

Gold Bars. Photo by Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited, Wikipedia Commons.

April 19, 2026
MISES
By Joakim Book


You can trust the prolific and ever-entertaining British author Dominic Frisby to produce a most timely book on a most relevant asset class. In The Secret History of Gold: Myth, Money, Politics & Power, released last year in Britain but only available in the US from May, this excellent writer and storyteller takes us along on a truly epic journey.

From the Mongols, to probably history’s richest man, to Rome, and the lively portrayal of gold rushes in the 1800s—the California and Alaskan ones, perhaps biggest of all—we get a quick-paced, overview vision of humanity’s relationship with gold, plus ounces of historical nuggets.

The book is very reminiscent in pace and tone of the reading experience in Frisby’s 2019 Daylight Robbery—a similarly-entertaining and wide-ranging investigation into the history of taxation. About Alexander the Great—better known for his conquests than his monetary policy—Frisby writes that,


. . .[he] might have conquered with his armies, but he consolidated with money: by taking control of gold and silver supply and using it to impose his currency, the most international money the world had ever seen.


There’s a great Marco Polo quotes about seigniorage in China (“money he pays out costs him nothing at all”), and the astonishing history of touchstones (“a piece of dark stone. . .used to test the purity of gold or silver”), to which I confess having been unaware. The golden dreams of Colonial Spanish South America are vividly recounted, with the conquistador’s insatiable search for gold and the mythical El Dorado front and center: “Whenever there is lots of gold, there always seems to be a story of lost gold.”

Always following along humanity’s footsteps, gold is there either in monetary or ornamental form. Up and down the nineteenth century, we learn about how gold served as money precisely because we cannot trust governments to responsibly and appropriately govern it.

Amid stories of pieces of eight—the Spanish silver coins that were dominant money in colonial times—America’s dollar is as international as they come: “The global reserve currency of the world — built on a Bohemian name, a Spanish network and solid South and Central American silver” (p. 51).

The most thrilling and intriguing example of gold chases comes from World War II Norway and warms my Scandinavian heart. The Nazi forces infamously hunted for gold across Europe, their first stop upon invading a new country was always the central bank vault. Consequently, occupied nations scurried the national treasure away on trains, boats, and trucks in the dead of night.

The dramatic Norwegian case is worth recounting. In April 1940, the Norwegian government moved the gold to Lillehammer hours before the Nazis arrived in the capital city. In Lillehammer, ordinary Norwegians were told to bring picks and shoves to do road work, but instead packed boxes and boxes of gold to trains to go even further north. The Norwegian coastal village where they arrived next was bombed heavily, some of the gold loaded onto British ships, but most of it made it onto trucks, again bombed by Luftwaffe: “Miraculously, none took a hit,” Frisby tells us. Across fjords and unpaved backroads, sleepless drivers and fishermen ran the gold ever further away from the Germans. Via HMS Glasgow—a British cruiser—and a fleet of ordinary fishing vessels, the gold made it to Tromsø, from which it was then transported over to the UK.

The tragedy of this heroic, golden, Netflix-worthy quest—where only a single bag of gold was lost, courtesy of a greedy sailor onboard HMS Glasgow before presumably throwing a lordly party in his home port—was that none of it was “ever given to those incredible Norwegians who saved the country’s gold.” Almost all of it was eventually sold to finance the exiled Norwegian government. In the account, Frisby demonstrates his excellent writing acumen and storytelling aptitude. It’s truly a bliss to be along for the ride.

Gold, he writes in a separate World War II segment, “was silent witness to the horrors and ambitions of the Third Reich. It was a means to finance Nazi aggression, but also to escape it. The densest form of wealth there is, it was key to their pursuit of power.”

That’s a perfect illustration of how a politically-neutral monetary medium helps good and bad people alike; it’s sort of the point, having nobody entrusted to the task of ruling and regulating the money.


Fast-forward to modern times, we learn about all the ways in which Chinese gold-hoarding statistics are bogus; in all likelihood, the rising and intransparent empire holds way more gold than it publicly claims. We get the impression from Frisby that the central bank rush of recent years, which has in no small part contributed to the gold price’s outstanding run, might not go too much further in making gold the world’s go-to money once more. Because gold is physical and difficult to move, “it will always be the target of thieves and conquerors. Keeping it safe will always be a problem.”

Even the loftiest contemporary dreams of goldbugs aren’t of an actual gold standard—that ship has technologically sailed. In a system of gold backing a transfer system of exchange, Frisby points out, “the gold itself would stay in some vault somewhere and ownership of the gold would change… But this is really gold functioning as a store or wealth, as backing, with an exchange system built on top.”

We’re back to the trusted financial overlay that was once gold’s downfall a century or so ago: the 20th century already showed us how such arrangements can fall apart.

Still, gold’s long history is intimately commingled with humanity itself and with the rise and fall of empires. As always, Mr. Frisby’s musings are always worth hearing. And in The Secret History of Gold he really struck gold.




About the author: Joakim Book is a writer and professional editor, and was the former managing editor for Bitcoin Magazine Print. He was the book editor for, among others, Lyn Alden’s Broken Money, Aaron van Wirdum’s The Genesis Book, and Nik Bhatia’s Bitcoin Age. He holds degrees in economics and financial history from the University of Glasgow and University of Oxford, and was a Mises summer fellow in 2017. His main research interests are monetary economics and the history of central banks, and he writes regularly on those topics for AIER’s The Daily Economy.

Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute


The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, the Mises Institute seeks a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. The Mises Institute encourages critical historical research, and stands against political correctness.

Saturday, April 18, 2026

The Paris movement that planted the seeds of Algerian independence, a century on

In 1926, migrant workers in Paris formed a small political group named North African Star, the first movement to call for Algerian independence and freedom from French rule – decades before decolonisation became a reality.


Issued on: 17/04/2026 - 

Algeria’s national flag, featuring a red star, originated with the North African Star movement. AFP - FAYEZ NURELDINE

At the time the group came together, Algeria was part of France, while Morocco and Tunisia were French protectorates. Political and trade union activity was banned in the colonies, forcing activists to mobilise in mainland France instead.

North African Star was created by workers, mainly from Algeria, who had migrated to France, beginning as a mutual aid association defending social rights before gradually becoming political.

Abdelkader Hadj Ali led the organisation, alongside Messali Hadj, who would later become its central figure. Its structure followed labour movement models, with committees and cells, and it maintained close ties with Communist circles active in anti-colonial struggles.

The French Communist Party had created the Union Intercoloniale, a network bringing together activists from the colonies to demand political and social equality. Among them was Nguyen Ai Quoc – later known as Ho Chi Minh.

North African Star grew out of this environment.

“The idea was to say: since every path is closed to us in our country, we will form a first core in mainland France,” historian Alain Ruscio told RFI.

Under France’s admittedly limited democratic freedoms, trade union activity could not be fully banned – allowing North African workers to band together.

The rise of Messali Hadj

By 1927, the movement had adopted a clear political aim. Its programme, presented in Brussels, called for a struggle “all the way to independence”.

Relations with the Communist Party, however, soon became strained.

“They were in the same bed, but did not have the same dreams,” Ruscio said, with the Communists seeing colonial workers as a potential militant force.

French authorities too quickly saw the group as a threat. It was dissolved in 1929 for posing a danger to the state, and its members closely monitored.

Hadj, who had become the movement’s leading figure, spent 22 years under house arrest or in prison.

Born in 1898 in Tlemcen, he had served in the French army during the First World War and joined the Communist Party in his twenties, while remaining a practising Muslim.

“In Algeria, the idea that religious faith and Communist commitment were compatible was deeply rooted,” Ruscio said. Cell meetings would pause for prayer before resuming.

Hadj stood apart from other Algerian political currents, which focused on gaining equal rights within the French system. His aim was independence, led by Algerians themselves.

His influence first grew among migrants in France before reaching Algeria. In 1936, speaking in Algiers, he urged supporters to mobilise and make their voices heard across the Mediterranean.

Algerian Messali Hadj, leader of the MNA (Algerian National Movement) held under house arrest, gives a press conference 4 May 1962, in the courtyard of the Toutevoie castle in Gouvieux, near Chantilly, north of Paris. AFP

Building resistance in Paris


France's Popular Front government again dissolved North African Star on 26 January, 1937. Around 5,000 members were affected and several leaders, including Hadj, were arrested.

The Communist Party supported the decision, marking a clear break with the movement.

During the Second World War, Nazi Germany sought to court nationalist movements in the colonies, but Hadj refused any agreement with the Axis powers.

Although the organisation initially aimed to unite North Africa, it remained largely Algerian in character.

After its dissolution, it reformed under new names, including the Algerian People’s Party and later the Movement for the Triumph of Democratic Liberties.

But divisions emerged over armed struggle. Hadj rejected that path and warned it would lead to heavy losses and ultimately delay independence, Ruscio said.

When younger militants pushed towards armed action, Hadj warned them they were heading towards “a massacre, a bloodbath” and risked repeating the violence of May 1945 in eastern Algeria.

French authorities chose to violently repress the demonstration on 8 May 1945 in Setif, Algeria. © INA

Rival groups later took up arms, including the FLN, the National Liberation Front, leading to violent clashes. Nearly 4,000 deaths were recorded among Algerians in France during the war of independence.

A century after its creation, North African Star has largely faded from public memory – although its legacy remains visible in Algeria’s national flag, which originated with the movement.

This story was adapted from the original version in French by Anne Bernas.




SOUNDTRACK