I have just finished reading Justice Clarence Thomas's 91-page dissent in the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
It's incredible.
Here's everything you need to know: 🧵
Before the Crusades, two-thirds of the Christian world had already fallen under Islamic rule.
Your school probably skipped that part.
They taught you the Crusades began in 1095, as if Christians just woke up one morning and decided to march east for no reason.
But history did not begin in 1095.
By then, Islamic armies had already conquered massive portions of the Christian world:
Syria.
Egypt.
North Africa.
The Holy Land.
Spain.
In 711 AD, Islamic forces crossed into Spain.
By 732 AD, they had pushed all the way into France.
That is where Charles Martel met them at the Battle of Tours and stopped the advance into Western Europe.
Some historians consider it one of the most decisive battles in world history.
So when people talk about the Crusades without mentioning the 400 years before them, they are not giving you history.
They are giving you a narrative.
Were the Crusades complicated?
Of course.
Were Christians perfect?
No.
But the idea that the Crusades were some random act of Christian aggression is historically dishonest.
The real story begins long before 1095.
And once you know what happened before the Crusades, the entire conversation changes.
They buried this.
Now you know.
🚨 JUST IN: Sheridan Gorman's angel mom just dropped this raw truth nuke straight to Democrat members of Congress
"I don't understand why it's only the REPUBLICAN side that cares about our American children!"
"Basically what you just did, what you said was, 'I'm so sorry for your loss. I have a daughter too. I have a son. I feel your pain...'"
"You DON'T feel my pain. Because the next words out of your mouth were, 'BUT.'"
"There's no 'BUT' when your child is in a coffin!"
"And I need you to understand that. And if you ever want to talk about it, I'm here, I'm going to buy you a bench. I'm going to buy. You can put that on the record. I'm going to buy Congress the bench. And they can come and sit and hold my hand and look me in the eye and explain to me why illegal immigrants are more important than my daughter. I really want to know what because I don't understand!"
Here's my conversation with Anthony Kaldellis about the deep history of the Roman Empire in the west and the east (the Byzantine Empire). This was a truly fascinating conversation with a lot of wisdom for the modern world and for the future of human civilization. The Roman state lasted over 2,200 years. If we want to understand human nature, the modern world, and how humanity can flourish, it is valuable to study history, especially the history of why societies survive and why they collapse.
It's here on X in full and is up everywhere else (see comment).
Timestamps:
0:00 - Episode highlight
1:24 - Introduction
1:51 - The Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire
5:49 - 2,200 Years of Roman History
26:12 - Power, violence, and civil war
47:27 - Edict of Caracalla
1:00:23 - Crisis of the Third Century
1:14:52 - Constantine and the new Roman Empire
1:26:53 - Christianity in the Roman Empire
1:52:21 - Fall of the Western Roman Empire
2:05:17 - Eunuchs, Taxes, and Power
2:30:24 - Emperor Justinian and wars of conquest
2:47:26 - The Arab conquests
3:07:01 - Why the Roman empire survived so long
3:33:08 - Lessons from history
Turkey didn’t kill 70,000 people. It killed over 4 million. It’s arguably the most genocidal nation in history.
But you will never hear Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur say their homeland Turkey doesn’t have the right to exist like they say about Israel.
I wonder why!
In his 1938 work The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc devoted a chapter to Islam:
"Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past."
A young SpaceX employee asked Elon what happens if they fail to reach Mars in his lifetime. The room was full of engineers and the question landed heavier than anyone expected.
It was a simple question but it cut to the core of everything SpaceX exists for. The entire company, every late night, every exploded prototype, every engineer who missed their kid's birthday for a launch window, it all points at Mars. What if it doesn't happen in time?
Elon paused.
He said that the goal was never for him personally to walk on Mars. The goal was to build the infrastructure that makes it inevitable. That even if he dies before the first crew lands, the system he built would carry the mission forward without him.
He said the rockets, the factories, the team, the culture, all of it is designed to outlast any single person. Including him. Especially him.
Then he said something that reportedly moved people in the room.
He said that if he thought success depended on him being alive, he would have already failed. The whole point is building something that doesn't need its founder to keep going.
He compared it to a cathedral. The architects of medieval cathedrals knew they would die before the building was finished. They designed it anyway. They poured their life into something they would never see completed because the completion wasn't the point. The commitment was.
SpaceX is his cathedral. He may never set foot on Mars. But the road between here and there will exist because he refused to accept that nobody was building it.
The most ambitious man alive has already made peace with the possibility that his greatest achievement might happen after he's gone. That's not failure. That's faith in something bigger than yourself.
The Real Reason Politicians Pander to Islam
We keep hoping Trump - or the next “strong” leader - will save America from Islamization.
He won’t.
And neither will any future president who actually wants to win.
Here’s why:
Any candidate serious about the White House must pander to the Islamic vote. Not because they love it — because that bloc shows up. They vote in lockstep. They treat every election like war.
While millions of Americans stay home on Election Day, organized Muslim communities turn out at 80-93%. That’s how they flip school boards, city councils, and even mayoral races with just a few thousand disciplined votes.
Look at New York City.
Even with nonstop national coverage, only 42% of the city voted.
But Muslim voters turned out at 93% - and 97% of them backed their candidate, Zohran Mamdani
Result? New York City got its first Muslim mayor.
Low turnout didn’t just cost an election.
It surrendered a major American city to Islam.
Now look at Michigan.
Trump needed that state. So he went straight to the Islamic community that votes as one. They stood beside him and said they were fighting for “America Great Again through peace and justice.”
Trump heard normal words - "Peace and Justice"
They meant something very different.
As I have explained for years:
In Islamist doctrine, “peace” only comes when the world submits to Islamic rule.
“Justice” means Sharia.
That’s not theory. That’s their own language and strategy.
This is the trap:
We cannot outsource our survival to one politician.
Every president or candidate who wants power will eventually court the group that reliably shows up and delivers blocs of votes.
The only way to stop the pandering is to make pandering to Islam politically suicidal.
That means:
We show up in higher numbers than they do.
Every single election - school board, city council, state rep, Congress.
No more “my vote doesn’t matter.”
No more waiting for a savior.
We take our local communities back first.
Then the culture. Then the country.
Because if we keep sleeping while they vote in lockstep… the next “savior” will just be another politician doing what it takes to win.
The future isn’t decided in one election.
It’s decided by who shows up every time.
Show up. Outvote them.
Or keep hoping someone else will do it for you.
Your move, America.
🚨 Leftists always scream “America has sky-high murder rates because of guns!”
Watch this.
The guy claims the US is near the top globally. Then the facts hit: Remove just five cities — Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., St. Louis, and Philadelphia — and America drops to 189th out of 193 countries in murder rate.
What do ALL five of those bloodbath cities have in common for decades?
Democrat mayors. Democrat city councils. Democrat soft-on-crime policies.
Failed progressive experiments, defund movements, gun control that disarms the good guys, and revolving-door “justice.”
This isn’t a “gun problem.” It’s a Democrat urban failure problem.
The Second Amendment isn’t the issue — criminals and the politicians protecting them are.
Video nails it. Share the truth.
Caller: “Hi Dave. Long-time listener. First-time caller.”
Dave: “You are on the show. What's going on?”
Caller: “I think billionaires have too much power.”
Dave: “Okay. What do you do?”
Caller: “I'm a Congressman.”
Dave: “Alright. Where are you from?”
Caller: “Silicon Valley.”
Dave: “The one with Apple, Google, Nvidia, Meta, OpenAI, and about half the companies carrying the stock market?”
Caller: “That's right.”
Dave: “Interesting. And what seems to be the problem?”
Caller: “The tech bro billionaires.”
Dave: “The guys who built the companies that made your district one of the wealthiest places on Earth?”
Caller: “Yes.”
Dave: “So let me get this straight. Your district keeps producing trillion-dollar companies, millions of jobs both directly and indirectly, and tools used by two-thirds of the people on earth.”
Caller: “Correct.”
Dave: “And your conclusion is that the people who built all of it are the problem.”
Caller: “Exactly.”
Dave: “What have you built?”
Caller: “I serve the public.”
Dave: “No, I mean built.”
Caller: “I write legislation.”
Dave: “Did you make the iPhone?”
Caller: “No.”
Dave: “Google Search?”
Caller: “No.”
Dave: “Nvidia chips?”
Caller: “No.”
Dave: “SpaceX rockets?”
Caller: “No.”
Dave: "So the entrepreneurs create the wealth and the politicians create the hearings?"
Caller: “That's not fair.”
Dave: “Congressman, every year your district creates more wealth than most countries. Why are you treating success like a crime scene?”
Caller: "We need to hold billionaires accountable."
Dave: "For what? Exceeding expectations?"
Reminder: the Crusades were a response to over 400 years of Islamic aggression against Christians and Europe.
632: Muhammad dies.
635: Muslims conquer the Christian city of Damascus.
636: Muslims conquer the Christian city of Antioch.
637: Muslims conquer the Holy Land.
639: Muslims conquer the first Christian country Armenia.
641: Muslims conquer the Coptic Christian country of Egypt.
650: Muslim armies reach southern Italy and Cyprus, taking thousands of captives as "slaves" and "concubines."
711: Muslims invade Spain, and by 715, they have overrun most of it.
717: Muslims besiege Constantinople but are repelled.
730: Muslims invade France, only to be stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours.
792: The ruler of Al-Andalus calls for the invasion of France, and Muslim armies are assembled to attack it again, but they are repelled.
827: Muslims invade Sicily and Italy, persecuting monks. Sicily remains under Islamic rule until 1092.
846: Muslims invade Rome and force the Pope to pay tribute.
848: A third invasion of France occurs, and they are repelled for the third time.
909: Muslims occupy Sardinia.
937: The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is burned down by Muslims, and more churches in Jerusalem are destroyed.
1009: Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem.
1012: Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Christians.
1071: Turkish Muslims attack the Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.
1094: Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos asks Western Christendom for help against Muslim Turkish invasions.
1095: Pope Urban II finally declares the First Crusade.
David Friedberg just said what a lot of people in tech are thinking but won't say out loud and the evidence backs him up (Save this).
@friedberg argument is that the people who talk loudest about inequality, fairness, and protecting the working class are the same people building the most sophisticated machinery of economic control this country has ever seen and disguising it as virtue.
He calls it the Great American Politburo.
The Politburo, for context, was the small committee that ran the Soviet Union controlling the economy, education, media and what citizens could and couldn't do, while insulating its own members from the rules they imposed on everyone else.
Freeberg's case is that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Ro Khanna are doing the exact same thing, American edition.
And here is the evidence.
Congressional members outperformed the S&P 500 again in 2024 , Democratic representatives averaged 31% returns while Republicans averaged 26%, compared to a 24.9% gain for the S&P itself.
Nancy Pelosi's Nvidia positions have returned 586% since 2021 while she simultaneously sat on committees regulating the semiconductor industry.
Elizabeth Warren publicly calls for soaking the rich while financial disclosures reveal she has made millions on Wall Street investments, the same markets she campaigns against.
A nonpartisan tracker of congressional wealth found that roughly half of all 540 members of Congress match or beat the S&P 500 on an annualized basis.
These are people with access to intelligence briefings, regulatory decision-making, and committee hearings held months before public disclosure and they're trading the whole time.
The AI angle is where this becomes directly relevant to every reader of this newsletter.
In February 2026, Sanders and Khanna held a town hall at Stanford specifically calling for slowing down AI development warning of profound dangers from AI controlled by billionaires like Musk, Zuckerberg, and Thiel.
They called for keeping humans in the loop," broad AI regulation, a federal AI regulatory agency, and ensuring productivity gains are shared with workers.
On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Who could be against sharing gains with workers?
But look at what that agenda actually means in practice, a federal AI regulatory agency means political appointees deciding which companies can and cannot deploy AI, which models can and cannot be released, and which applications are approved or denied with no market mechanism and no accountability to the people actually building the technology.
That is the Politburo structure Freeberg is describing, translated into tech policy.