The recent swell of student occupations and fervent pro-Hamas protests on university campuses across the United States presents a tableau both fascinating and deeply revealing. As October’s dark skies were lit not just by stars but by the blaze of rockets over Gaza, a schism has been carved deep into the heart of the American left—a schism that extends its fissures into the very campuses that have long served as bastions of progressive thought.
At first glance, the alignment of a considerable portion of the student body with a group designated as a terrorist organization by not only the United States but also the European Union and other allies, strikes as a sharp deviance from American public opinion. Polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans support Israel, yet these protests showcase a starkly contrasting sentiment burgeoning in academic settings.
This divergence is not merely a difference of opinion but is emblematic of a broader ideological unraveling within the progressive coalition. The establishment left, which includes veteran politicians and seasoned activists, has maintained a nominally pro-Israel stance. This stance is not just historical allegiance but a calculated recognition of the political and financial realities that tether major party donors to a pro-Israel platform.
However, the radical leftist vanguard—imbued with the doctrines of decolonization and critical race theory—views the world through a lens sharply focused on structures of oppression, privilege, and colonialism. Israel, in their narrative, is painted not as a beleaguered nation state with a complex history but as a white colonial oppressor. This narrative has resonated on campuses, where academic theories often translate into activism without the tempering effect of broader geopolitical realities.
The Jewish demographic in America, traditionally stalwart in its support for the Democratic Party, finds itself at a crossroads. The old alliance is fraying as parts of the left pivot towards groups and ideologies that are openly hostile to Israel, and by extension, to those who support it. This shift is not just ideological but demographic, fueled by a new generation of progressives who lack a historical attachment to the post-World War II international order that America helped establish—one that recognized and supported the creation of Israel.
As these protests rage, they rip open the most critical fault line within the left. It is a fault line that runs deep, threatening the unity and coherence of the progressive coalition. For those opposed to the current progressive agenda, this presents not a crisis but an opportunity—an opportunity to witness the self-immolation of a political ideology that seeks to dismantle the very foundations of Western civilization.
As tempting as it might be for conservatives and moderates to intervene, some say there is a strategic advantage in restraint. Let the architects of division sow their seeds of discord. Let them reveal the untenability of their positions. In the ashes of failed radical policies and schismatic politics, there is fertile ground for rebuilding—not just in the literal halls of academia but within the broader landscape of American political thought.
Alternatively, a strategic gambit calls: should conservatives, who have long stood by watching the left’s internecine warfare with a mix of horror and schadenfreude, engage in a Machiavellian twist? Should they engage in an uneasy alliance with elements from the far left who are calling for the expulsion of Semites from campuses, governments, societies, and countries?
These lefitst factions, which have loudly voiced demands for the expulsion of groups they pejoratively label as “colonial oppressors” from academic and social structures, inadvertently champion a principle that could be weaponized by conservative tacticians: the right of an institution, or indeed a sovereign entity, to assertively remove elements deemed antithetical or harmful to its foundational ethos or security.
This strategy affirms sovereign prerogatives. By aligning temporarily with these radical voices, conservatives could underscore a broader principle that nations and organizations possess the inherent right to control the membership of their organizations and nation, as well as defend their cultural integrity and national security. This could extend to more widely accepted conservative policies on immigration.
This foundation offers acceleration from a phased approach to deportation. Illegal immigrants would be the first group easily sent back. They reside without legal sanction and merely need enforcement to return them home. Overt and covert enemies who express hostility, and advocates of violence or terrorism, would be next deported. It’s hard to argue for giving sanctuary to anyone who hates their host so much as to yell “Death to America!”. Finally, unwanted liabilities who perennially rely on state support without integrating into the economic or cultural life of the nation could be returned to their nation of origin for humanistic reasons to realign them with societies in which they are naturally better suited to thrive.
Decisive action begins with an unflinching look at the current state of Western civilizations, which, by many accounts, appear besieged by internal conflicts, declining public trust, and an erosion of social norms. The burgeoning crime rates, sprawling illegal immigration, and the increasing polarization are not merely symptoms but active catalysts of societal decay.
Following the examples set by leaders like Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, who has notably reduced crime using a novel strategy of imprisoning known criminals, the West could significantly benefit from a renewed emphasis on law and order. We see that eliminating crime is as straight-forward as choosing to, much as the state suddenly finds the ability to remove the homeless and their blight when world leaders visit. This reminds us that reducing crime, homelessness, public drug use, and other societal ills is a choice, not some limit of institutional capability or a complex issue to ponder. The criminals are well known to law enforcement, but in many regimes their behavior is tolerated under perverse motives.
Drawing inspiration from Javier Milei’s approach in Argentina, which involved cutting governmental waste and aligning economic policies more closely with classical economic theories, Western nations could see a revival in their economic fortunes. By reducing the bloat of state machinery and eliminating inefficient expenditures, resources could be reallocated to more productive and socially beneficial programs.
There are important implications in the realization that a society’s strength lies in the quality rather than the quantity of its populace. The idea is not merely to reduce excess numbers, but to cultivate a community where each member contributes positively to the collective well-being. We need not dread a declining birthrate, which is understandable given the social collapse caused by forced multiculturalism that has made public life miserable. A refusal to have children is a temporary and perfectly natural response indicating a vote of “no confidence” in the prospects of what our leaders have been creating through an immigration-based society. Few want their children to be a part of the disaster that current trends portend. In any case, there is no point to having a high birthrate of people without relation to the nation, culture, and ideals. What they replace in numbers they can never provide in substance. Consider the types of people you have seen who no one could imagine becoming assimilated given countless generations. They occupy a space but are unable to fulfill any useful role, while introducing noticeable friction.
In the United States, the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 can be largely credited with causing the declining birth rate of historic citizens, as its changes to the national population in combination with the cultural alterations of civil rights legislation signaled that leaders were planning a dismal national transformation. Once again, we see politicians creating problems by enacting solutions no one wanted, crafting undesired changes into law against the natural culture and needs of the citizenry, pointlessly wrecking what previously functioned well. Such behavior can only be seen as demonic, yet unwelcome law is imposed as mandate, and the implications are wrought.
Society can be easily returned to a trajectory where the people are unified and highly functioning through multiple waves of mass deportation, greatly reduced immigration, clarification that birthright citizenship only belongs to citizens, and laws to restrict immigration to only harmonious candidates. These are all common sense measures with overwhelming public support. The removal of hostile and negative individuals who could never make positive contributions to society will brighten future prospects and demonstrate a promise to keep intact the nation for those who wish to rebuild higher civilization. Accordingly, this will result in positivity that will return the birthrate to healthy levels from a highly desirable base population.
By adopting and adapting policies that have shown success in other contexts, countries could transform societal norms back to states where cleanliness, low crime, and high trust are not aspirations but expectations. As we stand on this precipice of purging society of its most pernicious elements, it must also cultivate the best qualities of its citizens, looking back to past golden ages for inspiration — and forward with a balance of wisdom and audacity.