With a contentious midterm election less than a week away, one cause has unified voters and candidates across the political spectrum: slowing down AI. 

A friend of mine who directs tens of millions of dollars in midterm election spending says he's never seen voter salience of an issue—AI, broadly—increase so quickly. In July, Gallup found that 39 percent of Americans thought AI does more harm than good, up from 31 percent in 2025. Only 9 percent of Americans, meanwhile, thought the technology did more good than harm (down from 12 percent last year). 

Public sentiment has since soured even more. An October ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that 57 percent of Americans think AI is bad for society, while a staggering 66 percent said they opposed new data center construction in the United States.

Politicians on the left and right have seized on this political sentiment and offered their own data center stiff-arm policy du jour. However, even a full e-brake on data center construction would do little to stop AI progress. 

In August, Arvind Narayanan, director of the Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy and co-author of AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference, claimed that a data center moratorium would basically not slow AI development at all. 

Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, he concluded (under some reasonable assumptions) that a one-year data center moratorium in a "typical U.S. state" would slow down AI progress nationally by only five to 10 hours. Assuming that at least half of data center developers would avoid a moratorium by building their facilities elsewhere, a one-year freeze on construction in larger states like New York would set AI in America back by less than one day, according to Narayanan. 

My own modeling of this question reaches essentially the same conclusion as Narayanan's, but rather than assuming computing power will continue growing at its current rate, it treats future growth as dependent on how much computing capacity gets built. I considered three theoretical policy regimes: a full stop on new data center construction and on replacement of depreciated graphics processing units (GPUs); a full stop on new data center construction only; and no restrictions whatsoever. 

The point is that, as a federal policy, standing athwart data centers yelling "Stop!" doesn't accomplish the outcomes that moratorium-ites claim to want. And, while some local policies could slightly impede center growth, the only way to hamper the progress of frontier models would be to enact an extremely draconian policy regime—one that goes beyond moratoriums for new data centers and prohibits GPU upgrades in existing facilities—which no one is actually proposing or close to implementing. 

What does this all tell us about where advocates of any stripe should put their efforts? 

For those in favor of accelerating AI, on the one hand, it provides comfort in that data center construction, even in the extreme, is not a binding constraint to AI advancement. But on the other hand, the political energy currently concentrated on mobilizing the backlash won't stay focused there forever; an issue where more than two-thirds of people are even tangentially opposed to your "side" is not one that easily disappears.

For doomers, it means if the goal is a "pause" of some sort on the ability of AI technology to, say, replace you in your job, targeting data center construction isn't the best way to go about it. It may be a useful galvanizing node in the broader policy fight, but don't expect it to cause any meaningful change in the current trajectory—whatever you believe that to be. 

The ineffectiveness of data center moratoriums doesn't make the policy on its own more or less optimal. But if the data center protests are a proxy for broader AI-induced anxiety about large language models crowding out human pursuits, causing unemployment, or destroying the environment, protestors will need to find another leverage point.

The post Data Center Bans Won't Stop AI. They'll Barely Slow It Down. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A decade ago, 54 percent of Massachusetts voters said yes to Question 4, a ballot initiative that legalized possession, home cultivation, and commercial distribution of recreational marijuana. Judging from recent surveys, voters are not inclined to reverse that decision by approving Question 8, an initiative on next Tuesday's ballot.

Question 8, a.k.a. the Eliminate Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allow Limited Possession Initiative, would permit adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis. But they would have to get it from the black market, since Question 8 would not allow them to grow it or buy it from state-licensed retailers.

The initiative "would keep personal possession of marijuana legal, keep medical marijuana legal, and stop commercial marijuana stores," its supporters say. They allege that legalization has impaired "productivity" and led to increases in "fatal car accidents," "workplace injuries," "healthcare costs," "crime (like DUI's)," "ER visits," and "mental health conditions like psychosis, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults."

Voters do not seem impressed by those arguments. In eight polls between mid-February and mid-October, support for Question 8 ranged from 20 percent to 41 percent. In the most recent survey, conducted by The Boston Globe, 71 percent of respondents said they planned to vote no on Question 8, which suggests that experience with legalization has substantially increased opposition to pot prohibition in Massachusetts.

Question 8's sponsor, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, is funded almost entirely by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). As of October 20, the Virginia-based group had spent $3.7 million on the project, compared to $2.8 million in spending by the opposition, which includes several marijuana businesses.

SAM's co-founder, Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations, says he was motivated by the concerns of Massachusetts residents who approached him. "Many of them voted for this initiative 10 years ago and feel betrayed," Sabet told WGBH, an NPR station in Boston. If so, the polls indicate such converts are far outnumbered by former Question 4 opponents who have traveled that road in the opposite direction.

"We're under no illusions that the bluest state in the country is going to pass this easily with flying colors," Sabet told WBUR, another Boston NPR station, a few weeks ago. "But we want to have that conversation."

The conversation clearly is not going the way Sabet hoped. Massachusetts, which was the fifth state to legalize recreational marijuana, is now one of two dozen, which together account for most of the U.S. population. In October 2025, Gallup put nationwide support for marijuana legalization at 64 percent, which was down a bit from the peak of 70 percent recorded in 2023 but still 16 points higher than in 2012, when Colorado and Washington started this ball rolling.

Public support for legalizing recreational marijuana tends to be even higher in states that have done it. In Civiqs surveys last December, support in 15 states where voters had approved legalization ranged from 62 percent in Missouri to 77 percent in Oregon. It had increased since legalization in every state but New Jersey, where it was down one point from the 67 percent of voters who approved Public Question 1 in 2020. In Massachusetts, support had risen from 54 percent to 76 percent.

The fate of two other drug policy initiatives that voters will consider next week is less clear. As far as I can tell, pollsters have not asked voters about them.

Colorado's Proposition 132 would make manufacturing or distributing any amount of illicit fentanyl a Level 1 drug felony punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years. Under current law, the penalties vary depending on the amount of fentanyl involved.

In Idaho, House Joint Resolution 4, a proposed constitutional amendment, would strip voters of the power to legalize marijuana or any other psychoactive substance. If the initiative passes, which requires approval by a simple majority, that power will be reserved to the state legislature.

The post Massachusetts Voters Don't Seem Inclined To Repeal Marijuana Legalization Next Week appeared first on Reason Magazine.

With time running out in the election cycle, JD Vance participated in a prime-time town hall on Fox News, which was largely unremarkable except for one unexpected exchange.

A local college student told the vice president that the right routinely tells young people to get married and have children but that conservatives have failed to acknowledge how financially difficult this is for many. She asked, “So my question is, how does the right, and yourself, expect us to start families young when the average price of a home in America now costs more than $415,000, which just feels out of reach for us?”

It’s worth emphasizing for context that the question came from a young woman who identified herself as the vice president of her university’s Turning Point USA chapter. That is, Vance wasn’t confronting a political opponent; the question came from someone inclined to agree with the Trump White House.

Almost immediately, the Ohio Republican demonstrated the kind of political instincts that have made him famous.

Q: How do you expect us to start families young when the average price of a home feels out of reach?JD VANCE: I want to point out that I've only gotten one question about Jon Husted's ass

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-30T01:28:44.964Z

“I want to point out that I think that I have been asked four or maybe five questions by my count,” the vice president began. “I have only been asked one question about [Republican Sen.] Jon Husted’s ass — and it was by [Fox News’] Jesse Watters.”

So, during a nationally televised event, a young conservative voter asked a sincere question about one of the most pressing issues facing her generation, and Vance’s first thought was to make a joke about a senator’s backside.

It’s impossible to say just how many young voters watching at home were amused by this clumsy attempt at humor, but it seems likely the number was small.

It only got worse when Vance actually tried to answer the question with some substance.

“I think we have to take stock of the fact that the reason why housing exploded in the United States of America is in part because we allowed 20 million illegal aliens into our country to buy homes that ought, by right, go to American citizens,” the vice president argued.

Except that’s absurd. Vance’s statistic is wildly inflated and totally at odds with actual data — the idea that 20 million undocumented immigrants have the resources to buy up American real estate is nonsensical. (Last fall, he similarly complained to Fox News about importing “more and more low-wage servants” from other countries. How “low-wage servants” can afford to purchase homes has never been clear.)

The vice president went on to say, “Another reason why housing got too expensive in this country is because we allowed homes to be bought up by Wall Street and foreign investors.”

Unlike the rest of his response, this actually made some sense, although it touched on a problem Vance neglected to mention: Congress approved a bipartisan housing bill earlier this year that was designed to address the very problem he referenced. President Donald Trump, however, refused to sign it as part of a tantrum over a voter suppression proposal that he wanted but couldn’t have. (The housing bill, thankfully, became law anyway.)

This exchange didn’t have to be so politically messy for the vice president, but his unerring political instincts won out in the end anyway.

The post Pressed on affordability at town hall, JD Vance says all the wrong things appeared first on MS NOW.

Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola denied Thursday that she knew anything about an effort to put another candidate on the Alaska ballot with the same name as the Republican incumbent as the Justice Department escalated a criminal investigation with new grand jury subpoenas.

DALLAS — Democrats see a rare opening in Texas, and James Talarico is giving them their clearest shot in years at turning one of the state's two Senate seats blue. If he pulls off the upset, the former teacher and Presbyterian seminarian could knock the first brick loose in Texas’ red wall.

The polling and fundraising figures help explain why Democrats see that possibility.

To put it in perspective, Talarico’s polling leads are wider than those recorded against Ted Cruz in 2018, when Beto O’Rourke came closer than any Democrat in decades to winning a Texas Senate race. And the enthusiasm on the ground from those who spoke with Fox News Digital backs up the numbers.

DEEP IN TRUMP COUNTRY, A NEW GENERATION REVEALS THE DIVIDE BEHIND TEXAS’ TIGHT SENATE RACE

What's more, Talarico’s campaign raised $64 million from July through September, more than three times Trump-backed candidate Ken Paxton’s $18 million haul over the same period. Since launching his campaign, Talarico has raised more than $146 million.

But Paxton, currently the state's attorney general, has enjoyed Republican outside groups pouring more than $200 million into Texas to support him, nearly all of it bankrolled by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man. Additionally, MAGA Inc., President Donald Trump’s principal super PAC, has spent another $33.7 million on ads backing Paxton, according to AdImpact.

At his Dallas rally on Thursday, Talarico underscored that divide by casting the race as a David and Goliath fight, telling supporters they were his weapon against powerful interests.

"David wasn’t as big or as strong as Goliath. He didn’t have as many weapons, but he had hope. He had faith, and he had a slingshot," he said. "Dallas, you are my slingshot. The people of Texas are my slingshot."

Talarico's momentum has also shown up on the campaign trail.

'That’s a lot of Talafreakos in one room'

Earlier this week, Talarico hopscotched across Texas, stopping in El Paso before holding events in Midland and Amarillo and drawing a larger-than-expected crowd in deep-red Lubbock on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Trump campaigned with Paxton about four miles away that same night, shifting his rally time so it overlapped with Talarico’s event.

The dueling rallies put the race’s divide on display. Talarico’s campaign said more than 4,000 people signed up for his Lubbock rally, prompting a move to a larger venue.

"I know that we’re not the only show in town tonight, and I appreciate all 4,000 of you that showed up here this evening," Talarico said at the Fiesta Center in Lubbock on Oct. 27. "That’s a lot of Talafreakos in one room."

The Democratic candidate and his supporters have embraced the moniker "Talafreako," a nickname first given to him as a derogatory dig by Republicans and President Trump.

Voters at Talarico’s rallies in Lubbock told Fox News Digital that Trump’s repeated Texas visits signaled Republican anxiety, while Paxton backers remained confident the state would stay red after a costly and contentious primary that saw Republicans divided over Paxton and sitting Sen. John Cornyn, who was ultimately ousted in the May runoff.

"Trump’s in Lubbock? Trump’s in Lubbock, Texas? He’s scared, he is scared," one supporter told Fox News Digital.

Natalie, from Friona, called Trump’s same-day rally a sign Republicans were "nervous."

"I think it’s performative, like to come the exact same day as he is here," she said.

Jenny, from Brownsville, told Fox News Digital outside Trump and Paxton's rally that the race was "not close" and she predicted that "Paxton will wipe the floor" with Talarico.

DUELING RALLIES THRUST DEEP-RED LONE STAR TOWN INTO THE CENTER OF THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE

Beyond the rally crowds, some Talarico supporters in Dallas and Lubbock said Paxton’s past legal controversies and impeachment by the Texas House shaped their views of the Republican nominee.

"We’re here in support of honesty, decency and integrity," Lori, a Dallas voter who has voted Republican in the past, told Fox News Digital. "That’s what we like to see in a candidate, and we think Talarico is all that in one."

George, a lifelong Texan at the Dallas rally, said years of watching Texas politics had become "heartbreaking" and called Talarico "a breath of fresh air."

In Lubbock, Georgia cited several of Talarico’s policies and called him "authentic." She also said his lack of an indictment was a plus, contrasting him with Paxton.

MEET THE VOTERS WHO COULD BREAK THE GOP’S DECADES-LONG GRIP ON A REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLD

Elias, a nurse from Lubbock, said Paxton’s past controversies and impeachment by the Texas House reflected poorly on the Republican nominee.

"I think it shows that Paxton is a weak leader," Elias told Fox News Digital. "He had a chance to kind of redeem himself despite his ugly past, but he’s not a man, he can’t stand up for himself. He needs daddy Trump to come and support him."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

With Election Day on Nov. 3, the question is whether Talarico can turn rally crowds and a polling lead into a historic win. A victory would crack the GOP’s decades-long grip on Texas. A loss would leave Democrats still searching for a path to turn the state blue.

After months of speculation about Democrats recruiting retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan in Alaska, The New York Times uncovered credible evidence to suggest that the allegations have merit.

To put it mildly, the GOP reactions have fallen somewhere between hair-on-fire apoplexy and unbridled rage. Donald Trump, in particular, has spent recent days in total hysterics, demanding that former Rep. Mary Peltola be, among other things, prosecuted for crimes the president failed to identify. (Peltola on Thursday again denied having had knowledge of the alleged scheme, saying she’s “not interested in tricking voters.”)

But of particular interest was the reaction from Gov. Mike Dunleavy. On Wednesday, the Alaska Republican announced that he had ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties, and on Thursday he went even further. Axios reported:

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) suggested Thursday the state could withhold certification of the U.S. Senate election results if Democrat Mary Peltola wins.

Withholding certification could complicate Peltola’s path to the Senate, as Republicans investigate allegations that Democrats recruited a candidate with the same name as GOP incumbent Dan Sullivan.

During a NewsNation interview, the governor hedged when asked if he was prepared to certify the results, even if his preferred candidate loses. “We’re going to ensure that we aren’t going to send a scam to Washington,” Dunleavy said.

In other words, with only a handful of days remaining before Election Day, the state’s sitting governor publicly declared that even if Alaskans back the former congresswoman, he may not be prepared to accept the will of the voters.

That, in and of itself, is a radical move that puts a thumb on the scale. Governors are not supposed to effectively tell their state’s electorate, “Vote how you want, but the results might not count.”

But just as notable is the fact that the partisan outrage is wildly inconsistent with the alleged offense.

It’s more than fair to argue that ballot-stacking is underhanded campaign mischief. But it’s equally fair to note that it’s a common tactic, employed by both parties, going back generations.

As for the legality, the Times also reported, “Ballot-stacking strategies are common in politics and generally considered legal, if misleading. Republicans engaged in the tactic in Alaska this year, too, trying to prop up Democratic candidates in the Senate primary to siphon votes from Ms. Peltola.”

What we’re left with is a story in which Republicans appear to be engaging in performative outrage, not in response to a genuine scandal, but in response to polls showing them behind.

The post Alaska governor floats radical new threat in response to ballot-stacking allegations appeared first on MS NOW.

Americans may not much care who holds power in Jerusalem, but they should.

Americans may not much care who holds power in Jerusalem, but they should.

Alaska Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola insisted she "knew nothing" about an alleged scheme to recruit people with the same name as her opponent to run in the election, while incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan told Fox News she is "still lying."

"I just want to clear the air," Peltola began in a speech to supporters on Thursday in Juneau. "I knew nothing about any other candidates on the ballot except for me and the incumbent. That is all I have ever known about. I am not interested in tricking voters. I know I can beat Dan Sullivan."

In an interview with Fox News, Sullivan, a Republican, said Peltola's campaign "demonstrated the most corrupt action you could take."

"Most candidates, when they run for office, I've run for office, and this is my third election. You sit down at the beginning of your election with your advisers to think about 'What's my record? I'm going to run on a strong record. What's my vision? What do I want to get done?' Peltola sat down with her advisers, Democrats from D.C. and Alaska, and their first order of business was 'how do we cheat? How do we make sure Alaskans throw away their votes?'" Sullivan said.

"This was a secret project that they had. And then they worked on it for over a year. And then she consistently lied about it. What's amazing to me is how consistently and casually everyone involved in this, from Kirsten Gillibrand and Schumer down to Peltola and her advisors, and everybody in between lied about this directly to the Alaskan people," Sullivan continued. "Heck, Peltola is still lying about it, right?"

SEN DAN SULLIVAN BRANDS PELTOLA’S ALLEGED BALLOT SCHEME A ‘SCANDAL AT THE HIGHEST ORDER’

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Peltola’s campaign, as well as senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, carried out the alleged election scheme in hopes that voters would be confused by two Dan Sullivans and therefore draw support from the incumbent Republican senator.

The Justice Department is moving to delay certification of Alaska’s U.S. Senate election results since two individuals by the name of Dan Sullivan appear alongside each other on the ballot. The state’s incumbent U.S. senator is listed on the ballot as "Sullivan, Dan S.," while the other Dan Sullivan, a retired schoolteacher, is listed as "Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr." The latter is known to his critics as "Decoy Dan."

PELTOLA CAMPAIGN'S ALLEGED DAN SULLIVAN SPOILER PLOT TAKES NEW TURN AS DOJ FACES MAJOR LEGAL HURDLE

Sen. Sullivan told Fox News correspondent Matt Finn that what he is hearing on the campaign trail is "the disdain that this shows that Peltola has for the Alaskan people."

"Think about it. Her first big move as a candidate, she hadn't announced her candidacy yet, was to rig the system and work together to cheat and to recruit a candidate whose sole purpose, we all know now, was to confuse Alaskans to rig the vote for her. It is a shocker. It's the biggest scandal in Alaskan electoral history by far," Sullivan said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"Mary Peltola and her campaign and the Democrats in D.C. and Alaska think the Alaskan people are dumb. We're not dumb," Sullivan added. "And this is going to have a huge impact on the election. We're going to win."

Fox News Digital's Nora Moriarty contributed to this report.

With Republicans likely headed for a good ol' fashioned ass kicking in next week's midterm election, it doesn't seem too premature to ask the next big question: What are the Democrats going to do once they have a congressional majority?

The New York Times reports that Democrats will move quickly on four items that are "consensus items among their members that are basic enough to bypass time-consuming committee consideration and go straight to the floor."

Two of those items are really good ideas: ending President Donald Trump's tariffs and ending the war in Iran (or ordering Trump to "seek authorization from Congress to continue it"). Both would restore proper congressional authority in areas where Trump has expanded executive power, with terrible results.

The other priorities, however, include reversing Medicaid spending cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and extending some Affordable Care Act health care subsidies that expired last year. Both would require higher spending at a time when the federal government is already running $2 trillion annual deficits and the national debt is at a record high.

But that's probably a pretty good summary of what Democratic control of Congress for the next few years will look like: a mix of critically important reforms to combat Trump's big-government agenda and, well, the Democrats' own big-government agenda.

Over at National Review, John Puri has an extensive list of "truly frightening" policies Democrats could pursue after the midterms, including stuff like bypassing the filibuster to borrow more heavily, arbitrarily restricting commerce, handing out taxpayer money to political allies, and promising "free" money for everyone. Gosh, I sure hope none of that happens (again).

More seriously, there are also likely to be some major investigations into corruption and other executive branch misdeeds. Trump's family and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are likely to be among the main targets. Hegseth could "face impeachment—which would make him just the third Cabinet secretary in history to face such a sanction," The Atlantic reports.

No wonder Hegseth is reportedly looking for an exit strategy.

Of course, there are plenty of caveats to this. Most importantly, Trump will still be the president—and will be able to veto anything the Democrats pass through Congress. There's also the Senate's filibuster rules. Even the biggest of blue waves is highly unlikely to deliver a 60-seat majority.

Though they may dream big, Democrats will face some serious constraints on their policymaking agenda. They will face fewer obstacles in blocking, unwinding, and investigating Trump's unlawful and corrupt actions—and that's where I, for one, hope they will spend their efforts.

---

Scenes from Washington, D.C.: "On Sept. 16, Leo J. Terrell threatened to choke a Justice Department intern with a computer charger."

So begins The Harvard Crimson's scathing and deeply reported takedown of Terrell, the former talk radio host and Fox News contributor who is now the senior Justice Department official running the Trump administration's crackdown on elite universities (which is ostensibly an effort to police antisemitism but seems more like an excuse to use federal taxpayer dollars to fight a culture war).

The computer cord incident "was one of a series of episodes described by Billa and three other interns, all Jewish," the Crimson reports. "Terrell isolated them from the rest of the Justice Department, berated them over minor mistakes, and repeatedly threatened their jobs or careers."

When he's not harassing his staffers, Terrell seems to be overcome with delusions of grandeur. A planned 15-city media tour in advance of the midterms "was supposed to be the centerpiece of Terrell's work" and would have put him on stage with singers, comedians, and professional athletes. One event has been held so far: "an Oct. 14 gathering at a synagogue in Southfield, Mich. with Terrell as the keynote speaker."

---

QUICK HITS

• Hackers stole $6.3 billion of bitcoin from the Binance crypto exchange. Another hacking attempt on Thursday targeted Polymarket.
• ProPublica has "tallied and cataloged every case we can find of an immigration agent reportedly detaining a citizen during the current administration—more than 500 cases from Inauguration Day through Oct. 21, 2026."
• Federal debt held by the public has surpassed the size of the U.S. economy for the first time since World War II. Unlike back then, however, the debt is being driven by entitlement spending, which means it is going to keep spiraling higher.
• Relatedly, five states are carrying more than $30,000 in debt per capita, according to a new report from the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason: New York ($37,006 per capita), New Jersey ($35,100), Connecticut ($33,189), Illinois ($31,582) and Hawaii ($30,759). All told, America's state and local governments are more than $6 trillion in debt.
• If you ever wanted a Mothman license plate (and who doesn't), that's now available in West Virginia.
• Patrick Stewart, the legendary actor whose range included everything from Shakespeare to starships, died at age 86.

In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to:
Johns Hopkins Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Fund   https://t.co/luC5CdcWDy
Alzheimer's Foundation of America Caregiver Resources    https://t.co/zvNptfyuNd

Photo Credit: Tommy Garcia pic.twitter.com/XNncEVq56X

— Patrick Stewart (@SirPatStew) October 29, 2026

The post What Will Democrats Do? appeared first on Reason Magazine.

“Liberals are the new racists,” according to an unintentionally comical political ad that aired during the World Series this week.

The ad plays out of context clips of three women of color (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Rep. Ilhan Omar D-Minn.; and “The View” co-host Sunny Hostin) speaking about race, cut together with a horror movie aesthetic. Then comes the ad’s real message: “Today’s liberals are full of hate. They hate America. They’re obsessed with skin color,” says an unnamed female narrator obscured by shadow. “I can’t even show my face, because my skin is white and they’ll spew hate at me,” she laments.

Days before the midterm elections that will serve as a referendum on the job performance of America’s most abjectly racist president in a century, I couldn’t help but wonder who ponied up the reported $550,000 it costs to air a 30-second spot during this year’s Fall Classic.

If “liberals are the new racists,” according to America Next, who are the old racists? Maybe it’s the people at the highest positions of power and influence in the Grand Old Party and the MAGA movement?

New York Times reporter Ken Bensinger posted to X that the ad was paid for by America Next, a PAC created by former Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. According to its website, America Next is “not focused on elections” but rather “winning the war of ideas.” Bensinger also cited Federal Elections Commission data showing America Next paid $250,000 to a firm called Breakthrough LLC for the specific purpose of “opposition” to the Democratic candidate for Senate in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed. The Guardian reported that Breakthrough was founded by former Jindal aide Timmy Teepell, whose son Tommy went viral after asking El-Sayed if he’d denounce the Muslim Brotherhood at a campaign event earlier in October. (Neither of the Teepells, nor America Next responded to The Guardian’s request for comment.)

It’s particularly ironic for Jindal, the son of immigrants from India, to bankroll an ad accusing the left of being “racist” and “obsessed with skin color.” It has, after all, only been a month since MAGA’s recent heated debate over whether Indian Americans can ever be “real Americans,” which was sparked by a Republican candidate’s outrage at a photo of nonwhite University of Texas football fans.

And the irony is further enhanced by the fact that among the defining features of the second Trump administration — which also include unprecedented levels of corruption, illegal foreign incursions and killings without due process, repeated violations of Americans’ constitutional rights and a vast censorship industrial complex — is the complete normalization of the kind of gutter racism that, prior to President Donald Trump’s political rise, had been pushed toward the fringes of society.

On Wednesday, the Trump War Room X account (the Trump White House’s more overtly political account) quote-posted an official White House account post warning, “The chaos, looting, and destruction we’re watching [in France] is exactly the future radical Democrats are pushing for America.” To drive home its point, the War Room account posted a photo of Trump with the caption, “Which way Western Man?”

For the uninitiated, “Which Way, Western Man?” is the title of a book published in 1978 that has become a foundational text for the neo-Nazi movement. It praises Adolf Hitler, advocates for violence against Jews and Blacks; quotes liberally from the antisemitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion;” and likens birth control to “the knife by which [the] civilized White man is cutting his own throat.” (That line, in particular, is evocative of a post Charlie Kirk wrote the day before his assassination: “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”)

It must be said that this is hardly the first time the Trump administration has embraced Nazi sloganeering in its political outreach. The Department of Homeland Security has already put many “Which way Western Man” posts on the internet. It even used the white supremacist marching song “By God We’ll Have Our Home Again” on its social media accounts back in January.

But if “liberals are the new racists,” according to America Next, who are the old racists? Maybe it’s the people at the highest positions of power and influence in the Grand Old Party and the MAGA movement?

For the uninitiated, “Which Way, Western Man?” is the title of a book published in 1978 that has become a foundational text for the neo-Nazi movement. It praises Adolf Hitler, advocates for violence against Jews and Blacks and quotes liberally from the antisemitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

At a GOP get-out-the-vote rally in Michigan on Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — noted anti-vax maniac and serial fabulist — went on a fact-bereft and racist rant seemingly directed at El-Sayed, saying, “There are five hundred million Arabs in the world. And yet they don’t produce science … They don’t win the Nobel Prize. They don’t win the Fields Medal. They don’t win the Wolf Prize.”

Two days later the Libs of TikTok X account — which is so influential on the White House that Reuters noted its “symbiosis” with the administration has “has triggered harassment and threats” — posted a photo of four Black high school students with the caption: “St. Cloud Area Schools in MN announces students chosen for an award. What do you notice?” As vile as it is for Libs of TikTok to draw children into its culture war obsessions, the obvious implication is that the Black students are undeserving. There’s a word for that.

And, of course, Trump in recent weeks has filled his campaign rallies with rank racism. Whether it’s repeatedly calling Somalis “low IQ” or referring to El-Sayed as “Abduladadalalalala” or using an antisemitic slur to defend Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall — Trump is very comfortable in his own skin as an old-school bigot.

While trying to frame anyone but themselves as racist, Trump and his MAGA allies dig ever deeper into the swamps of prejudice, then laugh about it. On Thursday, the White House posted an image of a pumpkin with a sombrero carved into it, and a caption reading, “Spooky szn is here.”

It’s an obvious troll meant to signal that Mexicans are scary, with the added goofy internet meme lingo deployed to soften the delivery. But fear and hatred of the other is the message — and normalizing racism is the point.

The post A right-wing ad says ‘liberals are the new racists.’ What does that make the GOP? appeared first on MS NOW.

When former President Barack Obama said on the campaign trail last week that President Trump had redesigned the White House to look “like Sadaam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” he obviously hit a nerve. Trump and his aggrieved supporters have spent the time since deliberately distorting what Obama said to suggest that he was attacking the restaurant and the people who eat there and not Trump himself.

MAGA is notoriously sensitive about food culture and understand its power. A few years ago, those conservatives freaked out over Cracker Barrel’s attempt to streamline its logo, interpreting it as the restaurant’s effort to distance itself from its white southern association. And Donald Trump pretended to prepare fries at a McDonald’s franchise to cast doubt on Vice President Kamala Harris’ claim that she worked there after her first year in college.

Politicians have always used food to project a relatable image — like you can trust me because I eat just like you; we belong to the same culinary tribe.

As for The Cheesecake Factory, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, net worth $600 million, spoke to reporters after eating at a Washington location Monday and dared Obama — or as he put it “the Martha’s Vineyard set” — to try it. At least one MAGA commentator appears to have made up a story about eating at The Cheesecake Factory in his childhood — before a franchise opened where he lived — and another conservative commentator used artificial intelligence, according to a label on his X post, to pretend he was eating there.

To be clear, this fight is about more than the recently gilded cherubs in the Oval Office or the Oreo Dream Extreme Cheesecake at the restaurant conservatives are defending. Fights over taste — who has it, who lacks it and whose tastes make them out of touch — are never about aesthetic preference alone. Politicians have always used food to project a relatable image – like you can trust me because I eat just like you; we belong to the same culinary tribe. It’s why we see so many candidates staging photo ops at the state fair showing them eating food popular in that area.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in “Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste,” stressed that differences in taste, including what we like to eat and how we style ourselves and our homes, don’t come out of nowhere, but are products of our class position and the cultural environments we were raised in, and can be expressions of power. So, to mock another person’s style is to mock their whole way of being and that of their community. Because Trump prompts his supporters to see attacks on him as attacks on them, Obama’s joke about a president worth an estimated $7 billion is being twisted into an attack on the everyman.

But Obama’s joke was about a person, not a group of people. Well, maybe it is about a group: narcissistic heads of state who use opulence to project power, wealth and might. As Obama later pointed out, Trump didn’t chafe at being likened to a brutal dictator responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Nor did he seem to take offense at Obama accusing his administration of an unprecedented amount of corruption. He and his supporters want the public to believe Obama was belittling The Cheesecake Factory, one of the most popular restaurants in America.

Obama knows better than to do that. Like a good comedian, he succeeded at making a joke that mentioned a beloved eatery without making the people who eat there the butt of the joke. He was right to trust that anybody who has been to The Cheesecake Factory knows the décor is over the top, intentionally so, as it blends ancient Egyptian references with Victorian and French Rococo. On top of that, the menu contains more than 250 items. The Cheesecake Factory is a celebration of abundance — with portion sizes to match. That may make sense for a restaurant — but not so much for the White House.

And again, the joke is that Trump’s White House looks like Saddam Hussein designed Cheesecake Factory, meaning Trump’s aesthetic is especially garish and over the top. The Iraqi dictator, who was captured by U.S. forces in 2003 and executed by Iraq’s new government in 2006, built more than 100 palaces during his reign, and a 2003 NBC News story described them as “gold-plated living memorials to his 20-year reign.” Hussein’s monumental architecture was an assault on public space that he redesigned in his image.

The Iraqi dictator built more than 100 palaces during his reign, and a 2003 NBC News story described them as “gold-plated living memorials.”

Obama’s joke was a sophisticated way of calling Trump authoritarian, wasteful and tacky. I think Trump’s supporters know that, but they also know it’s easier to fall back on a tired trope that Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party, are out of touch than it is to defend Trump’s wasteful and authoritarian ways. And they certainly can’t defend him against the perception that he is tacky. Remember the NFT trading cards he marketed that depict him as a superhero, cowboy and astronaut?

During this first year in the White House, Obama’s critics dubbed him “President Poupon” for ordering a hamburger with Dijon mustard. He may never beat the “elite” charges. But it’s not elitist to say the White House shouldn’t be gilded in gold. None of us would care if Trump draws inspiration from Versailles for his private residences, but the White House belongs to all of us, and its design and decoration ought not overwhelm, intimidate or make others feel small. Nothing the president designs should make us think of The Cheesecake Factory — or Saddam Hussein.

The post We all know what Obama’s Cheesecake Factory joke was really about appeared first on MS NOW.

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — A promise not to start foreign wars was a central plank of Donald Trump’s 2024 platform. In North Carolina, home to the nation’s most populous military base, Fort Bragg, people have taken that broken promise personally.

Elizabeth Boahn, 48, from Stedman, voted for Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024. But in 2026, with her 18-year-old son, Colby, on the verge of joining the Navy after graduation, she’s regretting her support.

“It’s heartbreaking. I just, I pray that he doesn’t have to go over there,” said Boahn, referring to the Middle East.

When you shake a man’s hand, you look him in the eye. If they can’t, you don’t trust them … be a man of your word.”

—Elizabeth Boahn

“My granddaddy taught me this, and he was a Marine. When you shake a man’s hand, you look him in the eye. If they can’t, you don’t trust them … be a man of your word,” Boahn said. Asked if she considered Trump a man of his word, she said, “Nope.”

Asked how the war with Iran had affected her life, Boahn said, “it’s on the verge of taking my son away … 18 years old, hasn’t even really begun to live a life.”

She had choice words for the president. “He’s going over there and starting wars, that is destroying our economy. It’s causing my struggle of living,” she said.

Boahn’s frustration with the president’s broken promise stood in contrast to how some veterans who spoke to MS NOW reflected on Trump’s failure to stay out of foreign military conflicts.

Chad McKeown, who voted for Trump in 2024, served in the Army for 20 years and deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. After returning home, he started Kraken Customs, an auto body shop that emphasizes hiring veterans.

McKeown acknowledged the costs of the war with Iran. “This whole thing is an economic nightmare,” said the 45-year-old entrepreneur, who said his business is still doing well despite the headwinds.

But asked about his thoughts on the war itself, McKeown said it’s part of the military’s culture not to question orders from the commander in chief.

“When you put your life on the line for your country in the service — whether it’s Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, now Space Force — you learn how to humble yourself amongst those that are appointed above you,” he said.

The moment you get on the side of naysaying them or becoming a shadow governor, you are discrediting what we’re all supposed to be standing for.”

—Chad McKeown

“The moment you get on the side of naysaying them or becoming a shadow governor, you are discrediting what we’re all supposed to be standing for,” he said.

Mary Hampton, an Army veteran from Vander who voted for Trump three times, echoed that deference. “Do I want our troops home? Yes, I do, absolutely. But I’ve got to leave those decisions to other leaders that are in charge right now,” she said.

Reagan Juan, an Army veteran, has service in her blood. Her grandfather, Don Feeney, is one of the original members of Delta Force, the prestigious elite U.S. Army special operations unit. Juan, who was named after President Ronald Reagan, said she voted for Trump in 2024 solely because of his promise not to start any foreign wars.

“That’s such a big promise. We’re not just promising, you know, more funding for education, or we’re not promising tax cuts. This is people’s lives, our real lives,” said Juan, whose husband also served in the military.

“There needs to be way more checks and balances. There needs to be more oversight. There needs to be more transparency in what is actually going on,” Juan said. “There needs to be a clear end state. There needs to be a clear exit strategy. If we aren’t doing that, I don’t know what we’re doing out there,” she said.

Juan said she feels “shame” for voting for Trump and repeatedly described the war in Iran as “reckless.”

An Elon University poll from March 2026, shortly after the war began, found that 51% of North Carolina voters opposed military involvement in Iran. A more recent poll from Elon University in September found that number virtually unchanged, with 52% of registered voters disapproving of the war. That is lower than national polling averages on the issue: An October Pew poll found 65% of Americans disapproving of the president’s handling of the conflict.

My delivery expense has nearly doubled. My prices have been inflated, but my margins have remained the same, or less.”

—Jason Bruton

The longer this war has gone on, the less patient Jason Bruton has become. Bruton, an auto body shop franchisee, voted for Trump three times.

“The war in Iran is dragging on too long. I was supportive of it in the beginning when I thought it would be like a monthlong war,” he said. The Pentagon estimated that the war has cost more than $47 billion dollars, an investment Bruton doesn’t think will pay dividends.

“My delivery expense has nearly doubled. My prices have been inflated, but my margins have remained the same, or less, because I’m absorbing some of the cost of doing business and to help keep my customers,” Bruton said.

The post Trump’s broken promise not to start new wars is personal to N.C. voters appeared first on MS NOW.

The Republican National Committee rejected the narrative that both parties engage in similar tactics after a New York Times report exposed Democrat-linked efforts to recruit a second "Dan Sullivan" onto Alaska’s Senate ballot, saying Republicans are focused solely on securing elections while Democrats are "trying to be fraudulent."

"No, both sides of the aisle don’t do this," RNC election integrity communications director Ally Triolo told Fox News Digital on Thursday. "Our entire effort here at the RNC is securing elections, making them fair and free and honest."

"We are doing the exact opposite of what Democrats are trying to do. Democrats have voted time and time again against the Save America Act. They have voted against common sense safeguards.

DEM STRATEGIST SHRUGS OFF ALASKA BALLOT SCANDAL ON MS NOW, INSISTS 'THIS STUFF HAPPENS ALL THE TIME'

"We couldn't be more different from Republicans versus Democrats, and I honestly hope people see this straight in the eye with what's happened out of Alaska, that Democrats are completely disingenuous. They have ill intentions. They're trying to disenfranchise voters, and, of course, trying to be fraudulent.

"This is fraudulent behavior, and they need to be held accountable to the fullest extent."

The Times reported Wednesday that Senate nominee Mary Peltola’s campaign, aides from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and others worked to place a retired teacher named Dan J. Sullivan on the ballot.

JASON CHAFFETZ: DEMOCRATS TRIED TO TRICK ALASKA VOTERS. PELTOLA MUST ANSWER

"Republicans, we tried to fight this months ago and draw attention to this Democrat scheme," Triolo said. "And look, no wonder Democrats are against election integrity because they don't want to be held accountable for trying to disenfranchise voters and cheat the system."

"It has been abundantly clear from the get-go that this was a ploy to try to sway voters, confuse voters, take votes away from the real Sen. Dan Sullivan," she added. "And that is exactly why you saw the DOJ intervene just last week to make sure there were protections in place before the election could be certified to make sure everything was above board. And now we have this bombshell report coming out exposing exactly what we have been saying, and I think this points to the larger issue of Democrats continually fighting election integrity, because again, they have admitted that they cannot win fair and square when safeguards are in place."

TRUMP SAYS 'WE ARE LOOKING INTO' OTHER DAN SULLIVAN ON ALASKA BALLOT, WARNS ABOUT GOVERNOR'S RACE

The RNC election integrity unit has a major on-the-ground operation in Alaska, she said, including an in-state director, attorneys, observers and poll workers, and that President Donald Trump and the Justice Department have already moved to address the issue.

The DOJ last week sued to block certification of a potential Peltola win if votes for the second Sullivan could have changed the outcome, and a senior DOJ official told Fox News on Thursday that the criminal investigation has intensified, with officials examining possible civil-rights violations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.

Vice President JD Vance said authorities should "certainly look into whether [Peltola] committed election fraud," describing the effort as an attempt to "steal a Senate seat." Senate Majority Leader John Thune called it a "coordinated effort" and "totally dirty pool."

SEN DAN SULLIVAN BRANDS PELTOLA’S ALLEGED BALLOT SCHEME A ‘SCANDAL AT THE HIGHEST ORDER’

There is an "aggressive criminal investigation" into Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. appearing on the ballot, sources told Fox News. That investigation has only intensified since the Times' reporting but has been underway for several months.

This investigation, being run by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alaska, is expected to go beyond Tuesday's Election Day, and there will not be any sort of indictment or heavy grand jury activity before then.

'DECOY DAN' SULLIVAN CASE LEADS TOP SENATOR TO BREAK FOUR-YEAR X SILENCE: 'PATTERN OF LIES'

The DOJ thus far has declined to comment on the matter.

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has also ordered a state investigation. Peltola’s campaign and DSCC officials have denied involvement in recruiting the second Sullivan to confuse voters, issuing warnings that "both sides" put up spoiler candidates in elections.

The Alaska Supreme Court previously ruled the second Dan Sullivan could remain on the ballot under state law.

"The RNC is heavily invested in protecting the vote in Alaska since this scheme came out," Triolo said. "We've been fighting it, drawing attention to it, doing everything we can to educate voters.

DEM BUCKS PARTY OVER ALLEGED ALASKA VOTE-SIPHONING EFFORT: 'NEITHER PARTY SHOULD BE DOING IT'

"We are heavily invested in securing Alaska and obviously this scheme is an absolute fraud. You saw President Trump come forward and say that Mary Peltola, the fake Dan Sullivan, all of these individuals should be held accountable not only for lying about their affiliation with the scheme, but also just for trying to deceive voters.

"We are seeing this play out in real time. Even The New York Times, the left-wing media, has no choice but to hold them accountable for their schemes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"So I think what we need to stay focused on, as Republicans, is that we need to keep the majority. This is why this midterm election feels like a presidential, because so much is at stake."

Fox News' David Spunt, William Mears and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

Serbs voted “Students Win” without knowing what their program offers, it doesn’t even matter, “anyone is better than Vučić.”

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

What to make of the present Serbian moment? Post-Milošević politics is closing a two-and-a-half-decade cycle, standing on the threshold of a new era whose dynamics mirror the old. But history does not repeat; it rhymes. Eerily familiar patterns, driven by traits of the collective Serbian psyche, are re-emerging, even as external and internal material conditions chart a divergent course.

Color Revolutions are quite simple on a level identical to basic marketing. Why does the average person opt to pay a considerable premium for Nikes over some generic basketball shoe? There is top-down vertical advertising at the first level, but this is later surpassed by horizontal peer to peer viralization which leverages on social acceptance. Here this is a simple combination of Edward Bernays’ 1923 work, Crystalizing Public Opinion, his 1928 work, Propaganda, combined with Gustav Le Bon’s 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Then of course there are Saul Alinsky, Gene Sharp, and Sharp’s student and Otpor! leader, Srđa Popović. But since the Arab Spring series of Color Revolutions, social media starting with Twitter became a critical factor.

There resides a great strength in social media, the TikTok generation, which also characterized by and large the foreign NGO-backed “Student” movement itself. The “Student list” came to power without clearly communicating to its own voters what exactly they would do on economic, territorial, and foreign policy matters if elected. On October 26th, they were placating Serbian nationalists and Eurosceptics on Russian television to absolve them of fears which in reality they are justified in having. We saw this also with Magyar in Hungary, so this part of the play’s script was not only already rehearsed, but had seen its opening night in the Hunnic lands to the north. But the “Student List” color revolutionaries did not wait long, on October 27^th, Ilija Srdanović, lead candidate of the Student List told the U.S. funded Radio Free Europe that the new government will continue EU integration and the EU-mediated dialogue with Pristina, we presume, towards Kosovo recognition.

Screenshot from RFE/RL Interview with Srdanovic

What Serbs before the election were told by the “Student List” was “Trust me, bro”, a gamble that a “majority” of people in the small Balkan country were apparently willing to take. We will not even discuss the improbability of over 600,000 new voters rising from graves or crawling out of strollers to vote, as Vučić is not challenging the results, even though the “Student List” Color Revolutionaries expected him to.

That fact alone relates to a broader economic and military crisis which looms overhead, and will be the subject of further analysis which will better explain why Vučić is in the optimal position politically as an opposition leader over the course of the coming years. But on that note, our prior analysis of the EU/NATO drive to war with Russia in 2029/2030 is all but certain; see Still a failure: The City of London backs EU’s €90 billion Ukraine war-chest.

The vaguemaxxing approach perfected at Occupy Wall Street sixteen years ago allowed the anti-Vučić opposition to present as a Rorschach blot of sorts; appearing as anti-EU/NATO nationalists to the nationalists and appear as pro-EU liberal to the liberals. Though, to wit, most sophisticated-enough liberals understood the strategy: to fool the “under-educated, Orthodox, working class, country-bumpkin nationalists”. This is part of the problem of the Serbian professional managerial class “intelligentsia” as Archibald Reiss understood over a century ago, and as we will discuss later on in this piece.

To understand the present moment requires grasping the years of betrayal that followed the post–Cold War era’s first color revolution, which unfolded in Belgrade twenty-six years ago. We outline those fifteen years before the rise of the Serbian Progressive Party for two important reasons; first to set the record straight on the actual condition of the “selling out” of Serbia as those new to the Serbia story are prone to believe the “Student list” ADHD propaganda that Vučić did these things, and second, perhaps more importantly, as a funhouse mirror forecast of sorts, given that we are nearing the start of a new rhyming historical cycle (back towards chaos and betrayals). However, the broader global context has changed. NATO is in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Serbia is threatened on all sides, and is obviously both the lowest hanging fruit and the “punching bag” for the EU/NATO: what they cannot inflict upon Russia, they will inflict upon Serbia, which they regard as “little Russia”.

October 5^th – The “Bulldozer Revolution” – Color Revolutionaries storm the Parliament building and overthrow Milošević

Recall back in October, 2000; after winning the election, DOS (Demokratska opozicija Srbije), whose representative at the time was Vojislav Koštunica, the ruling party Socialists hastily betrayed and extradited their man, former president Slobodan Milošević, to an ad hoc tribunal established by bodies that had no jurisdiction over it. Immediately before the election, the sentiment of the people and the opposition movement “Otpor” was that anyone was better than Slobodan Milošević; they promised prosperity, peace and stability, a state without corruption or the mafia, and the people believed it. Following the election results, celebrations lasted for days with the slogan “He’s finished” and with hope for a better tomorrow. Their “better tomorrow” never came.

Serbia was in an abyss from 2000 all the way to 2012, around 1200 state-owned companies were sold for chump change, largely to foreign interests. These had been not only a mark of sovereignty, but also provided fair and reliable wages that working families relied upon. Because of the leaders of the DOS, Serbia was economically destroyed in the years that followed. When it was believed things couldn’t get worse, they proved Serbs wrong. Serbia was ruled by a party whose members were not in agreement regarding politics and the path they wanted to take, for all that united them was the rancid combination of Western backing and opposition to Milošević, (and this is the same contradiction we find with the “Student government” today).

This was evidenced again in 2003 with the extradition of the president of the opposition Radical Party, Vojislav Šešelj, to the Hague Tribunal, where he remained until 2014 and was never convicted, and released and returned to Serbia in 2016 as the result of back-channel work done under Vučić in coordination with the Radical Party (an effort which this author participated). Later in that same year of 2003, just a month after Šešelj’s extradition, Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić was likely assassinated by members of the Serbian security establishment who feared that Đinđić would continue to extradite more Serbian patriots, which further weakened an already shaken state. Following this and the failed presidential elections, the disagreements between the leaders of DOS reached a culmination and the party split into two fronts, DS and DSS. During 2003 and 2004 Serbia had no president but rather a string of acting presidents: first Nataša Mićić (Civic Alliance of Serbia), who held that duty for three months, then Dragan Maršićanin (DSS) held the role for a month, then Predrag Marković (G17plus) performed the function for three months, after which Boris Tadić, of the Democratic Party (DS), was elected president in July 2004.

To make themselves more acceptable to EU membership, Serbian laws were changed and a new Constitution was adopted in 2006, during the term of President Tadić. In that constitution, Kosovo and Metohija were placed in the preamble of the constitution supposedly to emphasize the significance of the fact that Kosovo and Metohija is part of Serbia, forgetting to emphasize that the preamble of a constitution is not necessarily a binding part. Immediately before the adoption of the 2006 Constitution, the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved, leaving Serbia landlocked. This was the culmination of a Western-instructed independence referendum, made possible when Serbian authorities previously signed the Belgrade Agreement to restructure relations between Serbia and Montenegro, where there we saw the renaming of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into the Union State of Serbia and Montenegro before its eventual split. A questionable constitution was adopted. At that moment, Serbia had no real army, the “Democratic” authorities made sure of this during that period, which in turn laid the perfect groundwork for the ethnic Albanian declaration of independence of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia in February 2008. Serbia had no army to defend it, the people took to the streets and protested, but since preserving Serbian sovereignty was not on the list of Western/NGO requirements of Serbia, nothing came of it. Nota bene: this is what happens when protests are without mass institutional support (foreign or domestic); the elites weather them and people’s spontaneous protests fizzle out and demoralization sets in. Sustained protests for years requires massive organization and high levels of funding and coordination.

After this, Serbia under Tadić signs the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU. In 2008 Serbia experiences an economic crash during the global crisis engineered by Wall Street and the City of London (which as an aside led to the next round of Color Revolutions in the form of the Arab Spring within two years), the loss of jobs, and a spike in the euro exchange rate. After that, the then- Democratic Party (DS) authorities under President Tadić extradited more Serbian heroes to the Hague Tribunal: Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadžić in 2008, followed Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić in 2011, in exchange for which Serbia received candidate status for EU membership.

Archibald Reiss, the Swiss criminologist and Serbophile was so moved by the Serbian spirit, unity, and sacrifice during the First World War that he made Serbia his home, but in equal measure found himself outraged and indeed demoralized by the levels of corruption, opportunism, and classism among the elites both during and after the war. His insights into the Serbian mentality tell us a lot about what we have just seen, or rather, why things played out the way they did. Reiss meticulously dissected the tragic rift between the noble, heroic ordinary people and a self-serving, corrupt intellectual and political elite. Reiss would have viewed the foreign-backed NGO color revolution that ousted Vučić as little more than another manifestation of the Serbian elite’s moral decay, naivety, and subservience to external powers, and also their sense of entitlement lording over the Serbian masses, in Ottoman style, but worse for it requires manipulating and playing upon Serbian patriotism, sense of duty, and their deep rooted commitment to both personal and collective freedom. Reiss would sharply lament how the populace, endowed with immense bravery yet often prone to political short-sightedness and easily gas-lit by grand rhetoric, allowed themselves to become pawns in a geopolitical game orchestrated by foreign money and nefarious interests. He would fiercely criticize the urban “intelligentsia” and opportunistic political actors for their uncritical envy and imitation of foreign masters (what today we would call a product of autochauvinism combined with foreign soft power acculturation), pointing out that in exchanging one ostensibly “corrupt autocrat” for leaders beholden to external NGOs, Serbia merely traded internal political clientelism for foreign subservience. To Reiss, actual national sovereignty and social justice could never be gifted by foreign-funded apparatuses; rather, by relying on foreign interventions instead of conducting a deep, self-reliant moral regeneration from within, Serbians had once again fallen victim to their tragic flaw: letting the “king of money” and corrupt elites dictate their destiny while losing sight of their own authentic identity.

Čujte Srbi: čuvajte se sebe – by Rodolphe Archibald Reiss

Reiss observed that the Serbian political elite and the self-proclaimed intelligentsia flipped wildly between a sense of superiority over their own populace and deep-seated envy of wealthier, more advanced foreign nations. Their idea of modernizing Serbia was not to build on authentic national virtues, but to copy external models superficially (today, the EU or the ‘Nordic model’) while harboring a hidden disdain for the common Serbian peasant (Vučić voters, derided as Sendvučić, voting in exchange for sandwiches). Modernization, in that sense, was a vanity project rather than a matter of national survival.

Magyar offers congratulations to the Student List

So now here in late October 2026 we hear “He’s finished” on the streets. Once again, Serbs have bought the lie. Once again a state without corruption, without a mafia was promised. Serbs voted “Students Win” without knowing what their program offers, it doesn’t even matter, “anyone is better than Vučić.” The paradox is that now the state will be led by the very people who ruined it in the period from 2000 to 2012 and to finish everything they couldn’t back then. We can forecast the return of the Hungarian separatist movement in Vojvodina, which flourished in the early 2000s with the support of the Provincial Government headed by Bojan Pajtić in the period from 2004 to 2009, who is now on the Students Win parliamentary list. Without Orbán in Hungary, and specifically with Magyar there in charge, we can all but guarantee it. But as we have said, war is on the horizon. Where the Russian army situates by 2028 will determine much. Where the U.S. will situate after presidential elections in November of that same year will determine the rest.

Follow Joaquin Flores on Telegram @NewResistance or on X/Twitter @XoaquinFlores

Plus, the Friday news quiz.

© Sean Rayford for The New York Times

Young men swung to Donald Trump in 2024. Polling shows they are now moving away — but to what? Sabrina Tavernise, a reporter for The New York Times, went to Michigan to find out.

© Luke Piotrowski/The New York Times

A backlash over high prices helped Republicans capture a majority in 2024. Now, it may be the source of the party’s own undoing.

© Doug Mills/The New York Times

Polls show the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham in a virtual tie with her Democratic opponent, Dr. Annie Andrews. An upset was unthinkable just a few months ago.

© Win Mcnamee/Getty Images

Forget California’s billionaire wealth tax. The economist Natasha Sarin believes there are better ways to make billionaires pay up.

© The New York Times