Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., announced late Friday she will resign her seat in Congress, one week after President Donald Trump publicly pulled his endorsement of the outspoken Georgia lawmaker. In a lengthy statement posted to X, Greene cited her growing disillusionment with Washington politics, blasting what she called a corrupt “Political Industrial Complex” that […]

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.The post SISU: Road to Revenge first appeared on Worth it or Woke.

"Yeah, I did that". The post Ozzy Osbourne’s comical revenge for David Lee Roth playing disco music first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

In New York City — where skyrocketing rents eat up paychecks and leave families scraping by — the Afro-Indian-Muslim socialist Zohran Mamdani just seized power in November, winning many of the working-class New Yorkers who voted for President Donald Trump a year ago. If focusing on Mamdani’s geographic, ethnic, and religious background seems like a low blow, it’s because his background — not his bourgeois socialism — should concern people the most. (RELATED: The Mamdani Model: More Socialist Mayors to Come) The 34-year-old son of Ugandan exile and Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani isn’t the typical utopian from your local Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) chapter. He’s a slick third-world populist nursing a grudge that, if not addressed by the America First Right, will transform the country in a way even former President Barack Obama never dreamed of. (RELATED: Trivializing Religion Left Us Unprepared for Political Islam) We can’t delude ourselves that voters will magically come around to common-sense conservatism after they’re crushed by socialist policies. Mamdani’s socialism will fail — as socialism always does. But conservatives should not assume voters will automatically blame him or his ideology when it collapses. We can’t delude ourselves that voters will magically come around to common-sense conservatism after they’re crushed by socialist policies. They never have and never will; if anything, they’ll likely demand the government do more to run their lives. Mamdani and his ideas are an existential threat to America First conservatism because, unlike the bland neoliberalism of the Democrat establishment, he offers a genuine alternative that is just as populist as what the America First Right offers. (RELATED: Electing the Image: Mamdani and the Mimetic Turn in Democracy) With urban affordability hitting both recent college graduates and working-class Americans hard, Mamdani’s calls for rent freezes, free childcare, and free buses tapped into the same anti-establishment anger that fueled Trump’s historic gains in New York City. (RELATED: Mayor ‘Madman’ Mamdani Will Do More Economic Damage Than 9/11) Mamdani won 37 of 47 neighborhoods that shifted at least 25 points toward Trump in 2024. In one of these districts in Queens, Mamdani won by 84 points. Both succeeded because they focused on the fundamentals: Meeting people in their neighborhoods and focusing on the economy. Conservatives can’t ignore this victory as a niche urban oddity that appeals only to champagne socialists paying rent with their parents’ largesse. Mamdani’s socialism, spiced with racial bitterness, risks attracting working-class voters on economics, then stabbing them in the back with mass immigration and underhanded race-based reparations. (RELATED: Mamdani Is NOT a New Phenomenon: He’s the Center of the Democrat Party) Mamdani’s advantage comes from this base’s demographics: Not New York City’s traditional “progressive” bloc but rather its massive immigrant population, most of whom hail from the third world. Despite being an elitist, Mamdani was able to channel the grievances the Soviet Union used during the Cold War with these immigrants’ countries of origin to gin up anger toward — and envy of — the West’s free market system. (RELATED: Comrade With a Condo: The Mamdani Myth Exposed) By campaigning in Urdu, Arabic, and Spanish, Mamdani turned out a coalition of voters who came to the U.S. seeking a better life. “I speak of Yemeni bodega owners and Mexican abuelas. Senegalese taxi drivers and Uzbek nurses. Trinidadian line cooks and Ethiopian aunties,” he said in his victory speech. Contrast that coalition with the one that turned out for establishment loser Andrew Cuomo. He fared much better with native-born New Yorkers — winning them 49-38 percent — and generationally established communities. For instance, Cuomo won Jewish voters 60–31 percent. Mamdani, meanwhile, won 81 percent of voters who’ve lived in the city for less than 10 years. Mamdani’s view of America isn’t one of assimilation or the classic melting pot. He views it as an economic zone that should continually welcome the world’s huddled masses to turn the city — and eventually the country — into a soulless, cultureless mass of “global citizens” lacking any sense of collective identity beyond their commitment to multiculturalism and wealth redistribution. Only the America First Right can save the U.S. from falling into this dystopia. It can do this by offering a true alternative to Americans — old and new alike — struggling to achieve the American Dream. The future of America is populist. The question remains whether the populist Left or populist Right will succeed. More Dreams From His Father It’s important to emphasize Mamdani’s ethnic and religious identities instead of his socialist identity because he emphasized his voters’ ethnic identities in his victory speech. What makes his socialism worse than the run-of-the-mill DSA variety is the anti-colonial baggage inherited from Mamdani’s father, Mahmood. Mamdani’s father was born in Bombay and raised in Uganda. He attended university in the U.S., thanks to a generous foreign exchange program by former President John F. Kennedy. Rather than gratefully studying engineering as he originally planned, Mahmood turned to political activism as a non-citizen, for which even the Ugandan ambassador scolded him. (RELATED: Bowdoin College: Finishing School for a Socialist) After being poisoned by leftist American universities, Mahmood returned to Uganda as a pan-African nationalist. Months later, ironically, Ugandan dictator Idi Amin kicked him out for being Asian. Mahmood then received asylum in the West. Once again, rather than defend the West out of any sense of gratitude, he devoted his career to attacking its history and achievements. In Citizen and Subject, which he dedicated to Zohran, he blames European colonial leftovers for Africa’s tribal divisions and continent-wide despotism. The Mamdani family frequently hosted anti-Western intellectuals like Edward Said and Mona Khalidi for dinner. Mahmood told the New Yorker they considered the guests Zohran’s “uncles and aunties.” Growing up under the influence of such propagandists, Zohran naturally linked the Palestinian cause with former apartheid South Africa. (RELATED: Radical Chic Continues at Georgetown) But Zohran added a Marxist economic dimension to his father’s anticolonialism by blaming it for international income gaps, something he’s carried over to electoral politics. Rather than identify the root causes of American income inequality, like mass immigration or technological growing pains, he views it as history’s unpaid bills. Rent spikes, or gentrification in Brooklyn and Queens? To Mamdani, those are obvious forms of “domestic white colonialism.” Not All Socialists Are the Same A classic American socialist like Bernie Sanders would harm the economy through class-war taxes, regulations, and wealth redistribution, seeing the world purely in terms of haves and have-nots. A third-world-rooted socialist like Mamdani nurses deeper civilizational grievances, viewing everything through a racial or continental lens that turns policy into payback. Activating the children of immigrants from the Soviet-influenced third world quickly turns from economics to settling scores with the West. This is fundamentally different from activating New York’s old Democrat base (think the descendants of 19th-century Italian or Polish immigrants). The average American socialist, like Sanders, dreams of class solidarity. Anti-colonial extremists like Mamdani and his third world-derived supporters hate America, viewing it as the British Empire’s evil successor and race-based socialism as the solution. Mamdani’s own rhetoric betrays his race-obsession. When he floated a plan for hiking property taxes by wealth, he didn’t just mention taxing the rich more. He specifically named “richer and whiter neighborhoods.” In his pre-election appearance on The View, Mamdani offered vague platitudes when asked to explain “democratic socialism.” Exasperated, Joy Behar asked him if he was like a Scandinavian politician. “A little more brown, but yes,” he said. He was so proud of this quip that he posted it to his campaign X account with the caption, “Like Scandinavian… but brown.” Like Scandinavian…but brown. pic.twitter.com/04cS03x8lp — Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) October 1, 2025 Mamdani’s background and brainwashing indicate he isn’t merely describing his perception of his own skin tone — which is arguably whiter than Andrew Cuomo’s — but the type of socialism he believes in. The Answer to Anti-American Populism — America First Populism The Right cannot sit idly by and hope to mock its way to victory on X. Claiming it’s no big deal “blue voters in a blue city” voted for a socialist Democrat is a dangerous, self-defeating attitude, considering the legion of Trump voters who crossed over to elect Mamdani. Zohran Mamdani just secured a Republican clean sweep for the midterms. Watch support for Trump and MAGA skyrocket once this jihadi simp “REALLY” starts to destroy New York City…. Bonus: Mamdani is going to simultaneously expose Zionist power as he destroys New York City.… pic.twitter.com/fkMd4CTVRO — ALPHAWARRIOR (@xAlphaWarriorx) November 5, 2025   Hey, mainstream media, let’s cool it on the “Zohran Mamdani is a generational talent” hype. He isn’t close to being a generational talent; he performed substantially worse than Bill de Blasio, lmao. Peddling communism and “free everything” promises is a cakewalk in a deep blue… — Alex Bruesewitz ?? (@alexbruesewitz) November 5, 2025 There’s no doubt that Mamdani’s ideas are kooky, and the 20th century is a testament to socialism’s inevitable failure everywhere it’s tried. It’s also true that his election will offer Republicans no end of useful ads, allowing them to paint Democrats as out-of-touch radicals. But that only wins voters who already view socialism as a dirty word. But that only wins voters who already view socialism as a dirty word. It does nothing to win the millions and millions of struggling voters whose first question when confronted with the “s-word” is, “So, what’s wrong with socialism?” The only thing that will win these voters is showing them what’s right with capitalism. Only by crafting political solutions to their problems and communicating those solutions to them will we bring them back into the fold. Youthful pessimism and working-class angst breed opportunities for far-left elites like Mamdani to implement revolutionary experiments mimicking the tribalistic cronyism common to the third world. Class grievance is one thing; decolonized racial grievance is an entirely different animal. That’s a lesson France is currently learning the hard way with its increasingly radicalized and aggressive Muslim immigrant minority. In an ideal world, America’s Cold War influence over the third world would have been achieved through exports and setting a good civilizational example — not giving the red-carpet treatment to young, aggrieved intellectuals from former Western colonies like Mahmoud Mandani, as we did throughout the 20th century. Unfortunately, that preferable society was shattered by idealistic liberals like Kennedy and his successors. There’s still time to slam the door on subversive immigration. But until America achieves that goal, the populist Right must offer struggling urban voters a vision of the American Dream that does not require them to leave the cities they love. Trump did this. He made massive gains in deep blue New York City as a Republican because he mastered the art of Politics 101 — meet people where they are and offer solutions to their economic concerns. He hit specific themes relevant to their neighborhoods, like his experience with urban renewal, municipal regulations, public transit, parks, and illegal immigration — a huge driver of unaffordability that open border socialists have no answer to. If Republicans can figure out how to do this everywhere, they’ll quickly rout the Mamdanis of the world. If they cannot, the left-populist appeals who hate America and the people who founded it will win with promises of free buses, cheaper groceries, and rent freezes. READ MORE from Jacob Grandstaff: SCOTUS Just Missed a Big Opportunity to Stop Election Meddling It’s Time to End Universities’ Foreign Tuition Dependence Don’t Underestimate Mamdani’s Ability to Woo Trump Voters With a Populist-Left Agenda Jacob Grandstaff is an investigative researcher for Restoration News.

To call God “He” is not mere habit but inheritance. From Genesis to Gethsemane, Scripture speaks of the Father, the Son, the King, the Lord. The masculine language of faith is ontological, not ornamental. It tells us something of God’s self-disclosure, of how He chose to reveal Himself — not how we choose to describe Him. Yet in our modern mania to neuter everything from language to liturgy, the question resurfaces: is God male? Or female? Or, as some academic alchemists prefer, an ineffable blend of cosmic energy in desperate need of pronouns? It would be funny if it weren’t so sincere — a culture so desperate to deconstruct authority that it feels compelled to give the Almighty a makeover. Today, the campaign to rewrite God comes not only from pulpits and lecture halls but from pop culture itself. Pop stars purr about the “goddess within,” fashion brands sell “divine feminine energy,” and theologians try to keep up, insisting that God might be “She” after all. From Ariana Grande’s “God Is a Woman” to church services that swap the Lord’s Prayer for gender-neutral “Parent in Heaven,” the movement is as absurd as it is ambitious. We have reached a point where divinity must pass a diversity audit. It would be funny if it weren’t so sincere — a culture so desperate to deconstruct authority that it feels compelled to give the Almighty a makeover. The answer is neither, of course — but that does not make the masculine imagery meaningless. Scripture and tradition are clear: God is spirit, beyond biological sex. But to drain the Bible of its masculine vocabulary is to silence its story. God revealed Himself as Father not because He has a Y chromosome, but because the father’s role — protector, provider, judge, and lover of his children — embodies the divine relation to creation in a way the mother cannot fully capture. To make God genderless is not to make Him larger. It is to make Him vague, incomprehensible, a sort of heavenly abstraction, as shapeless as our age. (RELATED: David Brooks Still Can’t Say the Word ‘God’) The prophets, poets, and psalmists all speak of Him in masculine terms: a warrior who defeats the enemy, a shepherd who guards the flock, a king enthroned above the nations. These are not metaphors chosen by accident. They speak to order, authority, and sacrifice — virtues that, in every era, grow unfashionable but never obsolete. When Christ came into the world, He came not as a concept but as a man who wept, bled, and broke bread with sinners. To call the Incarnation incidental, to say Christ’s maleness is meaningless, is to imply that His humanity itself was optional. (RELATED: Why Are So Many Young Americans Killing Themselves?) There is, of course, maternal imagery in Scripture — Isaiah’s God who comforts like a mother, the hen gathering her chicks. But these are similes, not identities. God is not literally a bird, nor is He literally a woman. These images soften His might, but they don’t redefine His being. To elevate the few feminine metaphors above the ocean of masculine revelation is not equality — it is revisionism with a pink highlighter. The push to feminize or de-gender God often springs less from theology than from therapy. A generation scarred by absent fathers seeks a gentler deity, a cosmic caretaker rather than a righteous judge. But sentiment is not Scripture. The God of Abraham does not apologize. He commands. He blesses and curses. He parts seas and hardens hearts. He does not ask for consent before creating the world. Such a God frightens modern minds conditioned to confuse authority with abuse. Yet without that authority, love itself loses meaning — because mercy presupposes justice, and forgiveness assumes fault. Modern theologians like Phyllis Trible, brilliant though she was, mistook the cultural frame for the canvas itself. Patriarchy may have colored ancient society, but the image of God preceded the pigments. “Let us make man in our image, male and female He created them.” Both sexes bear His likeness, but the act of creating — calling something out of nothing — is expressed through the masculine. The womb receives; the word initiates. Creation begins with speech: “Let there be light.” It is command, not consensus. (RELATED: Why Conservatives Need Traditional Gender Roles) There is dark comedy in watching seminar rooms twist themselves into knots trying to make God “inclusive.” A deity who changes gender to soothe modern sensibilities is not God but a focus-grouped idol. One might as well worship a mirror. The irony is delicious: in rebelling against patriarchy, they’ve replaced the Father with a reflection — a god who looks, thinks, and votes exactly like them. (RELATED: How to Write About Christianity While Knowing Nothing About It) The early Church, surrounded by shrines to fertility and earth, recognized the danger of confusing mercy with maternity, divinity with desire. The symbols shift, but the sin remains. Today’s altars are seminar tables; today’s golden calves are gender pronouns. To insist that God is not “unequivocally male” is technically true, yet the truth hides a deeper deception. God is not male as a creature is male, but He reveals Himself through the masculine because it conveys His transcendence and initiative. He acts; the world responds. He speaks; the void listens. That rhythm — the sacred call and the created echo — is the heartbeat of revelation itself. We lose something profound when we sand down that difference. A father’s love is not a mother’s love. Both are holy, but they are not identical. The father gives authority, law, and legacy; the mother nurtures, shelters, and sustains. Scripture sanctifies both, but only one defines God’s relation to man. He is the Father who runs to meet the prodigal son, not the mother who waits at the window wringing her hands. It isn’t our job to rewrite God’s revelation until it resembles our reflection. It is our duty to receive it with reverence — and remember who is speaking. God may not be a “man” in the biological sense. But He is no androgynous abstraction either. He is who He says He is: “I AM.” That should be enough for us — and humbling enough to keep us honest. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: Train Dreams: An Elegy for the Men Who Built America America’s Crime Divide Is Racial, Regional, and Ruthless David Brooks Can’t Hide His Contempt for Ordinary Americans