“Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area, crime, education, housing, race relations, the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.” ~ Thomas Sowell ~

Afc Newsletter August 23, 2026

580KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The money has a name: Qatar Foundation International. Between 2009 and 2017 alone, it funneled more than $30 million directly into American K-12 public schools. By mid-2026, an investigative report from the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy put the total at more than $65 million across more than 200 programs, reaching more than 100,000 American students. Not a handful of pilot classrooms. A six-figure student population, funded by a foreign monarchy, with no federal law requiring K-12 schools to disclose it. Colleges must report foreign gifts exceeding $250,000. Your kid’s public school doesn’t have to report a dollar.

The same educators, the same school boards, the same progressive institutions that have spent the last two decades treating Christian outreach in public schools as a constitutional emergency, that would suspend a teacher for handing out a Bible, that would trigger an ACLU letter over a moment of silence, and that view any hint of Christian missionary activity near a classroom as a five-alarm fire, somehow found a way to let an organized, self-described “invitation to Islam” walk through the front door, hand out religious garments to fifteen-year-old girls, and distribute literature on sharia law, and then call the whole thing a paperwork error.

This Isn’t a Few Schools. It’s a Funded National Network.

Read more >

TO ALL PARENTS OUT THERE - I URGE YOU TO READ THIS.

This past week ended with shock and sadness at the news that Jason Arday ended his own life in the midst of an investigation over his intellectual credibility. He was the vaunted education sociologist at Cambridge University, media darling and beneficiary of a big book contract, the toast of the town, and the subject of countless hagiographic profiles in media venues.

Plenty of people had whispered for years that he was nowhere near qualified for all this celebration. He was not a genius. He was a fabulist. Saying it, however, was dangerous to one’s career. As a result, he kept getting away with it. His luck ran out when a U.S. academic pressed the issue. The tissue of lies collapsed.

The circumstances surrounding his absurd appointment to a full professorship with a named chair—the youngest black professor to enjoy such privilege—are hardly unique to him. When the full truth coming out about his plagiarism and autobiographical embellishments hit the international news, despair overwhelmed him in tragic ways.

It goes without saying that this young man had benefitted from what’s called DEI, which is the new term for what used to be called “affirmative action” but mutated into rampant privilege based on raw identity politics. Reverse racism doesn’t describe it fully. It is institutionalized discrimination that breeds deep resentment from those passed over and cultivates hidden contempt for those who ride this wave to unearned prestige and plaudits.

Something else has always bugged me about these systems that confer high titles and salaries on people solely on grounds of their race. It is deeply condescending and cruel to the point of being abusive of our fellow human beings. While it is easy to resent people who benefit from unearned exaltation, the plight of those who are its seeming beneficiaries also deserves some attention.

Years ago I had the opportunity to get to know a university administrator and his wife who occupied such a role. We met at a dinner party. He was the only black gentleman in the upper echelon of a major state university. His title was vice president for civil rights or some such made-up badge. It was a position invented to create the appearance of diversity. The position fell to him because he ticked all the boxes.

He was proud of his new position. But the more we spoke, the more he had doubts that he would express under his breath. He said that he has a large budget and staff but is rarely included as part of any serious planning team. He told me that he is mostly sent out on fundraising efforts to tell his story about how he grew up poor, overcame racism, and now has a prestigious position in university administration. But, he told me with frankness, he is tired of that story of himself.

We met up a few weeks later because I was curious to know more. He laid it all out to me. He came of age in an educational environment that was especially seeking blacks who performed above expectations which he always did. But instead of moving up a notch based on merit, he said he became aware early on that he was being accelerated and escalated beyond a level that was justified.

It became obvious in his college admissions, which pushed him into an institution far above that for which he was prepared. He found himself lost in a sea of high achievers. His privilege became a burden. He could not keep up in his classes and began to cut corners. It became obvious to him early that he was going to get away with this.

It seemed like the entire system was on his side. He tried to justify this to himself on grounds that every university has white kids on trust funds with legacy connections. They work less hard than a working-class kid who made it on his own so perhaps this is not unusual.

But, he said, he always felt burdened in multiple directions. It was sad enough that he grew up poor and black in the Deep South and was not expected to achieve. But it was far worse that he was given advancements beyond what he deserved when everyone knew it and considered him to be little more than a token of a compensatory system.

He described to me that choice he had to make. He could refuse the high grades, the advanced placements, the awards and attention that he knew were unmerited. But he was never sure what the point of that would be. Instead, he accepted them all as part of a game. He lost trust and respect in the system that he joined precisely because the system never really expected a high degree of performance from him.

He continued in this vein to tell me about graduate school and PhD studies which were more of the same. There was no point in this where he knew when to refuse, when to say no, when to call out the condescension and fakery of which he was presumably benefiting. In fact, he never saw himself as much of a beneficiary at all. He felt burdened by it all, and even robbed of what all the white kids faced: high expectations and the satisfaction of knowing that one climbed the ladder by virtue of his own efforts.

The story ends with his then appointment, which he knew to be fake at least on some level, though he believed that he truly did have something to contribute to university culture. It was that tag of having been marked by DEI that prevented it. He said he knew from childhood that in any endeavor in life, a title is easy but genuine respect from colleagues must be earned. He simply did not have that and did not know how to get it.

I was hardly in a position to give him advice so I did my best simply to be a sympathetic ear. I’ve thought about this case often through the years, knowing all the while that such cases were growing in academia to absurd extents.

What if the entire system of educational and professional achievement suddenly decided that white guys from Southwest Texas needed a boost through the ranks to make up for past wrongs? Everything I did and everywhere I went was read through my accidental identity and I was celebrated on the basis that I was from Southwest Texas, bypassing everyone else. How would this sit with me?

Absurd, right? Well, for my friend and by virtue of his race, whole degree programs were being manufactured as well as departments all designed to create the illusion of achievement without the reality. And who was doing this? For the most part, it was white left-liberals who were seeking some kind of propitiation for perceived social sins, using black people as pawns in their egalitarian gamesmanship.

And it wasn’t just academia. DEI bled into corporate America, banking, media, the movies, arts institutions, publishing, and into every space and sector in modern life. Objecting to it at any point meant taking a huge risk of being called a racist. Whole systems of communication and enforcement have been invented to cover up all the ways in which meritocracy was being displaced by a new racial hierarchy.

Countless whistleblowers in academic and corporate life have faced brutal retaliation for calling this out. Everyone knows the rules: play along or face the purge. This is how Arday and so many others have gotten away with this for so long. The brave dissidents are smeared and broken. All that’s left are the people willing to live with the lies.

None of this can end well. In the case of Jason Arday, it was not a case of Icarus who flew too closely to the sun and saw his wings melt before falling to earth. No. Instead he was catapulted by others at his previous schools and by Cambridge itself as high in the air as possible but given no parachute.

One day, seemingly out of the blue, the standards police came for him and revealed vast plagiarism and implausible biography. He tried the old tricks of calling them names but they would not stop their investigations. His entire life story was being upended and he was being made a laughingstock, merely for playing along with a system that everyone knew was fake to begin with.

The personal pain of this level of public humiliation is impossible to describe. It is worse than prison. Even when it is completely deserved—he had played the game all along, just as his critics had said—the suffering is unbearable for most mortals. What angers me most about this is not even that Arday played along with the racket that he knew was nothing more than that. It’s that the racket was constructed to work exactly the way it did work, and then suddenly and without any warning, it stopped working.

Decades have gone by when such intellectual fakery has only grown and persisted. It’s not that such systems have been abused by bad actors. It’s that the systems themselves were built to baptize abuse and injustice as a fairness and compensation for past wrongs.

In reality, DEI is demeaning to everyone: the bypassed, the whistleblowers, and the seeming beneficiaries. It is a socially engineered scam created by guilt-ridden intellectuals that is exploitative even of those who seemingly win from its emoluments.

Jason Arday, despite all his failings, never deserved the indignity that comes with an unmerited promotion to the top. He knew this all along, just as my friend knew it. Any serious person with the capacity for self-examination knows it. We should stop these absurd games. They are unsustainable and can end in terrible tragedy.

Commentary by Jeffrey Tucker

August 19, 2026

(Justine Gerardy/AFP via Getty Images)

If one is looking for even more evidence that the Carney-Trudeau state is the enemy of the Canadian people, this qualifies. But at this point if one doesn’t already understand this, no amount of data points, or even proof such as we got when the Federal Court determined the Emergency measures act was unconstitutional, would convince anyone.

Read more >

The ‘anti-racists’ calling Jason Arday’s death a ‘media lynching’ are shameless, narcissistic fools.

To liken a suicide to a lynching is to fully abandon truth, meaning and moral intention. If you cannot see the difference between those bedraggled black men dragged against their will to the hanging tree and a privileged black man choosing to end his own life, then you are beyond help. Argument – words themselves – will not rescue you from the cesspit of cultural relativism in which you have chosen to make your moral home.

To call these people ‘lynchers’ is repulsive beyond belief. Every journalist I know who queried Arday’s rise to professorial power was motored by a thirst for truth. Skin colour was immaterial to them. They only wanted to know whether Arday had been honest, and what it says about Cambridge, the BBC and the other institutions that fell at his feet that not one of them asked that simple question. Calling journalism murderous, equating the asking of questions with the prepping of nooses, is tyrannical.

Read more >

Copyright St Mary’s University Twickenham screenshot

This beautiful place failed to become my home. This is a place where hatred is polite, footnoted, intellectualized, where contempt arrives dressed as scholarship and exclusion calls itself justice. And this is where the timelines begin to deceive me. I stand before a university in Boston, but somewhere inside its walls I see Prague; I see Germany; I see the same human ugliness rearranging itself across centuries. Different faces, different clothes, different words, but the same roles, the same certainty, the same ancient choreography of hatred. For a moment, I no longer know which universe I am standing in, or what year it is. Perhaps that is the cruelty of parallel timelines: history does not return looking exactly as we remember it. It changes its clothes, its language. You see it now: the Jew becomes the Zionist. No longer a swastika; now, a keffiyeh.

Read more >

I could replace Boston with NYC, add a few pointed paragraphs in the theme of paradise lost and it would all come together for me too. NYC was the Jewish city. It was the shining beacon on the hill for us. And now, it’s gone. I am constantly reminded of how the events played out in Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”. From the moment the beast was first hit, its death was assured but it took so terribly long to die. That’s NYC today. The blow has landed and the big magnificent animal, this once amazing Jewish city, is now expiring. Like Orwell’s elephant, it is taking time-a little loss here, a further retreat there. The end is no longer in doubt though. And it’s just so damn depressing. If there is a place in this would, outside of Israel, where we Jews poured our hearts and souls into, NYC was it. And it just wasn’t enough.

She felt Britain had abandoned her

“I am England til I die! I’m England till I die. I know I am, I’m sure I am, I am England til I die!” Mum’s in her element. She’s belting out the words like she’s leading “Jerusalem” at a WI meeting. Only she’s not. She’s on a far-Right march in London, singing at the top of her lungs, the thrill of the words marred only by chants of “Nazi scum!” from the protestors who outnumber her. She just sings louder.

It was 2013, her first ever march. A few months before, she’d discovered Tommy Robinson on Facebook. A few months before that, Islamists had murdered Lee Rigby outside his barracks in Woolwich — and something happened to mum. An anger exploded, a flashpoint I couldn’t get my head round. Where did it come from? How did she go from a shy Cumbrian farm girl to a 60-year old gran marching with an EDL splinter group too Right-wing even for Robinson? “Sandy,” their leader Paul Pitt once told her at a protest in Rotherham, “You’ve got more balls than most men.” I mean, the man had a point. Sandra Wilding was feisty. She cared. She had always cared.

Mum had been a carer for over four decades. She’s cared for the elderly, for dementia sufferers and adults with complex needs. She’d been attacked; kicked, bitten, punched; had her hair yanked out, a sink thrown at her head. But she loved her clients and her clients loved her, clung to her warm, no-nonsense practicality as their own lives unravelled. They all knew if it came down to it, she’d have their backs. When an elderly client died, mum would gently wash and dress them in their favourite outfits, pick a flower from the garden and press it into their folded hands. “The least a body deserves,” she told me once.

Mother and daughter. (Nicola Wilding)

People deserved dignity and respect, she believed. You didn’t abandon them. That word there — abandonment — was the key to understanding mum’s anger. It didn’t explode overnight. It took decades. Mum was one of eight, brought up on a farm in the Eden Valley in Cumbria, a lush agricultural valley that sits between the backbone of the Pennines and the messy jumble of the Lake District fells. Grandad was a farm labourer, on the bottom rung of the rural ladder. It was a hard life and the burden of eight kids and rural poverty eventually took its toll. Nana kept running away, leaving mum and grandad to hold the farm and the family together.

Rural poverty breeds a hard self-reliance, a sort of bootstrap fatalism where the political solidarity fostered in urban industrial England can feel like a world away. What use is collective bargaining against bad weather? The seasons don’t give a shit about solidarity. You survived alone against forces bigger than yourself. Winter was kept out with blankets stuffed under doors and draped across sofas. There was never enough money for food, but there was milk from the house cow, eggs from the chickens and always potatoes. When the flour ran out, mum would use animal feed from the mealhouse to make pastry. All that beef in the byre but none for the table. But you made do.

Mum wasn’t political. Not at first. She spent much of the Seventies on the dole, bringing me up in and out of stormy marriages while working-class power crumbled under Thatcher. In 1985, she bought our council house through Right to Buy, but when we fell behind on payments, loan sharks circled and mum escaped by marrying a soldier who promised stability and security.

That’s when things started getting political. In 1993, mum and my siblings were posted to Lisanelly barracks in Omagh, while I stayed in England for university. One day outside the barracks, a group of men spotted mum’s British number plate as she was returning to camp. They started shouting abuse. She jumped out of her car to confront them as soldiers roared at her to get back inside. That was the moment she quickly realised she couldn’t come here and mind her own business. Her very existence was political.

The family farm. (Nicola Wilding)

Inside camp, she ran the barracks pub, watching young working-class lads coming back from close ops patrols with haunted, hunted looks. 1993 was one of the bloodiest years in the Troubles. Mum felt a maternal protectiveness and a defensive, brittle pride. It pulled everything into focus at once: her class, her Protestantism, her Britishness.

Twenty years later, when mum learned of Lee Rigby’s murder outside the gates of his barracks, it felt personal. Memories of Northern Ireland. Another young lad abandoned by the state he had served. But this time, to be hated in your own country. When Tommy Robinson said they’ll come for your daughters with grooming gangs and your sons with meat cleavers, it sent her marching over Tower Bridge singing “I am England till I die”.

London was just the start. Mum travelled to demos across the country: Rochdale, Luton, Bradford. Her fellow marchers wore “FCK ISIS” t-shirts and called each other patriots. She went to Rotherham twice, protesting the state’s handling of the grooming gangs and its abandonment of vulnerable white girls. But on her third visit to Rotherham, in 2015, she never made it into the town centre. Police shut down the road until mum’s minibus was the only vehicle on it, boxed in by police cars. Every time her bus neared a slip road, another police car shot ahead to block them. “It was all a bit Benny Hill,” mum laughed. The whole operation had cost the police £750,000. “Don’t you think,” mum asked me later, that “money wasted on escorting a minibus of pensioners could have been better spent?”

“She went to Rotherham twice, protesting the state’s handling of the grooming gangs”

At the time, I watched her drift into far-Right protest groups with a kind of shocked bemusement. I was a documentary TV producer, telling other people’s stories, while mum was out there on the streets. I watched her rage harden, her worldview reinforced with every news headline, every anti-fascist screaming in her face. Things got sticky when she started with the “Defund the BBC” posts. “Mum,” I asked her, “do you want me to be jobless?”

I also asked if sharing Facebook posts about Muslims was racist. “Islam isn’t a race!” she snapped back. When white supremacists chanted the notorious “14 words” under the white cliffs, at a protest she attended in Dover, I asked if she really believed it all. “Not everything,” she replied, losing the courage of her convictions. “But I do believe we will be a minority one day.”

Sandy with her children. (Nicola Wilding)

A protest in 2016 helped me finally understand her sense of loss. Howe Barracks, on the edge of Canterbury, had been my family’s home in the Nineties, the first place mum and my siblings finally put down roots. It was a safe, close-knit community, filled with quiet cul-de-sacs and pretty gold-brick houses and cherry trees. Then came the cuts. The barracks was abandoned and left to rot. Now it would house London’s most vulnerable — migrant families — while locals missed out because social housing operated in a weird market economy where the richest councils could outbid for homes anywhere. So mum pinned her Union Jack on the chain-link fence outside her abandoned home, and raised her fingers in a “V for victory” salute at the local-news photographer. At the time, I was making a film about the housing crisis, and it felt like our universes had aligned. A few months later Brexit happened, much to half the country’s surprise. Not mine though. I knew mum.

Then, three years after that, Covid. I begged mum to quit her care job, to shield. She had a bad heart. But she refused.“I’ll die in harness, standing up,” she laughed. But care workers were twice as likely to die from Covid as the rest of the population. Social care, once run by local councils, was now almost fully privatised: a system built on a shaky structure of debt and faceless offshore companies exploiting minimum-wage workers like mum. I didn’t trust those companies to protect her or the people in her care.

One Thursday, a few weeks into lockdown, mum left the house to start her night shift. She lived on an ex-council estate. Others were coming out of their houses too, and gathering on the overgrown green, abandoned after the council stopped maintaining it. People smiled at each other over the tatty wasteland and started clapping. They were clapping for carers and they were clapping for themselves because they were the ones keeping it all going.

They were the low-paid and unskilled, the gig-economy grafters, the left-behinds, the precariat: an atomised working class who had built the country, only to watch their inheritance — power, security, a stake in the national story — sold off. Mum felt the tears welling. It wasn’t so long ago that people were calling her fascist scum on the street. Now, for a few minutes, the country stood and clapped for people like her. And for those few minutes, she stood still and felt it and just let the stupid tears come; hot tears not of anger, now, but of pride. But it didn’t last. Britain clapped on Thursday and forgot on Friday. And, 10 years on from Brexit, that sense of abandonment hasn’t gone away.

Mother and daughter in a new century. (Nicola Wilding)

Whatever happens in Clacton, the rise of Farage and Reform shouldn’t surprise us, not really. People like mum are still looking for someone to speak to them in the language of loyalty and belonging, to pull them back into our fraying national story. Someone to tell them they are not far-Right for feeling discarded. And if Reform finally wins? Chances are commentators will probably treat it as something sudden, like an earthquake. But for families like mine, the ground has been shaking for decades: in abandoned farms and barracks, privatised care homes, hollowed out communities, the slow erosion of the dignity and security that work once promised.

I wish I could tell you mum voted Reform in the recent elections. Not because of my own political leanings — but because it would mean she would still be here. But we lost her to cancer and a broken NHS a year and a half ago. She was a proud, passionate, loyal woman trying to muddle her way through the mess of modern Britain. She died at home with all us around her. My sisters dressed her in her favourite summery dress and denim jacket. I placed a flower in her folded hands.

Written by Nicola Wilding

From Unherd/July 13, 2026

A group of EDL supporters in Luton. (Mark Makela/Corbis/Getty

We have to end the poison of the entire racial grift, the entire DEI, CRT, black supremacy and anti white racism system that is built on middle class authorities taking actions that they think are virtuous but which are actually the most persistent and pervasive forms of racism in the modern era.

We need to give black people or non-whites generally the dignity of treating them exactly the same as everyone else, held to the same standards as everyone else.

And we need to stop thiis obscene rhetoric of white privilege and all the evils and injustices it has created. Academics should be judged solely on merit and objective standards. Rioters and protestors should be accurately distinguished from each other, again on the basis of evidence rather than race.

And a society that punishes people who protest about child rape more sternly and more swiftly than those who committed the child rapes is sick almost beyond the possibility of healing.

Read more >

Thank you Daniel Jupp for this brilliant article.

Tyrants don’t create tyranny. Your obedience does.

Afc Newsletter August 14, 2026

1.07MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A message from Tanya Gaw, Founder of Action4Canada

What began as a routine decision by my mother to withdraw her own money escalated into a disturbing three-week ordeal that every Canadian should know about. I am making our experience with TD Bank public not simply because of what happened to us, but to warn Canadians about how quickly access to your own money can be taken out of your hands; to expose the serious questions this raises about the limits of a financial institution’s authority; and to help educate Canadians and provide practical steps you can take now to protect your financial independence, privacy and access to your money.

What my mother and I were put through was egregious, stressful, humiliating and, in my view, a serious injustice. For my 85-year-old mother in particular, the experience was deeply upsetting. Banks risk losing the very customers they claim to be protecting when fraud-prevention measures become unreasonable and punitive. No Canadian should have to endure this kind of treatment simply for seeking lawful access to their own money.

We intend to continue pursuing answers and accountability. This matter is not over, and further action is forthcoming.

Read more >

If gaining qualifications in literacy is wrong, if scientific truth is a colonial construct, and if celebrating Christmas is forbidden, we really are almost back to the world of Ahmed’s old Hizb pamphlet, where English is dangerous, fairy tales are evil and biology is blasphemy.

Only this time, dressed up in slightly prissier language for a gullible academic audience, it is happening at the heart of the British educational establishment. Once again, I predict, the authorities will do absolutely nothing, ignoring all the evidence outlined in this article. The case of assistant professor Farah Ahmed will become the latest exhibit in the gradual suicide of Britain and the West. When Ahmed says that British society is corrupt, her appointment to this job proves she is surely right.

FULL ARTICLE

After the Jason Arday disaster, here is new evidence that things have gone deeply wrong at Cambridge University.

We can reveal that a former supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, now banned as a terror group, has been appointed assistant research professor of education at Cambridge, in the same faculty as Arday.

Farah Ahmed has explicitly attacked ‘western education’ as a ‘threat’ to Muslims, condemned democracy and integration, and criticised British schools for teaching pupils that child marriage is wrong. During her time at Cambridge, she has written that the Islamic concept of education is sharply opposed to ‘gaining literacy and numeracy and other disciplinary skills demonstrated through qualifications’.

These statements are part of her long record of bigoted, extremist and separatist views on education. In a Hizb ut-Tahrir pamphlet, ‘Education and Identity’, originally written in 2002, republished in 2017, and obtained by The Spectator, Ahmed writes that ‘the Muslim community as a whole in Britain needs to recognise that western education is a threat to our beliefs and values.’

She attacks schools’ ‘attempts to integrate Muslim children’ as seeking to ‘produce new generations that reject Islam… if society is built on kufr [unbelief], it is our duty to tackle this challenge as a community in order to protect our young from its corruption.’

Ahmed is now responsible for postgraduate research in education at Britain’s top university, and for teaching undergraduate students, the future leaders of the profession, ‘how education shapes individuals and society.’

In her chapter in the 2002 pamphlet, Ahmed criticises the national curriculum as a form of ‘systematic indoctrination’ to ‘build “model British citizens” who will seek to actively take part in the implementation of the secular capitalist system in British society. Naturally, such a system will not be suitable to the needs of Muslim students as the aqeedah [belief system] of the Muslim is in complete contradiction to this.’

She attacks British schools for teaching that ‘polygamy or marriage under the age of 16’ is ‘archaic and discriminatory to women’, and for telling children that ‘democracy… is the only way that laws should be created.’ Democracy, she says, is a ‘corrupt tradition’, where if ‘decision makers decide to make bombing Iraq or homosexuality legal, as they currently have, there is nothing anyone can do about it’.

Worst of all, ‘religious tolerance is primarily pushed in religious education’, meaning that ‘Islam is taught as a religion like any other, putting its value on the same level as Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and the like.’

Nor does academic study escape Ahmed’s censure. English, she writes, ‘is one of the most damaging subjects’ a school can teach. Fairy tales ‘reflect secular and immoral beliefs, which contradict the viewpoint of Islam.’ Romeo and Juliet ‘advocates disobeying parents and pre-marital relations.’

Science is a problem too, because in the ‘teaching of evolution, Muslim children will be exposed to ideas that contradict Islam’. And in any subject, boys and girls may be asked to work together. ‘As Muslim parents we try to protect our children from the rubbish that western society encourages’, but interaction with non-Muslim children in the playground, which is ‘full of the competitiveness and individualism that western culture encourages… moulds their personalities away from Islam.’ As she puts it: ‘western culture is playground culture.’

Ahmed first came to public attention in 2009, when I exposed the fact that she was running two private primary schools, and getting more than £100,000 in public money to do so. At least three of the four trustees of the schools were Hizb ut-Tahrir members or activists, including the wife of Hizb’s then-leader, and the schools’ curriculum closely matched key tenets of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s separatist, anti-democratic ideology. (Hizb was still legal then, but was banned as a terror organisation in 2024.)

The story caused a political row, but predictably enough the then schools secretary Ed Balls, the Charity Commission and Ofsted did absolutely nothing. Ahmed went on TV, presenting herself as a poster girl for Muslim persecution, though coyly refusing to answer when asked if she had ever been a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The two schools, in Haringey and Slough, continue to receive public funding (£382,000 last year) and Ahmed is still a trustee of the body which runs them. Now, however, she has rather clearly moved up in the world.

Could the assistant professor perhaps have mended her ways since the publication of her pamphlet? Could she now have embraced the values of the corrupt society which pays her wages? Well, the agenda at Cambridge is a bit more subtly expressed, but you needn’t look far to be deeply worried.

As well as being an assistant professor at the university itself, Ahmed is director of something called the Islamic Educator Learning Community (IELC), part of Camtree, the Cambridge Teacher Research Exchange. Camtree is a centre at Hughes Hall, the Cambridge University college where Ahmed is a research fellow and member of the governing body. In summer 2023, IELC, Camtree and Cambridge University ran a conference on Islam, science and education to ‘recognise the role of science as part of a wider modernist and colonial project’, and to ‘consider challenges’ to the view that ‘sees science as “objective knowledge”’. Ahmed was one of the organisers.

In December 2023, Ahmed and Cambridge University also organised a conference to ‘unlearn conventional teacher education and move toward Islamically grounded teacher development’. This attacked the ‘secular, neoliberal system of education’ as ‘anti-metaphysical’, and said that teachers ‘need to re-centre our focus on preparing the Muslim learner for the akhira,’ everlasting life after death.

Another Ahmed production, of which she is co-author, a ‘How Islamic is my school’ toolkit, says the Islamic concept of education is sharply opposed to ‘gaining literacy and numeracy and other disciplinary skills demonstrated through qualifications’.

IELC’s website promotes (though claims it does not endorse) a site called ‘Salafi Homeschool’. This attacks the fact that ‘many Muslims openly participate’ in celebrating Christmas and warns that ‘repeated exposure [to non-Muslim festivals] can lead to normalisation. Without clear teaching, children may begin to associate happiness, generosity, and togetherness with non-Islamic celebrations instead of the occasions Allah has chosen for this ummah.’

I predict the authorities will do absolutely nothing

‘Whether it is “just a roast,” “just a birthday cake,” or “just presents for the children,” these actions blur the clear boundaries of the deen,’ it continues.

Salafi Homeschool also warns that by going to state schools Muslim pupils may asked to ‘sing songs with messages that conflict with Islamic values’, or ‘join activities like mixed-gender dancing’.

Ahmed did not respond to a request for comment before publication but has previously distanced herself from Hizb ut-Tahrir, saying in 2010 (before the pamphlet was more recently republished) that she had not been a member for a few years and does not agree with all its views as a political organisation.

If gaining qualifications in literacy is wrong, if scientific truth is a colonial construct, and if celebrating Christmas is forbidden, we really are almost back to the world of Ahmed’s old Hizb pamphlet, where English is dangerous, fairy tales are evil and biology is blasphemy.

Only this time, dressed up in slightly prissier language for a gullible academic audience, it is happening at the heart of the British educational establishment. Once again, I predict, the authorities will do absolutely nothing, ignoring all the evidence outlined in this article. The case of assistant professor Farah Ahmed will become the latest exhibit in the gradual suicide of Britain and the West.

When Ahmed says that British society is corrupt, her appointment to this job proves she is surely right.

Written by Andrew Gilligan

The Spectator/August 11, 2026

Getty images

Do the Arabs and Muslims — or the Europeans — really believe that creating a Palestinian state would automatically produce peace? Who would prevent Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad from taking over such a state? Who would confiscate their weapons? Who would prevent Iran or Turkey from supplying Palestinian proxies with weapons, money and training? Who would guarantee that a future Palestinian state would not be used to launch more October 7-style attacks against Israel?

Peace will not come from ignoring Hamas, demonizing Israel and Jews, or repeating slogans about a “two-state solution” as though October 7 had never happened. It will come only when the international community — including Arab and Islamic countries — makes it clear that armed jihadist organizations cannot be allowed to control Palestinian territory, possess private armies, or determine the future of Israelis and Palestinians through terrorism. That would be a far more useful message for Arab and Islamic governments to deliver than yet another communique condemning Israel.

Read more >

(Photo by Salah Malkawi/Getty Images)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel does not accept the 15-point roadmap proposed for the next phase of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan and that the Israel Defense Forces will not withdraw from Gaza until Hamas has been genuinely disarmed. Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Israel’s position follows a warning from Shin Bet Director David Zini that Hamas could use the proposed transition to prolong negotiations and limit Israel’s ability to conduct military operations without surrendering its weapons.

“The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed,” Netanyahu said. “And when I say the disarming of Hamas, it means heavy weaponry, lighter weaponry, all weaponry. And we are talking about genuine disarmament, not fictitious disarmament.”

Read more >

Comment by Linda Goudsmit/August 10, 2026

I am an American citizen who respects, preserves, and protects my individual sovereignty and the sovereignty of the United States of America. The sovereign State of Israel cannot and should not allow others, including America, to determine what Israel will and will not accept to end the 3-year Gaza War against the State of Israel that began on October 7, 2023 when Hamas savages and other Palestinian militant groups invaded Israel and brutally attacked, captured, butchered, and murdered 1,200 Israeli civilians at a music festival!

Consider this inconvenient fact before anyone criticized Israel, Netanyahu, or calls Israel intransigent. What would America do if 6,000 Canadians breached our northern border and launched 4300 rockets on American soil and butchered and murdered 1200 Americans?? Would America allow those who fund the attackers and are in ideological agreement with them to determine her future??? Absolutely not! The whole idea is absurd!

The key countries involved in President Trump’s proposed Board of Peace 15-point plan are Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States. Seriously?? Egypt? Qatar? Turkey? It is an outrage and an insult to the sovereign State of Israel that was attacked on October 7, 2023. In a sane world, the nation that is attacked and prevails dictates the terms that end the war, not her enemies or those who fund them!!

Netanyahu is absolutely correct in rejecting this outrageous plan. It is unseemly and President Trump should never have authorized it.

First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

~ Pastor Martin Niemöller ~

Afc Newsletter August 9, 2026

751KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Afc Newsletter August 9, 2026

751KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

For freedom to prevail President Trump must demand his most rational adult presidential self be in the driver’s seat. Watching the President realign himself and desperately try to make a deal with Muslim countries in the Middle East is like watching a fish flailing and flapping around on land. It will not end well. Israel knows it. Rubio and Hegseth know it. And our enemies know it because their social engineers remain in objective reality.

I thought we had learned the lesson in WWII that you cannot make a deal with a Nazi––it does not take a genius to realize that you cannot make a deal with an Islamist either. Why? Because, like Nazis, Islamists are ideologically committed to their doctrinal goals and ideological supremacy––everything else is details.

The difference between President Trump and the battered wife are the consequences. The battered wife will eventually be battered to death; a battered president leaves America vulnerable and weakened. I no longer trust President Trump’s foreign policy decisions in the Middle East because I no longer trust the entity that is driving his bus.

Read more >

Magna Carta was sealed by King John in 1215. Its principal author, Stephen Langton (Archbishop of Canterbury at the time), opposed the notion that monarchs could act above the law. He believed that morally upstanding citizens were a prerequisite for a just and prosperous Christian society. Individuals needed to operate with honour and integrity to find their true sense of spiritual and secular purpose. For this to happen they had to be free, and a system of law based on truth, fairness and transparency had to underpin these freedoms. If all people were treated were treated equally under the law, individual rights and freedoms would be respected across society. Today, this basic concept, the cornerstone of Western civilisation, is at risk from legally enforceable protected characteristics which have created a hierarchy of victimhood and ill-defined differentiation.

Read more >

Every deadly epidemic has a Patient Zero—the initial point of contagion from which the infection spreads unnoticed until the host is hollowed out from within. In the catastrophic collapse of Western self-preservation, Patient Zero has a name: Edward Said. Before Orientalism became the undisputed holy scripture of modern academia, its author needed a foundational myth. To sell a radical theory that casts the entire Western world as an irredeemable, predatory villain, Said knew he couldn’t simply present himself as a comfortable Ivy League professor. He needed the ultimate shield of modern moral immunity: he needed to be a victim.

The saddest thing is that you were canonized: every campus that assigns your book without challenge, every newsroom that repeats your language, every institution that raised a new priesthood of disciples and useful idiots to guard your name like scripture—these are all satellites of the same church; Columbia built the altar, and the world supplied the congregation.

Everything happening to us now, to our girls, to our cities, and to the innocent bleeding out under the banner of “resistance” is not an accident of history. It is your doctrine, executed exactly as designed. History will not forget your name. It will not forgive it either.

Read more >

I highly recommend you sign up for Behind the Narrative.

This past week was a wild ride. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released many thousands of pages of documentation concerning the strange world of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) while Dr. Anthony Fauci was at the height of his power as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci’s wife headed the ethics department for the entire agency.

His tenure there came to an end in December 2022, following three years in which he was celebrated by mass media as the nation’s leading voice for science and the man with all the answers for dealing with a respiratory pandemic. He was on television daily, sitting for as many as 12 interviews a day.

All this while, he kept careful logs of each day, while working with a large staff to prepare the document as the first draft of an autobiography. He believed that he would go down in history with exactly the reputation the media had cultivated for him. He lobbied for and amassed dozens of awards, some of which paid in the high six figures. He was sought after and doted on by all the elites.

All at once, it has fallen apart. The simple reason: The agency he once occupied is now run by a man and people he had ferociously denounced in public and private. The release was an act not of revenge but of simple transparency. The American people deserve to know the truth about a time in which accurate information was denied to them through censorship and media propaganda.

It’s a rare treat. We find out, for example, that the billionaire Bill Gates has special security clearances at NIH, where at every visit he was treated like royalty. Gates cleared his book on pandemics with Fauci, who recommended an editor at NIH, none other than Dr. David Morens, who has been charged with document destruction.

The revelations go on and on seemingly without limit. I started reading as soon as the diary was released. I saw that it was 1,100 pages, but that’s full pages in small type. In book form, it would be 2,400 pages. I could not stop reading. Having lived and breathed every day of this, I was fascinated to see Fauci’s own thinking in light of the world outside.

Not only was my weekend gone completely, but also, without notice, the project took up the next day and evening and then again. And again. It was late Thursday afternoon before I finished. My notes on the salient parts, the truly astounding material, alone took up 30 pages along with screenshots. I had lost so much sleep over these days and canceled every appointment. It was all too delicious to resist.

And you know why, correct? For years we had been stuffed to the gills with the greatness myth. Then it suddenly all unraveled, slowly but furiously and all at once. The author was put in front of a Senate subcommittee and questioned in great detail about the origin of the virus, the contracts, the cover-ups, the angling for fame and fortune, and so much more.

At every question, the witness would only invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. But this alone was strange because the witness had already gained a full pardon for any misdeeds dating back to 2014. He could have confessed all and then some and faced no prosecution. All he had to do was tell the truth.

He was vulnerable only to the charge of perjury, but even that he could not risk. So he remained silent throughout, invoking his Fifth Amendment right 111 times. I have watched many Senate hearings in my life. I had never seen one like this. The drama was intense. I was not there, but those who were said it was even more fiery in person.

There is really no way to sum up our current moment. In 2019, the economy was doing well and Trump was popular. There were the usual political divisions but no real emergency on the horizon. All at once in the first months of 2020, everything fell apart and a foreign regime was visited upon us, complete with new protocols that required staying home and standing apart from people and covering our faces. We could not go to church, visit the sick, or travel to other countries.

A year later came the promised relief that turned out not to hold up but instead caused more suffering. All the while, trust in the system we had never really questioned began to collapse. We were routinely instructed to trust this Dr. Fauci. Most of the dissidents, including my friends who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, were censored. Our accounts were threatened and removed. Many were debanked.

Our world collapsed completely, and all these years we’ve cried out for answers. We’ve received only bits and pieces, enough to cobble together workable theories.

Seemingly out of nowhere, we are sitting on tens of thousands of pages of revelations. We can only read with amazement at the inner workings of government, the chaos, the pettiness, the corruption, the confusion, the deception. It’s all here, and now we see that there was a strong basis for why trust had evaporated. It seems as if every conspiracy theory was coming true.

Consider too that we have all these documents only because Fauci left so much behind on government computers. We also have men and women of conscience in charge of releasing them. Millions of hours of painstaking work are behind these releases, all done in the service of truth.

It’s really not possible to feel any joy from what we read. There is only tragedy, not only in the life of one man but also in all those who followed him and the nation that suffered so much from living under his diktat. At the very least, we are entitled to hear answers from him, point by point, but instead we get silence.

The list of institutions that have been hit hard by this is long and includes large media, academia, the scientific establishment, the world of professional medicine, and government itself. We cannot help but wonder today what is real and what is fake, what can be trusted and what is too far gone ever to be trusted again. No one ever wanted to be where we are today at the 250th anniversary of the country, to see how the dreams and ideals of our Founders have been so trounced and disrespected by so many in power. And yet that is where we are.

There is some deeply profound poetry about this moment. As sad as all of this is, and as much as it pains us today to think of all who have suffered, we should feel gratitude mainly for the truth to which we suddenly have access. For me, reading all these releases has been something of a catharsis. I hope you too will read and not merely trust media summaries or artificial intelligence reductions. It needs to be read in full to get the whole picture.

Nor can we shelve that great, great question: What else is being hidden from us, and for how long? Trust cannot return until we know the full truth. I suspect that this will take many years, and that’s fine. We can be patient.

Let there be no despair in the land today. These files have been released by men and women of enormous courage and conviction. They have taken huge risks to stand up for what is right. They have given us all a gift, the evidence that our instincts that something was not right were on target. They are evidence that redemption is not only possible; it is happening.

In those dark days of 2020 when the world seemed to be collapsing, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University would call me with a grave sense of moral urgency. “What can we do to stop the madness?” he would ask. He did what he could then. Now he finds himself as the head of the National Institutes of Health, working to begin the process of rebuilding. We have a very long way to go, but the essential first steps are done. We are going to get what we seek: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Commentary by Jeffrey Tucker

Image: (Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times)

A Spanish government that deliberately dismantled its last border deterrent, knowing the predictable result, enabled a manufactured 60,000-strong Moroccan invasion of Ceuta that locked its own citizens in their homes amid looting and violence—the latest act in a 1,300-year pattern of conquest by settlement.

In 1966, Marxist theorists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven published “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in The Nation. Their strategy was not to win elections. It was to deliberately overload a system, in their case, the welfare rolls, past its administrative and fiscal capacity, forcing a crisis that would compel the wholesale restructuring of the political order. Crisis, not incompetence, was the mechanism.

The purpose of these state policies, stemming from the UN and its “Migration Compact of 2018”, is not about which party wins the next Spanish election. It is the deliberate use of mass hostile migration to break a people, a culture, a legal order, a history and a religion, and to rebuild what remains on entirely different terms.

Read more >

Image: Antonio Sempere/AP

Anthony Fauci and Josef Mengel have much in common. Both knowingly, actively, and sadistically facilitated the dangerous and deceitful political medicine of their time. Anthony Fauci is a sociopath without compassion or feelings of responsibility for what he has done, and, like sociopath Josef Mengele, there is no punishment that can possibly match the depth and breadth of his depravity and crimes against humanity. Yet Fauci sat at the hearing, a free man with full immunity, claiming 5th Amendment protection, and refusing to answer questions he was subpoenaed to answer. Anthony Fauci is a criminal who cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for his role as humanitarian huckster-in-chief for the most colossal humanitarian hoax ever perpetrated in world history

.Read more >