January 11, 2026

THAT’S NOT LONG NOW, STAY TUNED:

Posted at 3:44 pm by Glenn Reynolds

I HOPE IT BREAKS THEM IN MULTIPLE WAYS:

But it’s important to remember that, in Ben Rhodes’ words, they literally know nothing.

Posted at 2:14 pm by Glenn Reynolds

“TRUSTING KHOMEINI:” 1979 NYT article praising former Supreme Leader surfaces amid Iran protests.

Published days after Khomeini’s return from exile, the article suggested that fears of a theocratic dictatorship were overstated. It argued that Khomeini would act primarily as a moral guide rather than a ruler, that political pluralism would persist, and that his close associates included moderates with records of concern for human rights.

At the time, Iran’s post-revolutionary structure was unsettled. The Shah had fled, institutions were in flux, and many observers believed the broad coalition that overthrew the monarchy would prevent any single faction from monopolising power.

Who wrote it and how did he later reassess it?

The article was written by Richard Falk, then a professor at Princeton University who had met Khomeini shortly before the revolution’s victory. Falk wrote amid widespread Western reassessment of support for the Shah, whose rule was criticised for repression and dependence on US backing.

In later reflections, Falk acknowledged that his optimism did not align with how events unfolded. He has said the New York Times headline was not his choice and that the speed with which clerical authority consolidated power was underestimated. In hindsight, he described Khomeini as a revolutionary figure with a rigid, uncompromising vision rather than a symbolic religious guide, conceding that expectations of pluralism proved misplaced.

Forget “turtles all the way down.” Given their early praise of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Khomeini, the Gray Lady is Walter Durantys all the way down.

Posted at 1:45 pm by Ed Driscoll

“CROWD FOR HIRE:” Crowd-for-Hire Boss Says He Wants Nothing to Do With ‘Any Form of Illegal Protest’ in Minneapolis.

It’s been a certainty for quite some time that many of the “protestors” tearing up the streets in Minneapolis and Portland, just to name a couple of (leftist) cities, were being paid to be there. Shadowy figures behind the scenes, who may or may not be named Soros, are funneling cash and strangely professional-looking signs into these riots. Ever notice how fast those strangely specific, professionally printed signs turn up? That can’t be cheap.

There is also a guy who organizes protests-for-hire on the up and up. Every cat its own rat and all that, you know. His name is Adam Swart, and he runs an outfit called Crowds on Demand. The difference between the protestors blocking streets in Minneapolis right now and Mr. Swart’s business is that Mr. Swart has scruples. He wants nothing to do with these Minneapolis debacles.

Adam Swart, chief executive officer of Crowds on Demand, told Fox News Digital his firm “would not touch the Minneapolis protests with a 10-foot pole,” citing blocked roadways, obstruction of federal agents, and threats against authorities following a fatal shooting during an ICE enforcement operation.

“Blocking roadways, obstructing federal agents, and threatening authorities are illegal, and we don’t engage in any form of illegal protest,” Swart said, warning the chaos playing out on city streets will have the opposite effect demonstrators claim to want. “The impact of these protests will actually be to increase ICE operations, not decrease them.”

As the late P.J. O’Rourke wrote in his 1991 magnum opus, Parliament of Whores:

Not long after Andy [Ferguson] and I met, we were driving down Pennsylvania Avenue and encountered some or another noisy pinko demonstration. “How come,” I asked Andy, “whenever something upsets the Left, you see immediate marches and parades and rallies with signs already printed and rhyming slogans already composed, whereas whenever something upsets the Right, you see two members of the Young Americans for Freedom waving a six-inch American flag?” “We have jobs,” said Andy.

And so do they!

Posted at 1:14 pm by Ed Driscoll

IS THIS WHY THE MEDIA ISN’T COVERING THE IRAN PROTESTS?

Yet, why isn’t this being covered in our media? It’s a significant story, a massive one. I understand that we have mayhem in the streets of our cities, spurred by insane leftists who are enraged that one of their own was shot after she accelerated her vehicle toward a federal agent in Minneapolis. Both can be covered, and this tweet explained why it’s being suffocated. It was posted by the Institute for Justice’s Tahmineh Dehbozorgi. It’s a brutal takedown of the media’s coverage of Islam, their refusal to analyze properly, and how woke paradigms and historical illiteracy have framed everything incorrectly as a result:

As Gil Scott-Heron sang in 1971, the revolution will not be televised – and “unexpectedly,” it won’t gain the support of rock musicians either, as they’re too busy raging for the mullahs:

Related:

UPDATE:

Posted at 12:45 pm by Ed Driscoll

JOHN STOSSEL: Hollywood vs. Individualism.

In my new video, I interview libertarian Timothy Sandefur, author of the new book, “You Don’t Own Me.” He says, “The title comes from the famous song by Leslie Gore, saying, I’m in charge of my own desires, dreams. I’m responsible for my own self.”

“That’s kind of obvious.” I point out.

* * * * * * * * *

The flop “Strange World” is a kid’s movie about a society that relies on a power source called Pando. Leftist scriptwriters, selling climate hysteria, have the hero say: “If we want to survive, Pando has to go.”

The good guys happily destroy their main source of energy.

Sandefur mocks the stupidity, “Living without today’s energy technology doesn’t just mean doing without warm coffee. It means doing without ambulances when you have a heart attack, doing without an airplane to carry people’s organ transplants. Doing without today’s energy technology would be a colossal disaster for the human race. Yet the movie kind of ridicules that concern.”

When woke movies fail, Hollywood often blames the audience.

After remaking “Charlie’s Angels,” director Elizabeth Banks said, if this movie doesn’t make money, it’s because “men don’t go see women do action movies.”

But that’s just dumb.

Didn’t Banks notice that men helped make the original “Charlie’s Angels” TV series a hit? Did she not notice “Kill Bill,” “Aliens,” “Tomb Raider,” “Resident Evil” — lots of successful action movies feature female leads.

“The reality,” says Sandefur, “is that people are not interested in another lame remake that satisfies all the politically correct tests.”

“Films that are individualistic,” he adds, “tend to be very successful.” But “Hollywood wants to propagandize to us about the evils of individualism.”

As “George MF Washington” wrote last month in “Movies as Weapons of Spiritual Warfare:”

Even the great comedies of the 80’s featured men of no special ability courageously laying it all on the line for Civilization against overwhelming odds. At the end of “Ghostbusters” after it becomes clear that the only way to stop Gozer from destroying the world is to sacrifice their own lives, blue collar “scientists” Venkman, Egon, Ray and Winston head out to meet their fate with stoic good humor.

“See you on the other side, Ray…”

“Nice working with you Doctor Venkman…”

“Edelweiss… Edelweiss…”

One of the reasons why American men, from Generation X in particular, keep coming back to movies like “Ghostbusters”, “Master and Commander”, “Gladiator”, “Braveheart” “The Great Escape”, “The Lord of the Rings”, and even “Die Hard” and “Predator”, is precisely because, as Men of the West, we are hard-wired to fantasize about how we will meet our own confrontations with “The Big Evil”, when and if those confrontations come. Modern American culture tends to look down upon this uniquely male instinct with ill-humor, if not outright derision. These kinds of male-coded sentiments are considered old fashioned at best, explicitly toxic at worst. Which is a shame, because the big studio movies we once made to cater to this male instinct for adventure, risk-taking and the instinctual defiance of Evil remain some of the greatest and most compulsively rewatchable films ever made.

Related: Mark Hamill Tried Give Star Wars’ Original Trio A Reunion.

Hamill was also right on a narrative level. As he pointed out, Star Wars is never strictly “Luke’s story” or “Obi-Wan’s story,” but an ensemble myth where veteran characters guide the next generation. Alec Guinness’ Obi-Wan played a pivotal role without overshadowing Luke’s arc. Bringing Star Wars‘ original trio back would have only reinforced the sequel’s trilogy passing of the torch. Instead, brushing Han, Luke, and Leia aside in the name of focus ultimately weakened the sequel trilogy.

When it comes to storytelling, Hollywood has been determined to defy its audience for many years now, so it shouldn’t be surprised when that audience reciprocates. In 2024, James Lileks predicted the future of AI art and video: Art That’s Just for Me.

In the end, we will watch our own movies more than others, and the theatrical experience will have gone from the great shared silver screen in the communal dark, to niche streaming, to watching our own particular curiosities and desires played on our own glowing rectangles. Millions of hours of movies, made for an audience of one.

Which is the logical conclusion of Hollywood making movies for its boardrooms instead of its audiences.

Posted at 12:35 pm by Ed Driscoll

YES:

Posted at 11:45 am by Stephen Green

THEY ONLY WANT CURATED GARDENS OF LEFTY HATE:

Posted at 9:04 am by Glenn Reynolds

IRAN:

Posted at 8:41 am by Glenn Reynolds