The rise of physical AI is already underway, with humanoid robots entering factories, warehouses, and other industrial environments, and soon the modern battlefield. 

Global shipments of humanoid robots are expected to accelerate in 2027, but the broader robotics revolution faces one critical chokepoint: access to the rare-earth magnets that power high-performance motors and actuators. China controls most of that supply chain.

Bernstein analyst Dien Wang told clients Monday that humanoid robots require an estimated 3.5 to 4 kilograms of rare-earth magnets per unit, compared with roughly 1 to 3 kilograms for an EV motor.

“A humanoid robot can consume more than twice as much magnetic material as an EV motor (Exhibit 3), highlighting the growing strategic importance of rare-earth magnets. Beyond well-known neodymium (Nd) and samarium (Sm), rare-earth elements such as dysprosium (Dy), terbium (Tb), and praseodymium (Pr) are also critical for magnetic performance (Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5). We therefore see the entire rare-earth magnet value chain as strategically important,” Wang said.

Rare-earth magnets (NdFeB) are composed of multiple raw materials, including various rare-earth elements.

The magnets provide the torque density, compact size, and heat resistance needed for high-performance motors and robotic actuators.

Wang outlined that China’s dominance in rare-earth magnets is troubling in an “increasingly multipolar world.” He said there are only three conclusions to draw from this:

1. Chinese EV (e.g. BYD) and humanoid OEMs could benefit from an improved competitive position overseas.
2. Chinese robotic actuator (e.g. Tuopu, Sanhua) and EV-motor suppliers (e.g. Inovance) could gain share globally, as rival supply chains remain more vulnerable to rare-earth magnet disruptions.
3. Non-Chinese rare-earth magnet players (Exhibit 17) could benefit from growing requests for supply-chain diversification.

Rare-earth magnet value chain spans a series of technically demanding stages

China controls about 59% of global magnet rare-earth mining, 91% of refining and 94% of magnet manufacturing, according to the analyst.

The International Energy Agency expects China to retain more than half of mining and over 75% of refining through 2040, while recycling is unlikely to meaningfully reduce near-term supply risks.

Beijing has weaponized its dominance of rare earths as a geopolitical tool against the US. China imposed controls on seven medium and heavy rare-earth products in 2025, extended licensing requirements to some overseas transactions, and restricted exports to dozens of US, European, and Japanese companies.

Those 2025 measures caused an immediate, though temporary, collapse in Chinese magnet exports.

China/Asia Production of NdFeB magnets

Comparing with the US and Europe…

Here’s how to profit across the entire magnet supply chain ex-China:

“As Physical AI emerges as a strategic battleground among leading nations, control of critical chokepoints could ultimately determine who gains the upper hand,” Wang noted.

China may already hold a structural advantage in humanoid robot development, supported by its massive manufacturing ecosystem and dominance of the rare-earth supply chain. On Monday, Hugging Face’s CEO told CNBC that China is winning the AI race and increasingly dominating open-source models. Taken together, these signals suggest the West’s lead in AI might be eroding against China.

Professional subscribers can read more color on humanoid robots here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

It is not difficult, these days, to see the neo-communist flipside of “Democratic Socialists”—once they find power.

Indeed, the more the ossified Democratic Party claims that its growing cadre of socialist renegades are not really socialists, the more they act like—and even appear comfortable being called—communists.

With every new policy they propose, the socialists have been dropping the pretense that they are not Marxists.

How about declaring capitalism a failure?

All the socialists now do that—and even Democratic California governor Gavin Newsom has also started agreeing that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.” Oddly, Newsom himself, a multimillionaire and a beneficiary of arch-capitalist Gordon Getty’s largesse, seems to have done quite well under capitalism.

Confiscating private property?

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claims he will do just that if New York’s landlords, in his opinion, are poor custodians of their own property.

Dismantling the U.S. Constitution?

Almost all Democrats have long called for destroying the 238-year-old Electoral College. And now the socialists openly brag that, when they take over the Democratic Party and then the nation, they will, as good Bolsheviks, go much further: destroying the Senate, destroying the Pentagon, destroying prisons, destroying the police, and destroying our borders.

And they want to take over utilities, break up or absorb corporate agriculture, and own major industries. Apparently, socialists believe that with a snap of their fingers they can destroy key elements of the U.S. constitutional order. Would these “socialists” even resent their agenda being called “communist”?

They also seem to have taken their cue for such radical change from “mainstream” Democrats—for example, Kamala Harris. Now in her third vain bid for the presidency, she has adopted the doctrine of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” So Harris now promises that if she is elected, she will pack the court, admit two new blue states (to snag four liberal senators), end the filibuster, and junk the Electoral College. How she plans to amend the Constitution to that effect she never tells us.

Like all good Marxists, these “ends-justify-the-means” leftists show an utter lack of principle: if two new red states wished to join the U.S., they would lecture us on the sanctity of a 50-state union. If they were a permanent Senate minority, they would, as in the past, honor the filibuster. If they had lost the popular vote in two recent elections but won the Electoral College, they would praise the wisdom of the Founders. If they had their Earl Warren-era majority again, they would laud the continuity of the 157-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court.

How about making “enemies of the people” lists and forcing sales of private property?

Mamdani just sent out a public list of nearly one million New York homeowners. He sent official warnings to 17,000 of these property owners that, if within four weeks they cannot prove that they have lived full-time in their own properties, the city will levy a huge surtax on them to drive home the point that no one should own an additional high-value home. Are show trials next for those who decline to reply?

In other words, Mamdani has flipped the American tradition of “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, almost 20,000 New Yorkers are now automatically presumed guilty of being house-hoarding, capitalist leeches who owe the exploited classes tens of thousands of dollars a year in reparations, unless they—the newly presumed guilty—can prove themselves innocent.

Welcome to Mamdani’s revolutionary court.

Mamdani’s new surtax could add from $40,000 to $350,000 a year to tens of thousands of homeowners’ taxes—in addition to already-existing steep property taxes that often range from $5,000 to $150,000.

Most owners will do the math and see that the new aggregate tax payouts in just a few years could be more than the value of the home itself.

Why is Mamdani doing this?

The socialist mayor’s aim here seems twofold:

First, he wants to flush out and dox anyone owning two homes as a purported enemy of the people.

And so, Mamdani created a list of his targets, including their addresses, and published it. To the extent that many properties really were second homes, Mamdani has now made sure that all New Yorkers, including envious rubberneckers, would-be squatters, and hardened criminals, know exactly where they might target a sometimes-vacant home.

Second, he wants to force a massive fire sale of second homes that would crash home values in general and so redistribute now “affordable” houses to those whom Mamdani considers, as victims of capitalism, to be more deserving of these properties.

Recently, on cable news, the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, was asked a series of questions about her group’s published agenda. Far from denying its communist radicalism, she gleefully confirmed it all—from destroying the border to ending prisons, the military, and the police.

But it is in Spain, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s corrupt and unpopular regime, where we see what one-eyed-jack socialists can do when they are finally in power, especially when they are hated and on their way out.

Sánchez has given amnesty to 600,000 illegal aliens. One result was that 60,000 Muslim men from North Africa in a single day recently swarmed Spain’s colonial outpost on the Moroccan coast at Ceuta, demanding amnesties and free subsidized passes into European Spain—while looting and vandalizing businesses and attacking Spaniards.

So why do European socialists and American leftists, once elected, destroy borders, create conditions of mass chaos, and welcome in millions of illegal aliens—poor, often angry, and unassimilated—from the Third World?

Aside from their belief that the capitalists and their bourgeois hirelings deserve chaos, violence, and upheaval, they hate the fact that capitalism is too class-fluid to furnish a permanent exploited proletarian underclass.

And so they import a huge victim class, and virtue signal their purported moral superiority. Then they spend lavish social largesse upon the influx, and, in quid pro quo fashion, thus bind their imported underclass with their welfare-state assurances.

Mail-in and early ballots, no-ID voting, same-day registration, ballot harvesting and curing, and no final verdicts on Election Day were all leftist projects, all designed to enroll as many illegal voters as possible.

The Left has also learned from experience that the time between immigrant parents fleeing third-world hellholes to find safety, freedom, and prosperity in the U.S. and their children hating the very generous host that welcomed them—and demanding that America be radically transformed to resemble the catastrophe from which they or their parents fled—is often only about 20 years.

So if one enjoys watching the careers of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, AOC, or Zohran Mamdani, then one should certainly vote socialist to ensure that they are the new model for American elected officials.

It is the paradox of our age that anyone can flee Somalia, the West Bank, Puerto Rico, or Uganda and then win the global lottery by being accepted into America’s constitutional society and free-market economy—only to do their best to repay the generosity of their host by turning their new country into something unrecognizable to the prior 10 generations of Americans.

But then again, America might become quite similar to the mess they abandoned.

So far, the model holds true: socialist candidates (as opposed to registered socialist activists) hide their communist-adjacent agendas during elections. But once in office and drunk with power, they find socialism too wishy-washy and go full communist. So they destroy borders, institutions, names, dates, statues, norms, customs, and traditions to replicate the illiberalism and concomitant failures of a new Haiti, a West Bank, or a Morocco in the West.

In sum, to make a new socialist America, you must first destroy everything that made Americans and all that they hold dear.

How much money does it take before earning more no longer makes people happier? Researchers call this threshold the satiation point, and it varies considerably across the United States.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, ranks 50 of the most populous U.S. cities by the annual income at which self-reported life evaluation stops improving, using data from Remitly.

Remitly adapted Purdue University‘s income satiation research by adjusting it for purchasing power and inflation, then scaling the U.S. figure to each metro using Numbeo’s cost-of-living index.

Coastal U.S. Cities Have the Highest Price of Happiness

Nationally, happiness levels off at an estimated annual income of $134,827. In New York City, the threshold rises to $195,969, or 45.3% above the national figure.

New York is followed by Honolulu ($192,441) and San Francisco ($191,266). In all three cities, the estimated income threshold exceeds $190,000 a year.

The table below shows the price of happiness in each of the 50 cities and how each compares with the $134,827 U.S. average:

The upper end of the ranking is dominated by coastal cities. California alone claims five of the top 10 spots: San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Diego. Seattle ($176,960), Washington, D.C. ($171,081), and Boston ($168,925) also rank among the most expensive cities.

Overall, 35 of the 50 cities have income thresholds above the national figure, partly reflecting the higher living costs found in many of America’s largest metropolitan areas.

Where Happiness Costs the Least in America

Cincinnati has the lowest estimated price of happiness in the ranking at $122,480, or 37.5% less than New York. Put another way, reaching income satiation in New York requires about 1.6 times as much income as it does in Cincinnati.

Texas is the most heavily represented state near the affordable end of the ranking. Austin ($130,123), Houston ($125,224), and San Antonio ($123,656) all place in the bottom 10, alongside Albuquerque, Tucson, and Jacksonville. Dallas is the only Texas city in the upper half, ranking 22nd.

The pattern closely tracks broader cost-of-living differences between U.S. metros, which also shape the income needed to live comfortably in U.S. cities. Where housing and everyday expenses are lower, the estimated income required to reach the plateau falls as well.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Money Can Buy Happiness After All on Voronoi.

Authored by Nohshad Shah, Citadel Securities EMEA Head of Fixed Income,

The Fed sounds hawkish… but markets are testing the reaction function

Chair Warsh was unequivocal that there is “no soft inflation target”, that five-plus years of above-target inflation cannot be cured by nine weeks of better data, and that this Fed “will not waver”. Yet despite that language…and three members preferring an immediate hike…the FOMC again declined to move.

Warsh instead repeatedly highlighted the large rise in nominal and real Treasury yields since June, arguing that reduced forward guidance had allowed markets to respond more directly to the data and, in effect, deliver some tightening on the Fed’s behalf. 

But all forms of FCI tightening are not equal…higher front-end yields because the Fed has acted to restrain demand are different from a higher long-end driven by investors demanding greater compensation for inflation, term risk, and uncertainty over the reaction function. 

Warsh also left markets with some uncertainty over how inflation will ultimately be judged. He confirmed that PCE remains the measure attached to the 2% target under the current framework, but left open whether that will remain the case after the strategy review concludes in January, while invoking Goodhart’s Law, the Lucas critique, and a broader (but unspecified) set of inflation measures. Those are legitimate cautions against relying mechanically on a single statistic. 

But investors will still want greater clarity over what the Fed will regard as evidence that inflation has returned to 2%. A fixed numerical target attached to a potentially changing measure risks making the reaction function harder to interpret, particularly while inflation remains materially above target. There may be a strong case for improving the framework, but markets will want reassurance that reform does not amount to changing the measuring stick before success has been achieved.

The initial market response suggests that reassurance has not yet been secured: 30y Treasuries have sold off, breakevens have widened, while equities and the dollar have weakened. Investors may interpret that combination less as a clean tightening in response to stronger growth and more as a challenge to the credibility or clarity of the policy framework. 

It is also an uncomfortable outcome in a market already unsettled by rising oil prices amidst the conflict with Iran and the accelerating unwind in AI momentum. The risk from here is a negative feedback loop: higher long-end yields pressure duration equities; equities fall while bonds fail to hedge; correlated losses force further deleveraging and the resulting tightening in financial conditions gives the Fed another reason to wait…which, in turn, encourages investors to demand still more inflation and term premium. 

This is the reflexivity at the heart of “market guidance”…the Fed holds because markets have tightened, while markets tighten because the Fed has held.

Markets may be able to deliver part of the required tightening, but they will still look to the Fed to anchor the inflation outlook.

In recent years, few forces in electoral politics have been as potent as an endorsement from Donald Trump. However, the first polls in the special South Carolina primary race for the Senate seat that was held by the late Lindsey Graham shows his sister Darline is in second place, with half of GOP voters saying her Trump endorsement is irrelevant to them. Graham’s campaign faces other headwinds, as many South Carolina Republicans aren’t enthusiastic about turning one of their Senate seats into an inheritance for someone with a thin political resume.

After Lindsey Graham suddenly died on July 11, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster appointed Darline Graham to be a placeholder for the remainder of her brother’s term that ends in January. It was seen as a sentimental and politically-safe gesture, with no expectation that she would enter the race for the six-year term that starts on July 11. Then Trump issued a Truth social post, encouraging her to run and saying she’d have his full endorsement. Three days later, Graham told Fox’s Sean Hannity “I’m in.”  

According to an Emerson College poll of the crowded race, Graham is starting in second place. She has the support of only 19% of likely GOP primary voters, while US Rep. Ralph Norman leads the way at 22%. A 73-year-old with a background as a real estate developer, Norman has represented South Carolina’s 5th District since 2017, and served in the state legislature for 11 years before that. Graham has never held an elected office. Until this summer, she was commissioner of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, and earlier held a communications role in the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department. 

Two other candidates are in the double-digits: US Rep Russell Fry at 12% and former governor and former House representative Mark Sanford at 11%.  Fry, who was reportedly hand-picked by Trump to unseat Republican Tom Rice in 2022, as payback for Rice’s vote to impeach Trump over the Jan 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riot. A quarter of likely voters are still making up their minds. The primary is just a week away, on Tuesday, Aug 11, and the top five candidates debated on Monday evening. Unsurprisingly given her lack of experience discussing national issues, some observers said Graham seemed to lean heavily on her notes. Then, in a moment of spontaneity, Graham oddly suggested that constant noise from data centers is somehow a uniquely leftist and maybe imaginary concern: 

Darline Graham Nordone’s message to South Carolinians is clear: build more data centers, and if you’re concerned about the constant noise they bring, just get over it. pic.twitter.com/qmJOqBacas

— Kelly McCarty (@KellyLMcCarty) August 4, 2026

With no candidate likely to top 50%, expect a run-off of the top two vote-getters on Aug. 25. Assuming Graham makes it to the run-off, our intuition tells us most of those who’d voted for someone other than Graham in the Aug. 11 primary will migrate to the remaining non-Graham option.  

The race is a test of Trump’s endorsement power, and only 29% of those polled by Emerson say Trump’s endorsement makes them more likely to support a given candidate. 53% say a Trump endorsement doesn’t affect them one way or the other — but 18% say Trump’s endorsement makes them less likely to support the endorsee. Not surprisingly, Graham’s greatest strength comes from the oldest voters: 30% of voters over age 70 back her. 

Trump’s endorsement has ruffled feathers of Republicans in the Palmetto State, including Dorchester County GOP chair CJ Westfall. Speaking in the context of Trump’s endorsee for governor having been clobbered in the June primary, Westfall told CNN: 

“The president continues to get bad advice about South Carolina. We certainly empathize with Darline — and even the president, as Lindsey was a really good friend of his — but he’s certainly getting bad advice. We’ve got a lot more exciting options for this seat. It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

Other members of the GOP machine in South Carolina are likewise irked by Trump’s move, with one state legislator calling it a “backroom deal” and another saying “Trump threw us all a curveball with Darline. That wasn’t expected. It wasn’t exactly welcomed here, either.”  

Importantly, only 4% of Republican special election voters think their senator should focus on foreign policy. That’s not good news for Darline Graham, as her brother was only known for his foreign policy exploits that centered on collaborating with the State of Israel to support US interventions in the Middle East, and partnering with Ukraine in America’s proxy war with Russia. Reading the winds, Darline Graham has already made a point to say she wants to focus more on domestic issues like the cost of living.  

Darline Graham says she’ll be more invested in affordability issues than national security:

“Lindsey was more focused on national security. I know that’s important but I’ll probably be more focused on affordability, what matters to families, the struggling families.” pic.twitter.com/txDfpt6zoy

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) August 3, 2026

It’s not just Apple that is scrambling to find cheap memory alternatives to the DRAM offerings from the memory “cartel” of Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron: according to the Nikkei Asia, a trio of the world’s leading PC makers – HP, Asus and Acer – have started to use small amounts of chips from China’s ChangXin Memory Technologies (better known as the recently IPOed CXMT) amid an unprecedented memory shortage fueled by demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Many major PC makers completed the qualification process for CXMT’s DRAM chips around the middle of this year and have started to use a limited amount in their notebook computers, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The amount of CXMT chips used and the number of notebook models utilizing them are very limited as of now, as CXMT is prioritizing a large part of its production capacity for Chinese clients, such as Huawei. The notebook models that use CXMT chips are for sale in non-U.S. markets.

The PC companies are also taking a restrained approach over their use of CXMT chips due to concerns that doing otherwise would anger leading global memory chipmakers Micron, Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, two sources said.

“The top three memory chipmakers accounted for more than 90% of global market share,” an executive with a PC company with direct knowledge of the matter told Nikkei Asia. “PC companies have to be very careful and stay low-key about [the use of CXMT chips] … After all, it is a seller’s market now. We dare not source too much from CXMT at this moment.”

CXMT, moreover, is included on a Pentagon list of companies alleged to have ties to the Chinese military, making sourcing from it potentially sensitive for U.S. companies. The Chinese company has denied the allegations and is not subject to an outright trade blacklist.

Still, the adoption marks a significant win for CXMT, which recently listed on Shanghai’s STAR Market and after soaring nearly 8-fold since its IPO last week, boasts a market valuation exceeding that of Intel, America’s top microprocessor maker.

“Although PC makers only use very small volumes [of CXMT’s DRAM] for budget models, they don’t want to neglect a potential important source, particularly when the market is so constrained,” one supply chain manager supplying to HP and Asus told Nikkei Asia.

Not everyone is terrified of retaliation by the memory cartel: another industry executive said some PC makers have secured additional supplies of central processing units (CPUs) and are now racing to lock in more memory to match, making them much more open to sourcing from any available supplier, including CXMT. “After all, PC makers still hope to work with all the available sources as the market is very constrained now,” the person said.

In response to request for comment, Acer said: “We do not disclose our suppliers, but that we keep in close contact with multiple global manufacturers and suppliers to dynamically adjust operations to manage component prices changes. We work with multiple manufacturers and suppliers to enhance our supply chain resilience.”

The PC and smartphone industries have been suffering from shortages of memory chips and CPUs since late last year. Earlier thi year, Nikkei Asia was the first to report that HP, Dell, Asus and Acer were considering using CXMT’s DRAM.

PC companies have prioritized chips for premium models and raised overall prices by several hundred dollars to reflect the rising component costs. Smartphone companies like Xiaomi, Oppo, and Vivo, on the other hand, cut their 2026 shipment forecasts several times due to the memory shortages.

The global PC industry is expected to decline more than 11% this year due to the unprecedented memory crunch, with supply conditions worsening toward the end of this year, market research company IDC estimates.

The shortfall in memory chips has turned out to be a golden opportunity for CXMT to tap the global PC supply chain. The Hefei, China-based memory chipmaker listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s tech-focused STAR Market on July 27 and its share price soared almost 5x on the first day of trading. Its market capitalization reached more than 3.5 trillion yuan ($545 billion) as of Tuesday, topping Intel and starting to approach Micron and SK Hynix.

CXMT estimated in a filing to the Shanghai Stock Exchange that its net profit for the first half of 2026 would reach between 52 billion yuan and 58 billion yuan, up as much as 2,530% from a year earlier. The chipmaker attributed the surge to favorable market conditions and a better pricing environment. CXMT already supplies to almost all the top Chinese tech companies including Tencent, Alibaba Cloud and ByteDance.

“You would think CXMT’s price is cheaper than the top three players, which is a wrong assumption. … Their DRAM is definitely no cheaper than the likes of Samsung,” one of the people said. “We also couldn’t book supplies from CXMT beyond the current quarter, as so many companies are racing to secure DRAM from it,” the person added.

CXMT and domestic peer Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) are undertaking their most aggressive capacity expansion plans at home. CXMT is expanding plants in Shanghai with the aim of having a capacity two to three times larger than its homebase in Hefei, including capacity for building high-bandwidth memory (HBM), a crucial AI component, Nikkei Asia reported earlier.

Joseph McCarthy was right about everything.  Communist movements have been playing the long game from inside western nations, exploiting the liberal freedoms westerners enjoy as a backdoor to sabotage free market choice and constitutional checks and balances from within.  The players might have changed over the decades, but the ideological goals remain the same.  

Forget about the “false left/right paradigm”; that concept is now dead.  Whatever logical clarity or loyalty to the American way that average progressives might have had is long gone.  They have detached completely from morality and ideals of merit and responsibility.  They are financially backed by some of the most evil NGOs and globalist corporations on the planet.  They have ties to some of the most despicable and oppressive governments in the world.  

The political left is the monster they claim to be fighting against.  They are the foot soldiers of the globalist order.  They are the greatest existing threat to western civilization.  To be “right wing” today simply means your principles sit to the right of Stalin and Mao.  It doesn’t take much deviation to find yourself a mortal enemy of the leftist fold. 

Furthermore, these groups are intricately organized and operating using classic communist subversion tactics commonly used throughout Europe from the 1920s to the 1990s.  This includes front organizations, labor infiltration, agitation, influence operations, paramilitary training and mass propaganda.  

Remember when Democrats used to argue that the woke movement was not communist and to label it as such was a misinterpretation of what communism actually is?  Remember when they argued that Cultural Marxism is not a real thing?  Well, now they’re coming out and openly admitting the agenda.

DSA candidates are infesting the Democrat Party, and if you thought the typical blue state liberals were extreme, get ready because the next generation is full-bore collectivist in their rhetoric and resolve.  In recent interviews with DSA politicians and campaigners, they list a series of goals (or demands) then intend to enact once they gain enough governmental power.  For example…

Erasure Of The Electoral College:   In other words, the destruction of the republic and the institution of a traditional “democracy” in which the 51% rule over the 49%.  Leftists have long believed that they are the majority of the US population, which is why they constantly call for the end of the electoral college.  Donald Trump’s latest presidential win showed that leftists can’t always count on a popular majority to maintain power, but they have an answer for that.

End Of The Two Party System:  This might sound like a rational policy, especially for libertarians.  However, America already has an open party system; there is no law preventing third, fourth or fifth party candidates from participation in elections.  What the DSA wants, at bottom, is a parliamentary system of government similar to governments across Europe.

Why?  Because parliamentary systems are designed to suppress conservative and nationalist movements.  In a parliament, multiple leftist parties will often vie for greater control but whenever conservative movements arise these parties join forces to stonewall the right-wing from any real power.  We have only to look to Europe today to see these suppression tactics in action, from France to Germany to the UK. 

End Of The Senate:  Again, this is something conservatives might agree with out of anger over Senate inaction, but leftists have a far different motive.  They want a massive and expansive congress which would create even more bureaucracy, have the power to choose the president or leader of the executive branch instead of the public, and remove all checks and balances through the three branch framework.  

Expand Or Replace The Supreme Court:  Socialists want a court that is completely subservient to congress and is loaded with leftist judges.  They rage over the idea that judges might interpret constitutional law against the favor of leftist policies.  Want to keep your gun rights or free speech?  Forget it if the DSA ever gets into power.

32-Hour Work Week And Extreme Increases To Minimum Wage:  DSA activists are economically retarded and have no concept of budgets and profit margins.  They think more like pillagers – They see companies with wealth and they want to take it by any means necessary.  The problem is, drastic cuts to productivity and huge wage increases will only lead to the destruction of businesses.

They will have to close up shop or fire a substantial number of workers to survive.  Leftists will then try to force companies stop layoffs.  This level of control is a fantasy and companies will fire people anyway.  The end game will, of course, be socialist calls for the government to nationalize the economy, which will also end in financial collapse as demand greatly outweighs production.

Paid Leave And Free College:  Who is going to pay for a bunch of low IQ dissidents to get degrees in gender fluid studies or underwater basket weaving?  Only the taxpayer.  Who is going to pay for European-style paid leave programs?  Only larger companies will be able to afford it, meaning small businesses will die out. 

Defund The Police And Eliminate The Prison System:  We’ve already seen how this goes.  When woke activists tried these programs in blue cities across the US, crime skyrocketed.  Social service workers and “community outreach” personnel are utterly incapable of handling the typical criminal.  So, they will do nothing instead and let repeat offenders run rampant. 

Democrat Socialist Co-chair Ashik Siddique: “Our police and prison system is stacked toward persecuting poor people… the language that we have in there is abolishing the police and prison system that protects capital over people.” pic.twitter.com/dg7XzyC828

— America (@america) August 2, 2026

Leftists use the claim that they want more equality of policing against “wealthy criminals” in order to appeal to the American distaste of elitism and corporate crime.  However, this is always pursued in tandem with less policing of “lower class” criminals (usually minorities).  The real reason leftist are so opposed to the criminal justice system is because most of them believe that lower class criminality is justified as an act of social justice against the rich (anyone with more money or success than they have).

Slavery Reparations:  No white American with any sense of dignity is going to pay reparations to black people who have never been slaves.  It’s not going to happen.  But, socialists want minorities on their side as a righteous shield and so they will continue to promise reparations for decades to come. 

Feminism For All:  This is perhaps the most destructive goal of all, because it would enshrine feminism as a national ideological pillar.  The remnant of the old “patriarchy” is the only thing keeping the US from total collapse.  Feminists are a cancer on society and the source of most of America’s ills. 

It’s not just the abortion issue; feminists want women’s supremacy, not equality, which means men (mostly white men) acting as the work engine the feeds women’s coffers through taxation and government subsidies.  They are also the main source for the rise of the LGBT movement and gender-relativism.  The DSA would joyfully burn western civilization to the ground to achieve a system in which relativism is the standard. 

Open Borders And Path To Citizenship For All Illegals:  Nationalism is the barrier that prevents globalism from reaching its final form.  Borders, national identities and cultural separation are sins in the eyes of the woke cult.  They believe that if they eliminate all of these ideals then they will have no more enemies and they will therefore control the future of the human race forever. 

At this stage it’s difficult to say if the DSA platfrom is going to resonate with enough Americans to gain significant momentum.  But, recent polls show 66% of all Democrats support the basic idea of socialism.  By extension, leftists are fuming over the reversal of public opinion on liberalism – They came so close to total control under Obama and under Biden and twice they have been thwarted.  

When leftists lose the first thing they always do is double down.  They do not take accountability and question their own thinking; they assert that they are right, everyone else is wrong or stupid, and they become even more insane.  The Democratic Socialists are a reflection of this mentality.  The more Democrats continue to lose ground, the more the DSA is going to grow because leftists don’t care about being right, they only want to win.

Don’t be surprised if the socialists rise from the woke grave to wreak havoc in 2028 and beyond.