Goliaths Will Goliath

The Quiet Attack on the Dissident Movement

Lately, when I scroll through X, I’m noticing a coordinated-feeling push toward both Islamophobia and a distorted form of “antisemitism”, not in the obvious sense, but in ways that seem designed to weaponize identity rather than help anyone understand what is actually happening. I want to break these two dynamics down and explain what I think is really going on.

Creating Islamophobia

None of this is new. The idea that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western society was a signature narrative of the early 2000s, right at the peak of the Iraq War propaganda cycle. That was the era when figures like Sam Harris and Douglas Murray were appearing on every major network, presenting themselves as cultural truth-tellers while reinforcing talking points that aligned perfectly with neoconservative foreign-policy goals.

Meanwhile, many anti-war voices were marginalized or mocked. Anyone who questioned the official line was painted as unpatriotic, an effective tactic on a naïve population that didn’t see the geopolitical agenda operating behind the scenes.

Now that it is 2025, the same playbook feels almost too obvious. Part of me hopes Joe Rogan and Elon Musk are using this framing ironically or in parody of themselves. But as of late, both have been amplifying versions of the old “Islam is incompatible with the West” narrative while ignoring the more uncomfortable truth, that much of today’s immigration and cultural instability is downstream of reckless U.S. foreign policy, destabilizing regions abroad while simultaneously facilitating mass migration into the very Western nations they claim are being overwhelmed.

Manufacturing “Antisemitism”

Alongside the Islamophobia push, I have started to notice a pattern that feels designed to Hamas’itize dissent, to make any criticism of U.S. or Israeli policy appear indistinguishable from “hating Jews”. This collapses legitimate critique under an avalanche of caricatures meant to exaggerate or distort the actual arguments.

To understand how this works, it helps to look at the ecosystem in three parts.

The Good

These are people who raise legitimate questions about foreign policy, war, censorship, and the consequences of U.S. intervention abroad. Whether you agree with them or not, they tend to argue in good faith and resonate with normal people. Think DarkHorse, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Theo Von, and others who challenge the official narrative without promoting hatred.

The Bad

These are personalities whose inflammatory style or chaotic messaging often overshadows the conversation. They are not always malicious, but they are very easy for the media to weaponize as “evidence” that dissent equals extremism. Think Nick Fuentes, Sneako, Andrew Tate, and others whose presentation makes them easy to sensationalize. I actually think they are genuine 90–95 percent of the time, although I do not agree with about 20–25 percent of what they say. Regardless, whether they intend to or not, they become the fodder that is used to discredit the Good.

The Ugly

This is the establishment-aligned group, their goal is to conflate the good with the bad. They are the political class, the legacy-media commentators, and the neoconservative voices who are part of the “middle-ground scramble”, so to speak. These are the legacy media types such as Josh Hammer, Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, and a wide orbit of similar voices. They are clearly war-monger personalities. Their goal is to label any criticism of foreign policy as “antisemitic” or distract the population with Islamophobic rhetoric. Their goal is to muddy the waters and poison the well.

Conclusion

Goliath evolves, although more slowly. If we do not, as a collective consciousness, pay attention to Goliath’s tactics, then we will all succumb to the very same repeated events that took place from the Iraq War through Covid.