NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s extremist views and skeletons from his past are now LEAPING out of the closet.
Victor Davis Hanson drops three of the most disturbing ones that have been recently uncovered.
Then he delivered this stunning prediction:
“I guarantee you more will come out every day because he's a pampered, privileged, angry, young socialist-communist.”
🧵 THREAD
Victor Davis Hanson says the façade is cracking around New York’s radical socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, and the revelations aren’t pretty.
He lays out a portrait of a candidate who, despite a carefully managed public image, has a record steeped in hard-left ideology and contradictions that are starting to catch up with him.
“We've talked before about the front runner in the New York mayoral race, Zohran Mamdani,” he reminded viewers, setting the stage for what he described as a necessary unmasking.
Mamdani’s history of openly embracing Marxist ideas, Hanson argues, is not some youthful indiscretion but a core part of his politics.
“And we've mentioned before that he talked about seizing the means of production, which comes out right out of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ‘Das Kapital,’ ‘The Communist Manifesto.’”
It’s an approach that extends beyond slogans.
Hanson pointed to a pattern of denying inconvenient truths, like Mamdani’s insistence he never supported defunding the police....even with clear evidence to the contrary.
“We talked about his claims that he never advocated defunding the police, even though there was an extensive social media trail where he advocates just that.”
And there’s the question of targeted taxation. Mamdani’s proposal to focus tax hikes specifically on “Whiter” neighborhoods isn’t just about class....it’s about exploiting racial division, Hanson says.
“He talked about going into richer and Whiter areas and taxing them specifically at a higher rate,” he explained, pointing out the selective language that conveniently skipped over the fact that Indian Americans....like Mamdani’s own family....are statistically among the nation’s highest earners.
“He didn't say, in other words, richer and Indian American. He just use the word white because he was trying to cater himself to the African-American vote.”
That silver-spoon background, Hanson argues, has insulated Mamdani from facing the consequences of these ideas.
He has never needed to find a job or face public scrutiny.
“He has an extensive left wing record and now that he's in the public realm, everything is starting to come out.”
This sense of ideological immunity, he suggests, isn’t just Mamdani’s own making but has roots in the world he grew up in.
He recounted an academic discussion where Mamdani’s father offered an extraordinary historical comparison that Hanson found revealing.
“His father was in a, discussion of, you know, a conference discussion and said that Adolf Hitler's idea for the final solution and many of his, policies toward the Jews came from Abraham Lincoln, the way Lincoln supposedly created or treated Indians on reservations.”
“That's that's crazy.”
It’s these kinds of statements, Hanson suggests, that help explain where Mamdani’s own comfort with extremist rhetoric comes from.
Before we roll the next clip: if you’re not following me, you’re missing out on critical updates.
Hit the bell 🔔 to stay sharp and informed.
→ @VigilantFox
Now, back to the story you came for.
But ideology wasn’t the only problem.
Hanson turned to an incident that he argued should alarm any voter: Mamdani’s defense of Islamic terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki.
“He was an American citizen that went to Yemen, and he advocated killing Americans, and he was a terrorist.”
This wasn’t a controversial figure on the margins of debate....he was a known terrorist targeted by a drone strike under President Obama.
“Barack Obama, when he was president, ordered a predator hit team on him and killed Awlaki in a targeted assassination. Who was that, by the way, an ISIS supporter, but he was also a U.S. citizen.”
Years after that, Mamdani publicly defended him, offering an absurd rationale that Hanson dismissed outright.
“But now we learned in 2015, years after that Obama hit on him—on this ISIS figure—Mamdani was defending them and saying, basically, he turned radical because the FBI surveilled him.”
The logic, he argued, simply didn’t hold up.
“That's like saying that Kash Patel turned radical because the FBI surveil him. People don't go become terrorist kingpins because the American FBI thinks you're a person of interest.”
Hanson also questioned Mamdani’s personal credibility, describing a pattern that, to him, reveals something deeper about the candidate’s approach to politics.
He EXPOSED Mamdani for trying to claim African American identity on college applications to gain an edge, despite having no connection to that experience.
“He's very, sensitive about the African-American and Latino vote, which I don't think he's going to win,” Hanson noted.
“But now we learned that when he applied to college, to Bowdoin, and I think further to graduate school—in which he was not admitted, he claimed that he was an African American.”
It wasn’t just a one-off misrepresentation, Hanson suggested, but part of a larger disconnect between public messaging and private behavior.
It was, in Hanson’s view, part of a pattern he’d seen many times in academia.
“As someone who was in academia for three decades, I used to have students that were from North Africa, Egypt or Morocco or Algeria, but were not African American. That is, they were not Blacks, and they tried that trick and they were not successful. Neither was Mamdani.”
What bothered him most wasn’t just the strategy but the hypocrisy of someone willing to lecture Americans about inequality while privately trying to benefit from the very system he criticizes.
“But imagine he's giving lectures, moral lectures, sanctimonious lectures, self-righteous lectures about how unequal the United States is,” he continued.
“And then yet he tries to mimic or pass on a Elizabeth Warren or Ward Churchill-like fraud that he's African American, that he's a Black African, just because his parents who were Indian and immigrants to Uganda, and were one of the 1% elite in that country—he's now claiming that he should he should have had special—I shouldn't say he's now claiming, he claimed that he should have had special preference in admissions because he was Black.”
With the election fast approaching, Hanson dropped a stunning prediction: these revelations are just the start.
“You add all of this up, and I guarantee you more will come out every day because he's a pampered, privileged, angry, young socialist-communist.”
He painted a picture of a candidate whose carefully managed image can’t hide the reality of a life with no debt, no real-world experience, and a sprawling public record waiting to be examined.
“He's had no experience. He's out of debt and he has a long social media record.”
In the end, Hanson offered less of a conclusion than a question....one he admitted he didn’t know how to answer himself.
The question itself was a testament to the times we are living in.
“And, the only question that I have for you, the audience and me, because I'm genuinely puzzled about it, the more that we hear that he’s a lunatic and unhinged and anti-American and socialist, does that help him or does that hurt him, given the demographics of New York?”
@DailySignal Special thanks @overton_news for helping me put this thread together!
If you’re into truth-seeking news accounts like mine, they’re definitely worth a follow!
—> @overton_news
@DailySignal @overton_news I was banned 3 times from Twitter 1.0 for defying mainstream narratives. If censorship strikes again, you can find me at VigilantFox.com.
Plus, you’ll also get these threads delivered straight to your email so you never miss them.
We took Erin Brockovich's map of every data center in America. Then we laid the nation's aquifers on top of it.
We noticed they're not building data centers where the land is cheap. They're building them where the water is.
Farmers near these facilities say their livestock have stopped falling pregnant. Residents say the humming never stops.
And the projects arrive under NDAs, so most towns don't know until the ground is already broken.
The question isn’t where they’re building anymore. It’s why they’re building where they’re building. Tonight, we think we can answer that question.
We’ve been covering the data center issue in great detail on this broadcast, and for good reason. It’s a serious problem in America and worldwide, and it’s one that is uniting people from all sides of the political aisle because, guess what, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you have human rights that enable you to have access to basic survival needs like water, which was given to us by God, not by the state or Big Tech, by the way.
Erin Brockovich joined the data center fight recently. She launched a site including a map that shows data centers either completed, under construction, planned, or community reported, likely due to all those pesky NDAs in place stopping us from knowing they’re coming to our area. But the public isn’t stupid.
So Maria thought she’d do something a little bit different. She created a series of maps using Erin Brockovich’s data center data, then superimposed aquifer maps onto those maps, then superimposed smart city locations onto those maps. What Maria found was pretty mind-blowing and, she says, lends credence to her theory that those in charge are purposely making rural areas unlivable for the purpose of pushing people into smart cities, where they will be under constant surveillance and on a short leash.
The main reason for this continued investigation is because data centers are destroying rural communities by siphoning natural resources, contaminating and consuming water for surrounding communities, driving up power costs, creating noise and light pollution, destroying habitats, wildlife, animal health, human health, and impacting fertility, as discussed in one of the show’s recent reports.
The list goes on. For many, it’s making it impossible to continue living in the rural communities they fled to during COVID because they could see the playbook coming down the pipeline. But if you live in the city, these developments are going to impact you too, possibly in ways you can’t even begin to imagine yet.
Maria’s theory, what she calls a common-sense one, is that there is a direct correlation between data centers and the AI control grid. Furthermore, she believes there is a direct correlation between data centers and smart cities.
Before presenting the evidence, we want to walk you through key information on Erin Brockovich’s website, BrockovichDataCenter.com.
The key concerns include energy consumption, water usage, e-waste, location risks, scalability and efficiency, and noise. Anecdotal evidence suggests the noise itself may be impacting fertility, with farmers near data centers reporting that their livestock are no longer falling pregnant or giving birth.
The website also highlights:
• 15+ moratoria and pauses passed at the local, county, or state level.
• 66% voter approval for Port Washington’s nation-first referendum.
• 4 council members ousted in Festus, Missouri, after a data center vote.
• 19% of community submissions mentioning NDAs, secret deals, meetings, or no public voice.
• 25+ projects canceled due to local opposition in 2025 alone.
• 69 active moratoriums across U.S. jurisdictions as of April 2026.
•$156 billion in investment stalled by community opposition since 2025.
This is where things start to look overwhelming.
According to the data center map, there are currently 33 operational data centers, 67 under construction, and 39 proposed.
A Fox News guest just said out loud what the “conspiracy theorists” have been screaming into the shadowbanned void for years:
The AI Big Tech and Big Government have is distinctly separate from the AI the public gets access to, because the AI they have is a weapons system that will be used against us.
Take a listen. (See clip below)
The only question that remains now is, if it’s being admitted on Fox News at this point, is it already too late to protect ourselves against it? For many people, it is. But not for those listening to this broadcast.
You see, we consider that we have a fairly sound understanding of where this is all heading, we’ve been reporting on it for years. You are talking about not just a social credit system, but something far more sinister, far more pervasive, the type of system that will deny you access to basic needs like food, power, even water, based on your behavior.
And you need not take our word for it; there are countless speeches at the World Economic Forum telling you they will do just that.
So what can we do about it? One of the key things is to cut off the machines food source at its knees. Your data is what the beast needs to grow.
Every single person can take action to end the incessant spying on every inch of their lives today, and they can learn how for free.
Glenn and Eric Meder join us today to discuss. 🧵
You've driven past one this week and probably never noticed it. 100,000 Flock cameras now line America's roads — and thousands more go up every month.
They don’t just film traffic. They read faces. They carry microphones. Once the system knows who you are, everything it captures gets attached to your profile — where you went, when, how often.
“It’s like the Truman show, but if it was 1984,” Eric said.
Want proof? Go to deflock.me and pull up your own city. The map is stunning.
What makes this even more concerning is that people have hacked these cameras on video. So it’s not just the government watching you. It’s potentially anyone.
You’re being spied on constantly. And the home tech is the biggest spy of them all.
Your Alexa, your smart TV, your phone — every one is a microphone you paid for. The WEF was publishing articles back in 2017 about how a single camera lets a computer understand you “on a very deep level.”
Smart city plans in Australia include “street furniture” that monitors public sentiment — AI reading your mood, 24/7. Feel the wrong way in the wrong place, and you get flagged.
Flagged by whom, for what? That’s where it gets dark.
Modern medicine is addicted to the biochemical model of disease because it creates a pipeline for expensive, patentable drugs, and it often leaves patients and their families in the dark, rather than empowered and in control.
It’s not about finding root causes. It’s about finding something you can bill for.
That’s why the industry has spent decades treating Alzheimer’s like a “chemical imbalance” in the brain caused by amyloid plaques—even though hundreds of trials targeting amyloid have failed.
The more the theory collapsed, the harder the system doubled down. Just like cholesterol and heart disease, the medical machine kept pushing the failed model long after it broke.
Tucker Carlson admitted he used to make fun of people who believe vaccines cause autism.
He now describes his behavior as “unthinking, stupid, and reactionary.”
Tucker says people are noticing what Robert De Niro noticed about vaccines before he suddenly abandoned the issue: “There’s something there that people aren’t addressing” with vaccines and autism.
De Niro declared this on “The Today Show” back in 2016. Let the clip roll, and you’ll see it.
Fast forward to today, and it’s hard to believe De Niro actually said what he did on mainstream television.
What’s even harder to believe is just how most of the vaccines used today got approved in the first place.
“Placebo” doesn’t mean what most people think it means when it comes to vaccines.
Once you understand what a vaccine “placebo” is, the way evidence gets buried starts making a lot more sense. 🧵
Something strange happens when people first start looking seriously at vaccine safety data.
They do the research. They find the studies. They bring the evidence carefully into a conversation that feels safe and possible.
But nothing moves.
The other person doesn’t adjust. Doesn’t even get curious. They just double down harder.
Nothing about it feels like a normal disagreement. It feels like something else entirely.
Because it is.
And there’s actually a specific reason for that. A reason that goes much deeper than tribalism.
The reason vaccine orthodoxy functions differently from almost every other medical debate isn’t random.
It’s structural. It was designed and built this way.
To understand why the evidence lands differently here—why the same standards of proof that apply literally everywhere else somehow don’t apply to vaccines—you have to understand what vaccines actually represent in Western medicine.
At the height of COVID, a “crazy” doctor was treating patients with a 99.96% survival rate.
Dr. Zelenko’s protocol was so effective, it sparked a war against HCQ.
They mocked his claims, but they kept coming true. Here’s what he said:
#1 - “Not everyone got the same thing.”
In an interview with Mel K, Dr. Zelenko said, “Some of the lots were 5,000% more lethal than others — or think of it as 50x. So, let’s say one vial killed one person. Another vial killed 50 people.”
“If everyone would have gotten the same thing, it would be a clear correlation that you’re being poisoned, and no one would take it,” Dr. Zelenko concluded. Thus, the answer to why some people took the shot and turned out okay is because “not everyone got the same thing.”
Dr. Zelenko’s bold claim was confirmed in March 2023, when a study performed by Schmeling and colleagues found that 4.2% of the batches accounted for a staggering 71% of adverse events.
In 2015, Scott Adams made a “crazy” prediction that most people thought was impossible.
He said Trump had a 98% chance of becoming president, and he made that call on a single observation.
The winning attribute that made Scott confident in Trump’s victory was his one-of-a-kind persuasion skills.
While political betting markets dismissed Trump’s chances, Adams argued—using his background in persuasion and hypnosis—that Trump was the most psychologically effective candidate in the race and therefore favored to win. He built a massive following by showing how persuasion, not policy, drives political outcomes.
That insight proved correct. But it also revealed something darker. 🧵
After Trump’s victory, Adams pivoted to punditry—and during COVID, even he struggled to see the truth.
Scott strongly endorsed the vaccines, vaccinated himself, and publicly belittled followers who refused. Many later derisively called him “Clot Adams.”
In January 2023, Adams admitted—on video—that he’d been wrong and that the anti-vaxxers were correct. But he framed it as luck: the right people just happened to distrust the government, while “all the data” supposedly pointed intelligent analysts toward vaccination.
That framing matters. It reveals how even skilled observers of persuasion can mistake marketing consensus for truth—and how the same system that manufactures medical certainty also hides the limits of medicine, until reality forces a reckoning.
Last May, Scott told the world something most people never say out loud until it’s unavoidable: he had terminal, metastatic prostate cancer.
He openly stated he planned to use California’s medically assisted dying to reduce suffering.
He also shut down speculation—saying he had already tried fenbendazole and ivermectin and had no interest in continuing them.
The reaction was explosive.
People weren’t just debating treatment choices—they were watching, in real time, what a protracted, modern death actually looks like.
For many, it shattered comforting abstractions about both cancer and mortality.