The Noahide Laws are a Jewish set of universal moral commandments meant for all mankind. They include prohibitions against idolatry, murder, and theft, as well as a mandate to set up justice systems. These laws already had those opposing them, but with Congress merging the American military with Israel, and more Israeli flags being flown and displayed in US government buildings, many have begun to suspect that America will adopt the Noahide Laws as well. The Noahide Laws are listed as follows: Prohibition of Idolatry Prohibition of Murder Prohibition of Theft Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity Prohibition of Blasphemy Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals Requirement to have just laws [Setting up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.] Although on the surface the Noahide Laws may seem innocent and even good, critics have warned many to beware of them and have argued that the laws are designed to discriminate against religious liberties, specifically those of Christianity. Some even suggest that they are the laws of the “anti-Christ,” as the rules would be designed to reach around the world and make it so any gentile who chooses to pursue “Yeshua,” or Jesus of Nazareth, will be violating the Noahide Laws. The Sabbath is not included in the laws, meaning that gentiles are prohibited from observing the Sabbath, effectively implying that there are two separate sets of laws: one for Jews and one for everyone else. This concept is not scriptural, as stated in Exodus 12:49, “The same laws apply to the native born and the alien living among you.” Effectively, the Jewish people are saying that the Torah is only for them, while the sons of Noah, the rest of humanity, are regulated to the Noahide Laws. Although the Noahide Laws are not yet being enforced, they have been put in place and were recognized by Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day. Additionally, Section 4: Article 5 of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act from October 8, 2004, stated that anyone who speaks about the state of Israel in a negative light will be considered anti-Semitic. Not later than November 15, 2004, the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives a one-time report on acts of anti-Semitism around the world, including a description of— (1) acts of physical violence against, or harassment of, Jewish people, and acts of violence against, or vandalism of, Jewish community institutions, such as schools, synagogues, or cemeteries, that occurred in each country; (2) the responses of the governments of those countries to such actions; (3) the actions taken by such governments to enact and enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to religious freedom of Jewish people; (4) the efforts by such governments to promote anti-bias and tolerance education; and (5) instances of propaganda in government and nongovern- ment media that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Jewish people. “Instances of propaganda” that can lead to someone being called anti-Semitic can also include anyone stating that the Jews were behind Christ’s crucifixion. Even some New Testament scriptures would be classified as anti-Semitic writing. Additionally, the Noahide Laws also include rules set in place to decapitate anyone violating them. If someone is found to be worshiping an idol, such as Jesus, and committing what the laws consider acts of blasphemy, they state that “the court is to administer the death penalty by the sword.” This penalty was mentioned in Revelation 20:4, which reads, “I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These laws also embolden the Jewish people to take over the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, which has been a generations-long, highly sensitive, geopolitical and religious dispute. However, the Jewish people do not make up all of Biblical Israel; rather, they represent those who lived in Judea. Israel was split into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. The North was banished to Assyria, never returning and assimilating with the nations around the world, whereas the South was banished to Babylon for disobedience and returned 70 years later. Regardless, the Jewish people still hold a claim to the Holy Land and have been contesting with other religious groups, such as the Muslims, over it for many years. Even to this day, the Sanhedrin, the high court in Jerusalem, holds conferences for the Organization of 70 Nations, which culminates in an animal sacrifice made by representatives of the nations on the Mount of Olives. This ceremony is where the nations renew the covenant made by Noah upon leaving the Ark and perform lectures on “Noahide obligations incumbent upon all of mankind.” Many Americans have become increasingly concerned with the possible implementation of the Noahide Laws into their daily lives. These concerns were exacerbated after the Sanhedrin called upon President Trump to acknowledge and uphold the seven Noahide Laws. Many Christian Americans also feel betrayed as Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been on video insulting Christians and Jesus Christ, stating that Jesus is no match for Genghis Khan because if someone is ruthless enough, “evil will overcome good.” That controversy has raised concerns, in combination with the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) raising its internal counterintelligence threat assessment for Israel to its highest tier, “critical,” in June 2026. The decision was driven by concerns over aggressive intelligence collection targeting senior U.S. officials and internal Trump administration deliberations regarding Iran. Americans have grown very distrustful of Israel and its Noahide Laws. Some are even comparing the way Americans are
By Alexandra Miskewitz
LinkedIn as Late-Stage Capitalism LinkedIn is easy to mock because it often feels ridiculous. Feeds are lined with posts of people claiming corporate prestige with saturated jargon that no one really understands. Layoffs become “new chapters”, and desperation is portrayed as being “open to new opportunities”. Ordinary employment is narrated as a moral awakening, with those who can’t follow the cryptic lexicon as being simply not on their level. The language is so polished it begins to feel inhuman, as if every post is passed through a motivational filter and carefully stripped of any real insight. But the absurdity of LinkedIn is not the most interesting thing about it. The surface-level jeering about its content and audience, while amusing, overshadows the more serious question of whypeople feel compelled to perform this way at all. In the United States, work has never been just a job. One’s profession has been treated as evidence of character, discipline, education and personal worth. LinkedIn takes this philosophy and gives it a platform and a name. It repackages the worker into a public profile, an SEO project, and hosts a space to permanently market employability. It seems the point is not just being suited or capable for the job, because having the right requirements and a well-established CV is outdated in this age of corporate recruitment. Instead, you need to accompany this with a digital, legible mandate with at least 500 connections, or else who are you? The platform is the epitome of late-stage capitalism. It not only connects people to jobs, but it also teaches people how to behave in a labour market where employability itself is theatrical. In 2025, LinkedIn reported 1.2 billion members globally and $17.8 billion in revenue, a staggering amount in any case. Following suit with many other social platforms, they have introduced new AI tools for job seekers, hirers and sales. This is important because not only do you have to perform within this stagnant job market, but you are also judged on this by AI. Reuters reported that LinkedIn’s AI hiring agents were projected to bring in $450 million annually by “helping” recruiters identify suitable profiles across the network. This shifts the focus entirely. In this respect, the game is no longer about experience; it’s about SEO and corporate literacy. The worker is not simply applying for jobs. They are processed as a signal, not a human; transformed into a set of keywords, a network, and a history of ambition within the confines of AI-approved jargon. The introduction of AI in workplaces across the U.S. has undeniably reduced job openings and is now cutting into the recruitment sector. Not only did you lose your job to AI, but you were denied your next one because you didn’t meet the lexical quota. To Karl Marx, this advent is unsurprising. He argued that capitalism turns labour power itself into a commodity: the worker must sell their capacity to work in order to survive. LinkedIn expertly shows how far that logic has travelled, and how conceited the job market has become. The worker is no longer selling only time, skill or effort. They are expected to sell personality, resilience, digital consistency, network capabilities, and a narrative of constant self-improvement. One becomes part of the package. This commodification is the real poison of the platform. It makes the crisis of work, or lack thereof, a flaw of self-presentation. If you cannot get a job, the implied solution is to optimise your profile. If nobody replies, message better. If you are invisible, post more. If none of the above work, you can buy an “affordable” subscription of around $40 a month to help boost your presence. The subscription becomes even darker when it’s realised that visibility has become monetised. Of course, capitalism and the ruling class have always understood this premise, as has society. But LinkedIn has attempted to remove these barriers in a way that fills its own pocket instead. The premium advertises AI-powered tools for job searches and profile optimisation, InMail, profile view numbers, personalised insights and access to “top applicant” jobs. There is something dystopian about a labour market in which workers are already forced to compete for attention, then offered, as a necessity, a plethora of paid tools to become more visible in the competition. These class politics are not subtle. Despite LinkedIn’s attempts to profit from class visibility, they present as a neutral space for opportunity. They reward those who already understand the architecture of professional culture, have polished profiles, institutional confidence, internship language and established networks. A working-class person may boast intelligence, be capable, reliable and perfectly suited for a role, yet still be punished for not knowing how to read themselves in the approved style. Pew Research Centre found that LinkedIn use in the U.S. is sharply divided by education. In 2024, a reported that 53% of Americans with at least a bachelor’s degree said they use LinkedIn. This compares sharply to the 28% who have a college education, and 10% of those who have high school degrees or less. This disparity paints an illustrative picture. If LinkedIn becomes part of how opportunity is accessed, then paradoxically, the unequal access to LinkedIn’s culture becomes yet another class barrier. This is why LinkedIn is not just bad, it’s an active obstacle for those trying to find work in modern society. It is bad because it reveals a labour market that increasingly demands shallow performance. It is bad because it asks people to translate fear into marketable self-growth and instability into ambition. It turns structural insecurity into an expensive subscription. The cruellest part is that opting out becomes even harder. Online resources are more essential than ever for American job seekers. Pew found that as early as 2015, a large majority of recent US job seekers had solely used online resources to look and apply for work. The point is that digital presence has become increasingly difficult to
By Adia May
Every year, the Met Gala transforms the steps of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art into one of the biggest fashion stages. Designers, celebrities, and cultural figures gather around an exhibition meant to celebrate fashion as an art form, often honoring the people and movements that have shaped the industry. But the subject of the 2027 exhibition is already raising a more complicated question: Who deserves to be celebrated? The Metropolitan Museum of Art has announced that its 2027 Costume Institute exhibition, ‘John Galliano: Horizons’, will examine the career of John Galliano, one of the most influential and theatrical designers in modern fashion. From his years leading Dior to his celebrated return at Maison Margiela, Galliano’s work has helped shape decades of runway fashion and continues to influence designers today. But Galliano’s legacy extends beyond the clothes he created. In 2011, Dior fired him after allegations of racist and antisemitic verbal abuse and the emergence of a video showing him making antisemitic remarks. Later that year, a French court found him guilty of public insults based on race, religion, ethnicity, or origin. More than 15 years later, Galliano has returned to fashion’s highest ranks. Now, one of its most powerful institutions is putting his work center stage. The question surrounding the 2027 Met Gala, then, is not whether John Galliano influenced fashion history. It is whether acknowledging that history requires celebrating the man behind it, and where the fashion industry should draw the line between recognition, redemption, and accountability. But Galliano’s influence on modern fashion is difficult to ignore. Throughout his career, particularly during his time at Dior, he became known for turning runway shows into elaborate theatrical productions that blended history, storytelling, and extravagant design. Even after his dismissal in 2011, his influence never completely disappeared. He returned to the industry in 2014 as creative director of Maison Margiela, where he spent the next decade rebuilding his reputation and eventually received widespread acclaim for his 2024 Artisanal collection. In many ways, Galliano’s return shows that the industry has already given him a second chance. He has apologized for his behavior, spoken publicly about his struggles with addiction, and spent years rebuilding a career that once appeared to be over. The question now is not necessarily whether Galliano deserves the opportunity to continue creating, but whether redemption should eventually lead to celebration. That distinction is what makes the 2027 Met Gala particularly complicated. Museums have a responsibility to document influential figures, including those with troubling histories, and ignoring Galliano’s contributions would leave out an important part of modern fashion. But the Met Gala is more than a museum exhibition. It is a glamorous global spectacle, where celebrities and designers will gather around a night inspired by Galliano’s work. Perhaps the Met does not need to erase John Galliano from fashion history. His influence can be acknowledged alongside the harm caused by his words and actions. But recognition and celebration are not necessarily the same thing. As fashion prepares to revisit one of its most influential and controversial figures, the 2027 Met Gala will ultimately have to confront whether honoring Galliano’s art can truly be separated from honoring Galliano himself. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Alan Jimenez
Follow Us