Prager U. on CRT

Schools, corporations and governments across America are eagerly jumping on the Critical Race Theory train. This doesn't bode well for the future of our social cohesion and comity, and I've occasionally explained why I think this neo-Marxian social theory is not benign, most recently here.

It puzzles me that anyone who thinks that a theory or set of assumptions about race that rejects the ideals of human equality and the belief that all human beings - not just whites - are corrupted by original sin and which promotes division, resentment, hostility and racist attitudes toward whites, is a good thing to be teaching everyone, especially children.

According to an article at The Federalist,

CRT rejects the foundational premises of classical liberalism — such as legal neutrality and individual rights — and from that perspective, colorblindness is not understood as a strategy to overcome racism but as a method to perpetuate it.

“It’s a white ideology,” Burnham said. “Colorblindness really comes into fashion as a means of denying the persistence of racial stratification in the United States.”

In other words, to endorse Martin Luther King's plea that people be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin is a means of perpetuating racism according to proponents of CRT.

The Federalist article gives several examples of how this is working out in practice, one of which describes a lawsuit brought by two white employees of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife:

In the California lawsuit brought by the two white men, a discussion hosted by the state Department of Fish & Wildlife featured speakers who said that black people don’t use the outdoors in proportion to their population because of white racism, generational trauma, and a historical fear of lynching.

White employees were instructed on the country’s deeply racist legal system and advised that “silence is complicity” when it comes to racial injustice.

According to the lawsuit, employees were subjected to implicit bias training that amounted to compelling staff to take “loyalty oaths” to CRT ideology. The lawsuit, filed last October, is in the early procedural stage; the state’s lawyers are seeking to have the case dismissed.

Evidently, it's fear of being lynched by all the murderous racist white folks hiking the trails of our state and national parks that keeps blacks from frequenting them.

Another suit against the New York City Department of Education alleges that employees were told at a diversity retreat that “there is White toxicity in the air and we all breathe it in.” Examples given included the Protestant work ethic and being socialized to be “defensive.”

These are ridiculous to be sure, but the most insidious examples of CRT indoctrination are occurring in our schools where children are being made to feel guilt because of their race and "privilege." One mixed-race student in a Nevada charter school was actually failed in his senior year because he refused to assent to the accusation that he was racist because of his "whiteness."

James Lindsey at Prager U. agrees that CRT is a corrosive acid eating away at our social fabric and sums up some of its major problems in this five minute video:

It's certainly jarring to a generation raised on the belief that all people are equal in the eyes of God, that we have a moral duty to treat everyone the way we'd want to treated, and that one's skin color is irrelevant to be told now that this is all pernicious claptrap and that the color of one's skin is the most important thing about them, that it defines them in almost every significant way, and that if they're white they ipso facto bear an enormous load of guilt and shame.

American Race Relations Have Never Been Better

A column in the Wall Street Journal(paywall) by Jason Riley makes the case that, contrary to what we hear from our progressive friends, race relations are better today than they've ever been in this country.

This is bad news for leftist progressives whose rhetoric and policies rely upon and promote the perception of racial resentments, but Riley provides the evidence to buttress his claim.

He begins with a critique of the claim that Donald Trump's election in 2016 is proof that the nation is racist:

[I]t’s worth clarifying (yet again) that former supporters of Barack Obama, not white nationalists, were the voters responsible for Mr. Trump’s election. Only occasionally did the establishment media acknowledge this in its reporting. “It’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump,” reads a New York Times dispatch from 2017. “He flipped millions of white working-class Obama supporters to his side."

Political scientist Eric Kaufmann of the Manhattan Institute cites data showing, Mr. Riley avers, that,

[R]acial attitudes have been trending toward more tolerance for well over half a century, even as black politicians (Mr. Obama, Kamala Harris ), professional polemicists (Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ibram X. Kendi ) and major media organs (the New York Times’s '1619 Project') continue to insist otherwise.

According to Mr. Kaufmann, “at a time when measures of racist attitudes and behavior have never been more positive, pessimism about racism and race relations has increased in America.” Terms like “systemic racism” and “unconscious bias” are increasingly common, but white racist views have been in steady decline, whether with regard to having black co-workers, classmates or neighbors.

Riley goes on to cite some important statistics:

Intermarriage trend lines also undermine the notion that racial bigotry in America is a growing problem. “Approval of black-white intermarriage rose among whites from around 4% in 1958 to 45% in 1995 and 84% in 2013,” Mr. Kaufmann writes. “In 2017, fewer than 10% of whites in a major Pew survey said that interracial marriage was a ‘bad thing,’ ” and the “actual share of intermarried newlyweds rose from 3% in 1967 to 17% in 2015.”

In fact, intermarriages involving Asians, Hispanics and Jews have all risen sharply over the decades, yet progressive intellectuals want to lecture the rest of us on how to be “antiracist.”

But what about the "systemic racism" plaguing our police departments?

Fatal encounters between police officers and black suspects are always unfortunate and sometimes tragic, but they’re also exceedingly rare. Nor is it rational to conclude, without supporting evidence, that these encounters are driven by racial animus.

As Mr. Kaufmann notes, “police killings of African-Americans declined by 60%-80% from the late 1960s to the early 2000s and have remained at this level ever since.” According to a Washington Post database, police shot and killed 999 people in 2019, including 424 whites and 252 blacks.

Twelve of the black victims were unarmed, versus 26 of the white victims. In a country where annual arrests number more than 10 million, if those black death totals constitute an “epidemic” of police use of lethal force against blacks, then the word has lost all meaning.

So why aren't these statistics more widely known? Why is it that when police shoot an unarmed black person it's a national news story, but when they shoot an unarmed white person, which happens twice as often, we never hear about it?

The reason, perhaps, is that the left, both black and white, has an ideological interest in keeping society divided. By presenting themselves as the only ones who can remedy our nation's racial ills the left manipulates our misperceptions to aggrandize their own power.

It's reprehensible, to be sure, but if the above statistics are correct what other explanation is there for the constant effort by the left to turn every incident, every disparity, into a confirmation of their narrative that we are a thoroughly racist people?

Atlas Is Shrugging

In her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand pictured a society in which those who produce wealth and jobs and bear the burden of carrying society upon their shoulders, the creative geniuses who've made society prosperous, decide that a parasitic state has made their lives intolerable, and they all just quit.

Burdensome laws and regulations imposed on the wealth creators make it so difficult for them to continue that they give up, abandon their enterprises and abscond to a mysterious mountain retreat.

Something analogous is occurring today in our society, but it's not the corporate CEOs who are taking sudden and early retirement, it's those who provide a service at least as important as those who provide jobs - our police. Apparently, many officers have decided that they've had enough and are looking for other employment or are retiring.

Moreover, young people are deciding that police work in a society that seems intent on doing everything it can to make their job impossible isn't for them.

A piece at the Blaze.com tells the story:

The "defund the police" movement and the "abolish the police" movement, constant negative coverage of law enforcement by the media, anti-police sentiment becoming mainstream, and the threat of riots have contributed to a police shortage across the country.

The Philadelphia Police Department currently has 268 vacancies and is expecting even more shortages in the near future.

"From Jan. 1 through Thursday, 79 Philadelphia officers ... intend to retire within four years, according to Mayor Jim Kenney's office," the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. "During the same time period last year, just 13 officers had [so indicated]."

"It's the perfect storm. We are anticipating that the department is going to be understaffed by several hundred members, because hundreds of guys are either retiring or taking other jobs and leaving the department," Mike Neilon, spokesperson for the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, told the newspaper.

And it's not just Philadelphia:

Neighboring New Jersey is facing a "recruiting crisis," according to Pat Colligan, president of the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association.

"Every action has a reaction. When you vilify every police officer for every bad police officer's decision, [people] don't want to take this job anymore," Colligan, head of New Jersey's largest police union, said. "It's been a very trying and difficult time to put on the badge every day."

Colligan also said the "quality has really diminished in the last few years," which could mean more tragic police confrontations in the future.

Col. Patrick Callahan, the acting superintendent of the New Jersey State Police, said the state's largest police agency received a "historically low" number of applications this year. In some years, the New Jersey State Police would usually receive between 15,000 to 20,000 applications – this year they only received 2,023 qualified applicants as of Thursday, according to NJ.com.

In Baltimore they're talking about having to close police districts. If that happens they will almost certainly be closed in those parts of the city where stresses are highest and the need for police is the greatest.

According to a spokesperson for the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police, patrol numbers are now below 700 officers which is about 300-400 below what is needed, creating huge safety issues for our officers and for the citizens of Baltimore.

There's more at the link.

The Federalist's Katy Faust interviewed an African-American police officer about policing in the wake of the recent trial of former Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin.

After talking for awhile about the Derek Chauvin trial Faust asked (Her questions are in boldface),

How would you characterize public opinion towards police today? There is a general narrative that demonizes law enforcement. In my opinion, the anti-cop narrative began with the Obama administration. He made negative law enforcement comments, and in controversial cases would show up to the deceased’s funerals (which were later justified as lawful shootings). The Dallas five were killed under Obama and he didn’t show any respect toward them.

Do you think that policing in America is systemically racist? Ha. Absolutely not. No.

In your experience has policing become more difficult since George Floyd’s death? Yes, but we’ve been on this slippery slope since the start of the BLM [Black Lives Matter] movement. That’s where things really started to take a serious turn. We were already nose diving, and Floyd’s death is just more fuel to the fire.

All these cases involve a false narrative of police racism, from Trayvon Martin to Rayshard Brooks to George Floyd, causing tension and a divide between law-enforcement and the community. People want us to solve their problems, but they don’t want us to defend ourselves or the community while doing it.

They want us to be able to talk it out with everybody, but the reality is we can’t always do that. If people shoot us, we’re going to shoot back. That’s what happened with the Breonna Taylor case. Somehow people are upset about that.

And facts don’t matter. Even though the false Michael Brown “hands up don’t shoot” narrative was proven false, I still can’t drive around the city without someone eyeballing me and putting their hands up and saying “don’t shoot” while I drive past.

There's more that's both interesting and important at the link. The interview concludes with this:

How’s morale? Each agency has its own subculture, but this region’s morale is generally crappy. A lot of officers are leaving. We don’t have anybody, anybody applying to be officers here, so we are lowering standards to get numbers up.

The academy has lowered their physical fitness standards and we have dropped ours completely. Now if you’ve got a pulse and some experience? We will take you. Because that’s how bad we are hurting for bodies. Of course, the lowering of standards does not increase the odds that things are going to be done right. So it will perpetuate the problems.

But even before we had to lower standards, we were still struggling. The public thinks that we are ninjas, that we are all MMA fighters. For a while that belief was helpful because it instilled a bit of healthy fear, of not wanting to mess with us.

But the reality is that most police officers have a YMCA degree (not to knock on the YMCA) but it’s like they went to one little seminar on self-defense and that’s kind of it. The level of training we get is so subpar compared to the demands.

Not only that, but there are important and serious limitations on our interactions with suspects. As an officer, I have a responsibility, we as a police force have a responsibility, to limit the amount of force to get someone into custody. But if they are overcoming my efforts, I can escalate my use of force, within reason, to effectuate that arrest.

In our precinct, we pitch and brainstorm ways that we can get better training. Unfortunately, “defund the police” is a movement, so our funding has already been slashed. There’s no money for classes or overtime for us to go.

So they’re basically saying, “We wish you guys were ninjas,” and we’re saying “OK, send us to ninja school.” And they’re like, “No we’re not going to pay for that. We’re just gonna put you in jail when you don’t meet our expectations even though we won’t give you the training you need.”

What would you tell America about this moment in time and your job? I think that it’s important for people to know that we still have a heart to have people’s backs. There isn’t a cop I know who isn’t willing to lay their life on their line for someone else in a life-or-death situation. But what we’re not willing to do is put ourselves or our careers or our families on the line for people’s inconveniences.

I’m happy to do that as a luxury as long as we have community support. But if we don’t have your support, and you call us about your neighbor’s loud music? No. Go talk to the neighbor yourself. Or buy some ear plugs.

The left appears about to get it's wish that police presence be abolished in many neighborhoods which, of course, will make those neighborhoods unlivable. And they'll stay that way as long as our cities, states and nation are governed by a party whose ideas about human nature are completely unmoored from reality.

Actually, the police aren't the only vital public servants looking for a less stressful line of work. Teachers have been taking early retirement for years for some of the same reasons as police, and as our cities become less and less governable, as police presence becomes increasingly thin, our schools, at least our urban schools, will become increasingly chaotic and it'll become even harder to find good people willing to teach in them.

It's hard to understand why anyone today would want to be either a police officer or a teacher, or to even live in a city that makes both of those jobs impossible.

The Most Efficient Swimmer

If you had to guess which, of all the creatures on earth, was the most efficient swimmer, what would you guess?

The answer is perhaps surprising, and this beautiful seven and a half minute video explains how this animal does it:

Good Letter

A friend of mine named Mike has a blog called Thought Sifter for which he writes excellent, if infrequent, posts. His latest is a letter he wrote to an activist progressive group in response to a solicitation he received from them which, he says, was so bad that he couldn't help responding.

Because he makes a number of important points in the letter, I requested and received permission to reproduce his missive in full. Here it is:

Dear Sir,

I don't normally respond to group, solicitation emails, but the one I received from you for the Rural Utah Project on April 22 compelled me to write to you personally.

I work both in education and in the criminal justice system. I also have an interracial family and can say--sadly but confidently--that I have personally experienced the impact of genuine racism. I cite these points about myself because each of them has shaped my perspective on the issues you allude to in the email.

Along with many other people, I have been increasingly disturbed by the state of public discourse in our culture on the most significant moral and political concerns of our day. The age-old practice of argumentation--that is of thoughtfully explaining why one believes his or her view to be right and then carefully listening to a well reasoned critique--is essentially extinct in American culture.

The standard mode of communication when it comes to things like criminal justice, race relations, politics, and religion, is to bypass the thought process altogether with empty but emotionally charged catch phrases and buzzwords which are not used to clarify what is true but to galvanize the faithful and reinforce their allegiance to the cause.

This is a pervasive and deeply exasperating problem, and your email is one of the clearest examples of this that I've seen.

For example, you say, "This is how we can celebrate the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin and simultaneously call for the end of mass incarceration. It’s how we call this accountability but not justice."

"Celebrate" is an inappropriate word to apply to the George Floyd/Derek Chauvin case. We should appreciate that Chauvin was held accountable for his crime, but the fact that Chauvin was a murderous cop and the fact that George Floyd was a drug-addicted criminal are both tragedies, neither of which should be celebrated.

Also, your point that Chauvin's conviction is "accountability but not justice" shows that, as so often seems to be the case, there is no real end point to your cause; rather, the cause is an end in itself. The idea that a conviction on all charges is not considered an example of justice to many who identify as "progressive" shows that their main interest is in being progressive rather than progressing toward a particular goal.

You also "call for the end of mass incarceration." This is a nonsense statement. "Mass incarceration" means almost nothing. It is a good example of a content-free buzzword used in place of a thought.

I am generally familiar with the demographics of the incarcerated population. In the prison where I work, there is a large percentage of Latino inmates, many of whom are gang members and are in prison because they bludgeoned, stabbed, or shot someone, or were involved in trafficking large amounts of weapons or narcotics. And, as is the case with the "mass" number of people in prison, many were sentenced only after committing multiple offenses.

The prison also has a significant number of old white men, many of whom were incarcerated because they raped or sexually molested young girls.

With this in mind, I'm curious how a decrease in "mass incarceration" would work? In the pursuit of anti-racism, should there be a moratorium on sentencing Latino gang members for stabbing or shooting someone until their numbers in prison are below a "mass" level?

I'm assuming the large number of old white men in prison for child molestation isn't relevant to the problem of mass incarceration since they are already guilty of being white. But wouldn't it be considered "agism" if too many are kept in prison after a certain age?

Incarceration, mass or otherwise, is what happens to individuals of all races for committing serious (and usually multiple) crimes. The best way to combat mass incarceration is to get that mass of potential criminals to refrain from committing crimes.

If your response to this is, "You don't understand. It's different for minorities," then I would encourage you not to have such a low view of minorities. People who grow up in disadvantaged situations still have the dignity of making choices.

There are few ideas more degrading to another person than to imply that he or she is only a passive product of a cultural environment with no capacity to make independent decisions.

In light of these concerns, I implore you to please, please stop contributing to the epidemic of facile, partisan chest-beating. Please stop the emotional fly-over of the complex array of facts on the ground.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid his plea is likely to fall on deaf ears. People committed to promoting an agenda often lack a commitment to truth and accuracy. Their idea of a true statement is one which is helpful in promoting their agenda, and for such people objective facts are at best a nuisance.

Is the Moon There When No One's Looking at it?

Earlier this week I did a post featuring an interview with philosopher Bruce Gordon in which he explains the philosophical theory called idealism, and I'd like to continue with that interview today. In this segment Gordon talks about a couple of quantum mechanics' weird aspects.

Here's Gordon:

...in the quantum mechanical formulism, you can demonstrate that [a subatomic particle] has zero probability of existing in any bounded region of space, no matter how large. You can close various loopholes to make it kind of a rock solid result.

So what does that mean? It means that unobserved [particles] don’t exist anywhere in space, and thus have no existence apart from being observed. Interestingly enough, there have been experiments conducted that would support [this].

This means that subatomic particles do not actually exist apart from being observed by a mind. As idealist philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753) put it, "To be is to be perceived."

Here’s another [example of quantum weirdness] that’s absolutely fascinating. It’s been dubbed the quantum Cheshire cat phenomenon. You may recall from the story of Alice in Wonderland that Alice observes this grinning Cheshire cat that then disappears, leaving only its grin. Alice remarks that she’s “Often seen a cat without a grin, but never a grin without a cat.”

Here's the Disney version:

Gordon continues:

In essence, that’s what’s going on [at the quantum level] because certain experiments — in particular, one using a neutron interferometer — have separated the properties of neutrons from any sort of substrate. So micro-physical properties don’t necessarily require a substrate.

What did the experiment do? Well, it sent the position of neutrons along one path and their spins along a separate path.

So that’d be kind of like sending a top along one path, and the fact that it was spinning along a separate path. Or the redness of an object along one path and the location of that object along another path. Micro-physical properties then can be separated from any idea of a substrate. They can be abstract properties moving through space.

So what do you get then? It would seem that under appropriate experimental conditions, quantum systems are decomposable into disembodied properties. A collection of Cheshire cat grins, if you will. So how is it that an abstract property could exist without any sort of substrate? Well, it can’t.

Unless, Gordon says, the property exists in a mental substrate, a mind, specifically, the mind of God.

There is no physical substrate, but the property has to inhere in something, so it’s inhering in the mind that perceives it. So in a way you could look at the properties, the quantum mechanical properties as kind of abstract particular properties, tropes even. But the tropes have to inhere in something. What they inhere in is a mental substance, not a physical one.

The interviewer, neuroscientist Michael Egnor, adds that,

What’s particularly fascinating as you point out, is how a deep look at the peculiarities, at the counterintuitive aspects of the quantum world, suggests that only an idealist metaphysics could make sense of all this. That materialist, or perhaps even dualist metaphysical perspectives fail at the quantum level. But the idealist perspective doesn’t.

The editor of the interview throws in this interesting tidbit:

Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that "the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it." To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture — one that cannot be either proved or disproved.

We can reasonably assume it exists, but we can never prove it without having a perception of some sort of it.

Berkeley's answer is that the moon does exist, even if we're not perceiving it, and that we can reasonably assume that it does, because it exists as an idea or perception in the mind of God. If God did not exist, however, we'd have no grounds for saying that the moon, or anything else, exists when no one was perceiving it.

The world, especially at the subatomic level, is a much stranger place than our common sense would have us believe.

Jumping to Conclusions

Another black kid has been shot and killed by a white cop and people who would merely yawn if the races were reversed or if the officer and the victim were of the same race are outraged.

A 16 year-old girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was seen in body cam footage about to plunge a knife into the body of another girl (both girls are black, not that it should matter).

The cop arrives on the scene and right in front of him a male is kicking a third girl laying on the ground while the cop shouts warnings to stop. They don't. A girl is about to be stabbed. The cop has a fraction of a second to act. He fires and kills her assailant.

Sadly, lots of people evidently felt it very important to make a judgment on the matter before getting any facts.

Former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett tweeted that "A Black teenage girl named Ma'Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight. Demand accountability. Fight for justice."

This is absurd. It wasn't a knife fight. It was a unilateral assault with a deadly weapon. The officer immediately decided to fire because if he hesitated the girl on the receiving end of the knife could well be dead. He shot multiple times because that's what they're trained to do.

Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki implied it was a case of "systemic racism": Psaki said, "She was a child... Our focus is on working to address systemic racism & implicit bias head on."

Psaki is suggesting that any case of a white cop shooting a black victim is ipso facto an instance of "systemic racism." It's an easy claim to make because although it's impossible to prove, it's also impossible to falsify. Her statement is vacuous, but no matter. Regardless of its truth it exacerbates racial divisions and thus has political utility for those who benefit from those divisions.

NBA basketball star Lebron James tweeted that the officer who shot Bryant will be the next to experience Derek Chauvin's fate. He subsequently took the tweet down, hopefully because he realized how foolish it was.

There were other expressions of anger and outrage over the shooting mentioned in the piece linked to at the beginning of the post and also here.

Here are a few questions for those who are so quick to pass judgment on events when they don't have any idea what they're talking about:

• What do these people suggest the officer should've done? The alternatives that some have suggested range from the impractical to just plain dumb.
• If the girl about to be stabbed had been the daughter of Jarrett, Psaki or James, and the police failed to do the only thing they could do to stop it, if their daughter was fatally knifed while an officer stood by and did nothing, would they have exonerated the officer and praised him for doing the right thing? Or would they be bitterly accusing the police of obvious racism because they let an innocent black girl be murdered?
• If Mr. James thinks that the officer who shot the knife-wielding young woman should be prosecuted, why hasn't he spoken out to protest the decision of the DOJ not to prosecute the police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt on January 6th? Unlike Bryant, Babbitt had no weapon and was not threatening anyone. Why doesn't James, and indeed the whole nation, especially our media, seem to care about her death? Is it because she was white?

I wonder if our media will interview the parents of the girl whose life that officer saved to get their take on the incident. Probably not, but what do you think their opinion of the officer's actions is right now?

There's a very distressing and dishonest double standard prevailing in our politics and in our media, the resentment it fosters is one of the reasons for the success of populists like Donald Trump, and it's just not going to end well if it persists.

The Religion of Identity Politics

In his book American Awakening Joshua Mitchell makes the point that today's Identity Politics (IP) is actually a distortion of Christianity, or perhaps more accurately, it's an anti-Christian religion. Here's why I say that (I borrow some of what follows from Mitchell):

As with Christianity, IP has a doctrine of original sin (racism), but unlike Christianity the original sin doesn't stain everyone. Some groups are innocent of this sin, and do not inherit the stain. Other groups, most notably in our time White, Heterosexual Males (WHM), are deeply infected. If these "Transgressors" are also Christian and/or conservative their guilt is compounded.

The stain is indelible. Nothing WHM can do can cleanse them of it. As in some Christian traditions, those who are infected with original sin are totally depraved and beyond human redemption. Their sin corrupts everything they touch.

As in Christianity the original sin is inherited so it makes no sense for the Transgressor to plead innocence, to insist that he's not racist. He's guilty by virtue of the fact of his race. Moreover, since there's no human redemption and since IP is thoroughly secular and has no room for a Divine redeemer, redemption is impossible.

Christianity, of course, provides a Divine redeemer, a scapegoat upon whose shoulders the sins of mankind are heaped, but there's no Divine scapegoat in IP. The sins of the WHM are borne on his own shoulders. He bears the guilt of all WHM past, present and future.

Derek Chauvin is perhaps an example. It wasn't just Chauvin who was on trial last week. Whether he as an individual deserved the jury's verdict or not, Chauvin was a scapegoat, a sacrificial lamb, deemed by the practitioners of IP to be responsible for all the transgressions, real and imagined, of all members of his race (and profession) everywhere. Whatever the facts of the case were, he was guilty in the same way and for much the same reason that O.J. Simpson was innocent.

As in some versions of Christianity there's also a repentance ritual in IP, and, as in Christianity, the ritual involves the penitent Transgressor publicly confessing his sin and often abasing himself in rhetorical sackcloth and ashes, emotionally flagellating himself and begging absolution for the shame and guilt of being a wretched sinner.

He himself may have done nothing to offend, but he's not innocent. He has inherited guilt and deserves whatever punishment the Innocents deem appropriate. If he's suitably obsequious, if he grovels before self-appointed representatives of the Innocents, he may be granted a temporary reprieve, but unlike Christianity, there is in this new religion no permanent forgiveness, no grace, no love, no redemption, no atonement, no reconciliation, no tradition and no God.

There are only hate, rage, judgmentalism, vengeance, professional "cancellation" and demands for a vague and undefined "justice."

Although Christianity doesn't celebrate the Jewish Passover ritual, it understands the significance of the observance. Like the Jews in Egypt who splashed blood on their doors so that the angel of death would pass by their household, guilt-ridden WHM often seek to avoid the IP "angel of death" by festooning their office doors, Facebook pages, lawns and/or cars with rainbow flags, BLM stickers and Hate Has No Home Here lawn signs.

When the IP enforcers see these attempts to certify one's innocence they may be inclined to (temporarily) give the individual a pass, not because they regard them as innocent but because they regard them as useful in reinforcing and spreading the assumption of guilt.

And just as the Catholic Church of the 15th century sold indulgences by which sinners could pay to have their sins, or the sins of loved ones, forgiven, so, too, does the ersatz religion of Identity Politics offer temporary absolution in return for transfer payments, reparations, and benefits coerced from CEOs and politicians. Those who willingly shower these benefits upon the representatives of the Innocents are seeking to buy forgiveness, a forgiveness that's at best transitory and never permanent.

Like the humanistic religions of August Comte in the 19th century and the communists of the 20th century, both of which loathed Christianity but nevertheless plagiarized their morality and many other features from the Church, IP is a religion without God, without salvation and without hope.

It's profoundly divisive and acts as a corrosive acid on our social fabric. Let's hope that it's a fad that soon passes.

How Physics Refutes Common Sense

Yesterday's post looked at some of philosopher Bruce Gordon's thoughts on the philosophical theory called idealism.

Idealism holds that the world is real, but it's subjectively real. Its reality is like that of pain. Pain is real, but it's completely in the mind of the one who's experiencing it. It's reality is subjective. If there were no creatures on earth whose nervous systems could create the sensation of pain, pain would not exist.

The common sense view, of course, is that most of the world is objectively real. It exists independently of whether or not anyone is experiencing it. The moon is there whether anyone sees it or not. This common sense view is called realism.

Realism is the view that there is a world outside our minds existing independently of our minds and perceptions, whereas idealism holds that the world is created by our minds by means of the observations we make. Idealism is a philosophical expression of the ideas popularized by the movie The Matrix.

Idealism strikes most of us as at best counter-intuitive. We're accustomed to think of matter as the fundamental reality (a view called materialism). Matter, we assume, is objectively real and exists whether we perceive it or not. On this view, whatever mind is it's somehow a creation or function of our material brains. Idealism turns this view on its head and declares that mind is actually the fundamental reality and that matter only exists as a subjective experience in our minds.

As I said, this view is counter-intuitive, but it's the view held by a lot of physicists who study the fundamental quantum structure of the world. This video gives a pretty clear idea of the thinking of many physicists, some of whom think that idealism is not only correct but that it leads to the conclusion that there is a God, or something very much like God.

The video's a bit long (17 minutes) and moves quickly. It also discusses some arcane physics at points along the way. Nevertheless, you don't have to understand the physics in order to follow the narrative. The science really only illustrates the basic idea which is that mind is fundamental and that matter is downstream, as it were, from mind.

Give it a click, kick back and savor how mysterious is the world in which we live and move and have our being:

A Philosopher Discusses Idealism

Bruce Gordon is one of the most brilliant and accomplished thinkers alive today. Among other things he's a historian and philosopher of science and was interviewed recently by another scientist, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, on a number of topics, including philosophical idealism.

Gordon is one of a growing number of philosophers who find idealism a compelling hypothesis. The interview begins with Dr. Gordon explaining George Berkeley's (1685-1753) version of idealism:

Michael Egnor: What is idealism?

Bruce Gordon: There are a lot of different varieties of idealism, and rather than go through a laundry list of its variations, let me just start with the kind of idealism that I would be an advocate of, which is an ontic theistic idealism, essentially a form of idealism that is probably most closely identified with the Anglican Bishop, George Berkeley.

George Berkeley 1727

Basically, it’s the idea that material substances, as substantial entities, do not exist and are not the cause of our perceptions. They do not mediate our experience of the world.

Rather, what constitutes what we would call the physical realm are ideas that exist solely in the mind of God, who, as an unlimited and uncreated immaterial being, is the ultimate cause of the sensations and ideas that we, as finite spiritual beings, experience intersubjectively and subjectively as the material universe....So we are, in effect, living our lives in the mind of God.

And he is a mediator of our experience and of our inner subjectivity, rather than some sort of neutral material realm that serves as a third thing between us and the mind of God, so to speak.

The discussion then turns for a bit to Plato's notion of idealism as expressed in his theory of Forms.

Plato believed that every particular thing that exists has an ideal essence or form that exists in some abstract realm of reality. Every chair, for example, is recognizable as a chair because it "participates" in the perfect abstract form of "chairness," every tree is recognizable as a tree because it "participates" in the perfect form of "treeness."

Likewise with everything, including humans.

Later Christian Platonists argued that these essences, or forms, or ideals existed not in some abstract realm but rather as ideas in the mind of God, and this, it seems, is Gordon's view as well.

Michael Egnor: There are, I believe, other kinds of idealism. For example, idealism by German philosophers. And how does that differ from Berkeleyan idealism?

Bruce Gordon: Well, .... [Immanuel] Kant (1724-1804) advocated a kind of epistemic, as opposed to ontic, idealism. Kantian idealism is entirely compatible with the existence of material substances, even though they are inaccessible as things in themselves.

So for Kantian idealism, you’ve got a self that .... precedes and grounds all of our experience. And our perception of reality, then, is governed by the innate structure of the human mind.

Immanuel Kant 1768 

What Gordon is saying here is that Kant believed that a material world existed but that everything we know about it is based on our sensory perceptions which produce ideas or sensations in the mind. Our mind is so structured as to create these ideas, but they may be nothing at all like the thing they represent.

In other words, what we know about the "thing in itself" is the sum of the ideas (or sensations) we have of it in our minds. We can't know it as it exists independently of our perceptions of it.

For example, our minds, upon seeing, smelling and tasting chocolate, generate the ideas of a certain color, fragrance and flavor, but these ideas are in our minds, they're not in the chocolate. The chocolate itself doesn't have color, it simply reflects certain wavelengths of light. Likewise, it doesn't have fragrance or flavor. It simply exudes chemicals which interact with our senses to produce the ideas of fragrance and flavor in our minds.

As Kant put it, “You only know me as you see me, not as I actually am."

Bruce Gordon: So we never experience reality in itself, which he called the noumenal world, but only reality as it appears to us, a ... phenomenal reality that is ordered by the innate structures of the human mind.

Kantian idealism and its descendants are, in many ways, an epistemic form of idealism, whereas the Berkeleyan form of idealism is ontic.

By this Gordon means that Kant's idealism had to do with what we can know about the world whereas Berkeley's idealism had to do with the ontology of the world - what was actually real and what reality was like. Gordon adds:

[Berkeley's Idealism is] a denial that there is material substance and [is instead] an embedding of reality in the mind of God, such that it is finite spiritual beings experiencing the reality brought into existence by this unlimited, uncreated, immaterial being.

Berkeley's idealism, then, was different from Kant's. Berkeley held that there was no material world at all. Everything we experience we experience as ideas in our minds, ideas which are presented to our minds by the mind of God.

As Berkeley himself says, “All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth — in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world — have not any subsistence without a mind.” This may seem bizarre at first reading, but according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Berkeley’s system, while it strikes many as counter-intuitive, is strong and flexible enough to counter most objections.”

It's interesting that in the last fifty years or so many physicists have embraced idealism. They're persuaded by developments in quantum mechanics that reveal that at the subatomic level many properties of the entities scientists study at that level don't exist until they're observed.

For instance, the 20th century scientist Max Planck, often called the father of quantum mechanics, once stated that,

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

And Sir James Jeans, in his book The Mysterious Universe, wrote that, "The universe is beginning to look more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine."

Idealism has considerable intellectual appeal for quantum physicists, but I should think it would also be attractive to some thoughtful theologically oriented folks, especially those who are heirs to the Calvinist tradition and its doctrine of predestination and who believe that everything that exists, and thus everything that happens, is in fact predestined by God.

Such a doctrine conforms nicely to the conviction that the reality we experience is fundamentally an idea in the mind of God.

Christopher Rufo Explains CRT

Christopher Rufo, a writer at City Journal who has done a lot of research and reporting on Critical Race Theory (CRT) gave an address on the topic last month at Hillsdale College.

I can't excerpt everything from his speech that I'd like to, but I'd like to pull a few things from it. Rufo's topic is very important and his lecture is very informative, and I urge readers interested in what's happening in our culture today to go to the link and read the whole piece.

He begins with a brief history of Marxism and explains how Marx's economic class theory mutated into a theory about race:

By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, where there were large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living.

Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.

But rather than abandon their Leftist political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s.

Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.

He follows with an explanation of CRT:

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions.

It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.

Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality.

But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists.

To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.

In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism.

In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.

Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”

One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.

An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech.

These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority....critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.

Rufo disabuses anyone who might think something like this would never gain a foothold in America. He describes how CRT is being taught throughout our government, universities, even in elementary schools:

Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.”

The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.”

And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.”

The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.”

In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.”

In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

He then discusses why attempts to halt these encroachments have been ineffective and discusses what people can do to stop it from taking over the culture completely. He argues that it must be countered on three levels - governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle - and he explains each.

Most of all, though,

... we must have courage — the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites.

When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America.

Truth and justice are on our side. If we can muster the courage, we will win.

For an example of the kind of courage Rufo's talking about, read this remarkable letter, written by an angry father who explains to his fellow parents why he's taking his daughter out of an elite girls school in Manhattan.

An Email That Made My Day

I was browsing through some old posts and came across this one from shortly after my novel In the Absence of God (See button at top right of this page) was released, and I thought I'd share it with you. Emails like this one from a reader named T.J. just make my day. It did when I received it several years ago, and it did again when I reread it today:

I finished reading In the Absence of God yesterday, which isn't anything to marvel at other than the fact that I also started reading In the Absence of God yesterday. I don't think I've ever read an entire book in one sitting before, and I certainly wasn't planning on reading this book in one day, but I simply couldn't put it down. Also, I don't think a book has ever affected me so deeply as this one has. I cannot stop thinking about the ideas that were presented throughout In the Absence of God.

I was nervous when I started reading the book that I would be bored by an abundance of philosophical ideas, but the conversations in the book were engaging and masterfully weaved throughout the action and plot. The speech at the end by "Smerk" gave me chills as I was reading it, and I was deeply disturbed by how true it was that this was the logical conclusion of a materialist worldview.

I identified with Professor Weyland in that I have been through some very difficult struggles with my faith because it seems as though the more "intellectual" and "logical" way to look at the world is through the lens of materialism. This book answered many questions that I've been asking for a long time, and I feel stronger in my faith because of it.

One quote in particular stuck with me as I finished the book, "For so much of his life Weyland simply took for granted that atheism made so much more sense, was so much more reasonable, so much more intelligent, than theism, but he could no longer think that. He'd never again be able to think his rejection of God, if that was the choice he ultimately made, was because atheism was so much more appealing or satisfying. What appeal is there in a worldview that has no answer to life's most important questions?" This describes where my mind was before reading this book.

Thank you for writing this book and reminding me of the truth I should have known all along.

If you'd like to read more about In the Absence of God click on the link at the upper right of this page. It'd make a fine graduation gift for a high school or college student who's a reader interested in questions of faith and philosophy.

Help Me Hate White People

In his great dystopic novel, 1984, George Orwell depicts a totalitarian society, called Oceania, in which the government produces in its citizens a hatred for their enemies, real and imagined, that's as deep and ugly as it is irrational. One way the state achieves this is by requiring daily something called the "Two Minutes Hate."

Every day the citizens of Oceania gather in front of large screens on which is projected the image of an "enemy" of the state, a man named Emmanuel Goldstein, who is giving a speech. The citizens are taught to loathe Goldstein who may not even exist, and as part of their loathing they participate in two minutes of hysterical invective directed at the person on the screen.

Orwell describes it thus:

Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room....the Hate rose to a frenzy.

People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the top of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen....The horrible thing about the Two Minute Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.

Within thirty seconds any pretense was unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture to smash faces with a hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.

I thought of this awful display of hatred while reading an article about a black "theologian" named Chanequa Walker-Barnes, Mercer University associate professor of practical theology, who wrote a prayer in which she implores God to help her hate white people. The prayer is included in a best-selling devotional titled A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal.

The prayer opens with these words:

“Dear God, Please help me to hate White people. Or at least to want to hate them.”

The prayer continues, “At least, I want to stop caring about them, individually and collectively.”

Walker-Barnes explained that she has no desire to hate openly racist white people and “strident segregationists” because they are “already in hell,” but instead, she wants to hate “the nice ones.” Specifically, Walker-Barnes said she wants to hate the “Fox News-loving, Trump-supporting voters who ‘don’t see color’ but who make thinly veiled racist comments about ‘those people.’”

“Lord, if you can’t make me hate them," she pleads, "at least spare me from their perennial gaslighting, whitemansplaining, and White woman tears,” the prayer says. “Lord, if it be your will, harden my heart. Stop me from striving to see the best in people. Stop me from being hopeful that White people can do and be better. Let me imagine them instead as white-hooded robes standing in front of burning crosses.”

On her Twitter feed she wrote this:

In all truth, my family and my personal experiences have given me millions of reasons to hate White people,” she added. “The hatred would be justified. I could even find biblical precedent for it.

Well, I doubt it. Any theologian who actually earned her degree would know Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount: "I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). If Christians, even the ones who are theologians, are called upon to love even those who persecute them, how does someone who calls herself a Christian justify hatred of those who don't persecute her at all?

Indeed, I can't imagine an uglier, more unchristian prayer than this, nor can I imagine a God whose second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself (Matt. 22:37-40) being at all pleased by it, although I can well imagine such a prayer as Ms. Walker-Barnes' being very pleasing to Satan.

The Continuing Border Crisis

National Review's Jim Geraghty cites some statistics that give us a snapshot of what's happening on our southern border. It's not pretty:

Since last Thursday morning, on the U.S.–Mexico border:

• McAllen Border Patrol station agents encountered a large group of 107 illegal aliens entering south of La Joya, Texas.
• Rio Grande Valley Sector agents disrupted three human-smuggling events resulting in 15 arrests.
• Other border agents in the Rio Grande Valley arrested three sexual predators and a gang member within 72 hours.
• Border Patrol agents arrested the leader of a human-smuggling organization, a 43-year-old Mexican national who had “become a top target for San Diego Sector after several investigations indicated he orchestrated smuggling events throughout San Diego County.”
• CBP agents at the Pharr International Bridge apprehended a man after discovering he had an arrest warrant from the Dallas Police Department for felony child-sexual-assault charges.

From October to March, in the current fiscal year, the Customs and Border Patrol has apprehended 5,018 individuals with criminal convictions — about double the total for fiscal year 2020, higher than fiscal year 2019, and below the total for fiscal year 2018.

Those apprehended so far this year have been convicted of 576 counts of assault, battery, and domestic violence; 265 sexual offenses; 381 counts of burglary; 162 counts of illegal weapons possession or transport; 832 counts of driving under the influence; and three counts of homicide or manslaughter. (One individual may be convicted of more than one of those crimes.)

This morning, Geraghty notes,

[T]here is no mention of these particular events or the situation at the border on the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or USA Today. CNN mentions that the Biden administration has secured agreements for Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders with more troops in an effort to stem the flow of migration.

That first sentence is not surprising, but the second sentence is. Mr. Biden is evidently adopting, at least partially, one of the measures employed by Donald Trump. Had he of course built on Trump's border policy rather than tearing it all down, and for no better reason than that it was Trump's policy, we wouldn't have this mess on the border in the first place.

In any case, it's encouraging to see that the president is inching back toward sensible actions to stem the tsunami of people seeking to cross our border.

Who knows, perhaps we'll soon be reading that President Biden has authorized completion of the border wall and implementation of a "Remain in Mexico" policy that will require anyone seeking asylum in the U.S. to remain in Mexico until their case is adjudicated.

Just kidding. I very much doubt that Mr. Biden will embrace Mr. Trump's tactics, and if he does he almost certainly won't give Mr. Trump credit for getting it right or even acknowledge that he's adopting the policies of his predecessor.

It would, after all, be humiliating for Mr. Biden to implicitly acknowledge that Mr. Trump was right and he, Biden, was wrong on immigration, so it'd be shocking if he were to adopt Trump's plan for dealing with the problem. Better to muddle along leaving the present calamity unresolved than have to confess that the immigration policy of the detestable Trump was wiser than his own.

Corporate Sanctimony

In a column in the Wall Street Journal Karl Rove highlights the hypocrisy of our corporate CEOs - particularly Robert Manfred of Major League Baseball - in objecting to the Georgia voting reforms. It's a wonder that after columns like this any of them still wish to continue embarrassing themselves by persisting in their sanctimonious condemnations of the Georgia effort to protect their election integrity.

Here are some excerpts from Rove's piece:

Major League Baseball’s offices are located in Manhattan and the commissioner, a native of Rome, N.Y., lives in the Empire State. Why is that relevant? Georgia has no-excuse absentee voting by mail, but New York state doesn’t....Where’s Mr. Manfred’s crusade to ensure that Yankees and Mets players and fans and baseball staff in New York ... have the same voting rights as Georgians?

Similarly, Georgia has a robust early-voting period, expanded by the new law to 17 days, with two optional Sundays. New York has only eight days of early voting, while neighboring Connecticut and New Jersey have none. You’d think the woke commissioner would speak out against these “restrictions to the ballot box,” but you’d be wrong.

If Mr. Manfred’s concerns were authentic, he’d condemn states such as Missouri, which has two major-league teams — the Royals and the Cardinals — but doesn’t allow no-excuse absentee voting or early voting. But he won’t.

There’s no early voting in Michigan, so you’d think he’d work to ensure every Tiger fan “participates in shaping the United States,” which he said he wants for “everyone.” But again, he won’t.

Ohio and Pennsylvania each have two pro baseball teams, yet neither state has early voting. Minnesota has the Twins and Wisconsin the Brewers, yet no early voting. While Massachusetts allowed no-excuse vote by mail in 2020 because of the pandemic, it expires June 30....When will Mr. Manfred speak out against all this voter suppression?

Or is Georgia the only state worthy of his condemnation?

Sen. Marco Rubio slammed Mr. Manfred in a letter Monday, asking if he’d remain a member of the exclusive Augusta National Golf Club, since it is located in Georgia; end baseball’s profitable engagement with China and Cuba, which certainly don’t hold free elections; and terminate the major leagues’ “lucrative financial relationship” with Tencent, a Chinese company with close ties to the Communist Party.

The commissioner has yet to respond.

Rove might also have mentioned that in moving the All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver, Mr. Manfred transferred over $100 million in revenue from a city that's 51% black to a city that's only 9% black. That seems like a strange way to demonstrate concern for Georgia's black citizens.

He goes on:

Mr. Manfred isn’t the only hypocritical CEO. Speaking from his Atlanta headquarters, Delta’s Ed Bastian ripped into Georgia’s law, but he, too, won’t castigate other states with more-restrictive voting laws.

Delta flies into Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia, none of which have no-excuse absentee voting; Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma and South Dakota, which don’t offer early voting; and Indiana and Mississippi, which have neither no-excuse absentee nor early voting.

Apparently Mr. Bastian sees no need to insult every state he does business in, just his home base.

Mr. Rove has more at the link.

Americans can all be proud of our Woke corporate CEOs whose unswerving commitment to social justice is unfettered by any similar commitment to logical consistency.

A Bunch of Questions

Here are some questions that have probably occurred to just about everybody who has thought about these matters, but perhaps the questions should continue to be asked until someone offers a compelling answer to them:

• If it's child abuse for adult men to marry underage girls, why is it not child abuse for surgeons to permanently alter the sex of underage children? Why is it considered transphobic to merely raise the question?
• If it's child abuse for the parents to give a young daughter to a man as a child bride, why is it not child abuse for parents to have their child undergo irreversible sex transition surgery or give their child hormone blockers?
• In this age of birth control and childless couples how long will it remain illegal for siblings to marry? If the genetic sex of the people getting married doesn't matter, why should the genetic relationship matter?
• How long will polyamorous marriages remain illegal? If the gender of the people getting married doesn't matter why does the number of people getting married matter?
• If gender is what one chooses it to be and should not be imposed on a child at birth, does that mean that gender-reveal parties are transphobic?
• On what criteria does a transgendered person's psychology trump their biology? Why does a transgendered person's psychological view of their gender trump everyone else's psychological view of their gender?

And on a different topic:

• Why did we require people traveling into our state (Pennsylvania) to quarantine while at the same time allowing masses of immigrants, many of whom were covid positive or untested, to come across our nation's southern border?
• Why is there so much concern over those who don't wish to be vaccinated? If the vaccine works then those who want it and get it are protected. Those who don't want it and and don't get it are not protected, but they're not a threat to those who choose to get vaccinated. Shouldn't those who choose not to be vaccinated be free to assume the risk, just like smokers and motorcyclists?
• Why is the left pushing the idea of requiring people to prove that they've been vaccinated by showing a "vaccine passport" in order to participate in many activities, but are horrified of being required to show an identification in order to vote?

And finally:

• Why do we build a fence around our Capitol and declare fences to be both workable and necessary to protect our politicians from the rowdy masses, but oppose building fences at the border because they're allegedly unworkable?

Maybe there are good answers to some, or even all, of these questions, but if so, someone will have to help me with them.

Fueling Racial Resentments

In a column at The American Conservative Rod Dreher cites four recent cases where a member of a racial or ethnic minority murdered one or more whites or Asians and the media all but ignored the possibility that racial hatred played a role in the crime.

The cases he cites are that of two young black girls who killed an elderly Asian in the course of trying to hijack his car; the Black Muslim, Noah Green, who killed a white Capitol police officer; the former black NFL player who shot and killed five whites, including two children; and the Syrian born Muslim Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa who shot and killed ten ten white people in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket.

He might also have mentioned the recent murder of Julie Eberly, a white mother of six, in a road rage incident that occurred while she and her husband were on a trip to celebrate their anniversary. Her murderer was a black man.

At any rate, after describing each case Dreher concludes that the media's reluctance to emphasize the racial dynamic is appropriate. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Dreher rightly observes,

...there is no reason to think that racial animus played a role in the murders. Why racialize a murder without solid evidence that it had a racial angle?....That is the standard the media have for killings in which the suspected perpetrator is a racial minority, and (especially) when the victims are white.

But, he points out,

This is definitely not the standard the media have for killings in which the (suspected) murderers are white people killing minorities. They are still yammering about how Robert Long, arrested in Atlanta for mass killing at Asian spas, is guilty of an anti-Asian hate crime — this, though there is no reason at all to believe that Long was motivated by anti-Asian hate. We know that he was tormented by his sexual obsession.

Perhaps we will learn that there was an anti-Asian component of this, but we don’t know it now. That has not stopped the media from racializing this terrible crime.

After highlighting recent examples of media attempts to portray the Atlanta killings as a crime motivated by racial animus he concludes with this:

This keeps happening with the media. Why? I mean, I know why: because newsrooms are filled with progressives who are drunk on left-wing race grievance ideology.

To hell with professional standards or moral responsibility — they have a Narrative to propagate. I spoke this week to a foreign journalist working in the US, and he told me that he’s having to work harder than before to find out what’s happening in the US, because he can no longer trust what he reads in the American newspapers.

I can’t stop asking myself the question: Why are they teaching non-white people to fear and loathe whites? What are they preparing America for?

Good questions.

Media progressives fear, I think, that if they make too much of what is a disproportionate victimization of whites by other racial groups it will fuel hostility among whites toward those groups, so they downplay the possibility of the motive of race hatred when the perpetrators are non-white.

But then by promoting the racism narrative when the perpetrators are white they surely fuel hostility among minority groups toward whites. What's more, these people aren't stupid, they must know what they're doing.

Would there be constant coverage last week and this week of the Derek Chauvin homocide trial in Minneapolis had Chauvin been a black police officer or if George Floyd had been white? Everyone, including the most obtuse media news people, knows the answer to that question.

Had the racial component not been what it is there would've been no riots last summer in the wake of Floyd's death and little interest in Chauvin's trial last week and this.

So we return to Dreher's questions: Why are progressives in the media (and in academia) teaching non-white people to fear and loathe whites? What, excactly, are they trying to accomplish?

The Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

Some readers might recall the killing of the Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh last November. The details of the assassination were scant at the time, but a recent piece at Strategy Page fills in some of the blanks.

Here are some excerpts:

Mossad, the Israeli external-intelligence agency, planned the operation. Some twenty operatives, including Israelis and Iranians, observed Fakhrizadeh for eight months. At the same time Israel smuggled a RWS (Remote Weapon System) machine-gun into the country. This RWS was modified to operate from a pickup truck or van.

It is unclear what caliber machine-gun was used against Fakhrizadeh, who was shot dead after the security vehicle ahead of his car was fired on. He was curious as to what was happening, exited his own vehicle, was fired on and shot twice, fatally.

Apparently, the Iranians did not suspect a concealed vehicle mounted RWS, and that vehicle was rigged with explosives that were set off remotely after the attack. There was little left for the Iranians to collect and reassemble. The Israelis may have used a foreign RWS or an Israeli one “sanitized” to hide its origins.

None of the Mossad personnel involved were captured and all got away.

This attack involved a machine-gun controlled by a skilled operator. One report described the RWS as mounted and concealed on a pickup truck. Another source reported that this was strictly an Israeli operation, with no American involvement.

Fakhrizadeh, be it noted, was no innocent. He was a senior Iranian nuclear scientist working to develop nuclear weapons to be used against Israel and other of Iran's enemies.

He was also a veteran IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) general. The IRGC is a terrorist organization whose erstwhile leader Qasem Soleimani was killed in a drone strike in Iraq in January of last year.

During decades of IRGC service the 63-year-old Fakhrizadeh also managed to get several advanced scientific degrees, including a doctorate in physics. With that technical training Fakhrizadeh became a key member of the team developing nuclear weapons for Iran.

His prominence in the nuclear weapons program was mentioned several times in the half-ton of secret nuclear program documents Israel stole from Iran in 2018. Those documents confirmed the key role Fakhrizadeh played in the nuclear program, something he was sanctioned for by the United States as far back as 2008.

He is the fifth key member of the Iranian nuclear weapons effort to be killed since 2010. The loss of Fakhrizadeh is expected to slow Iranian nuclear weapons development, and it will take years to find a suitable replacement.

The gun used to kill Fakhrizadeh was controlled remotely, and apparently no operatives were actually at the scene.

There's more in the article about the RWS. Someday when a history of Mossad's operations is written - if it ever is - we'll probably be astonished at the cleverness and skill of those who fight to protect Israel against those who've sworn to annihilate it and its people in a nuclear fireball.

What?!

You may not have heard about it from the mainstream media but President Biden delivered himself of a remarkable claim the other day while promoting his infrastructure plan. The president who urged us to follow the science about the Covid virus has chosen to abandon that advice when it comes to high speed trains and planes.

In pitching his proposal for spending enormous sums of money, some relatively tiny amount of which will go to infrastructure improvements, Mr. Biden blurted out this astonishing claim:

. . . what we’re really doing is raising the bar on what we can imagine. Imagine a world where you and your family can travel coast to coast, without a single tank of gas, or on a high-speed train close to as fast as you can go across the country in a plane.

As National Review's Jim Geraghty observes, this feat would require a suspension of the laws of physics. Commercial airliners cruise at a speed of between 550 and 580 mph. The fastest trains can travel on a straight-away at about 350 mph.

Geraghty notes that, "...what Biden envisions, and implicitly is promising, is a train that goes across the continental U.S. at an average speed that is 47 percent faster than the top speed of the fastest prototype trains that exist today."

To achieve the speeds Mr. Biden asks us to imagine would necessitate enormous curve radii. Here's Geraghty again:

“Tracks rated for fifty miles per hour need almost no banking and can have a curve radius of fifteen hundred feet, while a train traveling at a hundred and twenty miles per hour needs a track with significant banking, and a minimum curve radius of more than a mile and a half.”

A train track designed for a train going 550 miles per hour would have to have an absolutely gargantuan curve radius. Our current system and routes of train tracks would be completely unsafe for a train moving at that speed; it would fly off the tracks at the first curve.

Nor is this the end of the engineering problems. Since Mr. Biden is urging us to use our imaginations let's imagine the consequences of an accident involving a train full of hundreds of passengers traveling at 550 miles an hour, or the invitation to sabotage such a target would present to terrorists.

The president's king-sized imagination has also created a plane that can fly at 21,000 mph, a fantasy he shared with his listeners recently. Geraghty remarked that this idea "is a strong argument for mandatory drug testing in the White House."

The fastest jet in the world, the SR-71 Blackbird, travels at 2,100 mph. The effects on a plane's structure and the amount of fuel it would take to boost top speeds by a factor of ten make such aspirations as the president's highly implausible.

It's always dangerous, of course, to say that something could never be done. Technology has a way of accomplishing what had previously been thought impossible, but the president is asking us to imagine that if we just spend enough money we'll be able to do what certainly seems at present to violate the laws of physics.

We might wonder if trains that move as fast as planes are worth the cost when we still lack cures for dementia and cancer.

Geraghty concludes his column on Mr. Biden's fanciful proposals with this:

Biden is envisioning a commercial airliner that will travel ten times faster than the current fastest jet in the world. He might as well have promised warp speed, a hyperdrive, or teleportation. It goes well with his promise to cure cancer if elected president.

But when Biden talks about advances in plane and train technology, he speaks as if the main problems are that we’re not dreaming big enough and we’re not spending enough money. This is the rallying cry of a man who has never thought about the engineering challenges and who apparently never intends to think about them.

Or the rallying cry of a man who knows that most Americans have never thought about those challenges either and that the media will never do to him what they would've done to his predecessor had Mr. Trump ever proposed something as unrealistic as what Mr. Biden has proposed.

Moral Paralysis

I've run the following post on moral relativism several times in the past, and having talked about that topic recently in my classes I thought it'd be appropriate to run it again, slightly edited:

Denyse O'Leary passes on a story told by a Canadian high school philosophy teacher named Stephen Anderson. Anderson recounts what happened when he tried to show students what can happen to women in a culture with no tradition of treating women as human beings:

I was teaching my senior Philosophy class. We had just finished a unit on Metaphysics and were about to get into Ethics, the philosophy of how we make moral judgments. The school had also just had several social-justice-type assemblies — multiculturalism, women’s rights, anti-violence and gay acceptance. So there was no shortage of reference points from which to begin.

I decided to open by simply displaying, without comment, the photo of Bibi Aisha (see below). Aisha was the Afghani teenager who was forced into an abusive marriage with a Taliban fighter, who abused her and kept her with his animals. When she attempted to flee, her family caught her, hacked off her nose and ears, and left her for dead in the mountains. After crawling to her grandfather’s house, she was saved by a nearby American hospital.

I felt quite sure that my students, seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, would have a clear ethical reaction, from which we could build toward more difficult cases.

The picture is horrific. Aisha’s beautiful eyes stare hauntingly back at you above the mangled hole that was once her nose. Some of my students could not even raise their eyes to look at it. I could see that many were experiencing deep emotions, but I was not prepared for their reaction.

I had expected strong aversion; but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused. They seemed not to know what to think. They spoke timorously, afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize any situation originating in a different culture.

They said, “Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.” One student said, “I don’t feel anything at all; I see lots of this kind of stuff.” Another said (with no consciousness of self-contradiction), “It’s just wrong to judge other cultures.”

While we may hope some are capable of bridging the gap between principled morality and this ethically vacuous relativism, it is evident that a good many are not. For them, the overriding message is “never judge, never criticize, never take a position.”

This is a picture of Bibi Aisha. She was deliberately mutilated by her family because she did not want to stay in a marriage to which she did not consent and in which she was treated like livestock.

Anyone who would do this to another human being is evil. Any culture which condones it is degenerate, and any person who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this, or to sympathize with her suffering, is a moral dwarf.

The shocking prevalence of moral dwarfism in our culture should not surprise us, however. Once a society jettisons its Judeo-Christian heritage it no longer has any non-subjective basis for making moral judgments. Its moral sense is stunted, warped, and diminished because it's based on nothing more than one's own subjective feelings.

With no objective moral standard by which to judge behavior people lose confidence in their moral judgments. They doubt that their opinions are any more "right" than the opinions of the people who did this to Bibi Aisha, and so they say things like, "If it's right for them then it's right", or "It's wrong for us to judge others", or "If you say it's wrong that's just your opinion."

This is moral paralysis, and it's a legacy of modernity and the secular Enlightenment which, in their embrace of metaphysical naturalism, have pulled the rug out from under all objective moral standards and offered nothing that can take their place beyond a vapid subjectivism.

Human Equality

It's commonly assumed that our ideas of the worth of the individual, of human rights and human equality all arose out of the period roughly between 1650 and 1800 called the Enlightenment, but that's a mistaken assumption. An article by Cameron Hilditch in National Review helps to set the record straight.

He writes, "...the Enlightenment was much less of a break with what preceded it and much more indebted to centuries of ... moral osmosis: It was not a sudden kickstart of reason after ages of enforced ignorance."

Hilditch quotes scholar Brian Tierney:

... already by 1300 a number of rights were regularly claimed and defended...: “They would include rights to property, rights of consent to government, rights of self-defence, rights of infidels, marriage rights, procedural rights,” and also measures to make these rights enforceable against positive law.

But from whence did people living in the Europe of the late Middle Ages get this notion of rights? It certainly wasn't from the ancient Greeks and Romans whose concept of rights was extremely attenuated. The only people who had rights in ancient societies were those who were powerful enough to protect themselves and their property. Women, children and the average male had few rights. Slaves and aliens had none.

Somewhere along the line that began to change, and the change agent was Christianity.

Several doctrines of the early Christians were responsible for this revolutionary view of human beings. First among these was the belief that we are all made in the image of God. This by itself conferred enormous dignity on humanity. We aren't just beasts, we were made by the Creator of the universe just a little lower than the angels.

Second, was the belief that the incarnate God in the person of Jesus loves each individual enough to sacrifice His life for us on the cross. Thus, Paul could write, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” People who believed this could scarcely avoid thinking of all persons as equals in the eyes of God.

Third, the fact that Jesus spent His brief life ministering not to the rich and powerful but to the poor, the diseased and the suffering sent the message to all who followed Him that these individuals were the special objects of God's concern and compassion. To believe that was to realize that the most wretched soul was infinitely important to God and thus to be valued by those who sought to follow God's command to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

Jesus' teaching on servanthood, that the first shall be last, inculcated into Christians that the lowly were every bit as important, if not more so than those exalted by the world. Christians couldn't very well claim to love God while despising those He loved.

As Hilditch observes,

It’s almost impossible for us to get a real sense of just how earth-shattering the millennia-long aftershock of Easter has been on our civilization. We are all in our moral sensibilities and basic worldview creatures of Christianity to such a great extent that we cannot see it from the vantage point of a pre-Christian society without tremendous imaginative effort.

We might say, as Tom Holland does in his book Dominion, that we're saturated in Christian assumptions to the extent that we're not even aware of it, nor of how historically unique those assumptions were.

The message of human equality and human rights didn't always sink in, of course. It didn't always find receptive soil, either in the hearts of men or in cultures, but over the centuries it continued to germinate until it eventually blossomed into a set of ideas about the human person that are today, at least in the West, taken for granted.

Hilditch writes:

The contingency of everything we think decent and valuable about ourselves and our society upon the sorrows and the triumph of this one man, in whose luminous shadow we have all lived for the last 2,000 years, consistently eludes us. We forget that in a historically demonstrable way, we in the West owe our sense of common universal humanity entirely to Jesus of Nazareth and his Church.

It is a great irony, and a great tragedy, that just as the ideas of human worth, dignity and rights have reached a historical apogee in the West, Westerners are rejecting the very source and foundation of those ideas. They think they can hold on to worth, dignity and rights while discarding the God who has bestowed those gifts and upon whom those gifts depend.

It won't work. Nothing else, neither reason nor ideology, can support and sustain them. If modern man succeeds in expunging God from his culture and institutions he will also succeed in plunging humanity into a terrifying darkness whose brutality and inhumanity will rival or surpass the horrifying regimes of the Nazis and the Stalinists.

Perhaps, though, it's not too late to reverse course and avert this looming catastrophe.