Identity Politics Is a Primal Scream

R.R.Reno at First Things (subscription required) once wrote a brief review of Mary Eberstadt's book Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics. In the book she makes a very interesting point about today's "identity politics."

Here are some excerpts from Reno's review:

Many diagnose identity politics as a consequence of “cultural Marxism,” an invasion of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School. Mary Eberstadt takes a more sympathetic and persuasive view. In her latest book, Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics, she interprets today’s feverish insistence on race, sex, and sexual orientation as so many desperate attempts by atomized, disoriented people to figure out their places in the world.

“The Great Scattering,” the weakening and fracturing of family life by the sexual revolution, brings disorientation. It has deprived two generations of the “natural habitat of the human animal,” the stable context in which we see ourselves as sons and daughters carrying forward an intact family legacy. As a consequence, the profound question Who am I? becomes more and more difficult to answer.

We’re left with the “clamor over identity.” Our current fixation on issues of race and sex is incoherent, but it is an authentic primal scream born of the need to belong.

Primal Screams continues Eberstadt’s analysis of the cultural revolutions that came to a head during the 1960s, especially the sexual revolution and its disintegration of the family. Her 2014 book, How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization, demonstrated the connection between the decline in family stability and decreased religiosity.

Taken together, these trends strip away the strong, identity-defining institutions that formerly provided people with a stable, multifaceted sense of self. Today, with neither a Father in heaven nor a father at home, young people cast about for sources of belonging, turning to the ersatz paternity of identity politics, a view that unites people around DNA, sexual practices, and shared grievances.

For thousands of years people in the West felt themselves anchored by family, faith and place. Few worried about such arcane abstractions as identity. They didn't launch themselves on psychological journeys to "find themselves." They didn't ask, "Who am I?"

Then faith began its collapse in the West in the mid-19th century and family collapse followed a century later. Modern mobility has exacerbated the sense of unmooring by enabling many to leave the place of their birth and childhood. Thus, many today are uprooted from place, from faith, and from family and consequently feel alienated, lost, and identityless.

Reno continues:

And it’s not just children without fathers. We are witnessing a sharp increase in the percentage of adults who have no children, or only one. The bonds linking generations and siblings have weakened. Cast into the world alone—often as a consequence of contraceptive technologies and our own choices—we nevertheless seek a collective identity. Feminism is one coping strategy, Eberstadt argues; androgyny and the blurring of male-female differences is another.

“Whom do I love? is another way of answering Who am I?” writes Eberstadt....The Great Scattering has loosened the bonds of love. This was not the intention of the sexual revolution, perhaps, but it has been its effect. We now live in a love-impoverished culture, which means we have a difficult time knowing who we are.

As Eberstadt observes,

Anyone who has ever heard a coyote in the desert, separated at night from its pack, knows the sound. The otherwise unexplained hysteria of today’s identity politics is nothing more, or less, than just that: the collective human howl of our time, sent up by inescapably communal creatures trying desperately to identify their own.

Back in the 1960s existentialist philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre and his mistress Simone de Beauvoir argued that there's no fixed human nature, no way we have to be, that we are what we make of ourselves, we are what we feel ourselves to be.

Combine that thinking with the loss of belief in God and two generations later we have countless numbers of young people who are conflicted about their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, and much else.

It's no wonder they're asking the question, "Who am I?"

The New Atheism Grown Old

Ben Sixsmith at ARC declares the decease of what for the last couple of decades has been called the "New Atheism" and undertakes a postmortem which he concludes with a few especially interesting remarks. He opines, for example that:

I think the New Atheists receive both too much and too little credit. Consider a recent tweet sent out by Bret Weinstein, a biologist associated with the Intellectual Dark Web:

Some of history’s darkest chapters involved brutal coercion of people because they didn’t accept that “Jesus is the son of God.” Assuming Christians have outgrown that inclination, they’d be wise to quit broadcasting this exclusionary claim. Seems obvious. What am I missing?

He was missing an awful lot, actually. He was missing the fact that, by this logic, atheists should “quit broadcasting” the “exclusionary claim” that there is no God, given the “brutal coercion of people” in the Reign of Terror, the Russian Revolution, the Red Terror in Spain, the Cultural Revolution, and so on.

But he was also missing the fact that if Christians stopped maintaining that Jesus is the son of God, they would not be Christians.

He also adds this perspicuous observation:

The greatest enemies of religious believers are not, then, atheists who reject the idea of God’s existence, but apatheists who don’t consider the subject relevant.

He's surely right about that, especially since those among the New Atheists who have assayed to offer arguments against the reasonableness of belief in God in general and Christian belief in particular have never failed to fail miserably. Sixsmith makes the same point:

To be sure, New Atheists could be very, very bad at arguing that God does not exist. There was, for example, Lawrence Krauss writing a book about how something can come from nothing while attributing material qualities to ["nothing"]. There was Richard Dawkins trying to refute the famous “Five Ways” of Aquinas without even attempting to understand [Aquinas's] terms. (“Whereof one cannot speak,” groaned Wittgenstein, “Thereof one must remain silent.”)

There was Christopher Hitchens striding into philosophy like an elephant onto an ice skating rink and saying that the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator.

Why is the question unanswerable? People have certainly tried to answer it. Answers readily came centuries prior to Hitchens himself, actually. Hitchens is free to take issue with Aquinas’ distinction between contingent and necessary existence if he wants, but he’s not free to suggest that no answers have been offered.

How does the concept of the “necessary being,” for example, fail? Hitchens offers no sign of knowing what it is, because that “unanswerable” is not a logical conclusion but a rhetorical sledgehammer swung at the reader’s skull.

He adds that the New Atheists can make better arguments, and he's correct, although it's hard to find among philosophical anti-theistic arguments one that hasn't been met with a convincing counterargument:

I know atheists can make better arguments. But the New Atheists never felt obliged to, because they were so confident in their own rationality that they never learned about the ideas they were mocking. If challenged on their philosophical ignorance ... they were liable to observe that the average Christian does not have the theological sophistication of [a theistic philosopher].

But so what? That's like declaring Darwinism to be refuted because the average man on the street who accepts it can't give an explanation of it as sophisticated as a college biology professor could.

Sixsmith concludes with this:

Still, for all their errors, the New Atheists were right that certain matters raise questions that demand a serious attempt to resolve. Does God exist? Does life have objective significance or does it not? Is there an objective moral code or is there not? Is there an afterlife?

These are not questions we as individuals or societies can sidestep. A principled inquiry into these kinds of things may catch fewer eyes than a tribally-sorted debate about, say, gender differences or free speech on Youtube. But this is no failing for the people who insist on having the argument anyway. Richard Dawkins may be wrong about many things, but he was right about that.

The President's Win Streak

President Trump continues his win streak. On Thursday Congress passed his signature piece of economic legislation, which should catalyze significant economic growth, fix Biden's immigration mess, and strengthen the military. Plus, it avoids a massive tax increase which would've otherwise kicked in this year.

Jim Geraghty has more on Mr. Trump's week at National Review:

I haven’t loved every detail of how Trump has treated NATO, but there’s no getting around the fact that the recent announcement that (almost) every member of the alliance is going to get military spending up to 5 percent of GDP represents A) a giant win for American interests, B) a major deterrent to further Russian military aggression on the European continent, and C) a stronger alliance in the years to come.

Trump has strong-armed our NATO allies into becoming stronger and more unified by making it clear that if our European allies and Canada didn’t pull their weight, he wasn’t interested in remaining in the alliance. We may not always like the methods, but it’s difficult to argue with the results.

[S]ince Trump took office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested more than 38,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions and 2,711 alleged multinational gang members. As of the end of April, about 65,682 illegal immigrants have been removed from the country, with 1,329 accused or convicted of sex offenses, 498 accused or convicted of murder, 9,639 accused of assaults, 6,398 accused or convicted of DWIs or DUIs, and 1,479 accused or convicted of weapon offenses.

It's not clear how many illegals have self-deported but the New York Post published an estimate of close to one million. The article also estimated that there are about 15.4 illegals in the country, most of whom entered during the Biden/Mayorkis open border era.

Geraghty continues:

Since January, the Trump administration has also “destroyed” any inflation rate above 3 percent. The traditional midsummer spike in gas prices is, if not destroyed, then significantly mitigated compared to recent years.

After a calamitous stretch in spring, the stock markets have rebounded. The day Trump took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 43,487.83, the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite closed at 19,630.20, and the S&P 500 closed at 5,996.66. Last night, the DJIA closed at 44,484.42, the Nasdaq closed at 20,393.13, and the S&P 500 closed at 6,227.42 — record highs for the latter two. Compared to January 20, that’s modest growth; compared to the low points of spring, that’s a phenomenal comeback.

There's much more that the White House can point to with satisfaction from the week just ending. Inter alia, Trump seems to have gained the support of the Qataris in settling the war in Gaza, antisemitic universities are on defense, job numbers are up, and Democrats are reduced to nominating communists to run for office.

Not a bad week for the president.

Happy Birthday America

I posted this Toby Keith song last year when things were looking much gloomier than they are today. Nevertheless, I post it again as a reminder of how far we've come in six months:

The Moral Crisis of Our Time

In early 1968, a year of enormous social convulsion in the U.S. and Europe, philosopher William “Will” Herberg (1901-1977), published an essay entitled “What Is the Moral Crisis of Our Time?” The essay has become a classic and James Toner offers some reflections on it here.

Toner writes:

As a college senior reading that essay, I was struck by its analytical and prophetic power.

Herberg’s thesis was as perceptive as it was succinct: “the moral crisis of our time consists primarily not in the widespread violation of accepted moral standards . . . but in the repudiation of those very moral standards themselves.” The moral code of the Greeks, based upon reason, and of the Hebrews, based upon Revelation, had atrophied, he wrote, to the point of dissolution.

We were “rapidly losing all sense of transcendence.” We were adrift, by choice, in a sea of disorder with no “navigational” standards to consult....

We have always flouted moral standards but rarely in the history of Western civilization have we come to the place where we reject the very idea of morality altogether, but that's where large segments of our culture are headed in these postmodern times.

[Herberg] pointed to Jean-Paul Sartre’s advice to a young man living in Nazi-occupied France as an example of the moral bewilderment increasingly held as “authentic” in the 1960s.

The man had asked Sartre if he should fight the Nazis in the Resistance movement or cooperate with them, obtaining a sinecure in the Vichy Regime. The choice hardly mattered, said Sartre, as long as the decision was authentic and inward. If there are no objective standards to govern moral choice, then what is chosen does not matter. The only concern is whether one chooses “authentically.”

Thus Herberg concluded: “The moral crisis of our time is, at bottom, a metaphysical and religious crisis.”

Herberg prophesied rabid subjectivism, all-pervasive antinomianism, and a soul-searing secularism, what Pope Benedict was much later to call the “dictatorship of relativism.”

We now may be so mired in narcissistic norms that we cannot even understand Herberg’s jeremiad: “No human ethic is possible that is not itself grounded in a higher law and a higher reality beyond human manipulation or control.”

The reason of the Greeks and the Revelation of the Hebrews are now replaced by modernist profane worship of man by man: thus, tyranny beckons and awaits.

The problem that Herberg puts his finger on can be expressed in the following chain of hypothetical propositions:

• If there is no God (No transcendent moral authority with the power to hold men ultimately accountable) then there can be no objective moral duties.
• If there are no objective moral duties then the only duties we can have are subjective duties, i.e. duties that depend ultimately on our own feelings, biases, prejudices and predilections.
• A subjective duty is self-imposed, but if it's self-imposed then it can be self-removed.
• Thus, if our only moral duties are subjective then there are no moral duties at all since we cannot have a genuine duty if we can absolve ourselves of that duty whenever we wish.

Unless there is a transcendent moral law-giver which (or who) can hold us responsible for our choices in life then there is no such thing as a moral obligation.

As the great Russian novelist Tolstoy put it:

The attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the attempts of children who, wishing to transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing and superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion there can be no real, sincere morality, just as without roots there can be no real flower.

The price we pay in a secular age is the loss of the ability to discern, evaluate and even talk about good and evil, right and wrong. This is what Herberg saw so clearly coming to fruition in the sixties. It's what Friedrich Nietzsche prophesied in the 19th century in books like Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. It's what atheist philosopher Jürgen Habermas means by the following:

Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.

Toner adds a final thought. "Herberg quotes cultural historian Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897): 'When men lose their sense of established standards, they inevitably fall victim to the urge for pleasure or power.' " Unfortunately, I was unable to find a complete copy of Herberg's original essay anywhere.

Philosophical 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 the ideas 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 (and increasingly for biologists and cosmologists), but I should think it would also be attractive to some thoughtful theologically oriented folks since the doctrine conforms nicely to the conviction that the reality we experience is fundamentally a projection of the mind of God.

The Worst Persecution Most People Have Never Heard About

While Americans fret over the deaths of Palestinian Muslims and the Trump administration promises to make Muslim Iran "Great Again," Muslims are continuing to be responsible for perpetrating the worst atrocities in the 21st century. According to Global Christian Relief,

Nigeria has become known as the world’s center of Christian martyrs. In any given year, the number of Christians killed by extremist groups is rarely less than 4,000—often more than in the rest of the world combined.

Violence against the Nigerian Christian population is significantly localized in the north, where twelve Muslim-majority states declared sharia law in 1999, resulting in huge numbers of Christians experiencing daily discrimination. But it was the rise of an extremist movement called Boko Haram, which first started its murderous attacks in 2009, that resulted in Christians experiencing unprecedented violence.

According to an April 2023 report by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law, at least 52,250 persecuted Christians have been killed in the past fourteen years, simply for the crime of being Christian. In the past five years, violence has spread southwards to the middle belt of Nigeria, with radicalized Fulani herdsmen killing Christians to steal their land.

Boko Haram has now been joined by another extremist group operative in the area, called the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and both seek the eradication of Christianity from the northern states.

The violence has resulted in refugees now numbering over four million, mostly Christian farmers. The government of Nigeria has proved unwilling to condemn the levels of violence, which some call genocidal, or inept in its attempts to engage and neutralize extremist movements.

This is a staggering report. While the Trump administration promises billions to Iran and Gaza, Nigerian Christians, who have done nothing to offend the Muslims who hate them, suffer in poverty and fear at the hands of terrorists who have been supplied and abetted by Iran.

No doubt were Muslims being slaughtered by Christians or Jews for no reason other than that they were Muslims, our campuses, and indeed the world, would be in a state of volcanic outrage.

As it is, since it's Christians who are being killed by Muslims, and black Christians at that, the world just yawns.

Trump's Incredible Week

Michael Smerconish at CNN explained the other day why last week was the best of Mr. Trump's presidency. Indeed, it may have been the best week of any presidency ever. Hot Air's John Sexton summarizes Smerconish's argument in the following bullet points:

• A stealthy mission to strike Iran's nuclear facilities in which there were no American casualties.
• Estimations of the success of the mission range from modestly successful to extremely successful.
• Trump announced a ceasefire and put Israel and Iran on blast in front of the cameras when they initially violated it.
• At a meeting with NATO allies, Europe agreed to up its contribution to the alliance. "Before this week’s annual NATO summit had even begun, allies reportedly agreed on Sunday to hike their defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035."
• He announced a trade deal with China.
• The stock market is up despite predictions Trump's tariffs would kill it. CNN headline: "America’s incredible stock market rebound is complete as S&P 500, Nasdaq hit record highs"
• Border crossings are down more than 90%. From Fox News: "Between June 1 and June 22, there have been 5,414 apprehensions at the border, with the busiest sector being El Paso. During that same timeframe, there have been 986 known 'gotaways.' Both numbers are the lowest ever recorded."
• New analysis by Pew shows there was no circumstance in which Kamala Harris could have won the 2024 election.
• Trump's win among Hispanic voters was even greater than believed. From Axios: "Pew's analysis of election data shows that Trump won 48% of Latino voters — a group that had soundly rejected him in 2020 and 2016 — and that it was a crucial factor in his victory."
• The Supreme Court put an end to nationwide injunctions which have been used against Trump more than any other president. In fact, they have been used against Trump almost as many times this year as they were against Biden in his entire term in office.

There's more that Smerconish could've added. Here are some additional successes Trump enjoyed last week, courtesy of Eric Daugherty at Twitchy:

• Rwanda and the Congo have just signed a Trump-brokered peace deal - another war ended.
• Trump received permission from SCOTUS to send illegals to third-party countries.
• Trump emerged victorious after a Senate attempt to rein in his Iran strikes through a War Powers resolution.
• Several food giants joined the growing list removing artificial dyes from their food products.
• Social Security handouts saw the largest monthly decline EVER after attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse.
• General Electric Appliances is moving manufacturing from China to Kentucky, USA.
• The Pentagon began reinstating service members wrongfully discharged for refusing the COVID vaccine.
• The DEI President of University of Virginia resigned after pressure from the Trump administration.

It certainly was at the very least a remarkable week.

The Bee

For those who don't get the Babylon Bee in their inbox, may I take a moment to recommend it? It's always humorous and will bring a smile to the face of even the most dour conservative. Here's a recent sample of their satire:

TEHRAN — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared a resounding victory over the United States and Israel after Iran destroyed 14 American bunker buster bombs with its nuclear facilities.

In a video message released today, Iran's Supreme Leader said that the advanced American weaponry was no match for the destructive capabilities of Iran's foremost nuclear sites.

"We have brought utter and complete obliteration to the weapons of our enemies," the Ayatollah declared triumphantly, brushing soot off his turban. "The pitiful Zionist bunker busters were ultimately annihilated by our nuclear facilities. Our nuclear bomb program, which did not exist before the Americans' failed attacks, has not been set back at all. Iran has won a great victory today."

Trusted media outlets like CNN and Al-Jazeera reported that the American and Israeli forces suffered significant setbacks due to the loss of their bombs.

'There's just no way the U.S. can come back from losing 14 entire bombs at the hands of Iranian nuclear sites," said Brian Stelter. "How embarrassing for President Trump. Iran and the Ayatollah pretty much have this one in the bag. Nice try, bunker busters."

At publishing time, the Ayatollah had ordered the rubble from the former nuclear facilities to be heaped up into a monument to commemorate the Iranians' glorious destruction of the American weapons.

You can see more of their work here.

Religion of Peace

Catherine Salgado explains the source of the hatred by Muslims for Jews in https://restoration-news.com/biden-gave-$14-billion-to-islamist-groups-from-joe-taxpayer an article at Restoration News. Here's the relevant part of what's a much longer piece:

Islam teaches that god is irrational and violent, and so Muslims model themselves on their false god, Allah. For more than a millennium, Islam has been a patriarchal, barbaric, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, violent religion with no value for individual human life and no inhibitions on what crimes they are willing to commit to achieve their ends.

Every country that becomes majority Muslim, or has a very strong minority of Muslims, turns into a Sharia nightmare: Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Syria are modern examples.

Too many Americans never hear or read any source texts from Muslims themselves, and instead believe politicians or academics who assert that Islam is a religion of peace—and that Hamas, the Taliban, and Hezbollah are the exceptions rather than the rule. But Islam speaks for itself, and the truth is as ugly as Yahya Sinwar.

Multiple passages in the Quran and Hadith (collected sayings of Muhammed), Islam’s holy texts, and the Sirah (biographies of Muhammed), command or endorse slaughter and depravity.

For instance, below are texts supporting jihad and murder of non-Muslims, including women and children (there are others, but below is a selection):

“Indeed, Allah has bought from the believers their lives and their wealth, because the garden will be theirs, they will fight in the way of Allah and will kill and be killed.” (Quran 9:111)

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.” (Quran 9:5)

“[Hadith:] It is reported on the authority of Sa’b bin Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4321)

“[Hadith:] Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim 6985)

Notice that Jews are particularly singled out as targets of jihad. As a concrete illustration of this, Muslim Arabs have been waging jihad on Israel since its modern rebirth, and the terrorism has only intensified in recent years (especially after some Arabs began labeling themselves “Palestinians”), culminating in the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, the worst day of slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

These 2023 attacks included raping women to death, burning babies alive, kidnapping civilians, and gunning down whole families. All of these crimes are fully allowed and even praised actions within Islam. In fact, Islam is also one of the two ideologies most responsible for violence against Christians in the world now, the other ideology being Communism.

Anyone in the West who thinks that Islam is a religion of peace should read more of the history of Islam and more of the Islamic hadiths.

We might also wonder why Westerners show so much concern for Muslims in Gaza caught in a vicious war between Hamas and Israel and so little concern for the thousands of Christians being murdered each year by Muslims in Africa. Why are we sending millions of dollars in aid to Muslims in Gaza while African Christians in nations like Nigeria live in poverty and fear of the Muslims who periodically rape and murder them?

Sleepers

As a consequence of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear weapons production facilities, concerns have grown about the possibility of Iranian "sleeper cells" in the U.S. perpetrating acts of terror in our homeland.

Those concerns have a plausible basis given the fact that President Biden's irresponsible open border policy resulted in at least 700 Iranians coming into this country illegally. The actual number is probably significantly higher since no one knows how many of the millions of "got-aways" were Iranians. It is known, however, that many of those 700 have criminal histories or terrorist connections.

For instance, ICE recently arrested 16 Iranians, three of whom merit special concern. From the Washington Free Beacon:

Immigration authorities have arrested 16 Iranian nationals, including a former member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with ties to Hezbollah, a former Iranian Army sniper, and a third individual on the terrorist watchlist, in a multi-state operation since Sunday.

One of the arrested men, Mehran Makari Sahel, is a former IRGC operative and has "admitted connections to Hezbollah," according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials quoted in a a CBS News report Tuesday morning. Both the IRGC, an elite branch of Iran's armed forces, and Hezbollah, a Lebanese group backed by Iran, are U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Ribvar Karmi, who was arrested Sunday in Alabama, was carrying an identification card from the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, according to federal agents. Karmi reportedly served as a sniper in the Iranian Army from 2018 to 2021 and entered the United States in October 2024 on a K-1 visa, which is issued to foreign nationals engaged to American citizens.

A third arrestee, Yousef Mehridehno, has lived in the United States illegally for nearly eight years and was added to the terrorist watchlist in February after federal officials found out that he had lied on a visa application.

Authorities arrested at least five more Iranian nationals with criminal histories, Fox News reported Tuesday afternoon.

We'll be living with the consequences of the Biden presidency for years. Already, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Americans have had their lives damaged or taken from them in acts of rape, sexual assault, murder, and drunk or reckless driving by illegal immigrants.

Hopefully, the consequences will not also include acts of terror committed by Iranians seeking revenge for the humiliation they've suffered in their war with Israel.

DNA Reading Frames

Imagine a software code of 0s and 1s in a long string, and imagine that if you read off each digit in sequence the string coded for a particular meaning, but if you only read off every third digit the string coded for a completely different meaning. Now imagine the improbability of such a code being produced by random combinations of 0s and 1s by completely mindless processes and forces.

If you do this little thought experiment, you get some idea of the complexity of the DNA code in the nuclei of every cell of our bodies, and why so many people not committed a priori to naturalistic materialism believe that the code had to be the product of an intelligent mind.

DNA is not quite like the preceding example, but it does have overlapping codes whose regulation is carried out by a complex of proteins which themselves couldn't have existed until the code for them existed. But the code couldn't have come about until the proteins were available to allow the code to be read.

An article by biologist Ann Gauger at Evolution News discusses this property of what biologists call "alternative reading frames." She uses this graphic to illustrate:

Gauger goes on to explain:

If you look at the figure ... you’ll see the sequence of DNA from a human mitochondrion: AAATGAACGAAA and so on. Above in red you see the nucleotides (ATCG) have been grouped in threes, and a letter assigned to each. Each group of three is a codon, and each unique codon specifies a particular amino acid, indicated by the red letters: K W T K I, etc. That is the protein sequence that the DNA specifies for that particular way of reading the DNA.

That way of reading the DNA, with that set of groups of three, is called a reading frame, because it establishes the frame for the way we read the information in the gene. In this case it encodes the protein ATP8.

If DNA were a human code, then it would be inconceivable to have a code that could be read in more than one frame at a time. By this I mean starting at one nucleotide and getting one sequence and starting at another nucleotide and getting another sequence with a different meaning.

But that is exactly what happens in this stretch of mitochondrial DNA. Look below the nucleotides to a different set of letters in blue. Notice that they are offset from the first reading frame by two nucleotides. This changes the way the nucleotides are read. The first codon is ATG, the second AAC, and so on. And the resulting protein, ATP6, has a very different sequence from that of the first, ATP8.

That's not all. DNA is double-stranded and when the strands separate in order to be read it's possible that both be read simultaneously, one forward and one backward, so that six different proteins can be coded for by a single segment of DNA.

This is an absolutely stupefying level of complex information. It's an incredibly ingenious solution to the problem of packing maximum information into the shortest possible code, and the notion that it could've come about in some primordial environment as a result of eons of blind, undirected chance requires herculean credulity.

The simplest and most plausible explanation for the complexity of the DNA code is that it was engineered by an intelligence, and the only way to avoid that conclusion is to eliminate any possibility of such an intelligence at the very outset, to decide that no such intelligence exists and that therefore the DNA code must have been generated by blind impersonal forces no matter how improbable that would be.

But why decide that? What reason can be adduced to rationally justify such a decision? Why assume that no such agent exists when the existence of such a being would explain so much, not just about DNA, but about the world and life generally?

The only reason anyone makes that assumption is, it seems, that they have a strong psychological or emotional preference that no such being exist and they allow that preference to shape everything else they believe.

The conclusion that an intelligent agent must've been involved in the development of the structure of the DNA code certainly seems warranted by the evidence. The big question, then, is what might be the nature of the intelligent agent that designed and created this code? Who or What might it be?

Wouldn't these questions be important to think about?

God's Hiddenness

There are two antitheistic (against the existence of God) arguments that non-theists have found particularly convincing over the last several centuries.

One of these is the problem of evil which has received perhaps its greatest literary expression in The chapter titled "The Rebellion" in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov.

The other argument, which is in some ways similar to the problem of evil (or suffering), is based on what philosophers call "Divine hiddenness" and which the Japanese Catholic Shusako Endo portrayed so powerfully in his novel Silence (See also the movie based on the book).

The technical form of the argument from Divine hiddenness can be found here, but in simpler English the argument goes something like this:

1. If a good God exists, He would not allow anyone who would otherwise believe in Him to remain ignorant of His existence and be lost for eternity.
2. There are people, however, who are ignorant of God's existence who would otherwise believe in Him if they knew of Him.
3. Therefore, there are people who would believe in God if they knew of Him who are lost for eternity.
4. Therefore, a good God does not exist.

Or, put more simply, because there are people who are innocently unaware of God's existence and who would believe in Him if they knew, therefore He doesn't exist.

This argument makes three questionable assumptions. It assumes that there really are those who are genuinely ignorant of God's existence; it assumes that those who are ignorant of God's existence will necessarily be lost for eternity; and it assumes that God could not possibly have overriding reasons for not revealing Himself in ways that persons ignorant of His existence, if such there be, would find compelling.

Each of these assumptions is doubtful, and in this form, at least, the argument is not very persuasive.

Perhaps a more psychologically compelling version of the argument is the one developed by Endo in his novel.

Roughly based on a true story, the novel describes the terrifying ordeal of a 16th century missionary to Japan who is put through mental tortures to persuade him to commit what seems to be a relatively minor act of blasphemy. He's required to step on a crude portrait of Jesus, and his refusal to commit this act of desecration is punished by Japanese samurai who subject innocent Christian villagers to unimaginable suffering until the missionary relents.

Despite his agonized prayers, however, there's no apparent answer from heaven. God seems silent, hidden, absent.

As emotionally gripping as this story is, in the end it doesn't demonstrate that God does not exist. The only thing it demonstrates about God is that He's sometimes, perhaps frequently, inscrutable, but believers already knew that.

It's interesting, too, that Endo's missionary, although crushed and broken by his ordeal, ultimately retains his belief in God.

To say that the argument from Divine hiddenness ultimately fails is not to minimize, however, its emotional and spiritual force.

God's seeming absence has been the cause of much anguish among many believers in the midst of great suffering and fear throughout most of human history. I have a friend who has drifted into agnosticism largely because of it.

A family member recently sent me a simple vignette that's a parable about the doubt materialists have about life after death but which actually, if perhaps inadvertently, also addresses the problem of Divine hiddenness. It goes like this:

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”

The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover, if there is life, then why has no one ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery, there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her, this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only reasonable to believe that She doesn’t exist.”

To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

From the fact that the babies don't perceive her, don't see or hear her, it surely doesn't follow that she doesn't exist or care about them and their well-being.

An Islamic Republic

Iran calls itself an Islamic Republic, which means that it's people live under Islamic, or sharia, law. To help us see what that entails, Matt Tardio has compiled a list of twenty laws to which the Iranian people are subject, and which devout Muslims aspire to impose on everyone, everywhere:

1. Apostasy (Leaving Islam): Punishable by death, especially for men who publicly renounce Islam. Women can face life in prison.
2. Homosexuality: Gay men can be executed; lesbians face 100 lashes. Even suspicion can result in arrest or forced confessions.
3. Blasphemy: Insulting the Prophet or sacred Islamic figures is punishable by death. This includes online posts, art, or speech.
4. Adultery (Sex outside marriage): Married offenders can be stoned to death. Unmarried receive 100 lashes. Applies to men and women.
5. “Corruption on Earth”: A vague charge used against dissenters, protesters, or activists. Often results in the death penalty.
6. Alcohol Consumption: Muslims caught drinking get 80 lashes per offense. 4-time offenders risk execution.
7. Female Hijab Law: Mandatory for all women. Punishment is imprisonment up to 10 years, flogging, fines, surveillance.
8. Criticism of the Supreme Leader: Even memes can lead to arrest. Public dissent brings 1–10 years in prison.
9. Same-sex relationships (non-penetrative): Still criminal. Punishable by lashes, prison, or worse.
10. Public Affection (Unmarried couples): Holding hands or kissing in public can get up to 74 lashes.
11. Women Need Husband’s Permission to Travel: Even for passports or leaving the country.
12. Child Marriage Legal age: Girls 13 or younger with father's or court approval.
13. Compulsory Military Service (Men only): Failure to serve results in being banned from travel, jobs, and university.
14. Cybercrime & Online Dissent: Criticizing Islam or the regime online is punishable by imprisonment, asset seizure, surveillance.
15. Western Music & Clothing: "Immoral" music, films, and fashion are banned with fines, confiscation, or arrest for disobeying.
16. Women Banned from Stadiums: Women are largely prohibited from attending men’s sports. Defiance results in arrest.
17. Public Singing or Dancing (Women): Illegal to sing solo or dance in public. Punishable by fines or jail.
18. Gender Segregation: Schools, buses, and workplaces are often segregated by law. Violations result in fines or expulsion.
19. Dog Ownership: Dogs are "unclean." Walking one in public could cost you jail time or seizure of your pet.
20. Baha’i Persecution: Adherents of the Baha’i religion can't hold government jobs, attend university, or practice freely.

Young men executed in Iran for homosexuality

What Jews Have Contributed to the World

The above title of this post should not be understood to imply that the following exhausts Jewish (or Muslim) contributions to humanity, but it's certainly an impressive statistic. Nor do I vouch for the accuracy of these claims, but anyone who's skeptical should be able to check them out easily enough.

The post points out the disparity between the world's population of Muslims and Jews along with an indicator of their relative achievements:

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000; that is one billion two hundred million or 20% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat, 1990 - Elias James Corey, 1994 - Yaser Arafat, 1999 - Ahmed Zewai

Economics:(none)

Physics:(none)

Medicine:1960 - Peter Brian Medawar, 1998 - Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000; that is fourteen million or about 0.02% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:1910 - Paul Heyse, 1927 - Henri Bergson, 1958 - Boris Pasternak, 1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon, 1966 - Nelly Sachs, 1976 - Saul Bellow, 1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer, 1981 - Elias Canetti, 1987 - Joseph Brodsky, 1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:1911 - Alfred Fried, 1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser, 1968 - Rene Cassin, 1973 - Henry Kissinger, 1978 - Menachem Begin, 1986 - Elie Wiesel, 1994 - Shimon Peres, 1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer, 1906 - Henri Moissan, 1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson, 1908 - Gabriel Lippmann, 1910 - Otto Wallach, 1915 - Richard Willstaetter, 1918 - Fritz Haber, 1921 - Albert Einstein, 1922 - Niels Bohr, 1925 - James Franck, 1925 - Gustav Hertz, 1943 - Gustav Stern, 1943 - George Charles de Hevesy, 1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi, 1952 - Felix Bloch, 1954 - Max Born, 1958 - Igor Tamm, 1959 - Emilio Segre, 1960 - Donald A. Glaser, 1961 - Robert Hofstadter, 1961 - Melvin Calvin, 1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau, 1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz, 1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman, 1965 - Julian Schwinger, 1969 - Murray Gell-Mann, 1971 - Dennis Gabor, 1972 - William Howard Stein, 1973 - Brian David Josephson, 1975 - Benjamin Mottleson, 1976 - Burton Richter, 1977 - Ilya Prigogine, 1978 - Arno Allan Penzias, 1978 - Peter L Kapitza, 1979 - Stephen Weinberg, 1979 - Sheldon Glashow, 1979 - Herbert Charles Brown, 1980 - Paul Berg, 1980 - Walter Gilbert, 1981 - Roald Hoffmann, 1982 - Aaron Klug, 1985 - Albert A. Hauptman, 1985 - Jerome Karle, 1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach, 1988 - Robert Huber, 1988 - Leon Lehman, 1988 - Melvin Schwartz, 1988 - Jack Steinberger, 1989 - Sidney Altman, 1990 - Jerome Friedman, 1992 - Rudolph Marcus, 1995 - Martin Perl, 2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson, 1971 - Simon Kuznets, 1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow, 1975 - Leonid Kantorovich, 1976 - Milton Friedman, 1978 - Herbert A. Simon, 1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein, 1985 - Franco Modigliani, 1987 - Robert M. Solow, 1990 - Harry Markowitz, 1990 - Merton Miller, 1992 - Gary Becker, 1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:1908 - Elie Metchnikoff, 1908 - Paul Erlich, 1914 - Robert Barany, 1922 - Otto Meyerhof, 1930 - Karl Landsteiner, 1931 - Otto Warburg, 1936 - Otto Loewi, 1944 - Joseph Erlanger, 1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser, 1945 - Ernst Boris Chain, 1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller, 1950 - Tadeus Reichstein, 1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman, 1953 - Hans Krebs, 1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann, 1958 - Joshua Lederberg, 1959 - Arthur Kornberg, 1964 - Konrad Bloch, 1965 - Francois Jacob, 1965 - Andre Lwoff, 1967 - George Wald, 1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg, 1969 - Salvador Luria, 1970 - Julius Axelrod, 1970 - Sir Bernard Katz, 1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman, 1975 - Howard Martin Temin, 1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg, 1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow, 1978 - Daniel Nathans, 1980 - Baruj Benacerraf, 1984 - Cesar Milstein, 1985 - Michael Stuart Brown, 1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein, 1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini], 1988 - Gertrude Elion, 1989 - Harold Varmus, 1991 - Erwin Neher, 1991 - Bert Sakmann, 1993 - Richard J. Roberts, 1993 - Phillip Sharp, 1994 - Alfred Gilman, 1995 - Edward B. Lewis, 1996 - Lu Rose Iacovino

TOTAL: 129!

The author goes on to note that,

The Jews are NOT promoting brainwashing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims.

The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, nor blow themselves up in German restaurants.

There is not one single Jew who has destroyed a church.

There is not a single Jew who protests by killing people. The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor do they have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them.

Whether one agrees with the foregoing or not one has to wonder if there's not a connection between the last few sentences and what preceded them.

A Just Conclusion to Israel's War

Discussing the Israelis' end game in Iran, First Things' editor R.R. Reno notes that since the end of WWII, most wars have ended very unsatisfactorily. Indeed, I can't think of any war since 1945 that's ended in unconditional surrender. Here's Reno:

War seldom ends according to a satisfying script. Unconditional surrender—the banner headline of 1945—is a historical rarity, the exception, not the rule. More often hostilities conclude in the gray zone of ceasefires, armistices, and grudging diplomatic arrangements.

Israel stands in that gray zone now. Its defensive campaign against Iran and the Iranian proxy network seems to have primarily met its battlefield objectives. From a military standpoint, Iran appears to be defeated.

The harder task is to translate that success into a durable peace—without stumbling into George W. Bush 2.0, the grandiose dream of regime change by force.

Hopefully, he's correct that Iran is defeated and doesn't have a military ace up its sleeve. Though if it did, it'd be very puzzling why it wouldn't have played it before now. Anyway, after recounting Israeli successes against Iranian proxies, Reno adds this:

The just war tradition demands prudence at the end of war as well as at the start. As I see it, a settlement, whether by formal treaty or tacit modus vivendi, must impose three conditions:

• No nuclear pathway. Centrifuges disabled, inspections enforced.
• No ballistic missile expansion. Delivery systems are inseparable from warheads.
• No proxy rearmament. Hezbollah and Hamas must remain shells of their former selves.

These conditions are not maximalist fantasies. They are the foundation on which Israeli security—and regional peace—can be built. The peace will not be celebrated widely in the region. It is likely to be grudgingly accepted. But it can be achieved.

Reno is correct that these three conditions are necessary for achieving a durable peace, but they're not sufficient. As long as the mullahs and their brutally oppressive apparatus is left in place, then all of what Israel has accomplished in the last week will amount to little more than kicking the can down the road.

Any deal that Israel and the U.S. agree to must ensure that the Iranian people have a fair chance to establish on their own a much freer society, a society in which people are able to speak, write, worship, and dress as they please without fear of imprisonment, torture, and execution. A society whose wealth is used to raise the quality of Iranian life and not to buy missiles, guns, and nuclear weapons to wage war against Israel and perpetrate acts of murder and terrorism against Americans.

It won't be easy, but as Reno states,

Because Iran’s theocrats may spurn any compromise that forecloses their revolutionary aspirations, the “deal” Israel seeks may be no deal at all, but rather something imposed by realities on the ground. Even so, diplomacy must finish the work that airstrikes began: reassure nervous Arab capitals, institutionalize new alignments, and clarify redlines that make further aggression too costly for Iran to contemplate.

We'll see over the coming months whether such a peace is achieveable.

A Side Benefit of Israel's War

Beege Welborn at HotAir.com notes that one side benefit of the Israeli destruction of the Iranian muslim theocracy is that it might bring some relief to the most persecuted people in the world, Nigerian Christians.

Welborn writes:

There has been one place where Iran-backed proxies have run amok pretty much unhindered and ignored for years. In Nigeria they have slaughtered thousands of Christians with impunity. I can't even say the world yawned.

Save for some groups desperately trying to draw attention to it, the world hasn't even noticed.

She cites an article in the journal Global Christian Relief which says this:

Sadly, Nigeria has become known as the world’s center of Christian martyrs. In any given year, the number of Christians killed by extremist groups is rarely less than 4,000—often more than in the rest of the world combined.

Violence against the Nigerian Christian population is significantly localized in the north, where twelve Muslim-majority states declared sharia law in 1999, resulting in huge numbers of Christians experiencing daily discrimination. But it was the rise of an extremist movement called Boko Haram, which first started its murderous attacks in 2009, that resulted in Christians experiencing unprecedented violence.

According to an April 2023 report by the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law, at least 52,250 persecuted Christians have been killed in the past fourteen years, simply for the crime of being Christian. In the past five years, violence has spread southwards to the middle belt of Nigeria, with radicalized Fulani herdsmen killing Christians to steal their land.

Boko Haram has now been joined by another extremist group operative in the area, called the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and both seek the eradication of Christianity from the northern states.

The violence has resulted in refugees now numbering over four million, mostly Christian farmers. The government of Nigeria has proved unwilling to condemn the levels of violence, which some call genocidal, or inept in its attempts to engage and neutralize extremist movements.

At the beginning of the month, Muslim terrorists, who often arrive in the little Christian communities on motorbikes out of the blue, ran from house to house and through the village, slaughtering people in the town as they fled.

It's a scene repeated over and over again. The barbaric and sadistic Islamic murderers very much enjoy it when they can trap worshippers in a church on Sunday.

The latest brutal murders occurred this past weekend. Close to 200 souls, many of whom were already refugees seeking shelter from the violence, were viciously slaughtered by Fulani Islamic terrorists.

Welborn has more at the link. She concludes with this:

If the Israelis have managed to cut off the head of the snake, and the funds flowing to pay for weapons, ammo, machetes, and motorbike fuel these satellite proxies need in far-flung locales to rampage, what will happen in Nigeria? Surely, there might be some relief in sight.

Israel really is doing the entire Judeo-Christian world, and much of the Muslim Middle East, a huge favor by killing the Islamist snake.

China Is the World's Moral Authority?

Minnesota governor and Kamala Harris's 2024 running mate Tim Walz has demonstrated one more reason why we can be relieved that his bid to become our vice president failed. When asked whether he thought the U.S. could broker peace between Israel and Iran, he gave this response:

Now, who is the voice in the world that can negotiate some type of agreement in this? Who holds the moral authority? Who holds the ability to do that? Because we are not seen as a neutral actor, and we maybe never were.

I don’t want to tell anybody that. I think there’s a lot of people who say you always lean one way in this, but I think there was at least an attempt to be somewhat of the arbitrator in this. We saw President Carter do it with [Menachem] Begin and [Anwar] Sadat.

We’ve had certain wins along the way that were actually mutually beneficial both ways,” Walz continued. “Now I ask who that is. I mean, consistently over and over again, we’re going to have to face the reality, it might be the Chinese.

If Walz believes China has any moral authority at all then he's stunningly ignorant. If he doesn't believe it but said it anyway, then he's dangerously dishonest.

China has lied about, among other things, the origins and deadliness of the Wuhan virus, they've cheated on their World Trade Organization commitments, they've stolen our technology, fraudulently interfered on behalf of Biden in the 2020 election, persecuted and oppressed Christians, imprisoned, tortured, and harvested the organs of Falun Gong and Uyghurs who languish today in concentration camps, and facilitated the deaths of thousands of Americans by providing drug cartels with the precursors of fentanyl.

Moreover, they slaughtered as many as 8 million Chinese in their 1949 revolution and as many as 2 million more in their "cultural revolution" (1966-1976). They killed several thousand pro-democracy demonstrators in 1989, threatened to precipitate a war with the U.S. by invading Taiwan, deliberately addicted our kids on apps that turn their minds to jelly, deprived their own people of basic freedoms, and aided Russia in their slaughter of Ukrainians. And there's probably more.

Like all communist regimes the Chinese communists are totalitarian, oppressive, and evil. They're among the last of nations to have any moral authority in this world, and if Tim Walz thinks otherwise then he has no business being in state or national politics.

Life and Platonic Forms

As difficult as it may be for modern minds to accept, a lot of scientists are beginning to believe that Plato was right. Plato taught that there existed in some transcendent realm what he called the forms or ideals of things.

There is, for example, an ideal of a perfect tree, a perfect circle, a perfect chair, etc. and all the trees, circles, and chairs we see in the world have the properties they do because they derive them from their ideal form. All trees, for instance, have the property of treeness by which we recognize a given tree as a tree.

According to Plato the highest forms were the forms of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Early Christians incorporated these into their concept of God who was seen as perfect goodness, perfect beauty, and absolute truth.

An article by a physicist and engineer named Brian Miller at Evolution News explains why the Platonic concept of transcendent forms is beginning to gain traction among scientists.

The hypothesis has been presented in a book by David Klinghoffer titled Plato's Revenge. Klinghoffer's book is very readable and gives a good overview of this new Platonism by focusing on the work of one of it's seminal thinkers, a scientist named Richard Sternberg.

Miller discusses Sternberg's work in his article. He points out that a developing human embryo requires far more information than can be accounted for in the cells of the embryo. So, where does the rest of the required information come from?

Miller runs through the calculations in the main part of his article which I'll let you work through on your own, but here's his conclusion:

If the zygote cannot contain the information directing development, then that information must reside in a logical and mathematical structure that stems from or is tantamount to a Platonic form, as Sternberg has inferred and as Plato’s Revenge describes.

If one does not wish to embrace such a radical conclusion, one must accept that developmental algorithms display an efficiency and ingenuity that vastly surpass human knowledge. They could only have arisen from a mind far superior to our own.

In addition, any undirected evolutionary framework must be abandoned. Every fetal region employs a set of operations that include a map of subsequent stages in development and the instructions to direct the current stage to the next. They must also possess contingency plans for countless perturbed starting states.

Any major evolutionary transition would need to simultaneously alter the algorithms in every region at every stage instantly. If mutations only redirected a few regions at a few stages toward a new organism, the subsequent stages would return the fetal trajectory back toward the original target.

If the redirection efforts failed, the individual would experience deformations or death. Only a designer could simultaneously alter every algorithm to guide development toward a new outcome coherently.

It's fascinating that the more scientists learn about biology and cosmology, the more improbable becomes the dogma that it's all an astonishing accident, and the more rational it becomes to believe that there's an astonishing Mind as the cause of it all.

Does the Right Have an Antisemitism Problem?

The answer to the title question is that it evidently does, although certainly not on the scale of the antisemitism of the Left. Even so, it's not insignificant. The characters discussed below would no doubt insist that they're not antisemitic, just anti-Israel, but this is, for most practical purposes, a distinction without a difference.

In any event, readers can judge for themselves the rhetoric coming from these ladies and gentlemen.

Haley Strack at National Review writes:

Since October 7 some of America’s most popular podcasters have congratulated themselves on their ability to “just ask questions” about Israel’s war aims that the legacy media will not; in the process of doing so, they have given platforms to revisionist historians, Holocaust distorters, and Christian antisemites to, they say, provide counter-narratives to the Israeli lobby that has so desperately tried to engage the U.S. in “forever war.”

Israel attacked Iran last night. As expected, the same people who were “just asking questions” revolted against Israel in support of America’s enemies.

Darryl Cooper, whom Tucker Carlson lauded on his show as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States,” said on Thursday that America should “commence airstrikes on Tel Aviv immediately.” Dave Smith, Joe Rogan’s favorite comedian-turned-foreign-policy expert, accused Israel of launching “a dangerous, preemptive war of aggression” that “should be condemned by the US government and US citizens alike.” Smith also denied claims that Cooper was an antisemite; Cooper just had “nuanced” views, Smith said.

It may be easy to disregard such online-right opinions as fringe, but their millions of followers and the billions of views they receive suggest otherwise. Nick Fuentes said “this is the final battle in Israel’s 50 year reign of terror to destabilize & destroy every country that resists their rule.”

Candace Owens called Israel’s “bloodlust” demonic. Matt Stoller doesn’t think Israel’s “bloodthirsty insanity” should be “our problem.” Crisis magazine’s Eric Sammons doesn’t think Catholics can support Israel’s attack on Iran.

UFC fighter and podcaster Jake Shields is “sick and tired of paying for and fighting Jewish wars” and demanded the destruction of Israel.

Dan Bilzerian said, “These jews just can’t help themselves, they attack Iran unprovoked, and they’ll be crying about how they don’t feel safe by morning,” adding, “If I was the president, I would round up every politician supporting Israel and have them all tried for treason.” These are just a few.

On Wednesday night, Matt Continetti and Ruth Wisse joined National Review on a Tikvah panel in celebration of Bill Buckley’s 100th birthday. The event was about antisemitism, and, specifically, Buckley’s efforts to purge it from the right. A question that came up was: Does the conservative movement have an antisemitism problem?

Maybe (we hope) not among policymakers or in the Trump administration. But there’s no doubt that antisemites — whom popular pundits have shamelessly platformed as good-faith, question-asking, honest intellectuals — have become online heroes for some alarmingly populated factions on the new right.

The most prominent of these voices on the Right is that of Tucker Carlson. It might be wrong to say that Carlson is antisemitic but he is a libertarian and an extreme isolationist who thinks we should disentangle ourselves from both Israel and Ukraine.

According to Jewish Insider:

Talk show host Tucker Carlson broke with President Donald Trump on Iran on Friday, writing in a scathing commentary in his daily newsletter that the United States should “drop Israel” and “let them fight their own wars.”

“If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases,” Carlson wrote of Israel’s preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “But not with America’s backing.”

In recent days, Carlson has argued that fears of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon in the near future are unfounded and said that a war with the Islamic Republic would not only result in “thousands” of American casualties in the Middle East but “amount to a profound betrayal of” Trump’s base and effectively “end his presidency.”

Carlson reiterated that claim in his newsletter, accusing Trump of “being complicit in the act of war” through “years of funding and sending weapons to Israel.”

Direct U.S. involvement in a war with Iran, he said, “would be a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters who cast their ballots in hopes of creating a government that would finally put the United States first.”

“What happens next will define Donald Trump’s presidency,” he concluded.

Well, the Trump administration has given no indication that we would get directly involved in the Israeli-Iran war, but why we would not provide Israel with material and intelligence assistance, why we should not shoot down Iranian missiles, outside Iranian airspace, targeting Israeli civilians, I don't understand.

Nor do I understand how some on the right could think that Israel (or Ukraine) is the aggressor in this war.

Nor do I think there's any practical difference bewteen those who hate the Jews and want to see Israel exterminated and those who claim to not hate Jews but don't care whether Israel is exterminated or not. The latter are like someone who says, "I don't despise blacks (or whites), but if somebody wants to kill them, that's their problem."

Here is a fact that I think should be beyond dispute, but apparently isn't. Israel was confronted with a choice, either fight a conventional war with Iran now or risk nuclear annihilation later. Iran refused President Trump's attempts to persuade them to choose peace. They were determined to produce a bomb, and may already have done so. They have said repeatedly that they will wipe Israel off the map as soon as they are able.

If they developed a nuclear weapon every country in the region would scramble to buy their own and the weapons would almost certainly be used at some point.

Given those facts and given that choice, I ask the gentlemen and lady referred to above, what should the Israelis have done? And why should we have refused to do exactly what we have done to help them?

Whenever a nation goes to war there's always the risk of calamitous unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences. Even so, what reasonable alternative did the Israelis, or the U.S., have?

Thanks to Powerlineblog for the links.

For Fathers' Day

When David Blankenhorn's Fatherless America came out in 1995 it became an instant classic on the importance of men to the well-being of the American family.

Blankenhorn said so many things in that book that needed to be said after our society had suffered through two decades of radical feminism with its relentless downplaying of the need for traditional two-parent families, and even though the book came out over two decades ago, what he said in 1995 needs saying as much today as it did then. Recall Gloria Steinem's aphorism that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." It turned out that women and children both need men, at least fathers, as much as a fish needs water.

Tomorrow is Father's Day in the U.S. so today might be a good time to remind ourselves of some of the key points Blankenhorn illuminates in Fatherless America.

He tells us, for instance, that men need to be fathers. Fatherhood is society's most important role for men. More than any other activity it helps men become good men. Fathers are more likely to obey the law, to be good citizens, and to care about the needs of others. Men who remain single are more likely than those who marry to die young, or commit crimes, or both (This is a point also made by George Gilder in his equally fine 1986 book Men and Marriage which I heartily recommend).

Children need fathers as protectors. Eighty-four percent of all cases of non-parental child abuse occur in single parent homes and of these cases, 64% of them occur at the hands of mom's boyfriend. Statistically speaking, teenage girls are far safer in the company of their father than in the company of any other man.

Children need fathers as providers. Fatherlessness is the single most powerful determinant of childhood poverty. Regardless of how poverty is measured, single women with children are the poorest of all demographic groups. Children who come from two-parent families are much more likely to inherit wealth from paternal grandparents, much more likely to get financial support at an age when they're going to school, buying a home, or starting their own families than children from single parent homes.

The economic fault line in this country doesn't run between races, it runs between those families in which fathers are present and those in which they are not.

Children need fathers as role models. Boys raised by a traditionally masculine father are much less likely to commit crimes, whereas boys raised without a father are much more likely to do poorly in school and wind up in prison, or dead.

Valuing fatherhood has to be instilled in boys from a young age by a masculine father. Commitment to one woman and to their children is not something that comes naturally to men. It's almost impossible, for instance, to find a culture in which women voluntarily abandon their children in large numbers, but to find a culture in which men in large numbers voluntarily abandon their children all one need do is look around.

Boys who grow up without fathers are statistically more likely to become louts, misogynistic, abusive, authoritarian, and violent. Girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to become promiscuous. A society in which a father is little more than a sperm donor is a society of fourteen year-old girls with babies and fourteen year-old boys with guns.

Stepfathers and boyfriends (Blankenhorn calls them "nearby guys") cannot replace the biological father. For stepfathers and boyfriends the main object of desire and commitment, to the extent these exist, is the mother, not the child. For the married father this distinction hardly exists. The married father says "My mate, my child". The stepfather and boyfriend must say "My mate, the other guy's child".

Children are a glue for biological parents that serves to hold them together, but they're a wedge between non-biological parents, tending to be a source of tension which pushes them apart.

Fatherhood means fathers teaching children a way of life, which is the heart of what it is to be a father. More than providing for their material needs, or shielding them from harm, or even caring for them and showing them affection, paternal sponsorship means cultural transmission - endowing children with competence and character by showing them how to live a certain kind of life.

One wishes every man - and woman - would read Blankenhorn's Fatherless America. It's loaded with great insight.

Cuttting Off the Head of the Snake

Israel has launched a stunning attack against Iran that has targeted not just their nuclear facilities but also all their top military people, their top nuclear scientists, and the missile bases from which Iran would be expected to launch a counterattack.

Ed Morrissey had a summary of Israel's attack in last night's Hot Air in the updates to which he notes that the head of Iran's IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), the military chief of staff, and the head of the Quds Force have all been confirmed killed, as have many of their top nuclear scientists. Redstate reports that,

Iran's top nuclear scientists are also dead, representing a major blow to the nation's ability to restart enrichment at some point.

Ali Shamkhani, the head of Iran's nuclear program and a chief adviser to the Mullahs, was reportedly targeted in the opening wave. It has not been confirmed whether that strike was successful or not, but if he was killed, it would be a huge development.

We also know that this was just the beginning. Shortly before this was published, a second wave of fighters began heading for Iran, and the Israelis have already announced they are in this for the long haul.

Much of what we are going to see moving forward will be targeting Iran's ability to retaliate. Most of its air defenses have already been destroyed, and its ballistic missile sites will be a top target. In fact, some have already been hit.

Morrissey has a follow-up post this morning in which he notes that President Trump is still pleading with the Iranians to make a deal. He warned them that this would happen, but they wouldn't listen:

I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to “just do it,” but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done.

I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come - And they know how to use it. Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen.

They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All!

He followed it up with this:

Two months ago I gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to “make a deal.” They should have done it! Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn’t get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!

As Morrissey says, it's not clear that there's anyone left whose in a position to make a deal or anything left to make a deal with.

Will AI Ever Be Human?

A few years ago an engineer at Google made the startling claim that their computer, LaMDA, was actually sentient and self-aware. Here's some of the story:

A Google engineer named Blake Lemoine made news by claiming that a chatbot he developed was sentient and spiritual, and that it should have all the rights people have. Lemoine claimed the chatbot (named LaMDA, which stands for Language Model for Dialogue Applications) meditates, believes itself to have a soul, has emotions like fear, and enjoys reading.

According to Lemoine, Google should treat it as an employee rather than as property and should ask its consent before using it in future research.

This brought down a lot of criticism upon Google which subsequently relieved the engineer of his responsibilities for disseminating too much classified information:

Alphabet Inc's Google...dismissed a senior software engineer who claimed the company's artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot LaMDA was a self-aware person.

Google, which placed software engineer Blake Lemoine on leave..., said he had violated company policies and that it found his claims on LaMDA to be "wholly unfounded."

"It's regrettable that despite lengthy engagement on this topic, Blake still chose to persistently violate clear employment and data security policies that include the need to safeguard product information," a Google spokesperson said in an email to Reuters.

Last year, Google said that LaMDA - Language Model for Dialogue Applications - was built on the company's research showing Transformer-based language models trained on dialogue could learn to talk about essentially anything.

Google and many leading scientists were quick to dismiss Lemoine's views as misguided, saying LaMDA is simply a complex algorithm designed to generate convincing human language.

A lot of people do believe, though, that computers will one day surpass human beings in terms of what they can do and will, in fact, be superhuman. Computer engineer Robert J. Marks explains why this concern is misguided in his very interesting book Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will.

According to Marks computers will never be human no matter how impressive their abilities may be. No machine will ever be able to match what humans are capable of.

Computers can impressively manipulate facts. They have knowledge, but as Marks explains on page 16 there's a difference between knowledge and intelligence:

Knowledge is having access to facts. Intelligence is much more than that. Intelligence requires a host of analytic skills. It requires understanding: the ability to recognize humor, subtleties of meaning, and the ability to untangle ambiguities.

He writes:

Artificial Intelligence has done many remarkable things....But will AI ever replace attorneys, physicians, military strategists, and design engineers, among others? The answer is no.

The rest of the book is an entertaining explanation of why the answer is no.

In short, computers can only do what they're programmed to do and programs consist of algorithms developed by human agents. No one, however, can write an algorithm for the host of qualities and capabilities that humans have. They're non-algorithmic and thus non-computable.

Consider this partial list of things that human beings do that no algorithm could capture:

Human beings are aware, they know, they have beliefs, doubts, regrets, hopes, resentments, frustrations, worries, desires and intentions. They experience gratitude, boredom, curiosity, interest, pleasure, pain, flavor, color, warmth, compassion, guilt, grief, disgust, pride, embarrassment.

In addition, humans appreciate beauty, humor, meaning and significance. They can distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong. They can apprehend abstract ideas like universals or math.

They’re creative. They have a sense of being a self, they have memories which seem to be rooted in the past, either of recent or more remote origin. They have a sense of past, present and future. They have ideas and understand those ideas.

Computers do none of this. There's a vast chasm that separates matter and conscious human experience.

The robot Sonny in the movie I, Robot notwithstanding, computers don't feel. A robot can be programmed to tell you it loves you, but it doesn’t feel love.

Human beings have minds which are immaterial and which can't be reduced to electrical signals along neural circuitry. Material machines will never have a mind.

Tolerance and Intolerance in America

There's lots of talk nowadays about "tolerance," although the conversation has morphed quite a bit from what it was just a couple of years ago. It used to be that we were enjoined by progressives to be tolerant of those who disagreed with us, who held political or religious opinions at variance with our own or who adopted a lifestyle that others may have thought immoral.

Now the talk in progressive circles is all about what Herbert Marcuse back in the 60s was promoting as "repressive tolerance." Marcuse argued that tolerance and freedom of speech should not extend to those who hold retrograde political views, views that other groups find offensive or harmful. He insisted that freedom of speech was a subterfuge that elites employed to enable them to maintain power and as such should not be accorded the cherished status that has traditionally been conferred upon it.

In the educational sphere, in particular, Marcuse wrote that measures of repressive tolerance,

...would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.

In other words, if you believe in maintaining a strong military defense, if you believe that America is the greatest country ever to grace the planet, if you believe that Islam is antithetical to principles articulated in our founding documents, or if you disagree that social security should be increased or perpetuated, you should be denied the ability to voice your views.

This, in good Orwellian fashion, Marcuse labels genuine freedom of thought. He goes on to write that,

When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual...the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin...with stopping the words and images which feed his consciousness.

To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media.

So, if tolerance means that people should be allowed to argue against what Marcuse thought to be a better form of life, in his case Marxism coupled with sexual freedom, then those arguments should be repressed. People must not be exposed to well-reasoned arguments if those arguments may be so cogent as to persuade the hearer to reject the ideology of the left.

Marcuse made this case in 1965 in an essay titled Repressive Tolerance, but it's bearing fruit today in social media, the academy, and news organizations like the New York Times where any opinion that wanders beyond the bounds of acceptable progressive orthodoxy is quashed.

One of the arguments that the progressive left makes in support of "repressive tolerance" - which is, ironically, a fascist notion - is based on a misuse of a footnote in philosopher Karl Popper's famous 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies. John Sexton at HotAir.com explains that the footnote, which some leftists have seized upon to promote repression of deviant ideas and street violence, is being abused:

[Popper's] idea was pretty simple: If society is completely tolerant, then the intolerant will rule society because there will be no one willing to stand up to their intolerance. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary for a tolerant society to be intolerant toward those who are themselves intolerant.... You can probably see how this plays into certain Antifa arguments about “punching Nazis” and using street violence against the intolerant.

Popper called this the paradox of tolerance: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Popper added, however, that,

In this formulation, I do not imply...that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

In other words, as long as people are willing to debate and discuss and have conversations about their disagreements, as long as they don't seek to impose their views by violent means, we must insist on tolerance and the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. It's only when people opt for violent coercion that tolerance comes to an end.

Here's Popper:

But we should claim the right to suppress them [those who eschew dialogue and resort instead to force] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

The fascist left, including Antifa, seizes on this as a justification not only for suppressing contrary ideas but also for violence, yet it's pretty clear that Popper was claiming that resort to violence is justified only when the other side refuses to engage in fair debate and chooses instead to substitute "fists and pistols" for reason and logic. It's also pretty clear that it's the extremists on both left and right in our current social landscape who fit the profile of those of whom Popper was speaking.

The extremist rejects argument because at some level he senses that neither facts nor reason are on his side. He's at least subliminally aware of the rational inadequacy of his position so he rejects reason and rationality rather than give up his position or subject it to rational scrutiny.

The only truth he recognizes is whatever he feels most strongly to be true, and since his feelings are self-authenticating and self-validating there's no point in debating them. He needs only to force you to accept his "truth," and if you refuse then you must be compelled, with violence, if necessary, to submit.

After all, if you disagree with the progressive left then you must be a racist bigot, and you should be silenced or have your face smashed. If you disagree with the extremist right then you must be part of the conspiracy to undermine America and you deserve to get stomped on.

That's unfortunately where we seem to be today in America.