The Purge

Once upon a time the left fancied themselves the champions of liberty of thought and expression, but it'd be a mistake to think that "liberals" still hold to that position today. Liberals were commonly heard to quote (or misquote) Voltaire who was said to have declared that "I may despise your opinions, but I'll fight to the death for your right to express them." No liberal says that today.

Today's left seems instead to have modeled itself after Orwell's barnyard menagerie in Animal Farm. Everyone on the left, or employed by institutions that are run by leftists, is goosestepping in unison to the shibboleths of race and gender dictated by the modern thought police.

Those who think for themselves are fated to be purged. Just as under the French Directorate during the Great Reign of Terror in 1793-94, dissenters from the dogmas of the left are at serious risk of being metaphorically guillotined, even if they consider themselves to be leftists themselves.

The quaint notion of thinkers like John Stuart Mill that a healthy society is one that carries on free and open discussions of differences has been relegated to the dustbin of history. Today anyone who even remotely offends against the dogmas and orthodoxies of the left is dragged off to the Revolutionary Tribunal where guilt is a foregone conclusion to be figuratively (at least for now) dispatched.

All that needs happen to guarantee one's "cancellation" is that an emotionally fragile co-worker complains of feeling physically or psychologically "unsafe" in the presence of the hapless miscreant.

Bari Weiss at the New York Times and Andrew Sullivan at New York Magazine are two recent journalists whose names have been added to the long list of those who've been martyred for their adherence to the Enlightenment values of freedom of thought and expression.

Tyler O'Neil at PJ Media tells us about Andrew Sullivan's dismissal:

On Friday, Andrew Sullivan wrote his last column at New York magazine. Apparently, his brand of heterodox conservatism was too much for fellow staffers at NY Mag and Vox to take. Even though Sullivan supported John Kerry in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Joe Biden this year, his criticisms of the radical left were allegedly “physically harming” his Cancel Culture zealot co-workers. 

The woke inquisition has come for Sullivan, just as it came for Bari Weiss at The New York Times.

Sullivan wrote in his final column that,

What has happened, I think, is relatively simple: A critical mass of the staff and management at New York Magazine and Vox Media no longer want to associate with me, and, in a time of ever tightening budgets, I’m a luxury item they don’t want to afford. And that’s entirely their prerogative. 

They seem to believe, and this is increasingly the orthodoxy in mainstream media, that any writer not actively committed to critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space.

Actually attacking, and even mocking, critical theory’s ideas and methods, as I have done continually in this space, is therefore out of sync with the values of Vox Media. That, to the best of my understanding, is why I’m out of here.

Sullivan focussed on the increasingly stifling woke orthodoxy that prevails in academia and other areas of American culture.

Two years ago, I wrote that we all live on campus now. That is an understatement. In academia, a tiny fraction of professors and administrators have not yet bent the knee to the woke program — and those few left are being purged. The latest study of Harvard University faculty, for example, finds that only 1.46 percent call themselves conservative.  

But that’s probably higher than the proportion of journalists who call themselves conservative at the New York Times or CNN or New York Magazine.

Sullivan is no stranger to this cancel culture, O'Neil writes. In 2017, The Verge’s Sarah Jeong — now at The New York Times — demanded NY Mag fire Sullivan for an ostensibly “racist” column.

Sullivan’s crime? In addressing reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, he had taken a detour into racial issues, suggesting that the relative success of Asian-Americans proves that the U.S. does not have overwhelming structural racism.

Bari Weiss, a staff editor at the New York Times, finally got tired of the vicious group-think atmosphere in the Times' newsroom and submitted her resignation.

Weiss, who is Jewish, faced harassment and accusations that she was a “Nazi” and a “racist” for daring to question the dogma of the radical left. She recently resigned following years of harassment.

Here's an excerpt from her resignation letter:

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’  

Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name.  

Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. 

Weiss follows Times' opinion editor James Bennet out the door after Bennet had been subjected to accusations that he had put black staffers “in danger” by running Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) op-ed calling for federal troops to put down the violent George Floyd riots. Bennet resigned amid mounting pressure.

Another target of the leftist inquisitors is Harvard scholar Steven Pinker:

Recently, some linguistics professors penned an open letter to the Linguistic Society of America with the goal of removing Pinker as one of the society’s “distinguished fellows.” 

It claimed, “Dr. Pinker has a history of speaking over genuine grievances and downplaying injustices, frequently by misrepresenting facts, and at the exact moments when Black and Brown people are mobilizing against systemic racism and for crucial changes.” 

The seemingly damning charges fall apart under scrutiny. As an example of Pinker’s misogyny, the letter described how he had responded to an incident wherein a student murdered “six women.” In fact, Pinker had merely pointed out that two of these women were actually men.

For that appalling breach of leftist orthodoxy Pinker's colleagues sought to excommunicate him from the Church of Proper Opinion.

Reached at his home on Cape Cod, Pinker, 65, noted that as a tenured faculty member and established author, he could weather the campaign against him. But he said it could chill junior faculty who hold views counter to prevailing intellectual currents.

The Cancel Culture is a form of mob rule, and it's tragic that those who run our media outlets and universities have sold out to the mob. Some of them simply lack the courage to stand up to the angry ideologues who scream for someone's head to roll, but many others are themselves sympathetic with leftist dogma and happy to purge non-conformists from their institutions.

It's how left-wing totalitarians, whether fascists or communists, have always sought to acquire and consolidate power.

Wokesters and Racists

In an amusing way this short video makes a good point: Progressive wokesters and white racists really hold the same set of beliefs.

That would be disturbing news to both groups, but what other conclusion can one draw when we read, for instance, that the Smithsonian has declared on their "whiteness" page that “Whiteness and the normalization of white racial identity throughout America’s history have created a culture where nonwhite persons are seen as inferior or abnormal.”

The “teaching tool” suggests that “whiteness” needs to be overthrown in order for non-white people to become liberated from an oppressive “white culture.”

How can one recognise this nefarious "whiteness" in the culture? An infographic - subsequently taken down by the Smithsonian, but which can still be seen at the above link - lists the characteristics of  white culture that make it so difficult for minority groups to get ahead.

Many of the traits are ridiculous, but for what it's worth they include placing a high value on the following: the nuclear family, capitalism, Christianity, science, objective and rational thinking, delayed gratification, standard English, punctuality, hard work, being future-oriented, self-reliance, politeness, respect for authority, and more.

Blacks and other minorities can't be expected to advance themselves in a white-dominated culture, the implication is, because members of those other races don't value these traits nor can they be expected to. 

Apparently the wokesters at the Smithsonian believe that blacks and Asians are not logical thinkers, don't value two parent families, economic success, being able to speak good English when the circumstances require it, respecting those in authority, working hard, being on time, being polite nor do they see any point to delaying gratification to achieve future success.

I can't think of anything more stereotypical and more racist than tacitly imputing those characteristics to blacks and others, but that's what the Smithsonian progressives evidently have done. They believe about minority groups the same things that many white racists believe about them which is exactly the point in the above-mentioned video. 

You should watch it. It'll make you laugh.

Progressivism's Book of Genesis

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English thinker who wrote during the turbulent period of civil strife and the struggle for power between King Charles I and Parliament. His thoughts on the best political system for avoiding the calamitous consequences of war were put down in a book titled Leviathan (1651).

Leviathan is one of the first books of modern political philosophy. Hobbes' central concern was peace, more specifically how to avoid the calamities of civil war. He began with two principles or axioms from which all else follows:

1. Men are all engaged in a constant struggle for power over others.
2. Men try to avoid death with all their might.

The word "leviathan" means great beast and is used to describe the state or commonwealth as Hobbes saw it. Hobbes' book, historian Peter Ackroyd observes, has been called "the only masterpiece of political philosophy in the English language."

Be that as it may, Hobbes wrote that the worst calamity to befall men is war. In one famous passage he wrote these lapidary words:

In such condition [i.e. civil war], there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In a primitive state of nature, He argues, in which there is no government, the condition of man ...

...is a condition of war of everyone against everyone, in which case everyone is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live.

And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.

Men in a state of nature are in a constant struggle each with every other for power and each lives in constant fear of violent death. Hobbes' solution is for all men to yield their own individual sovereignty and rights to that of one sovereign (or a committee) of rulers, whose will would govern all.

Once yielded, that sovereignty can never be rescinded. There would be in Hobbes' state no such thing as liberty of conscience, which only leads to conflict and violence. The state will determine what religion people will follow. Justice and truth are whatever the sovereign determines them to be, and nothing the sovereign does can be deemed to be unjust.

Leviathan is an outline for big government on steroids. It's the blueprint for the totalitarianisms of the Nazis and communists of the 20th century, and it's the logical endpoint of liberal progressivism, even if many progressives would deny wanting to go so far.

Progressivism is a faith that a government run by highly educated elites will naturally be the best way to prevent conflicts and protect individual rights. The bigger, more massive the bureaucratic state, the more power it has over individual lives, the less liberty the individual retains, the more able the state will be to provide for the security and welfare of its citizens.

Government is the progressive's religion, and its book of Genesis is Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.

Is Some Racism Okay?

Elizabeth Vaughn at The Federalist calls for a national conversation on racism, but it's not what you might think. Vaughn wants a national conversation about the racism that's being directed at whites.

She discusses primarily the June 30th remarks by Nick Cannon in which he claimed that white people fear black people because of their lack of melanin, that melanin gives blacks their soul and compassion. He said this:

The people that don’t have it – and I’m going to say this carefully – are a little less…and, and, and…cause I’m bringing it all the way around to Minister Farrakhan, to where they may not have the compassion or the, when they were sent to the mountains of Caucasus, when they didn’t have the power of the sun, the sun then started to deteriorate them, so then they’re acting out of fear, they’re acting out of low self-esteem, they’re acting out of a deficiency. 

So, therefore, the only way they can act is evil…They have to rob, steal, rape, kill, fight in order to survive.

So, then these people who didn’t have what we had – when I say we, I am speaking of the melanated people – they had to be savages. They had to be barbaric. They’re in these Nordic mountains, they’re in this rough terrential [sic] environment.

And so, they’re acting as animals. So, they’re the ones that are actually closer to animals. They’re the ones that are actually the true savages. And then they built up such this, this – I want to say warrior – but they built up such this, this conquering barbaric mentality.

Cannon was fired from one position he had with Viacom because other remarks he had made in this same incident were anti-semitic, but despite both his anti-semitism and racism he remains as host of Fox News' "The Masked Singer." It's hard to imagine a white celebrity saying something like this about any minority group and not having his career ended on the spot.

Part of the reason for the relatively mild treatment Cannon has received is, perhaps, that the definition of racism has undergone an evolution in this country. A generation or two ago one was racist if he or she hated members of another race simply because they were members of another race or if he or she merely believed those others were somehow less than fully human. 

Today that definition is obsolete. Today, at least among progressives of every race, racism is defined as a disease that uniquely afflicts white people and which taints everything white people do.

The contemporary definition is self-serving and tendentious. Once it's accepted then no matter what a black person says or does, whatever it is it can't be racist. Moreover, whatever a white person says or does is often racist solely by virtue of the fact that it's a white person who says or does it.

Thus the conversation on race in America is not a genuine conversation but a lecture in which blacks speak and whites are to shut up and listen. If a white person ventures to dissent from what she's being told in this "conversation," whatever dissenting view she expresses is ipso facto racist and thus disallowed. 

This is not a "conversation," of course, it's indoctrination. It's a demand for total conformity to the views of those who wield the power in the relevant social setting.

Moreover, whatever problems beset the black community are often blamed on white racism, either current or historical. According to leftist progressives blacks have no responsibility either for causing the problems or for solving them. Whites are responsible so whites must solve them, not by telling blacks how the problems could actually be solved, that would itself be racist, but simply by handing over money to the community in question.

As long as these attitudes and conditions exist the racial divide in this country will only grow wider. The contemporary understanding of racism is guaranteed to breed further resentments and hostility between the races. 

An equitable society is one in which everyone is treated fairly, and the rightness or wrongness of one's words or actions do not depend on the color of the person's skin. If an act would be wrong if a white person did it it's just as wrong if a black person does it. Race should be irrelevant.

Progressives once praised the words of Martin Luther King who longed for the day when his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. To quote those words today, however, is at best an act of racial naiveté. 

Today among progressives the color of one's skin is often all that matters. To say, as King did, that skin color should not matter in assessing how one is judged by others is to adopt an anachronistic view of race and racism that's largely rejected not only by the Nick Cannons of the world, but also by progressive government bureaucrats, academics and media opinion-makers.

The Universe Has to Be Just As Big As It Is

There's an article at Salvo by astronomer Hugh Ross that should fascinate anyone interested in chemistry, biology or the exquisite fine-tuning of the universe that makes life on earth possible.

It begins with a challenge frequently leveled at those who believe the universe is intentionally engineered by an intelligent agent to permit life to exist. If so, some who dissent from this view ask, why is the universe so vast? Why are there so many galaxies? Isn't such a huge universe wasteful when a much smaller universe would suffice?

Ross explains that a smaller universe would not have sufficed, and that the universe has to be as large as it is and as massive as it is in order for carbon-based life to exist anywhere in it. Ross' article can be summarized as follows:

In order for life to exist, at least life as we know it, there has to be carbon and oxygen, and in order for these elements to exist there had to be a very precise amount of mass to the universe in its early stages of development. Here's why:

At the beginning of the universe, shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was rapidly expanding. Since mass exerts gravitational pull, the rate at which the universe expanded was determined by how much gravity there was acting as a drag on the expansion and this was determined by the amount of mass.

As the universe expanded it cooled. At one point the cooling reached the temperature range in which hydrogen atoms, the only atoms that existed in the early universe, began to fuse together to form other elements. This temperature range is between 15 million and 150 million degrees Celsius.

How long the expanding universe remained in this temperature range depended on how much matter there was to slow down the expansion. Too little matter and the universe would have passed through this range too quickly to form much else besides helium. Too slowly, and all the hydrogen would have fused into elements heavier than iron. Carbon and oxygen would have been very scarce.

In other words, to get the elements necessary for life, specifically carbon and oxygen, the expansion rate had to be just right, which means that the gravitational pull slowing the expansion had to be just right, which means that the amount of matter in the universe had to be just right. That amount of matter happens to be precisely the amount of matter bound up in the stars and galaxies we see in our telescopes.

In order to allow time for the production of carbon and oxygen, but not too much time, the expansion rate had to be calibrated to the astonishing value of one part in 10^55.

To get an idea of how precise this is imagine a dial face with 10^55 calibrations (one with 55 zeros). Now imagine that the dial has to point to exactly one of those calibrations for the universe to have carbon and oxygen. If the dial deviated by just one increment no carbon and oxygen would form. That's breathtaking, but in order to achieve that degree of precision of the expansion rate the universe had to have just the amount of matter that is today bound up in stars and galaxies that it in fact does have.

Indeed, the total amount of matter in the universe had to itself be fine-tuned to an astonishing precision of one part in 10^59.

So, the universe has to be as big as it is and as massive as it is in order for us to be here in this little corner of a galaxy located in an even smaller corner of the universe. Little wonder that many people conclude that it can't all just be a cosmic accident, that there must be an intelligent mind behind it all.

Ross goes on to explain how the amount of carbon we find on earth is also fine-tuned. Just a bit more or a bit less carbon and life on earth would not exist, at least not life forms higher than bacteria. The article is not long and it's very much worth reading in its entirety.

Meanwhile, check out this video to get an idea of how big the universe actually is and how small we are. Each circle represents 10x the diameter of the previous circle:

Belief That Evil Exists Requires That God Exists

On July 22nd, 2007 two thugs broke into the home of Dr. and Mrs. William Petit and their two daughters in Cheshire, Connecticut. They held the Petits hostage for seven terrifying hours. The doctor was beaten, his wife was raped, his youngest daughter was sexually assaulted and their house set afire. The mother and daughters, having been tied up and doused with gasoline, burned to death. Only the father managed to escape. The crime was unimaginably evil.

It's not uncommon after some terrible event like this has occured to hear someone claim that they can't believe in God because no God who was good would've allowed such senseless evil to happen. A good being of any sort would have a moral obligation to prevent this kind of evil if he could, and the failure to prevent such an evil is a strong argument for the conclusion that God, if He exists at all, is either not able to prevent evil or not willing to do so and thus not good.

In the aftermath of the horror that the Petit's suffered it's easy to feel the emotional power of this argument, and people who are grieving and in shock don't want or need to have their reasoning analyzed. They need to be loved.

Nevertheless, for those not immediately in the throes of emotional devastation it might be noted that this is actually a very odd argument. As has been argued here at VP on many occasions, in order to speak of moral obligations one has to assume that God exists. In a Godless universe there are no moral rights and wrongs and thus no moral duties.

So the skeptic who pleads the existence of horrible moral wrongs as a basis for denying that God exists can use that argument only if God does, in fact, exist.

As I say, this is a very odd argument.

The conviction that the world contains terrible moral evils which God would have a moral obligation to prevent actually makes it more likely, not less likely, that God does exist. Only if there's an objective moral right and wrong can anything be morally evil, and only if there really is a God can there be objective moral right and wrong.

Thus, the belief that what happened to the Petits, or to untold millions of others, is morally evil must presuppose the existence of God.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes that a secular view of the world "has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort...and thus no way to say there's such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there is such a thing as horrifying wickedness, then you have a powerful argument" for the existence of God.

To talk about evil one has to talk about objective moral right and wrong, and to talk about objective moral right and wrong one has to assume that God exists.

If God does not exist then what those two men did to the Petits is neither wrong nor right, it's just a fact about what happened. It may outrage us, but that doesn't make it wrong. It can only be wrong if it 1) violates some objective standard of behavior and 2) if the men who perpetrated the deed will ultimately be held accountable for it.

And neither of those conditions exists unless God does.

What Caused the Universe?

A BBC article from a couple of years ago raises the possibility that we are living in a computer simulation something like the Matrix, and, in the course of discussing the pros and cons of the hypothesis, gives an interesting insight into why philosophers, scientists, and other intellectuals, like Elon Musk, are entertaining this speculation:

The idea that we live in a simulation has some high-profile advocates.

In June 2016, technology entrepreneur Elon Musk asserted that the odds are "a billion to one" against us living in "base reality".

Similarly, Google's machine-intelligence guru Ray Kurzweil has suggested that "maybe our whole universe is a science experiment of some junior high-school student in another universe".

Two basic scenarios have been advanced. In the first, our material universe is "real" but was made by an intelligent agent in some other universe:

Cosmologist Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US has suggested that our entire Universe might be real yet still a kind of lab experiment. The idea is that our Universe was created by some super-intelligence, much as biologists breed colonies of micro-organisms.

There is nothing in principle that rules out the possibility of manufacturing a universe in an artificial Big Bang, filled with real matter and energy, says Guth... Our Universe might have been born in some super-beings' equivalent of a test tube, but it is just as physically "real" as if it had been born "naturally".

However, there is a second, more popular, scenario that seems to undermine our very concept of what everything is made of:

Musk and other like-minded folk are suggesting that we are entirely simulated beings. We could be nothing more than strings of information manipulated in some gigantic computer, like the characters in a video game.

Even our brains are simulated, and are responding to simulated sensory inputs.

The interesting aspect of all this to me is the reason why these scenarios are being advanced. They're an attempt to account for the fact that our universe looks to those who study it like it was engineered by a super-intelligent mathematical genius:

Some scientists argue that there are already good reasons to think we are inside a simulation. One is the fact that our Universe looks designed.

The constants of nature, such as the strengths of the fundamental forces, have values that look fine-tuned to make life possible. Even small alterations would mean that atoms were no longer stable, or that stars could not form. Why this is so is one of the deepest mysteries in cosmology.

This fine-tuning makes the existence of a universe like ours incomprehensibly unlikely so how can the existence of such a finely-tuned universe as ours be explained? There are two (naturalistic) options. The first is to posit the existence of a multiverse of a near infinite number of different universes.

Given such a vast number of worlds the existence of one like ours goes from astronomically improbable to almost certain. Just as the probability of being dealt a royal flush is very low but is nevertheless certain to occur if one is dealt an infinite number of hands, so, too, given enough different universes in the multiverse one as incomprehensibly improbable as ours is bound to occur.

However, the writer of the article, like most scientists, is not impressed with the multiverse hypothesis:

However, parallel universes are a pretty speculative idea. So it is at least conceivable that our Universe is instead a simulation whose parameters have been fine-tuned to give interesting results, like stars, galaxies and people.

While this is possible, the reasoning does not get us anywhere. After all, presumably the "real" Universe of our creators must also be fine-tuned for them to exist. In that case, positing that we are in a simulation does not explain the fine-tuning mystery.

Right. The simulation hypothesis only pushes the need for an explanation for the fine-tuning phenomenon back a step.

A second argument is that the Universe appears to run on mathematical lines, just as you would expect from a computer program. Ultimately, say some physicists, reality might be nothing but mathematics.

Perhaps the universe is at bottom all math, but where did the math come from?

Some physicists feel that, at its most fundamental level, nature might not be pure mathematics but pure information: bits, like the ones and zeros of computers. If reality is just information, then we are no more or less "real" if we are in a simulation or not. In either case, information is all we can be.

This seems reasonable, but it leaves unanswered a very important question. Since information is the product of minds what is the mind that produced the ones and zeros from which matter is constructed?

The article concludes with this thought:

Does it make a difference if that information were programmed by nature or by super-intelligent creators? It is not obvious why it should – except that, in the latter case, presumably our creators could in principle intervene in the simulation, or even switch it off.

Well, it certainly does make a difference, depending on who or what the super-intelligent creator actually is, but, that aside, it's a fascinating development that after centuries of trying to expunge any notion of "super-intelligent" minds from our creation narratives, scientists and philosophers have come right back to where things stood thousands of years ago.

I'm reminded of the closing lines of Robert Jastrow's book God and the Astronomers in which Jastrow talks about how the attempt to rid science of all non-material causes and to employ only reason in the search for knowledge has ended:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Not All the Polls are Grim for Trump

Recent polls have not been kind to President Trump, showing him trailing Joe Biden by at least 8 points. Yet not all the polls are so gloomy for the president. Elizabeth Vaughn at The Federalist points out that the results of a poll conducted by the Democracy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, suggest that other canvasses are missing something.

Here's part of her column:

Contrary to what the media would have us believe, 77 percent of the 1,500 likely voters surveyed do not view Mount Rushmore as a racist monument. When asked which of two phrases better fits their own thinking about race in America, 29 percent of participants indicated “Black Lives Matter,” and 71 percent marked “All Lives Matter.”

Most notably, rather than showing Biden with a sharp advantage, the survey forecasts a much tighter race, with each candidate receiving 47 percent of the national popular vote. Moreover, the Democracy Institute predicts that if the election were held today, Trump would win 309 electoral votes and Biden 229.

State-by-state data isn’t conclusive, considering the limited sample size, but the data indicates Trump is ahead in the battleground states of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by a margin of 48 percent to 44 percent, with 8 percent undecided. The poll puts Wisconsin in the Biden column, while giving Trump Minnesota and New Hampshire.

Trump is considered less likable than Biden. When asked which candidate respondents would be more inclined to invite for a barbecue, 33 percent chose Trump, while 51 percent chose Biden. Sixteen percent said neither. When asked if they believe Biden is in the early stages of dementia, however, 55 percent answered yes, and 40 percent no.

As virtually all recent polls have found, the Democracy Institute identified the massive enthusiasm gap between the two candidates. Seventy-seven percent of Trump voters are very enthusiastic about their candidate, compared to only 43 percent of Biden supporters. That explains why 81 percent of Trump voters say their choice was “a positive vote for [their] candidate” rather than a “negative vote against his opponent.” For Biden, only 29 percent said it was a positive vote, while a whopping 71 percent said it was negative.

Notably, participants were asked if they were “comfortable with your relatives, friends, and coworkers knowing how you vote.” Only 29 percent of Trump voters said yes, versus 82 percent of Biden voters. This “shy” vote phenomenon was one of the reasons polls were so wrong in 2016. Many pro-Trumpers, wanting to avoid stigma, simply won’t tell a colleague or even a pollster whom they plan to vote for.

Fifty-two percent of those surveyed believe Trump will be reelected. While 4 percent of Trump supporters indicated their vote could change by Election Day, 12 percent of Biden backers said they could change their minds.

Ms. Vaughn cites other data from the poll that should be encouraging for those who wish to see the president re-elected. 

Polls this far out are notoriously unreliable, of course. In 2016 polls taken four or five months before the election showed that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. Even so, the Democracy Institute poll must be encouraging for the White House.

The Democrats right now seem to be employing a three-pronged campaign strategy: 1) Criticize Trump relentlessly no matter what he says or does, even if they know they would often do the same thing were they in his place, 2) keep Biden out of the public eye as much as possible and 3) hope that the economy doesn't recover the vigor it had before Covid-19 struck, since the more people suffer the better it is for Biden's chances.

That really is quite a strategy. No wonder there's no real enthusiasm for Mr. Biden's candidacy.

One Statue That Should Be Taken Down

I wrote recently that I think there's a reasonable case to be made for removing some statues, especially those of Confederate soldiers, from our public spaces. One statue in particular that really needs to be removed is that of South Carolina Senator Benjamin Tillman who served as a Democrat in the U.S. Senate from 1895 to 1918. Why his statue is still allowed to disgrace that state's capitol is a mystery.

The Discovery Institute's John West explains:

Tillman was a monster. He publicly defended lynchings. He drew on evolutionary racism to preach black inferiority. And he worked to subvert representative democracy. 

During a U.S. Senate debate on January 21, 1907, Tillman boasted about how he and others successfully disenfranchised blacks after the Civil War through intimidation, killings, and fraud. 

He revealed that depriving blacks of their newly accorded political rights was in fact his motivation for becoming involved in politics: “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and only one plank, namely, that ‘This is a white man’s country and white men must govern it.’ Under that banner we went to battle.” 

He meant “battle” literally, recounting how he and others killed blacks in a series of armed conflicts: “A month later we had the Ellenton riot, in which no one ever knew how many negroes were killed, but there were forty or fifty or a hundred. It was a fight between barbarism and civilization, between the African and the Caucasian, for mastery. It was then that ‘we shot them’; it was then that ‘we killed them’; it was then that ‘we stuffed ballot boxes.’” 

Tillman justified his actions by drawing on the standard tropes of evolutionary racism. As he explained, “We had decided to take the government away from men so debased as were the negroes — I will not say baboons; I never have called them baboons; I believe they are men, but some of them are so near akin to the monkey that scientists are yet looking for the missing link.” 

According to Tillman, it was the supposed biological inferiority of blacks that justified him in stealing elections: “We saw the evil of giving the ballot to creatures of this kind, and saying that one vote shall count regardless of the man… Then it was that we stuffed ballot boxes, because desperate diseases require desperate remedies.”

Frankly, I am appalled that South Carolina would continue to honor such a man. I definitely don’t favor illegally removing his statue (let alone blowing it up), but I do favor legally removing it.

Here’s an idea: Replace Tillman’s statue with a statue honoring the nine black Republican congressmen from South Carolina during the 1870s-1890s. Then move Tillman’s statue to a museum, and surround it with an exhibit exposing his racist record, including his promotion of scientific racism.

West is obviously correct. There should be no place in our society where men such as Tillman are honored. Take his statue down.

Do Facts Matter?

John Sexton at Hot Air asks this question: "When did it first become clear to you that verifiable facts didn’t matter to the opinions being spouted by every media outlet and progressive?" Sexton, borrowing from author Jesse Singal, calls this the "epistemic breach," the disconnect between what one chooses to believe and the established facts of the matter.

Singal says the moment he noticed it was the Covington student encounter in Washington, D.C. For Sexton it was the Trayvon Martin case in 2012. He also cites the Michael Brown shooting and a few other examples (There are plenty to choose from, he notes).

He writes:

For me this kind of breach with reality really became clear much earlier, during the Trayvon Martin case in 2012. In that case it was clear who had done the shooting from the start but almost every other detail seemed to exist apart from the facts. 

Remember when NBC News edited the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman had been racially profiling Martin? Two NBC producers were eventually fired over that error. Remember when ABC News claimed there were no injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head and then retracted that after an enhanced video showed they’d been wrong?  

Remember when Rachel Jeantel told a reporter she believed Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation that led to his death? (Most people never heard about that.) 

Remember when Ta-Nehisi Coates claimed he could hear a racial slur in the audio of the same call? Coates later wrote a major story for the Atlantic claiming that all of the pushback (to correct reported errors) was because President Obama was black. 

The point is there were a lot of things the media got badly wrong about that story, some of which were corrected, but a lot of people still insist on believing the first version. 

The same was true of the shooting of Michael Brown. Once again, you had a lot of instant myths crop up, some of which (“hands up, don’t shoot”) are still with us. 

I still remember the piece in which Vox’s Ezra Klein explained the moment in Officer Darren Wilson’s story when “every BS detector in me went off .” He was referring to Wilson’s claim that Mike Brown paused during his assault on Wilson to hand the bag of stolen cigarillos to his friend Dorian Johnson. 

Just one problem with his BS detectors. The story matched what Dorian Johnson said happened. Rather than admit he was wrong and issue a correction to the story, Klein published a second story the same day in which (many paragraphs later) he admits “Johnson does semi-corroborate a key moment in Wilson’s account.” 

Again, as with the Covington kids, most news outlets did eventually admit error in the initial coverage but it was too late. A lot of people preferred the initial stories about Mike Brown’s death and didn’t want to hear the revised (factual) versions.

Sexton goes on to give a few more examples, but an important consequence of all this is that when people refuse to allow themselves to be swayed by facts, progress, in this case social progress, grinds to a halt and shifts into reverse. 

We become balkanized into a hodge-podge of warring groups that no longer have any common ground upon which to stand to talk with each other. Instead it's women vs. men, blacks vs. whites, liberals vs. conservatives, atheists vs. Christians, and who prevails is not whoever has the best ideas and can marshall the most evidence but who can shout the loudest and who can intimidate their foes most effectively.

Rather than forming conclusions based on objective facts, many people form their conclusions based on their subjective emotions. For many in our postmodern age beliefs are justified by desires, not by reason. If they want something to be true it is true regardless what the objective evidence may indicate. If a biological male wants to be a female then he is a female notwithstanding his genetics and physiology. If progressives want it to be true that blacks are being "hunted" by white police officers then it is true regardless of what the statistics show. 

If the facts support their beliefs, fine, but if they don't support them, so much the worse for the facts. Indeed, to cite objective facts, to rely on reason, is scorned as patriarchal or an expression of "white privilege," as if non-whites can't be expected to be rational. 

This is not only irrational, it's atavistic. It's a throwback to a more primitive and tribal stage in our civilization's development. When facts no longer matter then all that matters is forcing others, by whatever means necessary, to conform to one's vision and desires, and that mindset has led always to the guillotine, the firing squad, the gulag and mass graves.

Why So Many Hoaxes?

An Oregon man who claimed on Facebook that he had received a racist letter has recently admitted to police that he wrote the letter to himself in yet another of what has become an epidemic of race hoaxes. Before this most recent episode came to light Dennis Prager had raised an interesting question: Why are there so many hoaxes? He writes:

If America is so racist, why are there so many race hoaxes? Virtually every time we read about a swastika painted on a door, or a noose hanging from a tree to taunt blacks, it turns out to be either a false alarm or, more frequently, a hoax.....

If there were a lot of racism, there would be no need for hoaxes. No Jew in Germany in the 1930s made up an anti-Semitic hoax. No Jewish shop owner ever made up a charge that a Nazi hurled a rock through his store window. The reason? None was needed. Nazi hatred against Jews was real. It didn’t have to be faked. To convince people that America is racist, you have to fake it. 

To buttress his claim that race hoaxes are common he cites about fifteen examples of hoaxes (or mistakes) perpetrated by blacks over the last fifteen years, most of which have occurred within the last six years:

No. 1: The Duke lacrosse team (2006): Three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team were falsely accused by Crystal Mangum, a black student at North Carolina Central University, with having raped her. The charges were all fabricated, but the American media and Duke University faculty rushed to judgment and devoted months to smearing the three lacrosse players and Duke University itself as racist.
No. 2: UC San Diego library noose (2010): “Student apologizes for noose in UC San Diego library” (Los Angeles Times). A “minority student” was responsible for placing the noose in the university library. Previously, the Associated Press had reported, “Anger boiled over on the University of California San Diego campus today, where students took over the chancellor’s office to protest the hanging of a noose in a campus library.”
No. 3: Truck at Oakland’s Corporation Yard (2014): “A reported ‘noose’ tied to the back of a city truck in August, which stirred already simmering racial tensions at Oakland’s Corporation Yard, was not an intended act of racial harassment, a city-commissioned report has found” (Mercury News).
No. 4: University of Delaware (2015): “‘Nooses’ Found Hanging on University of Delaware Campus Were Lanterns” (NBC). University President Nancy Targett had earlier announced, “We are both saddened and disturbed that this deplorable act has taken place on our campus.”
No. 5: The LSU noose (2015): It was widely reported that a noose was sighted at Louisiana State University leading to protests against racism there. It was later reported, “LSU said a picture of what appeared to be a noose hanging from a campus tree Thursday was not what it appeared to be” (WBRZ).
No. 6: University at Albany (2016): “A state appeals court has upheld the University at Albany’s expulsion of a woman who along with two friends falsely claimed to be the victim of a racially motivated attack on a CDTA bus in January 2016” (Times-Union). The three black women had attacked a white woman and then claimed they had been racially attacked.
No. 7: Bowling Green State University (2016): “Bowling Green police say student lied about politically driven attack” (ABC). “The day after the 2016 election, Eleesha Long, a student at Bowling Green State University — about 90 miles west of Oberlin — said that she was attacked by white Trump supporters, who threw rocks at her. Police concluded that she had fabricated the story” (City Journal).
No. 8: Dreadlock cutting hoax (2019): “A black student at a Christian school in Virginia who accused three white sixth grade boys of cutting her dreadlocks and calling her ugly now says she was lying about the attack” (NBC).
No. 9: Jussie Smollett (2019): In one of the most notorious hoaxes, actor Jussie Smollett claimed he was attacked by white racists in Chicago on a freezing night. The story was a hoax. The “noose” was a rope his two co-conspirators had purchased for staging the “attack.”
No. 10: Oakland’s Lake Merritt (2020): After the city of Oakland launched a hate crime investigation regarding a noose hanging from park trees, Victor Anari Sengbe, a black man, tweeted: “It’s not a noose, this guy climbed the tree and put up the rope for a swing months ago, folks used it to exercise… ITS NOT A NOOSE.” Nevertheless, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf then tweeted, “Intentions do not matter. We will not tolerate symbols of hate in our city. The nooses found at Lake Merritt will be investigated as hate crimes.”
No. 11: NASCAR (2020): A “noose” was found in the Talladega, Alabama, racetrack garage assigned to black NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace. FBI investigators determined it to be one of several such ropes placed sometime the year before in Talladega garages as door pulls, long before that garage was ever assigned to Wallace. But Wallace continued to maintain it was, in fact, a noose.
No. 12: University of La Verne (2020): “Racist Threats and Attacks that Rattled a California University Campus Were Faked, Police Say” (Newsweek).

Prager goes on to mention even more, but one additional takeaway from his article - besides Prager's point that the frequency of these frauds is strong evidence that racism is more a figment of the collective progressive imagination than it is a reality in our society - is this: Despite virtually every instance of an alleged racist threat turning out to be either a hoax or an innocent mistake, the media still runs with each one that's alleged as if they finally have the proof to justify their belief that the U.S. is filled with racists. 

Like Wile E. Coyote in the old Roadrunner cartoons or Elmer Fudd in the Bugs Bunny cartoons every time they think they have their proof it blows up in their faces. You'd think that they'd learn from experience to be leery of these allegations, but our media Fudds and Coyotes are evidently very slow learners.

Our American Totalitarians

An open letter to Harper's Magazine defending freedom of speech and thought and signed by 150 sundry journalists and academics has caused a stir among left-wing progressives. A defense of freedom is seen, apparently, as an attack on progressive values.

After the obligatory swipes at President Trump and the ideological right, the signatories offer the most anodyne condemnation of our current "cancel culture" they could possibly have crafted. Here's the heart of it:

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.  

But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. 

Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement. 

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. 

As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Many on the left are appalled that an endorsement of the Enlightenment values of free speech and thought would be endorsed by the signatories, some of whom are themselves leftists. The letter is seen as anti-progressive and anti-left because it endorses the freedom to express unfashionable opinions without the fear of losing one's livelihood. This is too much for progressives who believe that opinions with which they disagree must be silenced and people who transgress the leftist consensus must be fired or otherwise deplatformed.

This is, of course, the same pattern of thinking that prevailed in Hitler's Nazi Germany and during Stalin's reign of terror in the U.S.S.R., Mao and his successors' reign of terror in China, the Kim family's ongoing reign of terror in North Korea, and Castro's ongoing reign of terror in Cuba. It's how fascist and communist totalitarians always treat freedom - which they despise - and it has led invariably to mass slaughter and dehumanization ever since the French Revolution in 1789.

It's perhaps the paramount evil of our age, and it's rearing its grotesque head once again in the form of "cancel culture."

Perhaps the best response to those who are upset that freedom and liberty would actually be endorsed in America is Fredrik deBoer's who writes this pithy reaction:

Please, think for a minute and consider: what does it say when a completely generic endorsement of free speech and open debate is in and of itself immediately diagnosed as anti-progressive, as anti-left? There is literally no specific instance discussed in that open letter, no real-world incident about which there might be specific and tangible controversy.  

So how can someone object to an endorsement of free speech and open debate without being opposed to those things in and of themselves? You can’t. And people are objecting to it because social justice politics are plainly opposed to free speech. That is the most obvious political fact imaginable today. Of course Yelling Woke Twitter hates free speech! Of course social justice liberals would prevent expression they disagree with if they could! How could any honest person observe our political discourse for any length of time and come to any other conclusion? 

You want to argue that free speech is bad, fine. You want to adopt a dominance politics that (you imagine) will result in you being the censor, fine. But just do that. Own that. Can we stop with this charade? Can we stop pretending? Can we just proceed by acknowledging what literally everyone quietly knows, which is that the dominant majority of progressive people simply don’t believe in the value of free speech anymore? 

Please. Let’s grow up and speak plainly, please. Let’s just grow up.

Amen.

Recanting Climate Alarmism

With all that's going on in the country right now this article at Quillette by prominent environmentalist and climate activist Michael Shellenberger has passed pretty much under the radar, but it's remarkable in its implications for the climate debate.

Shellenberger is a progressive activist who has been persuaded that the changes occurring in the global climate are not nearly as dire as we've been led to believe by the Al Gores of the world. Shellenberger writes:

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a "crisis."

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

So Shellenberger's no right wing coal CEO seeking to rollback regulations on carbon emissions. His article begins with an apology:

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30. 

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as expert reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Shellenberger goes on to list a dozen climate-related facts that few people know. Among them are these:

• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction.”
• Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s.
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse.
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change.
• Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003. 

What finally made him go over to the "dark side"? Last year, he writes, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.” 

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.” Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct (italics in the original). And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change. 

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened. I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough.

He proceeds to discuss his book titled, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All in which he makes claims such as,

• Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.
• The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.
• The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium.
• 100 percent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 percent to 50 percent.
• We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities.
• Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 percent.
• Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.
• “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 percent more emissions
• Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.
• The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.

"Why were we all so misled?" Shellenberger asks. His article goes on to give some reasons. Anyone interested in the environmental controversy surrounding climate change should check it out. 

When someone of Shellenberger's background and status as an environmentalist says we've been duped it's a bit like Anthony Fauci telling us that the Covid-19 pandemic was pretty much a hoax. It should grab our attention.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

From time to time we've talked about how physicists and mathematicians have expressed both surprise and wonder that the universe should be describable by mathematics. Nobel Prize winner Eugene Wigner wrote in a 1960 paper that "the effectiveness of mathematics is a miracle."

Here's a five minute video that summarizes the argument that this miraculous effectiveness of mathematics points to Mind as the architect of the universe, a Mind that is itself a mathematical genius. Take a look:

BLM's Dubious Ideological Roots

Black Lives Matter has been very much in the news recently as one of the participants in the turmoil besetting our cities. The media would have us think that BLM is an organization like, say, the NAACP in which people strive within the system to prod Americans to live up to the ideals of our founding.

On the contrary, BLM is an organization founded by Marxist revolutionaries like Patrisse Cullors, who openly acknowledges her Marxism, and which is not averse to employing violence to achieve its goals.

An article at Brietbart about Cullors says this:  

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report. 

Cullors, 36, was the protégé of Eric Mann, former agitator of the Weather Underground domestic terror organization, and spent years absorbing the Marxist-Leninist ideology that shaped her worldview.

“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said, referring to BLM co-founder Alicia Garza.

“We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk,” Cullors added in the interview with Jared Ball of The Real News Network.

While promoting her book “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Black Lives Matter Memoir” in 2018, Cullors described her introduction to and support for Marxist ideology.

She described ... how she became a trained organizer with the Labor/Community Strategy Center, which she called her “first political home” under the mentorship of Mann, its director.

The center, which describes its philosophy as “an urban experiment,” uses grassroots organization to “focus on Black and Latino communities with deep historical ties to the long history of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, pro-communist resistance to the US empire.”

It also expresses its appreciation for the work of the US Communist Party, “especially Black communists,” as well as its support for “the great work of the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, Young Lords, Brown Berets, and the great revolutionary rainbow experiments of the 1970s.”

Here’s what Black Lives Matter says about itself on its website:

We … do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege. We build a space that … is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered. We dismantle patriarchal practices … We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure … We foster a queer-affirming network … with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking …

This is not unlike the language employed by Marx himself who, in his Communist Manifesto, stated that one of the goals of communism is the disintegration of the traditional two-parent family.

BLM's communist roots are all the more chilling when one considers that communism was responsible for the murders of over 100 million people during the 20th century, and that never in the history of communist revolutions were people more free and less oppressed after the revolution than they were before. Every communist state is built on lies, terror, oppression and murder.

Seattle's short-lived dalliance with CHAZ, with its murders, rapes and intimidation, was a microcosm of what it's like to live under communist rule. Communism robs people of their humanity and enslaves them to the state. The literature of George Orwell, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Arthur Koestler paints a vivid picture of communism's horrors. It always promises heaven and always delivers hell.

The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter, Hawk Newsome, promised in a television interview that, “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation.”

And what is it Mr. Newsome wants? “I just want black liberation, and black sovereignty. By any means necessary.”

And what does black liberation and black sovereignty mean, precisely? Presumably, that, too, is to be left as "a matter of interpretation."

BLM and its progressive allies claim that America is irredeemably racist, that blacks are oppressed by a system that has had racism baked in from the beginning, but despite what Mr. Newsome and others would have us believe, it's simply a fact that there has never been a country in the history of the world in which blacks were better off, freer, with more political and economic opportunity and a higher standard of living than they enjoy in America today. It's why millions of blacks from Africa and the Caribbean have emigrated here.

Why would they do this if this country was such an oppressive tyranny for blacks? Why would they not emigrate to communist paradises like Russia, China, North Korea or Cuba?

The fact that some Americans, both white and black, are racist no more makes America a racist nation than the fact that some Americans, both white and black, hate Jews makes America an anti-semitic nation.

Just as the United States has been the best country, aside from Israel, for Jews to live in in their entire history, so, too, the United States, especially over the last fifty years, has been the best country for blacks to live in.

But none of this seems to matter to progressives or people like Mr. Newsome who think that as long as there are still flawed (white) human beings, as long as there are inequities in society, it doesn't matter how prevalent or minimal those flaws are or what the causes of those inequities are, everything must be destroyed, burned to the ground.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Effacing Our History

It may surprise some readers when I say that I think some communities have good reason to consider removing from their statehouses and town squares vestiges of the Confederacy such as the stars and bars and statues of Confederate leaders, who, after all, committed treason and precipitated a war that took a half million lives.

Honoring these men with monuments seems as peculiar as erecting a monument to honor Benedict Arnold.

These memorials should not, however, be torn down at the insistence of know-nothing mobs. If they're to be removed it should be done respectfully, at the conclusion of calm public debate, and housed in museums. Moreover, those monuments which stand in our National Parks like Antietam and Gettysburg, which are essentially outdoor museums and history classrooms, should be left alone.

Having said that, the self-righteous yahoos rampaging through our streets seeking willy-nilly to topple statues of abolitionists, Christian saints, Europeanized representations of Jesus, past presidents and any other symbol of Christianity and American history they can get their hands on are revealing a shocking depth of ignorance indicative, if nothing else, of an utter failure in our public education system.

It also reveals a highly selective moral outrage. For instance, consider this question: If monuments to every American who was less than perfect are to be expunged from our collective consciousness will the virtue mob next demand the de-naming of every school and street named for Martin Luther King and the removal of every portrait and statue of the man? King, after all, has been, according to some scholars, credibly accused of spousal abuse, philandering and worse. If every one who is not as pure as distilled water is to be rendered a non-entity by the leftist puritans then why stop with white men?

But the benighted mob is impervious to questions like this. Like a forest fire feeds on wind and tinder, the left is in the grip of a hysteria that feeds on abject historical ignorance and irrationality. They're mostly twenty-somethings so they think they know everything there is to know and they're overflowing with vast surpluses of moral sanctimony.

Here's an example of this ignorance and irrationality:

Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck College at the University of London, surveyed self-described liberals and found that 44 percent of self-described liberals and 58 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” agreed that the United States should “remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore, as they presided over the conquest of Native people and repression of women and minorities.”

Of course, the native people in question, the Lakota, were themselves in possession of the land because they had brutally seized it from others who possessed it before them, and so on for millenia so who should ultimately get it? Ironically, the New York Times has joined the clamor on behalf of the Lakota, suggesting that Rushmore is a symbol of the white man's maltreatment of native Americans.

I say this is ironic because the New York Times building in Manhattan sits on land that was essentially stolen from the Lenape by the Dutch Europeans in the 17th century. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Times' owners to practice what their paper preaches and return the land their building sits on to descendents of the Lenape.

President Trump held a Fourth of July celebration on Friday evening at Mt. Rushmore which the Democratic National Committee (DNC) fatuously condemned as an event “glorifying white supremacy....Trump has disrespected Native communities time and again. He’s attempted to limit their voting rights and blocked critical pandemic relief. Now he’s holding a rally glorifying white supremacy at Mount Rushmore — a region once sacred to tribal communities,” the DNC tweeted.

About the only thing in this tweet that has any connection to the truth is that Trump held a rally at Mt. Rushmore which is on land once sacred to tribal communities, but then so was much of Manhattan. If the faces of the presidents on Rushmore are a symbol of "white supremacy" are not the skyscrapers on Manhattan likewise? Should the buildings on Manhattan be removed and the land returned to the Lenape? Why not?

In any case it's doubtful that the left really cares much for the Lakota. Most of the young people marching in the streets probably never heard of the Lakota before last week. What the left is trying to do by cutting us off from our history is the equivalent of slicing through the trunk of a tree to sever it from its roots. The trunk may teeter on the stump for a time, but it'll eventually topple. 

That's exactly what the left has in mind for the United States, and if that's what Americans really want there are plenty of candidates running in November who'd be happy to grant them their wish.

On America's Birthday

Today many Americans will celebrate their Independence Day, the day set aside to commemorate the signing of our Declaration of Independence from the Mother Country and the commencement of our nearly two hundred and thirty year experiment as a constitutional republic.

Citizens of most of the world's nations can point to aspects of their history of which they're justly proud and other aspects which they could wish never happened. Americans are no different. There's much to be proud of and some things we could wish were not part of our history. Even so, the cavils of malcontents in our universities and on our streets notwithstanding, we have much to celebrate.

America was founded on certain principles which are rarely enough observed, even in this modern era, despite the lip-service often paid to them. Our Founders declared that all men are created equal, a claim that made the eventual emancipation of slaves and full citizenship of women inevitable.

They forged a nation based on the principles that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed and that human beings are endowed by God with inherent rights that can't be taken away without due process.

These two principles were alien to the communist and socialist totalitarianisms of the 20th century, a circumstance which resulted in two world wars, countless smaller conflicts, and over 100 million corpses. Our Founders also guaranteed that we'd have the right to free speech and the freedom to practice our religion, two essential rights without which no society can be truly free.

Yes, there are black marks. We treated the Indians horribly, practiced chattel slavery for seventy years after becoming a nation, and contemporary urban crime and dysfunction is as distressing as it is undeniable, but though it may sound like boastfulness or chauvinism (I truly don't mean it to be), it's hard to think of any nation or empire in history that has been more powerful, brought greater prosperity to its people and those of the world, and has at the same time exceeded America in terms of sheer moral goodness.

The point has been made by others that America is one of the few countries where one can immigrate from anywhere in the world and become an American. What's meant by that is this: Moving to Japan doesn't make you Japanese. Moving to China doesn't make you Chinese. Moving to Mexico doesn't make you Mexican and moving to France doesn't make you French, at least not in the sense that moving to America makes you American.

The very fact that so many people want to come here, that the free world looks to America for leadership - moral, political, and military - is compelling evidence for the conviction that America is indispensable. Indeed, the fact that so many want to come here gives the lie to the left's portrayal of America as irredeemably racist, oppressive, and corrupt.

New York's governor, retorting to President Trump's call to make America great again, opined that America was never that great. Only someone clueless about American history could make such a fatuous assertion.

Where would Europe be today were it not for the United States? Not just our involvement in WWII but also our reconstruction of it in the aftermath. The Marshall Plan cost the United States $103 billion in today's dollars. What other nation would've done that? What other nation would've rebuilt Japan and return to them their national sovereignty after Pearl Harbor and a brutal war that cost almost 65,000 servicemen dead and over 200,000 wounded?

What would Eastern Europe be today had the U.S. washed its hands of European involvement after WWII and chose not to engage in the Cold War with the former Soviet Union?

What nation would have sacrificed over a million people in a civil war fought largely to abolish the institution of black slavery?

Where would Africa and much of the rest of the third world be today were it not for economic aid and health care, both public and private, donated by Americans?

If America ceased to exist in 2020 what would be the likely consequence? Europe would soon become a vassal to an expansionist Russia; North Korea would undoubtedly swallow up South Korea and perhaps Japan; China would certainly grab Taiwan and perhaps Indonesia and the Philippines; India and Pakistan, two nuclear nations, would seek to settle old scores; Radical Muslim groups would turn much of the world into an abattoir; and Israel would be in a fight for its existence against much of the Muslim world, a fight that'd probably result in nuclear war.

It's not unrealistic to fear that America is the only nation preventing much of the world from spiralling into a state of darkness and violent chaos, with freedom flickering out almost everywhere.

On this Fourth of July let's humbly and gratefully celebrate the fact that America is still the hope of freedom-loving people everywhere. Let's all work, those of us who are Americans (and even those who aren't), to keep it that way and to strive continuously to be worthy citizens of this great nation.

Racism at the New York Times

Imagine it were discovered that a white journalist at the New York Times had, as a college student, written a letter to the student paper about African Americans in which the writer claimed that the African American race was "the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager and thief in the modern world." Do you suppose that that white journalist would still be employed at the Times by the end of the day?

Surely not, but if the journalist were an African American woman describing white folks in such terms would it then be acceptable? Should she not be fired just as a white colleague would be?

Well, apparently not as Jordan Davidson at The Federalist explains:

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead essayist on New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, wrote a letter to the editor in Notre Dame’s The Observer [when she was a student there] stating that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”

Hannah-Jones claimed that the actions of European settlers and explorers such as Christopher Columbus were “acts of devils” and likens them to Hitler.

“[The whites] lasting monument was the destruction and enslavement of two races of people,” Hannah-Jones wrote.

Hannah-Jones' 1619 Project at the Times has been roundly panned by historians for its historical inaccuracies - such as her claim that the American Revolution was fought in order to maintain slavery. So bad was her history in the piece that last December five distinguished American historians wrote a letter to the magazine's editor, expressing their dismay "at some of the factual errors in the project and the closed process behind it." Their letter can be read here.

Unsurprisingly, her grasp of history while a student at Notre Dame was evidently no better than it is today. Here's more from Davidson:

Hannah-Jones claims Africans arrived in North America long before Europeans, but that unlike Europeans, Africans befriended and traded with the indigenous people. She claims pyramids in Mexico are a symbol of said friendship.

The historical and anthropological ignorance reflected in these claims is stunning, but the "hate-speech" in her letter was worse as she goes on to claim that white people today are still guilty of horrific crimes against black people:

The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community,” she writes.

“But after everything that those barbaric devils did, I do not hate them,” she wrote. “I understand that because of some lacking, they needed to [sic] constantly prove their superiority.”

Well, perhaps she's sincere when she says she doesn't hate whites (though her use of capitals for "Blacks" and lower case for "whites" is telling), but a white person having made similar comments about blacks would not only be banished to professional exile but find herself the butt of relentless ridicule by late-night comedians if, after having called blacks "barbaric devils" she then tried to deny that she hated blacks.

The Times did not respond to a request for comment on whether their employee still maintained the racist beliefs expressed in her Notre Dame letter, but again, were this a white journalist who had written something similarly offensive and ludicrous about blacks it wouldn't matter whether the writer still held those views or not, that journalist would've been cashiered the very day the college letter came to light.

But at the Times racism is evidently acceptable as long as it's manifested by "people of color." This is the same paper, after all, that employs Sarah Jeong, a sample of whose vile racist tweets can be read in Davidson's article at the above link.  

Here's a litmus test for whether what anyone, white or black, says is actually racist: reverse all the racial references in what was said, and by whom it was said, and ask whether you'd consider the statement racially offensive.

In other words, if it'd be racist if a white person said it then it'd be racist if a black person said it. To deny this would itself be racially discriminatory, would it not?

More on Gorsuch's Terrible Argument

We recently featured on VP excerpts from Rusty Reno's analysis of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County and how Gorsuch's reasoning leads to absurd results.

Recall that Gorsuch argued that if a man (or woman) were fired from a job for engaging in behavior that would've been acceptable were that employee the opposite gender then their dismissal is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In other words, the Court's ruling established that firing an employee simply for being gay or transgender is a violation of federal law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a form of discrimination based on sex.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the six-justice majority. He established a simple “rule” for when sex discrimination occurs under Title VII: if changing the sex of an employee would change the employer’s decision, then the employer has violated Title VII.

The end result may be proper, but Gorsuch's rule is bound to have some very undesirable unintended consequences. Consider this hypothetical situation proffered by attorney Jacob Roth at The Federalist.

[Gorsuch's] Bostock opinion ... provides the basis for the argument that single-sex bathrooms and locker rooms violate Title VII. Even further, Bostock provides the basis for the argument that it is a violation of Title VII to enforce sexual harassment policies that are mandatory under Title VII.

Imagine an employer that has locker rooms for its employees. There is a male locker room and a female locker room. Each has a communal changing area and a communal shower area. The men in their locker room change and shower in front of one another. The women in their locker room do the same.

The employer also maintains sexual harassment policies that are mandatory under Title VII. These policies prohibit harassing behavior that creates a hostile or offensive work environment, as is federally required.

One day, after reading the Bostock opinion, a male employee who does not identify as transgender walks into the women’s locker room. The women are disrobing in the communal changing area and some are showering. The man disrobes in front of the women, then showers. The employer immediately learns of this and informs the male employee that he has violated the employer’s sexual harassment policies and is fired.

The male employee sues the employer for sex discrimination under Title VII based on the Bostock standard that the decision to fire him for his actions would have been different if he were a woman. The male employee argues that all he did was enter the women’s locker room, disrobe, and shower, and that female employees do those exact actions all the time without penalty.

He argues that his performance of the same actions got him fired only because he was a man doing them, which constitutes sexual discrimination under Bostock in the same way that if a man and a woman at a company are both attracted to men, but only the man is fired for it, then the company has sexually discriminated against the man.

Roth goes on to consider an objection that Gorsuch's defenders might raise, but points out that the objection is easily dispensed with. The problem is that the Gorsuch rule permits a man to do anything that would be permissible for a woman to do and vice versa. If it would be permissible for a female high school coach to mingle in the locker room with her female high school athletes then Gorsuch has made it permissible for a male to do likewise.

It's a maxim among conservatives that ideas have consequences, and it's astonishing that a putatively conservative Justice would've been so oblivious to the implications of this idea.