Category Archives: TiLT News

Legal Fight Brewing Over Steve Bannon’s Academy in Italian Monastery

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Courthouse News Service

Try our Docket Alerts or Log in

Legal Fight Brewing Over Steve Bannon’s Academy in Italian Monastery

Steve Bannon plans to turn a 13th century Italian monastery outside of Rome into an “Academy for the Judeo-Christian West,” where he can mold cultural and political “gladiators” to carry out his fight against liberal elites, Islam and socialists. But Italy’s culture minister thanks that might not be such a good idea and is seeking to stop Bannon’s plans.

CAIN BURDEAU / August 27, 2019

TRISULTI CHARTERHOUSE, Italy (CN) – When Steve Bannon comes to Italy, he likes to make his way to this walled monastery hidden away from the world in the mountains south of Rome. Bannon, the globetrotting advocate of right-wing nationalism and former chief strategist for candidate and then President Donald Trump, has ambitions for this magnificent relic of medieval monastic life: He sees the old abbey one day functioning as his “Academy for the Judeo-Christian West,” a place where he can mold cultural and political “gladiators” to carry out his fight against liberal elites, Islam and socialists.

Think of it as a cauldron from which mini-Bannons and mini-Trumps might be released onto the world with a seal of approval to lead nationalist causes.

Bannon’s project is moving ahead despite the Italian culture minister’s move in May to revoke a license to operate the monastery for 19 years. The license was awarded to a conservative religious think tank tied to Bannon. Now a legal fight appears set to take place.

“The ministry has no grounds whatsoever to revoke the license or to annul the lease,” said Benjamin Harnwell, director of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, the think tank that runs the monastery.

Harnwell called Culture Minister Alberto Bonisoli’s actions “politically motivated.” Bonisoli is a member of the 5-Star Movement, an anti-establishment party with left-wing tendencies.

“I am looking forward to clearing our name and fighting as forcefully as possible when this gets to court,” Harnwell said inside the monastery in an interview with Courthouse News. He expected any legal fight to take a long time, possibly years, considering Italy’s complicated legal system.

The ministry charged that Harnwell’s think tank, which took possession of the monastery in January, has failed to pay rent and perform renovations as promised. Harnwell dismissed those allegations as untrue.

“If they [the ministry] don’t go to court, we will,” Harnwell said. “They’ve damaged our image.”

The ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment. As of July, Harnwell said the ministry had not formally ordered his institute to leave the premises.

In the meantime, Harnwell said Bannon’s visions for a nationalist academy are moving forward. He said his institute will provide more information about the academy’s courses, curriculum and degrees this autumn.

It’s not hard to imagine Bannon’s academy taking shape inside the cloister, churches, courtyards and nooks and crannies of the Trisulti Charterhouse, a 13th-century monastery.

In recent years as the monastery’s remaining monks died, the Italian government sought a new purpose for the charterhouse, which is owned by the Italian state and open to the public. The monks here tended to a prodigious collection of medicinal herbs and concocted sambuca, a sweet anise-flavored liqueur.

“For many years now it had lost its religious function,” said Giorgio Liberatori, an architect in the nearby town of Collepardo. “It was inevitable that it had to change hands.”

Liberatori said he and others in Collepardo are not opposed to Bannon’s academy taking up quarters in the monastery. He said no one else had showed much interest in the charterhouse. As for Bannon and his radical ideas, he said time would tell how having his academy close to Collepardo might affect the town. But he added: “The average citizen doesn’t care.”

Harnwell said Bannon’s academy will be housed in the former cloister, a secluded area where monks once lived in simple rooms, engrossed in prayer and silence.

Harnwell said about 1,500 people have applied, but there is space now for only about 25 students. In time, though, there could be room for as many 350 students, he said.

“Like the old monastic orders — the religious orders — would form a person into a monk, Steve wants to form someone who comes here and turn them into a gladiator,” Harnwell said. “Steve’s expression is that this is a gladiator school for culture warriors.”

These prospective “culture warriors” would be people who feel intuitively that Judeo-Christian ideas are under attack,” Harnwell said.

In a broad-ranging interview, Harnwell — a 43-year-old Englishman of working-class roots who’s worked as a Conservative Party political aide in the House of Commons and the European Parliament — went into depth about Bannon’s self-defines populist nationalist worldview, and his own views, which he characterized as libertarian and “anarcho-capitalist.”

This remote Italian monastery, where the occasional chime of bells breaks the silence, is an unlikely setting for an instruction into the thinking not only of Bannon but of Trump, who adheres to Bannon’s theories.

Harnwell denounced Islam, calling it a dangerous militant religion bent on imposing its will on others. He praised far-right leaders Britain’s Nigel Farage, who championed Brexit, and Matteo Salvini, Italy’s anti-immigrant interior minister. Salvini, he said, was Italy’s “savior.”

He called global warming a fairy tale. On government, he said it needs to be stripped away to allow capitalism to flourish. On wealth, he said there was too much envy of the rich and called policies to redistribute wealth a disaster.

An unabashed admirer of Bannon, Harnwell called him “the smartest guy” he’d ever met “without anyone being a close second.”

He said Bannon’s fundamental insight is to see politics not in a “pure left and right paradigm” but “a vertical paradigm” where “the ordinary working guy [is] being shafted by the working elites.”

“I would say that Steve’s view basically is that the little guy should have a seat at the table,” Harnwell said.

He said Trump was “the first person to win election explicitly on the Bannon paradigm” rather than a left-right paradigm. “That’s Steve’s genius,” he said.

Bannon aims to make government work for the ordinary person, Harnwell said. That, according to Bannon, is done by “deconstructing” an “administrative state” that benefits only so-called elites: politicians, financiers, intellectuals, contractors, university professors and others who gain their wealth through government policies designed to benefit the elite class.

“The state exists not to help the ordinary working guy but to help first and foremost, to benefit, the people who comprise of it and work for it,” Harnwell said. “It’s immoral.

“The elites have made themselves rich at your expense,” he said. “That’s not a Marxist paradigm here. It’s an argument that government has become too big and exists to promote the welfare of the people who work for it and the people who run it rather than the citizens.”

Harnwell said Bannon wants government to get out of people’s lives.

“Before the First World War, the only relationship most people had with the federal government was when they posted a letter,” he said. “Now it is omnipresent.”

He said the United States has “a unique role to play on the world stage” because it promotes liberty.

“So it is imperative, if you believe in liberty as I do, that that American experiment succeeds, that liberty can long endure on the face of the earth,” he said.

Harnwell said left-wing parties have abandoned their principle of “representing the ordinary worker.” For example, he said left-wing politicians now support immigrants over workers in their own countries. By doing that, he said, left-wing politicians are supporting people who will show up in a country and undercut that country’s manual workers.

“That’s not a left-wing party,” he said. He charged “the professional leftist party” doesn’t care about workers.

He argued that societies based around left-wing ideas are failures.

“All countries that are founded explicitly on social justice, economic justice principles are basket cases, empirically,” he said, and cited the example of Venezuela.

Yet he sees socialism on the rise in the West.

“Since the Second World War, I think society and the West has been shifting one degree to the left every generation,” he said.

“Here’s the irony, it’s after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is the global visible failure of communism in practice as a means of managing an economy, that those ideas then, basically unopposed, via, I think, national educating system enter the bloodstream of the culture,” he said.

“So most young people, say anyone who is under 25, will hold communist views, unless for some reason they have explicitly taken a position to avoiding that.”

Harnwell dismissed criticisms that Bannon is promoting racist and Fascist views.

“Steve points out Fascists worship the state,” he said. By contrast, he said Bannon wants the state to be curtailed. Yet at the same time, Harnwell said, Bannon wants the state “to be strong enough to protect its national integrity.”

In this view, a country “has the right and the duty” to stop “people coming in on a large scale and being trafficked in” across borders. he said. “The [U.S.] border is too porous.”

He said it was proper and moral to stop immigrants. “I don’t believe that’s against the principles of the Judeo-Christian West to do so.”

On Africa and its deep problems, which prompt so many people to look for refuge in Europe, he said the continent needs to adopt the Western model.

“We know in the West how to take people out of poverty. It’s not through socialist world distribution, it’s through promoting societies built on the rule of law, having independent judiciaries, having solid property rights as the bedrock of your society, of having an entrepreneurial society,” he said. “Africa is incredibly resource-rich. What it needs to do is imitate the West if it wants to move out of poverty. You can make that transformation in one or two generations if you embrace the right principles.”

He said many African nations suffer from “a strong element of cultural Marxism” that “blended into the bloodstream during the anti-colonial period.”

Harnwell, like Bannon, sees Islam as a major threat to the West.

He said the Prophet Muhammad was militant and anything but moderate. “Islam was on the attack for centuries from day one,” he said. “It’s clear that Islam has designs on Christendom.

“All major world religions, all of them apart from the Muslim religion, have a variation of the Golden Rule in them,” he said. “There is not a variation for the Golden Rule in the Muslim religion.

“Does Islam believe that the penalty for apostasy is death and does it believe that because that is what Muhammad said? Well, the answer is yes and yes,” he said. “It doesn’t sound so moderate to me.”

He added: “The majority of Muslims are moderate. But they are moderate because they choose not to implement certain key elements of their own religion in their personal lives.”

Asked about other threats he sees, Harnwell cited “militant secularism” because it “does not tolerate any discussion of Christian god in the political space.” He said humanity needs “Christian faith” to be able to “survive and indeed thrive.”

He then called “out-of-control” immigration an “existential threat.” He said that low birth rates in the West and increased immigration pose a “demographic challenge” that he sees as “an existential threat.”

He called the “debt structure” and “welfare commitments” of Western societies existential threats too.

“This form of capitalism which isn’t capitalism, that benefits the elites to the detriment of the ordinary worker, that is also an existential threat,” he said.

What about climate change?

“I would put anthropological climate change in the same category as I would put the tooth fairy and unicorns and Father Christmas and the abominable snowman,” he said.

He denied that science has proved climate change is happening.

“I would cite the data as the suggestion that anthropological climate change hasn’t been proven,” he said.

He said most scientists are supporting the idea of climate change out of financial interests.

They “get their money one way or another through government, and government loves the idea of climate change because it can put its tentacles into every aspect of society,” he said. “The government can get everywhere on the back of this.”

What about environmental degradation more generally?

His solution was putting more of the earth into private hands.

“Again, property rights,” he said. “What we tend to see is what we know in philosophy as the tragedy of the commons. It’s those resources which have no ownership, probably for ideological reasons, that are then exploited. People tend to care about the property they own.”

He dismissed concerns about growing inequality.

“This is why the socialists screw up on everything, because they see the economic pie as a given,” he said. “And therefore if you want poor people to have more, you’ve got to take more money from the rich and give it to the poor as a straight transfer. All that is going to do over the long term is take wealth out of the hands of people who know how to create it and give it to people who will only consume it. That’s not going make your economic territory richer.”

He said the notion that the economic pie cannot grow is mistaken.

“It doesn’t really matter, the inequality between say the top decimal and the poorest decimal,” he said. “The issue is: Do the poor have enough money to meet their needs and to improve their living condition generation by generation?

“Can you please tell me what the injustice is of letting some people who happen to be wealth creators keep more of their own property? Why is that considered morally wrong?”

He said that his views, and Bannon’s, are not far-right but echo longstanding centrist and conservative ideas. He said they are viewed as far right and extreme right because the media has demonized conservative ideas.

“What 50 years ago would have been considered centrist is now considered to be right wing, if not far right,” he said. “I don’t believe there is any great coalescence around extreme-right or far-right politics. I think it’s basically where most people would have been around the 1950s.”

He shrugged off accusations that Bannon, Trump and he are promoting racist ideas.

“Racist, anti-Semite, Fascist – Nazi, I’ve been called as well, publicly,” he said. “It doesn’t bother me at all. I learned it from Steve: Don’t give a shit about what people say about you. Just get on with what you have to do.”

He then set off for a tour of the monastery — kneeling as he went before altars inside the monastery.

All the while, he praised Bannon.

“It’s a school which is designed in his image and likeness,” he said.

The bells rang and the hour of lunch had arrived.

(Courthouse News reporter Cain Burdeau is based in the European Union.)

PROOF: THE LEFT’S LOW KNOWS NO BOUNDS- Too good to fact-check? Academic journal publishes hoax on conservative takeover of higher ed

Authors’ fake names even refer to famous 1996 hoax by physicist Alan Sokal and 2018 “grievance studies” project inspired by it.

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = “[default]” NS = “” />

0:42 / 46:04

By Greg Piper  Updated: December 3, 2021 – 10:53pm

A prestigious academic journal has egg on its face for publishing a hoax paper that claimed to find widespread concerns about “undue” conservative influence in higher education.

“Right-wing money strongly appears to induce faculty and administrators … to believe that they are pressured to hire and promote people they regard as inferior candidates, to promote ideas they regard as poor, and to suppress people and ideas they regard as superior,” according to the abstract in Higher Education Quarterly.

Peer reviewers failed to perform basic due diligence on the paper submitted in April and approved in October, neglecting, for example, to verify that authors “Sage Owens” and “Kal Alvers-Lynde III” were UCLA professors as they claimed. Owens even used an encrypted email service for correspondence with the journal.

They didn’t check whether the conservative foundations named as active funders of higher education actually existed. The “Randy Eller Foundation” is made up, while the Olin Foundation shut down in 2005.

The author who goes by Owens told The Chronicle of Higher Education that the journal didn’t even ask to see their data: “Every page has some glaring errors.”

The authors’ stated names provide a clue when spelled as an acronym: “SOKAL III.” That indicates this is the second successful hoodwink tracing its inspiration to physicist Alan Sokal’s famous parody of leftist “gibberish” in the journal Social Text in 1996.

“We wanted to improve over previous hoaxes by publishing in what was supposed to be a reputable journal,” Owens wrote in an email to Just the News.

The first successful large-scale hoax inspired by Sokal was 2018’s “grievance studies” project, which got four papers published and another three accepted before The Wall Street Journal exposed the ruse. Among the subjects: “rape culture” in dog parks and a feminist version of Mein Kampf.

Philosopher Peter Boghossian, one of those pranksters, told Just the News he suspects the new hoax flew under the radar because the paper doesn’t make “vile” or “morally repugnant” claims. Its publication shows “the peer review process is irrevocably broken,” he wrote in a text message.

Boghossian, who left Portland State University this year to start a “cognitive liberty” group, announced a “reverse Q&A tour” Thursday in which he’ll quiz students on 15 campuses about “their experience with social justice and woke ideology in their classrooms.”

Tweet URL

‘Contradictory’ methodology

The paper fooled academics including Acadia University political scientist Jeffrey Sachs, who wrote a lengthy tweet thread sharing its findings even while urging followers to take it “with a grain of salt” and acknowledging the mystery around the authors.

“Rightwing donors are corrupting academia,” Sachs said, citing the purported survey of 2,000 professors and administrators that found a “far greater and more statistically significant” effect from conservative than from liberal donors.

One explanation might be that they “see rightwing/libertarian donors as being more ideological … and therefore that their money comes with strings attached,” Sachs summarized. It raises the question whether universities “have an obligation to reject money from rightwing sources.”

Tweet URL

The paper had “obvious errors, including an obviously improper regression model and data tables which could not possibly be derived from that model,” Owens told Just the News. “Any competent social scientist should spot such errors.”

Owens specifically called out Sachs for missing “the elementary errors, which suggest he is incompetent at basic econometrics.” Sachs didn’t respond to a request to rebut Owens.

The first person to question the article’s authenticity, according to Owens, was Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler, who questioned Sachs about the “contradictory” methodology of the study.

Adler noted that contrary to the study’s assertions, conservative donations to higher ed “aren’t anywhere close” to those from liberals and that the Federalist Society does not give money to undergraduate departments.

Searches for the “Randy Eller Foundation” return nothing. “I was suspicious after spending less than 5 minutes with this paper,” Adler tweeted.

Tweet URL

‘Fun’ to stir up conspiracy theories

Following publicity, publisher Wiley & Sons retracted the paper in consultation with the journal’s editors, University College London’s Tatiana Fumasoli and VU University Amsterdam’s Christine Teelken.

The notice said the “data in the article has been identified as fabricated and the authors have not disclosed their true identities.” The paper remains live with a retraction watermark.

An unnamed Wiley spokesperson declined to answer how the article made it through peer review despite so many red flags, what went wrong and how it plans to remedy the goof.

“When the editors were first alerted to these claims, they acted quickly to investigate,” according to a statement attributed to the journal. “The actors behind this article appear to be engaging in a deliberate exercise to undermine the peer review process and disrupt the integrity of scholarly literature, which unfortunately remains an issue across our industry.”

Higher Education Quarterly is “committed to safeguarding the scholarly record, which is essential to advance the sound science that benefits us all.”

Owens told Just the News the spoof authors are “mostly curious about whether the editor in question will resign, given that this paper’s mathematics are absurd. The editor either did not read the paper or is incompetent at basic statistics.”

University of Georgia professor Robert Toutkoushian, a member of the journal’s editorial board, told the Chronicle “I had my doubts” when reading the paper following peer review. He cited the reported 83% survey response rate as a red flag.

Owens declined to specify whether they have successfully published other hoax papers, or provide more details about their identities.

“I can tell you that we are not Koch affiliated but that the UnKoch people will nevertheless believe this was a Koch conspiracy,” Owens said, referring to the billionaire philanthropist Charles Koch and his critics, including UnKoch My Campus. “We knew they would react that way and that is part of the fun.”

UnKoch My Campus Executive Director Justine Banks told the Chronicle that Owens asked them to share the hoax paper. The ruse failed that time: Banks’ group first asked UCLA if the authors were indeed affiliated.

So, Biden gets his lower oil prices.. and lower gas prices… thanks to Russia!?

Oil Crashes After OPEC+ To Proceed With Planned 400Kb/d Output Hike

Tyler Durden's Photo


THURSDAY, DEC 02, 2021 – 09:06 AM

An earlier trial balloon of a smaller 200k b/d production hike was been popped as Russia moves with a formal proposal for OPEC+ to lift oil output by 400,000 b/d for January, sending oil markets crashing.

Energy Intel’s Deputy Bureau Chief & Chief Opec Correspondent Amena Bakr confirms that “All ministers appear to be in agreement with an increment of 400k for Jan (i.e. a rollover of the current policy)” according to sources.

This is what was planned by OPEC+ but not what the market was ‘hoping’ for.

WTI plunged further on the headlines, tumbling to a $62 handle…

,,,and near 4-month-lows…

At about $66 a barrel, Brent is now down more than 20% from its October 25 peak of $86.70 barrel.

As a reminder, OPEC producers boosted output by 350,000 barrels a day in November, with the 10 countries bound by the output deal adding almost all those barrels. That’s bigger than the 254,000 barrel a day increase in their combined target, but still leaves them pumping less than they are permitted under the deal.

The new quotas are as follows…

Source: Amena Bakr

So, Biden gets his lower oil prices.. and lower gas prices… thanks to Russia!?

Thanks Vlad!

Source here

House Republicans vow to not vote for increased debt ceiling

Citing trillions of dollars of government spending proposed by Democrats, the 103 House Republicans promised not to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstance.

Source: House Republicans vow to not vote for increased debt ceiling

Over 100 Republicans in the House are vowing in a new letter that they will not vote to increase the debt ceiling — calling the issue a “problem created by Democrat spending.”

Citing trillions of dollars of government spending proposed by Democrats, the 103 House Republicans promised not to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstance, according to the letter obtained by Fox News.

“Democrats have embarked on a massive and unprecedented deficit spending spree. Without a single Republican vote, they passed a $1.9 trillion ‘Covid relief’ bill in March even though $1 trillion was still unspent from previous bipartisan Covid relief bills,” the letter said, also citing the recently passed $3.5 trillion budget resolution.

“In order for this spending to occur, our nation’s debt limit will have to be increased significantly,” it continued. “Because Democrats are responsible for the spending, they need to take responsibility for increasing the debt ceiling.”

The Republicans, led by Reps. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.), vowed they will not increase the debt ceiling if it comes “through a stand alone bill, a continuing resolution, or any other vehicle.”

Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Democrats that they should not expect any GOP support in raising the debt ceiling, after calling the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill “their latest socialist shopping list.”

Capitol building.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the Democrat-backed $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill “their latest socialist shopping list.” Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

“In just a few days, our colleagues will start ramming through yet another reckless taxing and spending spree. Trillions more in inflationary spending when families just want good jobs and stable prices. But there’s something funny happening,” McConnell said.

“Even as Democrats crow about how all this spending is so good and so needed, they’re petrified to vote for the credit limit increase that would make it possible,” he continued.

“Democrats are about to tell Republicans to go take a hike and start teeing up trillions more dollars in borrowing and spending without a single Republican vote. But at the same time they’re extolling the virtues of their latest socialist shopping list, they are afraid to up the limit on their credit card.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik.Reps. Elise Stefanik, Jim Banks, Dan Crenshaw and Andy Biggs have joined the Republican Study Committee Budget and Spending Task Force.Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

On July 31, the two-year suspension on the debt ceiling expired. Democrats have been weighing attaching the debt ceiling to a sweeping spending bill this fall, forcing Republicans to get on board.

“We should not default on our debts under any circumstances,” the GOP letter added.

“If Democrats threaten a default, it will only be because they refuse to vote for the debt ceiling increase necessitated by their own irresponsible spending. Democrats, at any time, have the power through reconciliation to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, and they should not be allowed to pretend otherwise.”

Monday’s letter comes as Democrats attempt to pass the budget resolution while facing a number of hurdles due to their razor-thin majorities in both chambers, with moderates expressing concerns about the price tag and progressives pushing for numerous controversial provisions to be included in the final reconciliation package.

Last Tuesday, the budget’s blueprint was passed 220-212, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) convinced 10 Republicans to support the bill’s framework. While the massive spending bill has yet to be written, last week’s vote allows Democrats to move forward.

CORTES: Mass Migration Was Never Part Of America’s $2 Trillion Afghan Debacle.


Source HERE.
Migration to the United States should exist for one purpose only: to enhance the prosperity and security of existing American citizens, whether native-born or legally naturalized.

This statement should not actually be controversial. To many on the Left, however, immigration is either some intrinsically inherent and pure good, or a cudgel with which to batter American culture and identity. For globalists, mass migration must be embraced, as a means to cheap labor and free votes, but now also as a matter of “social justice”. Because nothing says “equity” like stripping impoverished nations of their labor force and working them to the bone before sending them back to their American ghettoes.

This folly drives the present, dangerous rush for America to welcome hundreds of thousands of Afghans fleeing the ongoing civil war in their country as the Taliban takes over most of that land. After two decades, thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars expended by America in Afghanistan, what debts do we owe that country and its people?

For those who took material risk to assist American operations there, surely our country can assist their safe removal from immediate danger. We have many bases in the region, plus allies nearby who share cultural and religious traits with these migrants and can provide refuge. But not one of these Afghans should be coming to America. That was never the deal.

In a time of pandemic and a fast-rising economic anxiety, the present is no time to welcome vast amounts of refugees into America, many of whom will require enormous resources from taxpayers.

When I tweeted out a picture of a record-setting American airlift jam-packed with Afghanis, making the point that no American town should be burdened with this influx of largely unskilled and unvetted young men from the other side of the world, blue-check Twitter was predictably aghast.

A simple (and widely-held) opinion earned condemnation from the likes of former CIA Chief Michael Hayden, anti-gun activist David Hogg, and CNN’s Jake Tapper who used a Bible reference from the Gospel of Matthew in response to me. Strange times when a host of that network, who is married to a former operative for Planned Parenthood, uses Christian scripture to try to shame others.

MUST READ: CORTES: Welcome to Joe Biden’s American Carnage.

No one, though, addressed what the picture makes clear: the plane is packed with young, Afghani men. The best thing for that country would be for these young men to stay and save their homeland, to fight the Taliban and establish civil society. But if they choose to leave, settlement here in America should not be offered.

One huge reason: we cannot be blind to the awful experience of Europe in recent years trying to deal with a massive influx of Afghan refugees who have created enormous costs for citizens there and committed heinous crimes against Europeans. Just this summer, a 13-year-old girl was raped and murdered in Austria. Three Afghan immigrant men are charged with that horrific crime, creating a national scandal in Austria.

Speaking about this issue, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz observed, “We cannot solve Afghanistan’s problems by taking in large numbers of people into Germany and Austria, as in 2015. We have to improve the situation on the ground. If people have to flee, then I consider neighboring countries, Turkey, or safe parts of Afghanistan, to be definitely the more suitable.” Just this weekend, he reiterated his sensible stance that Austria will not accept new Afghan migrants.

The shocking crime against the 13-year-old was not out of character regarding the Austrian experience with Afghan men. Cheryl Benard is a former Rand Corporation analyst who is married to the former US Ambassador to Afghanistan. She wrote a revealing article on the Afghan migrants in Austria, titled:I’ve Worked with Refugees for Decades. Europe’s Afghan Crime Wave Is Mind-Boggling.”

She describes “the large and growing incidence of sexual assaults committed by refugees against local women.”

MUST READ: EXC: A Senior Biden Staffer Wrote An Afghanistan Policy Paper Which Was Sponsored By a Top Chinese Communist Influence Group.

The ongoing crimes are “vicious, no-preamble attacks on random girls and women, often committed by gangs or packs of young men. At first, the incidents were downplayed or hushed up—no one wanted to provide the right wing with fodder for nationalist agitation…[but] with the official acknowledgment and public reporting, a weird and puzzling footnote emerged. Most of the assaults were being committed by refugees of one particular nationality: by Afghans.”

Benard cites that the relatively small Afghan population of Austria commits a staggering half of all sexual assaults there, according to police statistics. According to Hoover Institution research, between 2015 and 2018, during the wave of refugee settlement in Austria, sexual assaults there climbed 53 percent. Next door in Germany, in 2017 and 2018 one third of all sex crime suspects were foreign-born.

Beyond the critical need to defend American women, the issue of potential for terrorism must also be considered. The sad reality of “green on blue” attacks in Afghanistan, wherein trusted Afghan partners turn on Americans or their fellow Afghan soldiers, proves that even the carefully-vetted can present dire risks.

Just last year, two American soldiers were killed and six wounded when a supposed Afghan army ally turned on them with a hail of machine gunfire. In total, over 150 American and coalition lives have been lost in such attacks. The death toll has been much worse for the Afghans. In 2019, insider attacks killed a stunning 172 Afghan armed forces fighters, slain by their own allegedly-vetted fellow servicemen.

Given these risks, we simply should not allow the globalists to, once again, inflict the costs of their disastrous war and mindless nation-building upon the citizens of America. This pattern of invading a country, massively destabilizing it, creating a refugee crisis, and then settling those migrants in America is not a sustainable path to security and prosperity. But then again, the globalists know that all too well.

The Wars of Wars Part I

A Living Organized Summary of Rounding the Earth’s Primary Mission

Mathew Crawford

Apr 17

Last edited: August 5, 2021

Source: The Wars of Wars Part I

While it will take time to weave together the many threads of the stories I’m writing at Rounding the Earth, ultimately, they do all fit together into a cogent story of how and why we are traveling through a portal of change, and whether the results will be freedom or slavery for humanity on the other side. Understanding this story of mass global change is important, and frankly difficult. I find myself forming new insights every day as I research so many topics. I do not pretend to be able to make sense of all of it, but filtering so many thousands of pages of reading into connected frameworks certainly helps. Let’s make sense of it all together.

Like it or not, a world war is underway, and it has been underway for longer than most people realize. It is the World Civil War, pitting an increasingly tyrannical ruling class against everyone else. Its development is slow at least partially because the collapse of the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. dollar, is slow. Right now major players are setting up more overt moves while making subtler plays. This could change.

This particular newsletter page will be updated from time to time as stories progress and intersect. If you want to bookmark one page at this substack, this is the one.

Please share this substack and subscribe to support this mission. I am sharing most articles for free, and working on them (and research for scientific publication) full time.

You can also follow me at or twitter.

The Bitcoin Wars

I am still working on initial articles in this series. The Bitcoin Wars will cover topics in cryptocurrency, but also the potential resolution of the Triffin Paradox should a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin supplant the rapidly failing dollar. This series will involve immediate interplay with The Monetary Wars.

The China Wars

Making sense of the world is impossible without understanding China and its history.

The Chloroquine Wars

This is the series that spurred me to start this substack as I found myself banned from social media time and time again for talking through facts about medicine during the pandemic. Many of these articles are likely to be wrapped into a book at some point.

The Culture Wars

Politics is downstream of culture, so it makes sense that much of the world civil war starts here.

The Education Wars

How most children are raised into submission and how to avoid it.

Game Theory

The mathematical (more logic than computation) framework for evaluating economics and civilization. Learning about game theory will help you better understand many of the harder topics among these articles.

The Kunlangeta

Kunlangeta is the eskimo word for psychopaths.

The Information Wars

Stories of propaganda in context with the current world war. Under development.

The Monetary Wars

Money makes the world go ’round.

Reality Show Politics

Does this all look entirely natural, or often scripted? What are the implications?

The Religion Wars

Because war sometimes comes down to cohesion.

The Wars of Wars

Putting the pieces together to make sense of the World Civil War

  • Engineering Dependence

  • Engineering Independence

CORTES: Welcome to Joe Biden’s American Carnage.

CORTES: Welcome to Joe Biden’s American Carnage.

August 17, 2021 Afghanistan, Analysis, inflation, Joe Biden, open borders, Vaccine No comments

In his Inaugural Address, President Donald J. Trump promised that the misery inflicted on everyday Americans by globalists, via constant war and economic abuse, would end with a new America First agenda. He pledged, “this American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” And stop it did, as Trump ended senseless wars and ushered in record-setting wage growth in 2019 before the CCP virus hit America like an epidemiological Pearl Harbor.

But now, under Joe Biden, the carnage begins anew, with astounding swiftness and scale, only months into his administration. Biden’s failures exceed even the most dire prognostications of his fiercest critics prior to him assuming the presidency under dubious electoral circumstances.

Presently, America’s mood plunges, as evidenced by the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey which is widely followed by economists and financial markets. On Friday, that index saw one of the steepest drops in its decades-long history. After climbing from Spring 2020 lockdown lows of 71.8 to 81.3, the preliminary August reading crashed back to 70.2, surrendering all pandemic recovery gains, and hitting a 10 year low.

Little wonder that US citizens report such pessimism given the concurrent crises created by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris:


Consumer negativity flows mainly from the dreadful news on staggering price increases. First, the Consumer Price Index reported another 5.4 percent annualized inflation increase, the steepest such advance since 2008 and further evidence that the recent surge in prices is structural and not “transitory” as the White House would have us pretend.

Then, the Producer Price Index revealed a staggering 7.8 percent inflation rate at the wholesale level, the worst number in the history of the current index (going back to 2010), and likely the worst producer price acceleration since the early 1980s at the end of Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation.”

MUST READ:  Unmitigated Disasters: Biden’s First Months Have Been Some of America’s Worst.

This inflation surge results directly from the massive spending and borrowing of the Biden/Schumer/Pelosi agenda, aided and abetted by eunuch Republican senators bereft of the fortitude to stand their ground against a suddenly deeply unpopular Biden.

Open Borders.

Even the incompetent chief of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, conceded in leaked audio discussions that the open borders madness grows “unsustainable” and predicted that “we’re going to lose.” The numbers reveal a torrent of illegal trespassers into America, with 212,672 illegal migrants encountered at our southern border in July alone, the highest total in two decades.

Scorching summer heat did not deter this human tsunami which included, for the fifth month in a row, all-time record totals of unaccompanied minors.

Medical Apartheid.

While Biden eliminates our borders and incentivizes those breaking-and-entering into our country, he actually considers shutting down domestic interstate travel to citizens of our republic who make rational and personal medical decision to forego the new COVID mitigation therapies, widely advertised as vaccines.

Joe Biden purposefully leaves America’s figurative door wide open to any and all comers while simultaneously sending government agents to knock on the literal doors of citizens to pressure them to inject an experimental medicine that many of them do not need or want. How will these leftists explain why minority Americans, with severely lagging vaccine rates, deserve new legal segregation?

Afghanistan Implosion.

Regarding minorities and other working-class constituencies, they paid the heaviest price for the disastrous Afghan War. Globalist elites pushed a nonsensical nation-building experiment for two decades. Think-tanks and the military-industrial complex grew rich. But the price for interventionist folly was paid primarily by young men from places like rural Tennessee and the urban barrios in the Bronx.

MUST READ:  These Gun Myths Are Driving Biden’s Anti-2nd Amendment Policy Push.

Trump thankfully wound down this adventurism. Biden’s lack of planning and foresight turned the exfiltration process into a disaster that still unfolds right now. It appears that, within days of a final US withdrawal of personnel, the Taliban will be back in power, only this time heavily armed with materiel bought by US taxpayers.

Given these myriad, historic failures, what can be done to mitigate this rapid descent into American carnage?

On inflation, options are limited after the feckless GOP failed so miserably on the infrastructure bill and its evil twin, the Green New Deal reconciliation behemoth. But, some leverage still exists via the debt ceiling, if worthless Lindsey Graham and minority Mitch McConnell can find backbones. On open borders, strong state leaders like Ken Paxton show initiative with his successful suit against Biden’s asylum process abuses. Governors Abbott and Ducey need to step up with more state enforcement to counter federal inaction.

Regarding medical apartheid, red state legislatures and governors must follow the strong lead of Governor Ron DeSantis and stop employers and cities from abusing the privacy and rights of citizens. On Afghanistan, few levers avail themselves to the GOP presently, but this epic failure, the worst foreign policy collapse since the fall of Saigon, must become a central tenet of America First campaign pledges into 2022, an agenda of overseas realism and restraint.

In these very dark days for America, patriots must think creatively and act forcefully to stop the carnage inflicted by Biden and his cabal of credentialed White House dilettantes who fetishized his new administration as an episode of West Wing.

August 17, 2021 5:25 pm

Babies born during COVID-19 pandemic have lower IQs: Study says

See source article and study below

IQs Dramatically Dropping During Covid

Babies born during COVID-19 pandemic have lower IQs: Study says

COVID-19 has been debilitatingly boring for newborns, disturbing new research has found.

Scientists have discovered that the coronavirus pandemic significantly impacted the intelligence of children born during it: Living the entirety of their lives in lockdown has seriously stunted their cognitive development.


Researchers analyzed the cognitive performances of 672 children born in Rhode Island, 188 of them born well into the pandemic (after July 2020), 308 born before it (prior to January 2019) and 176 of them born during its beginning stage (between January 2019 and March 2020). They found that children born during the pandemic have pronouncedly lower IQs than those born before it.

“Parents are stressed and frazzled. The ability to course-correct becomes smaller the older that child gets.”

Sean Deoni

“It’s not subtle by any stretch,” lead study author and Brown University associate professor of pediatric research Sean Deoni told the Guardian of the trend. “You don’t typically see things like that, outside of major cognitive disorders.”

Authors attribute the pattern to children being cognitively impaired from spending so much time inside with overwhelmed parents during the past year. While many adults have managed to tough it out, so much isolation at a critical juncture in the mental progress of infants has likely caused lasting damage.

Not being exposed to the wider world as much as pre-pandemic children and instead spending their infancy with stressed adults has left them at a significant mental disadvantage than their slightly older peers, according to the not-yet-peer-reviewed findings published Wednesday.

see also


Teacher had two pregnancies, four children in lockdown

“Parents are stressed and frazzled … that interaction the child would normally get has decreased substantially,” said Deoni, adding that the lack of stimulation during the pandemic has created setbacks that will be hard for children to overcome. “The ability to course-correct becomes smaller the older that child gets.”

Children from less financially secure families were impacted the most, researchers noted.

“Perhaps not surprising that children from lower socioeconomic families have been most affected as this resonates with many of the other financial, employment and health impacts of the pandemic,” University College London child health professor Sir Terence

Brown University Study
Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [608.11 KB]

Episode 1,123 – Massive Revolts Against Covid Restrictions

Kassam: Concern And Worry Has Turned To Rage

Source: Kassam: Concern And Worry Has Turned To Rage

Concern and worry has turned to rage, and they discuss the ever nearing debt ceiling. Our guests are: Mike Lindell, Dave Clements, Frank Gaffney Stay ahead of the censors – Join us Ai

Source: Episode 1,123 – Massive Revolts Against Covid Restrictions

Exclusive: Victor Davis Hanson on the Assault on Meritocracy, Politicization of the Virus, and the ‘Platonic Noble Lie’

Watch Now: Exclusive: Victor Davis Hanson on the Assault on Meritocracy, Politicization of the Virus, and the & Platonic Noble Lie

“When you don’t speak up, you get the Robespierre brothers in the French Revolution…you get Mao [Zedong]…You get the Salem witch trials on a continental scale…a return to the Dark Ages.”

  on standing up to woke ideology

American Thought Leaders




Exclusive: Victor Davis Hanson on the Assault on Meritocracy, Politicization of the Virus, and the ‘Platonic Noble Lie’

There will be “no safe space, no sanctuary from wokeism until the system starts to erode the safety and the security of the elite that created it,” says classicist and historian Victor Davis Hanson.

In this episode, Hanson breaks down the problems he sees plaguing American society today, from the assault on meritocracy to the “Frankenstein monster” of moral relativism.

Throughout society today, elites justify their control of or manipulation of information as for the good of the people, Hanson says. It’s the “noble lie”: “I’m smarter than you. I’m your platonic guardian. I can lie for your own good…Just don’t dare suggest I’m lying,” Hanson says.

Jan Jekielek: Victor Davis Hanson, so great to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Victor Davis Hanson: Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek: Victor, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how some people call us living in a post-truth world. Others I’ve spoken with on this show describe it as an epistemic crisis.

I want to talk about this, but I’ve been watching this play out—you and I have both been watching this play out: how this story of the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus has changed over the last year and a bit. It’s pretty fascinating.

Mr. Hanson: Well, remember what happened. The Chinese government said that this was some kind of bat or pangolin jump from nature to human transmission. We had the utmost confidence in the WHO, World Health Organization, and they confirmed that. Dr. Tedros said that it was non-transmissible between humans and it originated in a wet market.

There had been little rumors that there was a Level 4 virology lab in Wuhan, so that was the narrative. Donald Trump, remember, was doing trade deals at the time with China, so he actually accepted all of this.

Dr. [Anthony] Fauci was telling us, as the head of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that we shouldn’t worry and it won’t be a pandemic. For the first January and February, that was the narrative. Then when it started to spread, people started to notice that people in Wuhan had been locked down from other parts of China, but they were perfectly able or maybe encouraged to go to European ports of entry or LAX or JFK.

I think we had about a million people in that 11- or 12-day period when the Chinese communist government said, “Nobody from Wuhan is going to get near us, but you’re all going to go to the United States, if you wish.” So that was starting to break down this narrative that it was just a benign infectious coronavirus, and then suddenly people started to whisper there was a Chinese military presence in the lab.

There were dissident voices who said that the Chinese government was not telling you the truth about the severity or the transmissibility or the infectiousness of the virus, and then there were people, dissident voices who said, “We don’t have an animal species with the virus. We only have the human species, so we’ve got to find the animal.”

Then all of a sudden, this was hit with huge pushback—Dr. [Peter] Daszak, Dr. Fauci, WHO. How dare you try to be such a racist? Then the Chinese communist government was giving us propaganda talking points, which the left eagerly [used].

Then Donald Trump, in late April, excuse me, late March, started to say that was the virus and that thing came from the lab, and they were experimenting on gain-of-function, and he had probably seen intelligence reports. In fact, I think he said he did, and that became taboo because Donald Trump had said something.

This time, it wasn’t just, “There is no Russian collusion,” or “Hydroxychloroquine has efficacy,” but it was, “The Wuhan lab is connected with the origins of the virus.” So anything that Donald Trump said was true had to be false.

It was an election year, after all. Then the scientific community created—we created this word, “the science.” The science says, the genome says, the virologist said. Beneath this entire façade, there were motivations. Dr. Fauci had subsidized Echo Health, Dr. Daszak, with sizable grants who then had rechanneled some of that money into the virology lab to conduct gain-of-function research that was banned in the United States.

So then people reacted accordingly. We would not want American public to think that we encouraged a gain-of-function ability of a virus that was otherwise confined originally to a bat or pangolin, but we took that virus and changed it and it got out of this lab. That was about a year’s narrative.

My interest in all of this is not that it became politically incorrect to question the wet market thesis and to suggest the lab, but if you think about it rationally, a lot of people died. Just think if in January or February, the Chinese government had come out and said, “We were engaged in research, and we are not solely culpable because American public health officials gave us some money, so we’re jointly culpable, and we’ll jointly solve this problem. But this thing is really scary because it’s a gain-of-function, unnatural, engineered virus.”

The whole world would have just panicked, and we would have had lockdowns, and we would have had quarantines early. We might have stopped it.

But instead, anybody who suggested this was demonized, ostracized, canceled. Nobody cared about the truth. The truth was [evaluated by] are the aims or the ends to hurt Donald Trump? If it is, any means necessary are justified.

Mr. Jekielek: This wasn’t just the politicians and the bureaucrats that were holding this line, but there were major scientific periodicals. I’m thinking of “Nature,” one of the preeminent biology journals in the world, at least one of them, that were also very much holding this line, shockingly so, I think.

Mr. Hanson: Yes, I think one of the most egregious examples was “Lancet” in Britain where Dr. Daszak had actually encouraged a group of preeminent virologists and epidemiologists to speak with one voice and condemn anybody who would dare connect the lab with the origins of COVID, even though they were in the same city, very logical connection to be made.

What he didn’t tell us, under the guise of “the science,” was that he was engaged, as we said, in transferring funding to this lab, and more importantly, some of the people that he was organizing to sign that letter had conflicts of interest as well. The letter was not: let’s open a debate and investigation. The letter was that this is anti-scientific, or nonscientific, or how dare you?

Because looming behind all these discussions is the unmentionable, the unfathomable, the thing that terrifies us, and what would that be? That would be that an American preeminent scientist, doctor, medical professional, architect of national health policy—a Dr. Fauci, for example—knowingly channeled gain-of-function research money through a third party to China, and that that had something to do with an enhanced virus that then leaked when that laboratory was under suspicion prior of having lax security measures.

If that were true, then if you reduce it down to its essence, the United States had some culpability and did not tell the world that they had subsidized the creation of this satanic virus.

Mr. Jekielek: So you think this is all a political construct then or is there something deeper here?

Mr. Hanson: The lesson of all of this is multi-faceted. It has shaken the confidence in professionals with letters after their name—so BA, MA, PhD, JD, whatever the particular rubric is. We don’t believe that the World Health Organization is immune from Chinese propaganda.

We don’t believe, after we read the emails from Dr. Fauci, that because he’s an eminent MD and researcher that he deserves utmost respect, especially when he said that he deliberately mislead us about masks, so that people wouldn’t have a run on masks.

He deliberately mislead us about herd immunity so that people would get vaccinated. In other words, he used what we in classics call the Platonic noble lie. I’m smarter than you, I’m your platonic guardian. I can lie for your own good. You, the deplorables, are ignorant. You’ll benefit from my lie. Just don’t dare suggest I’m lying.

It really shook our confidence in that and then all of these organs of liberal expression in the media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Network News. We all thought that they were in the civil liberties tradition. The more light, remember, democracy dies in darkness, so to speak, bring the light out. But they were actually collaborating with the establishment scientific community and the progressive political movement to squash any mention of a lab.

And then they did something that was, I think, unconscionable. When Donald Trump tried to irritate the Chinese, and he called it the Chinese virus, he was doing what we do by calling it the Spanish flu of 1918, or the Ebola virus because, or Lyme disease in Connecticut.

We’re speaking in the San Joaquin Valley. I grew up with something called Valley fever. I went to Stanford University and people say, “You live in the valley? What’s that Valley fever you guys all die of?” The point is that you always have a geographical connotation, and all Trump was doing is trying to needle them or troll them, but he was not being racist.

But then they fabricated this enormous narrative that Donald Trump was a racist, and therefore, nothing he said could be valuable. This would be later on very valuable in this post-truth world to say that even though data showed that overwhelmingly on a per capita basis, African-American male youth were overrepresented, if I can use that term, in attacks on Asians, and these were hate crimes that were not commensurate with their percentages of population, it didn’t matter.

People said, “We’re not going to report that crime,” or “we’re going to get a member of the Asian-American community to say that it’s still white people doing this because Donald Trump created the climate by using the word China or Wuhan virus.” So all of this was not connected with reality. It was not fact-based.

Mr. Jekielek: I think we’ve been talking about this idea that reality, what actually happened in a situation, seems to in past years become a lot less relevant or a lot less important to the general discourse. That of course can be used for political expediency. There’s an ideological bent to this.

Mr. Hanson: Yes. Well, in the Western empirical tradition, the Socratic tradition, the Aristotelian tradition, there were always dissidents. We call them the sophists. Sophist was not a bad word in antiquity. It just meant somebody who was wise like a sophist.

It could be a deprecatory word, but basically they challenged facts and reality. They said, “If I can prove an argument to you that you can be persuaded by words, then it’s true, or otherwise you wouldn’t be able to be persuaded,” and so the sophists began saying that there were things that were relative. You say honey is sweet. That’s only because you think it’s sweet. And then this person doesn’t like honey. Therefore, it’s not sweet—rather than, let’s systematically, empirically, in the inductive mood, get 100 people, poll them, and 99 percent will say, “Honey is sweeter than salt.” Therefore, it’s sweet.

But you see, they always take the exception to destroy the function or the foundation of empiricism. So that wasn’t new.

In the 19th century, Marxism—based on, there was Hegel and Nietzsche who were contributors to it—but it said, “These norms, these traditions, these laws, these canons are artificially constructed, and they’re constructed by a power class, people who inherited wealth or influence or got it through ill-gotten gains.”

And they’ve set up an arbitrary system of rules. They call this shoplifting, so they put you in jail when you go into a store and take something that’s not yours, but who says that they didn’t commit a crime to have the money to have that store?

So it was a method of being relativist and say that every single crime or every single thought, there was a class struggle behind it. Take that idea from Marx, and over the next century, it was going to be translated in the Frankfurt School, but especially by people in Italy like Gramsci and then back here in the United States, by Herbert Marcuse.

I was a student of Norman O. Brown’s at UC Santa Cruz. They said that this relativism is not just Marxist class struggle because after all, we don’t really have a class struggle in the United States. Free market capitalism can make a guy on Monday who’s middle class on Tuesday wealthy, and vice versa.

But they said, “It’s racist,” and race is immutable, it’ll never change. LeBron will be a victim the rest of his life, so will Oprah, so will Meghan Markle. It doesn’t matter how much money they have. This was a very valuable tool for the left because it said, “You don’t have to worry about losing your constituency.” LeBron is always going to be a victim because he’s black, and he’s always suffering from an oppressor class that have set up arbitrary rules, and so now when we look at this woke movement, this anti-empirical movement you’re talking about, CNN, Don Lemon can be a multi-millionaire, it doesn’t matter. He is a victim because he’s black, because the society is systemically racist.

Then notice how the vocabulary came in from the postmodernists. If you can’t see it, and it’s not fact-based, then it’s systemic, it’s insidious, or it’s a micro-aggression. So they had to come up with words to create a reality that otherwise wasn’t observable to the senses, and that was an untruth.

But basically, we’re in a climate that started on campus with academics, and it’s now permeated the larger culture that says crimes, laws, SAT scores, ACTs, GPAs, these are all constructs that are used to discriminate against people that don’t have access to power, and these people in our modern American society are more likely to be oppressed because of race.

We’re speaking in Fresno County. I can go right out my door and find 10 white people that are 20 years old that have no privilege. They’re either without BAs or high school degrees, and they’re working as welders, forklift drivers, long haul truckers. But according to this critical racial theory, they have a privilege that Oprah, the $2 billion worth Oprah, lacks because they’re white, and they exercise that privilege every day when they drive their forklift around.

That’s where we are. It’s like Alice through the looking glass. Everything’s upside down.

Mr. Jekielek: This is something I’ve been thinking about. Why this apparent war on merit, or war on even talent, I suppose?

Mr. Hanson: When you mention talent, you just mentioned a hierarchy. So if I was a sophist of the ancient or modern brand, I would say to you, “Well, what does talent mean? Define talent for me.”

You’re going to say, “Well, Victor, when you want to see if you’re going to be first chair violin, or second chair violin, or third chair in an orchestra. We’re going to put one person behind a wall and the other person behind a wall so you don’t know their identities, and you’re going to listen to the music.”

I’m going to say, “Oh yes,” but one person brought up in a particular cultural environment knows the technique of pleasing a particular violin strain to that particular audience that’s also privileged, and who to say is that strain is not as or more or less engaging than the person who happens to be a person of color?

I’m not making this up. This is now an attack on blind merit, so to speak, and this applies to everything. The danger of it is that there’s no end to it, it’s nihilistic, and it starts to impair the safety of society.

I’ve been to a lot of places in the world, and one of the things I always say to myself: why does the bathroom not work? Why is there trash outside? Why is the bus broken down? Why when somebody pulls out in front of somebody, they get out and fight?

I always come with the same conclusion: because they hire their first cousin. In other words, when I go to the Middle East, it’s a tribal society, and merit is not a criterion that people respect. It’s got a higher cronyism than the United States. We all have that, but it’s the aberration, not the norm.

Once you get rid of merit, and you start to use deductive qualifications, then you’re going to have an insidious decline. You can see it, if you think over the last 50 years in the age of affirmative action. What was the joke that everybody said? I think it was Cassius Clay, later, Muhammad Ali, when he was flying once, he said, “I want to make sure this pilot is of a particular race.” He was trying to say that he didn’t want affirmative action. They used to say nuclear plant operator.

The reason I mention that is that now we know that United Airlines is going to have pilot training that’s going to be based on racial criteria on who is going to be accepted, not prior skills or requisites.

So there will be no sacrosanct, no safe space, no sanctuary from wokeism until the system starts to erode the safety and the security of the elite that created it, and we’re starting to see that a little bit already.

Mr. Jekielek: For example, in Portland, the Antifa protests have turned into a whole lawless sector in the middle of Portland, presumably. So how is it that this just wasn’t dealt with for such a long time?

Mr. Hanson: Well, you remember the mayor, as I recall, of Portland said it was going to be a summer of love, I think. We had all of these mayors—I get them confused—the Seattle mayor, the Portland mayor, and the Minneapolis mayor.

Basically, if I could conflate them, they said that brick and mortar didn’t matter. If you burn down a precinct or a federal courthouse, it didn’t matter because these were symbols of authority that was unearned or ill-gotten, and that this natural exuberance would play itself out if we appeased it.

In other words, the laws of human nature no longer apply, that somebody will do something until there’s a deterrent to stop them. What stops them? What ultimately stops them? Society reaches a critical tipping point when people—the majority of the people, whether they’re vigilantes in San Francisco in 1850, or whether they’re the community of Salem, Massachusetts, when they’re starting to burn witches on charges of witchcraft—at some point, somebody says, “The society can no longer exist if this continues.”

What would be some of the things I’m talking about? If you have areas in Portland, or Seattle, or Minneapolis where the downtown is barricaded, where people have died there, where it’s filthy, then that’s something that people are going to be worried about.

If you go to Venice Beach on the way to Santa Monica, and you see people living like they’re out of the 8th century—feces, poor people, violence, tribalism.

Or if you’re in San Francisco, and you see a video of a person who rides his bike into a Walgreens and then in front of the security guard, fills up a trash bag with things, steals them unapologetically, is let go because he feels that it’s less than $1,000, so the lunatic district attorney will not charge him.

Well, that’s a breakdown in the order of society. We’re not talking about elite squabbles on who gets into Princeton and who doesn’t. We’re talking about getting up in the morning and being able to survive one more day.

When that is questioned—and we’re getting close in the major cities—then you’re going to have a gut check time. People are either going to say, “You know what? It’s lost. I’m heading out toward the rural areas. I’m going to find a community in Utah, or Nevada, or something, or I’m going to stay and fight.”

I don’t have an answer because, as an American, I think this is a collective madness that happened with George Floyd, the pandemic, the scares of the coronavirus, the lockdown, the quarantine, the self-induced recession, the George Floyd protests, the election year, the weird early voting mail-in ballots—all of those were forced multipliers of the madness.

Locked in, people were watching TV or computers and not interacting. I think that’s collective madness. I have to hope it’ll wane now, but maybe the virus is so deeply embedded now, it can’t be exiled.

Mr. Jekielek: What virus exactly are you talking about here?

Mr. Hanson: Well, I’m not talking about the recession virus, all those viruses, or the George Floyd reaction viruses, or the quarantine virus, or the election virus, but the woke virus.

That is the idea that somewhere in this annus horribilis of 2020, we collectively lost our mind, and we said that we’re going to adopt the culture and the code and the values of the Salem Witch Trials, the Reign of Terror in 1793 in France, and the McCarthyite period in the United States, where we’re going to cancel a person out if we find one incorrect thought or utterance. And we’re going to completely reject the civil rights movement and the visions of Martin Luther King, so the color of our skins is a very critical requisite of who we are, and not the content of our character.

That’s where we are, and we know from Iraq, Rwanda, and the Balkans where that leads. It leads to nihilism, deadly nihilism.

Mr. Jekielek: This is interesting. There’s been a lot of discussion about critical race theory. Of course, this is one of the ideologies behind what you’re talking about. There’s this element where the people who are advocates will say, “Well, you don’t really understand what it is,” and so forth.

Mr. Hanson: Well, critical means that it’s critical of the norm, and theory means that it can’t be proved, so it’s not a fact. It’s a suspicion.

It started in—there were elements of Marx in Freud. Think of that. Those are the two pernicious thinkers of the 19th century. Marx said that all of human experience can be defined as oppressor versus oppressed, or victim versus victimizer. There is no middle class. If there is a middle class, it’s only the deluded who think they’re middle class. So there’s this tension. Anybody who has things got them, ill-gotten gains, what we call now under critical race theory, honor and privilege, and then there are the people who have a right to take it from them and redistribute it.

Okay, that was the Marxist end. Then Freud came along and said, “What you and I are doing right now is not who we are. These are just superficial manifestations of deep-seated urges. If we were under psychoanalysis, or we got drunk, the real us would come out. The hang ups that we use to suppress our inner self cannot be taken seriously.” And that was very important because critical theory then adopted the idea that norms are not only to be termed them versus us, but what people say cannot be trusted.

If you say, “I’m not racist, I’ve never said the N-word.” They said, “Yes, but you said colored people instead of people of color. That suggests to me that deep down inside you really wanted to say the N-word. Or you live in a certain way that is systemically racist. You don’t know it, but I’m trained to fathom it.”

So a critical racial theory workshop specialist can, in Freudian fashion, can find your symptoms and say, “Ta da, he’s a racist. It’s insidious, it’s systemic.”

Those were the two fountainheads of critical theory. And then when you add the third necessary component—World War I and World War II, where Europe committed collective suicide—you saw it in painting, poetry. After World War I, they took something like Impressionism, which was a take off on classical reality, and then they went into Dadaism and Surrealism and got into Jackson Pollack.

Well, art never looked like anything the eyes saw. Poetry didn’t rhyme, it had no particular vocabulary. T.S. Eliot had seemed radical, and he would be, what, conservative. He was very soon compared to what was called poetry. You could throw anything on a page, just like you could with paint, and it was a poem. Then there were certain schools that grew up in that general period of depression.

Then this accelerated in World War II. When the French army, the bulwark of the West, with Churchill’s great faith that stopped Nazism, the very country that said, “They shall not pass” collapsed in six weeks in 1940 in May and June, how do you explain that to future generations? You don’t, so you come up with this French post-structuralism, post-modernism that you really either didn’t collapse or that it believed in fake laws or traditions.

You say anything other than what an empiricist would say, “Well, it was inevitable because you were teaching in the 1920s it was illegal to mention Verdun in a positive sense.” You just said it was a nihilistic bloodbath, whether then the French army saved France from Germany. Socialism was deeply embedded, and this is the net logical fruition.

What I’m getting at is that a lot of people, to explain reality that they did not like or they could not accept, took earlier Freudism, Marxism, and then critical theory was born in the Frankfurt School and Gramsci, and then that became critical legal theory.

We saw that in the 1980s in what people said. Originally, there were elements of truth in it. If you snort cocaine and you’re wealthy, you go five years to prison. If you cook it, and it’s crack cocaine, you got 20, because you’re black. Well, there may have been some truth to that.

But they expanded that to all of Western jurisprudence, that you don’t look at the law and you don’t look at the manner in which the law was made. You look at who benefits and who suffers from the law, and then therefore, you adjudicate it—whether it has any moral or legal authority.

And that was very important because the whole sanctuary city movement where you nullify federal laws based on a racist, oppressive, federal immigration law. Notice what was ironic about it was nullification of law was always a right-wing concept, so the left told us. It was what Andrew Jackson tried to fight with South Carolina in 1832. It was what caused the Civil War.

It was what George Wallace said in the door at the University of Alabama when he said, “I don’t have to follow federal law. This is the state’s rights.” Suddenly, state’s rights became great. You can nullify federal law because it’s for a noble purpose, so it was relativism par excellence.

That’s where we are, where every single idea is not factually based. I’m not exaggerating. I’m getting back to that earlier point. So if you have data that, let’s take an example, that non-white minority groups commit hate crimes against whites and each other at higher rates than in their percentages of the population than whites, that’s a data point.

It doesn’t matter. Whites are responsible for that because they have set up arbitrary norms of assessing that data, and they don’t tell you that a 22-year-old African-American male in New York walked up, took a hammer, and hit an Asian because he felt depressed or that he was exploited or that the larger society created him is responsible. That’s what critical race theory tends to do.

Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned the education in France in the 1920s, that’s interesting. There’s been some pushback that you talked about that you’ve started seeing. We’re seeing, for example, parents pushing back in K-12 education against critical race theory being taught, or the world being taught or whatever subject being taught, through the lens of one of these critical theories.

At the same time, we have people pushing back against that, saying—there are people pushing for legislation, and there are people saying, “Hey, wait a sec. The government shouldn’t be legislating what can be taught and not taught in schools.” There’s an interesting microcosm here.

Mr. Hanson: I think there are two things going on there, and one is that there are enough people who realize that every totalitarian movement, whether it’s national socialist, or communist, or Marxist, has to eventually address K-12 education because that’s where the future generations come from.

If you can take the child away from the home, and you can create a new man or a new woman, then that becomes an extremely valuable resource because if they’re trained right, that the higher morality is to stamp out racism, and they go home and hear their parents talk—well, their parents are not going to say anything racist, 99.9 percent. But they’re going to say things, which according to critical race theory could be interpreted that way.

The parents understand that, and they know what had happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and other places, so they’re saying, “Do not take my children, brainwash them, and ultimately turn them against me, because that’s what you’re doing.”

That’s very important because that’s the strongest bond in nature—between a child and his parents or her parents—and so I think that explains why people say, “We won’t have a society if these leftists turn the youth of America against us.”

The second thing is, very quickly, they understand that none of these woke issues have a 50 percent constituency—not open borders, not critical race theory, not the New Green Deal, not the cancel culture, not identity politics, none of it. So in a calm environment, people are not willingly going to embrace this wokeism.

But given a pandemic—Hillary said that. She said, “Thank God for the pandemic; it changed everything.” Without a pandemic, without a lockdown, without a recession, without George Floyd, without riots, without Trump, we wouldn’t have this state of hysteria. We’ve got to make it last. You never let a plague go to waste, and that’s where they are.

Finally, what people are worried about in the era of untruth, is that the people who are supposed to police the police, as the poet Juvenal said, “The experts versed in science are supposed to audit the scientists. They are the ones that are most suspicious.”

By that, I mean you can say that a person under 60 has a 99.97 percent chance of not becoming seriously—or dying, I should say—from COVID, or under, say 16, 99.99 percent of not dying, and therefore they don’t need to be vaccinated. If they have antibodies, especially, they don’t have to be. That’s a scientific fact.

But if that goes against a particular creed, or a government idea, or a lockdown, or something, or a mask wearing, then it will be discarded. So that’s what’s scary on matters of vaccination.

I’ll just give you one example. A person called me the other day, a pretty prominent person, doesn’t matter. He’s not somebody who is just a paranoid conspiracist. I mean prominent in the sense he reads widely.

He says to me, “I have high antibodies. I got a bad case of COVID. This organization will not let me attend unless I get vaccinated. My doctor has told me that people with my 90 plus titer, whatever that means, if they get a vaccination they have a larger, much greater chance of having a bad reaction, and my naturally acquired immunity at that level is superior, at least equal to a vaccination. I have proof of it, three. I have the test. Why can I not go to this organization without getting a vaccination that’s going to imperil my health?”

Somewhere behind all of this is Fauci’s “noble lie”. Somebody is thinking, either Fauci or somebody like him, is thinking, “Ah, but if we say that he does not have a, he has an excuse, he doesn’t have an excuse, he’s immune from the virus, then we’ll loosen the requirement, or we’ll need to have authenticity, so we’ll just lie and say, “You don’t have immunity. You have to be vaccinated.”

Only people with two shots, Moderna or Pfizer, maybe one, they have real immunity. Acquired immunity is counterfeit, and that’s pretty much where we are. You see people that will say, “I got a really bad case of COVID.” We’ll say, “Why didn’t you get vaccinated?” They’ll say, “I don’t want to get a bad reaction. I got better immunity than you.” Says who? We think they’re renegades.

This is a pretty conservative area and it’s kind of isolated, but if you and I get in the car right now and backroad in central California, I think about one out of every three people will drive by alone in a car, half of them vaccinated according to statistics, with a mask on.

There is zero chance that when you’re driving down Mountainview Avenue with a mask on inside your car, you’re going to be better or worse protected. You’re not going to be protected from anything because you’re vaccinated. There’s no pathogen anywhere in your car. Why wear a mask?

Mr. Jekielek: It’s interesting. It goes back to this question that’s been on my mind, which is basically, so there’s these noble, let’s say, noble lies that people may want to perpetrate for the good of society, ostensibly.

But that exists independently. It can exist independently of this, let’s say, the woke ideology or these Marxian ideologies. But it’s the intersection of these is what I find, I guess, fascinating because that’s what this year, in a way, has been that.

Mr. Hanson: I think so. I think the value of the Trump presidency was it was a catalyst, or maybe some kind of elixir that people drank, and it showed out what the pathologies were of America. He had that ability to scrape off the scab and show the putrid wound beneath, and so it was very clear, I think, to all of us by the first eight months, to take the example of Russian collusion, that Christopher Steele was a faker, that he had no sources, and he would later admit to that in a British court, that he had no evidence.

But people who were very supposedly well-versed in journalism or academia or political science kept saying, “collusion,” “indictment,” “bombshell,” “walls are closing on Trump” because they felt that the Russian collusion narrative was valuable.

It was a noble lie because it would weaken Donald Trump, and if it weakened Donald Trump, poor people, or people of color, or people of the underclass would have a better shot at life. Therefore, it really didn’t matter that you lied, and lied, and lied.

Same thing about hydroxychloroquine. When that drug was mentioned as a cheap, seven-cents-a-dose drug, proven anti-malarial. If you go on the website of the United Nations, you’ll find that it’s one of the United Nations’ safe drugs for inflammation like lupus, but especially for malaria. It’s been around for, in rare cases at high dosages per body weight, it may cause arrhythmias, but very rarely.

But Donald Trump said, “What do you have to lose? You might want to try it.” As soon as he said that, then all of a sudden it became a very dangerous drug. Many states barred doctors who prescribed it.

When you started to search, the number of hits for hydroxychloroquine were almost the same as COVID. So we took that drug that had efficacy in India, Brazil, all over the world, at least if it was used early and at the right dosage per body weight, and we demonized it.

Now we learn that actually, it did have efficacy. How many people died? I don’t know, a lot of them did. Dr. Steve Smith said 100 million may have died, 100,000, excuse me.

But the point I’m getting at, these are examples of, for the greater good of society, I, an elite, have determined what those people down there do not know, will never know, and just can’t possibly know. But for me to convince them what’s good for them, I have to lie to scare them, and I’m perfectly willing to do that, and I know when I’m lying and when I’m not.

They don’t realize that finally they don’t know when they’re lying, or when they’re not, or what they’re doing. It’s the argument of authority. I am a network news person. Therefore, I can lie.

I think it’s also a larger pathology of this whole American culture where we’re raising children of the upper classes to think that there’s a certain paradigm. You go to a city or a suburb around a city. You enjoy the cultural dynamism of New York, or Minneapolis, or Seattle, or Portland, San Francisco.

You completely divorce yourself from poor people or working class people, or nature. You get in this rat race to excel, and then you go to an Ivy League. It doesn’t really matter if Brown, or Dartmouth, or Stanford, or Harvard is teaching you anything, but like a cow, you’re branded with that BA.

“I have a BA from Brown.” “Oh, I have a BA from Yale,” and then you’ve got entrée into the society where you get these professional jobs. Nobody ever says to the person, “Are you well-rounded? Do you know, if the wind comes from the north or south, is it more likely to rain? Have you ever seen somebody that’s poor? Do you ever have to get along with somebody who doesn’t share your background? Do you feel guilty about that, or not?”

So I think a lot of our problems are that a lot of this, especially white culture of the upper classes, has divorced themselves from poverty, from race, and associates with people of white kind, and they feel guilty about it.

They want us, society, to give them exemption, and how do they get that exemption? By claiming there’s a racist under every bed, or they’re somebody who stinks up Walmart, or is a deplorable, an irredeemable, a clinger, a dregs, a chump, or a Neanderthal to quote Biden and Clinton and Obama.

That gives them psychological recompense for living, in an empirical fashion, it would be called a segregated life.

Mr. Jekielek: So now we’ve come a bit full circle here back to an epistemic crisis, but also, a fundamental doubt, as you already articulated, in what are supposed to be the credible authorities because tons of people that I’ve spoken with say, “Hey, these people are letting us down. We can’t trust them anymore,” Where can we go from here in this sort of a situation? How is that trust earned back?

Mr. Hanson: Yes, where do we go from here is I think we’re going to see certain trends, insidious, slow, but trends nonetheless. I think people are going to say to themselves, “If that person went to the public schools and, say, from five years from now or six years, that person is likely not as well educated as someone who went to a private school, parochial school, or was home-schooled.”

If a person applies for a job with a Harvard or Yale or Stanford degree, it doesn’t mean much anymore. You’d be better off privately hiring somebody from St. John’s, or Thomas Aquinas, or Hillsdale College because we know that in the Ivy League, that degree means nothing now.

It used to be an employer who was cynical would tell you, “Yeah, I hired a guy for my business with a BA from Stanford. I know they don’t teach anything and they’re indoctrinated there, but at least they have SAT scores and GPAs so they did the selection bit for me. They have natural talent, so I’ll just use them, and then I’ll train them the way they should be trained that they never learn because they were woke or whatever.”

Now they don’t even believe that, because they believe that the admissions are no longer meritocratic, that there’s no longer a test score required like an ACT, or SAT, or GPA. It’s just arbitrary. And so I think they’re losing credibility.

The doctors are losing credibility. Where did we have doctors? Where did we have the idea of PhDs? Where did the MD [come from]? It was all a reaction to a mess of free for all thinking and frontierism in the 19th century. People said, “Let’s be systematic and make a meritocracy,” and now we’re in a whole cyclical pattern where we’re saying, “You know what? We didn’t have any police to police our police.”

I really resent a lot of these people, bureaucrats at the highest level of the U.S. government with degrees that were used for arguments from authority, college presidents.

Think of all the bizarre things we’ve heard the last year. How many college presidents have been on a YouTube cut who said, “I just want to say right now that I suffer from honor and white privilege.” You’re thinking, “honor and white privilege.”

Or they’ll say, “I think we live in a racist society here, and it’s here at Stanford. It’s here at Princeton. Don’t think it isn’t.” You’re thinking, okay. If you experience honor and white privilege, why in the hell are you have that job? We can get all kinds of people to take it from you because you didn’t earn it, or we can say, “Well, the government says they can’t give money to places that have racist tendencies. Since you just admitted that Stanford, or Princeton, or Harvard is racist, then don’t take any federal money until you solve the problem.”

This is a lot of virtue signaling and performancing from the wealthy classes because again, it gets back to this fundamental crisis in Western society that these elites then are sort of like Marie Antoinette dressed up as peasants playing around at Versaille because they have lost all authenticity.

They don’t know anything about nature. They don’t know anything about the physical world. They don’t know anything about human nature, and they compensate for it by all of these critical race theories, wokeness, all of this stuff.

We could have survived the virus. We could’ve survived the lockdown. We could’ve survived the first self-induced recession. We may have survived 120 days of coerced riots in U.S. history. We’re not told [it was coerced], but it’s true. We might have survived 100 million people voting without showing up on Election Day. We might have survived the controversy of Don[ald Trump], but not all of them together.

That was a perfect storm. It unleashed a madness within us and every pathology that we had struggled for, the restraints were off. I don’t know if we’re going to get out of it or not.

Mr. Jekielek: So Victor, why in this ideology is there such an inordinate focus on the victim or maybe absolution of apparent victims of accountability? That’s at least what I’m seeing.

Mr. Hanson: That’s a complex question, and I think there’s an old or ancient explanation, and there’s a modern one.

Start with the ancient one. If we were to look at novels, historians, biographers, Suetonius, Petronius, all the way back to Thucydides, there’s a certain recognition that, in the West, when you have a consensual society, and you allow personal expression, and you draw on all members of society contribute, and you have a protection of private property, and you have a legal code that’s not just arbitrary—the whole Western menu—then you start to do two things. You give people security and affluence, and this grows, and grows, and grows, and grows.

People then are no longer worried about dying at night from a marauding tribe crossing the Danube. They’re no longer worried of starving to death. They’re no longer worried that somebody’s going to knock on their door and slit their throat, and they start to do great things. They build the Parthenon, or the Pantheon, or they write Tacitus’ “Histories,” and that was the Western paradigm.

But there were a lot of voices, not just the crazy people like Nietzsche and Hegel and Spengler, but ancient people as well. They said, “You got to be very careful because we’re not programmed to be that way. We have certain instinctual needs. We’re pretty savage people,” Thucydides especially, the thin veneer of civilization.

You start allowing people to be wealthy and leisured, and you take off the constraints, and the constraints are your family, or your traditions, or your religion that say [although] it’s legal to do that and you have physical and material ability to do it, but don’t do it—then you’ve got chaos.

So there was a sense that these Western societies, as they get wealthier and more affluent, especially—we have detours with wars, and plagues, and religious movements, but now we’re in a globalized post-war, postmodern society where the level of affluence and leisure is such that we don’t have these appetites, and people are always going to the next level.

That’s part of it, that we’re just a confused, spoiled group. We’re a collective. Remember the Affordable Care Act pajama boy commercial or the life of Julia where we get these two dysfunctional, prolonged adolescents advising us, a guy with pajamas that’s drinking hot chocolate like a perennial boy who’s like 19, or a young woman who says, “Thanks to the government, and then from the moment I was born, the moment I’ve died, I’ve only been on the government teat,” and this is supposed to be something we all aspire for.

Anybody else in the world would think they’re crazy. Columbus would say, “I’m not going to take a risk.” Charles Lindbergh said, “Where’s my insurance policy? I can’t fly to France. This is too dangerous.” So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve infantilized, made infants out of all of us.

Then it also creates guilt. As I said before, a lot of this is, why do I have so much money? Why do I have so much freedom? Look at that guy over in Africa. Look at that person in Oaxaca, Mexico. They don’t have what I have. Why is that?

If you say, “Take a deep breath, here is something called the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, Classical Greece, and then this led to the Founding, and this is a system that’s available to anybody, and certain people did it, and certain people didn’t. It didn’t have anything to do with race. That’s why you’re privileged and you should help people, but you have to understand that you were born lucky in the West.”

That’s a very hard thing for people to do, apparently. So there’s this intrinsic guilt among Western elites.

What I get really angry, and I think you do, or all of our listeners do, is that this hijacking of success and a noble tradition. So I’m sitting in a house in which my great-great-grandmother came out, northerners from Missouri, after the Civil War.

I never met them. In fact, my grandfather died here in 1976. He was born in the same room in 1890, but I heard stories that he heard from his grandfather about his grandmother. It was heroism how they got in wagons and came out here, how they finally found a railhead.

I just am not going to be prepared at the age of 67 to say, “They were white, and these were non-white. Therefore, they were bad and these people were good.” I don’t accept that infantile reductionism guilt.

I had a father, and his picture’s around here a lot, who flew 40 times in a B29 over Tokyo. This was a racist, militaristic government that was killing 15,000 people a day in Asia and butchered 15 million Chinese. He was on some of the most severe raids there were.

He didn’t wear a parachute when he was over Japan because war is war. They executed you when you bailed out anyway. I’m not going to suddenly say to him, “You did not stop that slaughter. You did not help us win World War II. You did not make it possible for me not to worry about, but you’re a racist because you were white, and you were bombing Asians.”

I’m just not going to do that. I think if everybody just said, “Race is an important facet of all of our lives, but it does not define who we are.” The irony is when people start saying, “Well, World War II was based on segregation,” you think, well, that was something to be embarrassed about.

A democracy should not be hypocritical and not using their African-American populations as frontline soldiers although we did in some cases especially the Red Tail fighters in Italy.

But if you want to talk about racism as being a prime mover of World War II, then you better talk about Germans killing white people because they were “un-Aryan,” or “non-Aryan,” 6 million Jews, 20 million Ukranians and Russians.

Or Japanese killing intersectionally, in intersectional fashion, Chinese because they were not Asians of the right particular race. So what I despise about all of this are these young, social justice branded BA students, or young people, and they want us to reduce the whole rich tapestry of history into one of melodrama, cheap melodrama, “That guy’s bad, he’s good.”

Sherman may have gone all the way into Georgia, freed 30,000 slaves, crushed the Confederacy, went up through the Carolinas, helped Grant’s force lead a surrender, but he said the N-word once; therefore, he’s canceled out.

Finally, you think, okay. Have you ever noticed this? When they tear these statues, why don’t new ones pop up? I’m waiting for them. They say they’re going to change the school name. Every time they take away a name, they give another name, and they take it away because they don’t understand they’ve created this Frankensteinian monster of relativism that says there is no concession that we’re human.

You have to be 99.9999 percent pure, and none of them can make their own standards. So just think for a second. We tear down, I don’t know, Columbus’s statue. Let’s put up Martin Luther King’s statue. Can’t do that. He plagiarized his PhD thesis. He treated women in an awful manner, so his whole wonderful career is canceled out.

Well, how about Malcolm X, he’s more authentic as a racial frontline fighter. No, no, no, no, no. He used violence, he hurt people. We could go on, and on, and on.

But once you start to destroy hierarchy, rules, norms, traditions and say that somebody is going to be canceled because they’re not perfect and therefore they’re not good, then let’s see the people you’re going to replace.

We’re starting to see this in the Biden administration because they’re starting to nominate people as correctives for white supremacy, and guess what? Hunter Biden used the N-word. Joe Biden said, “You ain’t black.” Joe Biden has a whole litany of sexual harassment problems. We have people in the civil rights division of the Justice Department who have said a lot of racist things.

And so if we were to apply the same standards that they are censoring and ruining lives themselves, then they only have one out and that’s critical race theory, and critical race theory says, “Racists cannot be racist,” and the only anecdote, according to Mr. Kennedy, for racists in the past are to be racist in the present, and to be racists in the future.

If there’s a yang of racism, then you need a yang of racism. So therefore, we want people who say, like Sarah Jeong on The New York Times, that “I love treating white people like a dog. I consider them like a dog urinating.”

Or we had this graduation speaker that took on the Israelis and the Palestinians, and just full of hate, and that’s the only way you can justify it. What I’m getting at, in a very clumsy way, is this relativism matters because it’s essential to this woke movement, that they not be judged by the standards they judge others.

Mark Zuckerberg can be an authentic social justice champion of the underclass, pour $500 million into select precincts to alter the election, that he thinks he’s going to alter it, but he’s okay to build 57,000 square foot home in a pristine, identical white, and that’s where we are.

You have to have exemption because this relativist movement can never meet its own standards.

Mr. Jekielek: One apparent exemption that has been a lot on my mind, my father-in-law being a Holocaust survivor, is this apparent pass for anti-Semitism that we’ve been actually seeing in past weeks as if it was just there, and suddenly came up out of, well, I won’t say nowhere, but, what do you make of that?

Mr. Hanson: A lot of things. When I was in college and as a young adult, the left always said they hated Israel. I’d always ask myself, why are almost half the resolutions at the UN aimed at Israel? Or if you are so worried about annexation, why don’t people say, “Well, Turkey’s taken half of Cyprus?”

Or if they’re worried about refugees and displaced people, how about the 13 million East Prussians that walked back to Germany. They’re not saying, “I have the keys to my home in Danzig and these Poles call it the Gdańsk and my German ancestors were there. That didn’t happen.

Or the Volga? Nope. Do you and I worry about the Volga Germans that Stalin displaced? Why was it only the Palestinian? So then I said to myself, it’s because Israel is Jewish. They apply a particular standard to it.

I used to think that, and then they would always say—they meaning the left, the anti-Israeli left—they say, “Well, we just don’t like Israel. It’s nothing to do with Jews.” Then, I became, years ago, I said, “No, it’s because you hate Jews that you hate Israel, not because you hate Israel, but you like Jews. You hate Jews for a variety of reasons, and therefore, you hate Israel, and you apply standards to it that you don’t apply to any other society.”

Why do you hate Jews? It goes back to Roman times with the diaspora, but you could argue that Jews to survive when they were spread throughout with the destruction of the temple, under Vespasian, that they had to cling together.

They had a religion that did not accept that Jesus was the Messiah, so they were spread throughout Europe and they were denied land-owning. They were denied aristocratic titles, and they did not have opportunities to gain influence and social standing commensurate with their talent.

And so they turned to, I don’t know, banking, or precious metals. So their names were suddenly Mr. Satin and Mr. Silver and Mr. Gold. That prejudice, generalization, and stereotyping was mostly by the right and it was opposed by the civil libertarian left, the enlightenment.

They would say, “Well, wait a minute, Mr. Silver, da, da, da, da, da on all the quantifiable data is actually a sterling citizen. This prejudice is stupid.” That’s what I grew up with. I had wonderful parents, and I never met somebody who was Jewish until I was 18 that I knew of.

I would come from, I’d say, “Wow, I met all these people who are Jewish.” My parents would say, “So what?” There is an old anti-Semitism prejudice. I didn’t know what it was. But then I noticed it switched. It wasn’t some nutty guy telling me that the raisin market back East was fixed by a bunch of Jews in Rome and that’s why we didn’t get good money for raisins. Those guys were gone.

It was, I’d walk across campus, and I’d see PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]. I’d see a picture on the Berkeley campus of a hook-nosed Jew, or I’d see people say, “F Israel.” I’d say, “Well, this doesn’t make any sense. It’s a constitutional society. Why do they hate?”

So the left began to hate Jews. Then I noticed another thing, that many of the people who were voicing this hatred were people of color, or at least they identified that way.

They then say, “We can’t be anti-Semitic because we are victims ourselves.” But they were the most anti-Semitic, and they got exemption from the larger culture, and so right now the threat is, of anti-Semitism, is a respectable, academic, intellectual people of color as well movement, not exclusively, movement among the left-wing elite and there’s no New York Times, Washington Post, NPR to audit it because they are part of it in their hatred of Israel.

The irony, who are the people who are objecting to this? They tend to be evangelical Christians. They tend to be conservatives. They tend to be the illiberal. But I can guarantee you if you wore a distinctive, orthodox garb or beard, and you went to a Trump rally, you would be treated much better than if you went to a Black Lives Matter rally. I would stake my life on that.

I’m not trying to denigrate Black Lives Matter, but I’m just saying that the so-called Christian or conservative movement will more closely police itself on matters of anti-Semitism now, and the woke, black, critical theory, whatever term we use for the black intellectual elite, they will be less so inclined.

I’m telling you that every time we hear an anti-Semitic proclamation announcement, speech, it comes from people in Congress who either have a map with Israel or not on it, or it’s just the Benjamin’s baby. In almost every case, they will be from a protected minority group and they feel that they have no deterrent worries, and that they can say whatever they want. And they’re correct—they can.

Not only that, but the people who will say, “Wait a minute, you’re applying a standard to Israel that you would never apply to any other society because you have a deep-seated dislike of the people who live in Israel because they’re Jewish.” They’re going to say, “How dare you, that’s Islamophobic, that’s racist,” and that’s where we are. Nobody has the guts to say it, but it’s true.

Mr. Jekielek: A few people that I’ve spoken with had said that one of the causes of this is that Israel has been, I think, it was described to me as just remarkably successful against all odds and that itself, again, perhaps it’s this attack on merit.

Mr. Hanson: Yeah, we’re going back to what we discussed earlier, that the West, because of its unique combination of human freedom, constitutional government, meritocracy, and free market capitalism, creates a lot of leisure and wealth and becomes very powerful, and can project power, intellectual power, cultural power.

That can be everything from rap music to disco in my generation or Christopher Columbus. So the Aztecs are not going to sail up into a river in Spain, and you’re not going to, the Zulus are not going to mount an invasion of the United Kingdom, not that the Mongols didn’t do it earlier.

But the point I’m making is Western civilization, it’s not a moral question. It has a dynamism and people were guilty about that. They want to know why, and they want to apologize, some of them.

Remember, I think her name was Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House, of Dickens. She’s a character in the novel and her kids are all sloppy, they’re not washed, they’re not literate, and yet she’s a member of the Victorian upper class because she’s always worried about the plight of a poor group suffering from British imperialism around 1850 in Africa or Asia.

Dickens is trying to show you that a person who cannot handle the concrete pathologies and their own myths because they’re messy and dirty and they’re hard to resolve, will find an excuse as an abstract, distant problem they can’t solve, and that way they square the circle of their impotence and guilt. I think that’s a lot of what the West does.

In the case of Israel, for me, it’s always 1967. Prior to 1967, it was surrounded by all of these hostile powers. There was pan-Arabism, was sweeping the globe. The Soviet Union had armed all of its enemies, and Nasserism. It was going to be extinct, and these were the children of the Holocaust, and so we were pro-Israeli, and France was too.

Britain less so because of the colonial direct interest in Jordan, and then suddenly they won the ’67 war, and they said, “You know what? This is the third war. We’re not going to do it again, so we’re going to keep some of this land and use it to negotiate,” and then suddenly they became the oppressor.

They were too powerful, too successful, too Western. … It used to be, we hate Israel because it’s successful. We hate Israel because it’s Western. Now it’s, we hate Israel because it’s white. You’re seeing the woke movement saying, “This is an outpost of white supremacy against people of color,” and this racial reductionism that is wokeism.

Mr. Jekielek: Yes, I’ve heard the term white-adjacent, which is, that’s an interesting term.

Mr. Hanson: Yes. The one that scares me is “whiteness” because that has a pedigree with Jewishness. In the Third Reich, especially before World War II when Hitler created these crackpot theories, Alfred Rosenberg, etc., and they built on 19th century German anti-Semitism, they came up obviously with a problem, and that is everybody knew Jews that were wonderful people, and some people were half Jewish and a quarter Jewish.

Even when they got to the point with thinking that they were going to wear stars eventually, they said to themselves, “Why did that come in practice?” Well, they said, “Well, when we go to Eastern Europe and the poor parts, they’re going to be distinguished as Orthodox Jews.”

But here, it’s impossible to distinguish them. Therefore, we’re going to ostracize them. We’re going to trace their lineage. We’re going to go, and then certain people within the Nazi ranks said, “Well, wait a minute. If we can’t tell who they are, then why are they any different? If we like them, why are they bad?”

That had to be suppressed, so that they came up with this thing called Jewishness because they suffered from Jewishness, not because they looked different, or not because they’re Orthodox Jews, so we have to identify them through careful analysis of their genetic code, or their, not genetic code, but their lineage, or who they associate with, or we’re going to trace their nomenclature because we can’t find out otherwise.

But we have to say that they suffer from Jewishness, and what was Jewishness? It was communism. It was pacifism. It was usury. It was these blood libels, and this whiteness now is, “Well, we can’t, this white guy, my neighbor has been really nice to me, and I’ve never heard the N-word by these people, so we’re going to have to say they all suffer from whiteness and that is a pathological, genetic defect at birth.”

So if I were to say, “You suffer from Hispanicness, or Latinoism, or black,” what would people think? It would be one of the most racist things in the world. This is the wages of what happens when we make race essential rather than incidental to who you are. Individuals vanish, and we become cookie cutter versions of our imagination and fears.

Mr. Jekielek: Victor, we’ve talked a little bit about people pushing back after this very, very, I think anyone would agree, crazy year of 2020. As we finish up, what do you see happening now?

Mr. Hanson: I think we’re at a crossroads and people are afraid. In every workplace in America and every teacher’s lounge, every campus, every political caucus, we have people doing this.

Who is going to win? Which side is the greater threat? If I call this person a racist, will the people who hail me and applaud me, even though there’s no evidence of it, be more advantageous to my career, to my safety, to my income.

Or will the people who say, “That’s a false accusation, how dare you? You’re a McCarthiac” or this way, and they don’t know the answer to it. It’s like during the French Revolution: who’s going to win, the Jacobins or the Thermadors, or the Trotskyites, or the Stalinites, or the Bolsheviks, or the Mensheviks, or the Czarists.

So it’s very important, if you believe in constitutional government and the unique exceptionalism—it’s a redundancy, but that’s what it is—of the United States, that everybody pushed the needle a little bit, and how do you do that?

You have to speak out, and you have to use language that’s graphic and empirical. So if somebody says—and I’m going to quote now indirectly—if a writer in “The Root” magazine says, “White people are responsible for every pathology from the melting of the ice caps, to environmental damage, to viruses, epidemics.”

Or if, I think his name is Mr. Mystal, a Harvard Law graduate, says, “When I come out of my quarantine, I really don’t want to see white people. I got used to not seeing them. I just don’t want to see them anymore.”

Or if you’re a professor at Barnard and you write a novel: can you imagine my dream is to have a room full of white people and say, “You’re all going to be gassed.”

Or if I’m going to be a professor, a psychiatrist, I’m going to go to Yale. I’m going to give a talk, and I’m going to say, “I have dreams of taking a revolver and collectively shooting white people in the head.”

That’s pass for permissible discourse? It’s a free country. I have no problem with them saying it if that’s what they want to say, but they then have to deserve the wages and the wages are: you are a racist, and you’re a pathological racist, and you’re a cruel person, and I’m going to tell you that.

I don’t care what you say to me. You have no way, I’m a free person. I’m liberated. There’s nothing you can do to hurt me. Take my money away. Take my life away. I’m not going to live on my knees. When 51 percent of the people say that, it will pass, and then we’ll have a period of recriminations. People are going to say, “Wait a minute, you were in that mob.”

It’s kind of like out West when the entire mob comes up on Saturday night and Gary Cooper or John Wayne or somebody has got a shotgun. He said, “You are not going to go lynch that guy in the jail.” They say, “a yea yea yea,” and then the sheriff comes out and says, “Well, you may get me but da, da, da, da, da,” and then it dissipates. The next day they see people at the store or on a horse, and they go like this. “I wasn’t part of the mob.” You have to change the whole dynamic.

I think it’s going to happen because people are leaving a written and oral record of what they’re saying, and they’re so caught up in the frenzy and the madness. They have no idea what they’re saying. I know what I’m saying right now, and I think I can listen to this recording and not have to apologize for it because I’m not being racist. I’m not being cruel. I’m not lying.

But they are doing these things, and it’s going to be with them forever. It’s going to be a record of a period in 2020 to ’21 when a small group of very cruel, careerist, selfish people tried to destroy the United States’ traditions and make life miserable for people who used to get along with each other.

They’re going to pay a price. I hope so, because they deserve it. I’m going to speak up and people in my family are going to speak up, and you should speak up, and our audience should speak up because we know what happens when we don’t.

When you don’t speak up, you get the Robespierre brothers and the French Revolution. When you don’t speak up, you get the Leninists taking over a movement from Korinsky to have a consensual society in Russia. When you don’t speak up, you get something far worse than the nationalists in China, you get Mao. When you don’t speak up, you get the McCarthyites running wild in Hollywood, and you get the Salem witch trial on a continental scale.

So we have no choice. It’s a consensual society, a free society, and the abyss, a return to the Dark Ages. That’s where we’re headed if we don’t have the courage to stop it. If we don’t have the courage to stop it, we deserve it.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, Victor Davis Hanson, it’s so good to have you on.

Mr. Hanson: Thank you for having me again.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

You can also follow American Thought Leaders on Parler, Facebook, or YouTube. If you’d like to donate to support our work, you can do so here.

Follow Epoch TV on Facebook and Twitter.

Read Less

Follow Jan on Twitter: @JanJekielek

COVID-19 is close to losing its epidemic status in the U.S., according to the CDC | Just The News

The percentage of coronavirus deaths in the country has been declining for ten straight weeks. By Daniel Payne Last Updated: July 4, 2020 – 1:22 pm

Coronavirus deaths in the country have nearly reached a level where the virus will cease to qualify as an epidemic under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rules, the federal agency reported on Friday. 

The CDC qualifies a disease outbreak as an “epidemic” if the number of deaths attributable to the disease exceeds a certain percentage of total deaths per week. That threshold for pneumonia, influenza and COVID-19 fluctuates slightly depending on the time of year, ranging from around 7% at the height of flu season to around 5% during less virulent months. 

CDC data indicate that deaths from those ailments began skyrocketing in the country around the second week of March, hitting a peak around early May and then plummeting quickly after that. 

The latest data show that the percentage of deaths in the country attributable to those factors had as of the last week in June reached its lowest point since the end of last year, becoming “equal to the [current] epidemic threshold of 5.9%,” the CDC said. 

The agency notes that the official tally of deaths “will likely change as more death certificates are processed, particularly for recent weeks.” Yet the number of deaths attributable to COVID-19, pneumonia and influenza have been declining for 10 straight weeks, the agency said on its website, suggesting COVID-19 may cease to qualify as an epidemic in the next few weeks. 

The welcome news comes as fear over a “second wave” of the virus has gripped the U.S., with some states experiencing fresh surges of COVID-19 along with increased hospitalizations. 

Though infections are significantly up in some places, deaths throughout the country have remained flat, due likely to several factors including a younger cohort of infections as well as improved treatment methods.

America’s Problem Is Systemic Liberalism

Kurt Schlichter | Posted: Jun 29, 2020 12:01 AM The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

America’s Problem Is Systemic Liberalism

Source: AP Photo/John Bazemore

Forget the bizarre and evil concept of national original sin that is the malignant idea that America is built upon “systemic racism.” America’s true systemic flaw, arising at the time of those miserable progressives of yesteryear and continuing up through the miserable progressives of this rotten year, is what we now call “liberalism.”

Oh, it’s not classical liberalism, with its concern for expanding economic and personal rights – you know, individual liberty. The current inverted mutation of liberalism is all about constricting economic and personal rights and forcing individuals into collective boxes where their individuality is subsumed into an easily exploited and manipulated conformist whole. Want to test out this hypothesis? Look through the endless woke tweets of your favorite hack journalist, pinko pol, or Hollywood half-wit, or even go up to some self-described liberal in your own life, and see if you can find one iota of deviation from any of the approved liberal dogma. Good luck. You won’t find a smidgeon of nonconformity. You won’t detect a molecule of dissent. These people are the Borg, if the Borg worked in a giant space coffee house, had Bernie stickers on their spaceships, and could not do a push-up. You can’t reason with them – appealing to reason is futile.

Systemic liberalism is the real poison in America’s veins, not the fanciful notion pushed by bigots, charlatans, and demagogues, that the American enterprise is dedicated to invidious discrimination on the basis of race.

It’s all a lie and a scam.

Only a country so prosperous, so free, and secure could be so frivolous as to indulge an elite that eager to embrace such a manifestly ridiculous conceit. And only academics are dumb enough to come up with it in the first place. If you needed more incentive, beyond its greed and incompetence, to figuratively burn our college and university system to the ground, look no further than the critical race theory nonsense it spawned.

It’s the phrenology of political theories, except dumber and more malicious.

Systemic liberalism infects all aspects of our society, and the society they want will be built upon its leprous foundation. In the government, you have mayors, governors, congress jerks, and senators cheering on political violence. Public property is destroyed and citizens are imperiled and they demand that you disarm and not leave your house without sporting a piehole thong.

Even institutions we thought were solid are wavering. Too many cops kneel or stand back as spectators to the chaos. The military is bombarding the troops with memos from generals competing for victory in the Battle of Woke Island. Sadly, the harassed warriors whose combat training is pushed aside for ever more diversity tail-chasing will look back on that bombardment wistfully when the Red Chinese, who have a serious military, bombard them with actual munitions.

In the courts, we see Hawaiian judges and the double standard that entrapped Mike Flynn. Our FBI is corrupt and unable to find its moral footing. It can’t seem to get around to arresting scumbags pulling down statues but it can spare better than a dozen G-men to sherlock the mystery of a troubling garage door knot. Maybe J. Edgar liked to rock a little black dress, but at least he knew how to lock up crooks.

All of the mainstream media is 100 percent in on systemic liberalism, with the grim conformity of what it covers (and what it covers up) matched only by the grim conformity of the bias it displays. Objectivity? Racist! Free expression? That’s makes us feel unsafe! We now have journalists demanding that people be punished for writing things that are contrary to the approved narrative. Gee, how could that ever go wrong for people who write things for a living? Well, the soft senior men and women running those organizations are finding out, as the young wokes in their newsrooms take over because the old guard is too exhausted to resist.

Our scientists offer scientific findings that inevitably support the liberal narrative. The new scientific method is determining what’s woke and half-heartedly working backwards from there. So, one day we’ll all die if we let our kids play in the park, then the next we hear we’re immune to the pangolin pandemic if our hearts are woke enough. To point out that this is idiocy is to deny science. 

In Hollywood, the studios rush to hide what used to be merely bad taste but is now heresy. And our courageous comedians cower, terrified to mock the eminently mockable antics of Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the other sects of the left’s semi-organized religion. But hey, those Audie Murphys of America’s stages and screens will never hesitate to take on those Jesus-loving Christians.

Corporations and enterprises like the NFL and NASCAR abandon and spit on their own customers, treating them as racist rubes as the C-suite sissies seek to please their younger second wives and not the people who buy their stuff. You can’t open an email without being reminded that the company that makes your fertilizer is giving part of the cash you spend with it to the Marxist cadre at Black Lives Matter. 

In people’s private lives, tiresome acquaintances scold others on social media for failing to post the right nonsense on their Facebook pages. Daughters rebel against whatever it is suburban daughters have to rebel against by announcing on Twitter that they are cutting off their parents because their parents are insufficiently woke (though whether that lasts past daddy cutting off young Ashleigh’s cash remains to be seen). Frigid suburban matrons cruise into their local Starbucks, book cover facing out so everyone knows that they are carrying a copy of White Fragility. It’s the new 50 Shade of Gray, with the same vibe of cringey masochism that helps fill up with their empty lives and lets them feel something, anything. There’s a reason that these people all seem to have weird issues and to be working them out on the rest of us. These people all have weird issues and are working them out on the rest of us.

And it is all based on a lie, just like everything liberals say about Donald Trump and you is a lie.

We don’t need to purge our society of systemic racism because heroes in the past did that for us. From the heroes of Gettysburg to heroes like Medgar Evers (an Army vet of Normandy appropriately buried in Arlington), the blood of patriots washed away the structural racism of the past. What is left today are a few idiots with tiki torches and lots of college professors and New York Times scribblers who thrive upon hating people for where their great-great-great-great grandfathers came from. Those garbage people are the exception, a fringe, and do not reflect America

Sadly, structural liberalism is beginning to. Liberals want an America of terrified conformity, of eternal grievance and hate, where the rights of individuals are crushed if they prove to be an obstacle to liberal rule.

Who wants to punish people for their speech? Liberals.

Who wants to discriminate among people based on their race? Liberals.

And who wants this hate to continue and even grow because they see harnessing it as their means to take perpetual power? Liberals.

It’s past time to smash systemic liberalism. Get ready to be the backlash.

Fight the lies. Join Townhall VIP.  Also, my new non-fiction book from Regnery, The 21 Biggest Lies about Donald Trump (and You!) drops July 7, and you should pre-order it right now! And don’t forget my novels eerily prescient novels of America torn apart by leftists, People’s Republic, Indian Country, Wildfire and Collapse!