freedom and reason

In today’s essay, to illustrate a point, I defend a fictional professor named Stephen Amos. Dr. Amos is a tenured faculty member who refuses to use students’ preferred pronouns when they conflict with their biological sex. For dissenting from a queer rule, the university brings disciplinary charges against Dr. Amos.

Dr. Amos is a composite drawn from a universe of real-world examples. His specific discipline is irrelevant to the case; his PhD may be in any field; expertise has no bearing on the fundamental rights to conscience and thought that I defend in this essay. I tell Amos’ story to illustrate the totalitarian desire lying at the heart of compelled speech. Amos is the true victim of discrimination, not the students who wish to compel him to misgender them.

The essay begins by summarizing the facts of the case against Amos. I then clarify civil rights law. Here, in addition to defending Dr. Amos’ right to conscience, I must also contrast the objective, immutable nature of biological sex as a protected characteristic with the ideological foundations of gender identity. I argue that true anti-discrimination protections shield individuals from coercion based on inherent traits; they do not empower one group’s contested beliefs to override another’s right to speak and think on the terrain of observable reality.

Finally, I expose the circular, fallacious appeals to institutional authority, revealing how censors use the ruse of expertise to justify suppressing dissent and free speech. The fictional university cites various organizations to establish as “fact” the “truth” of gender identity. But these citations have no legitimate bearing on Dr. Amos’ case, not merely because authorities have established no truth, but because Dr. Amos is not obligated to accept the citations as true in a free society.

* * *

As a tenured faculty member, Amos enjoys rights beyond those recognized by the US Constitution. He appeals to academic freedom, which allows him to question the objective basis for a demand that he use preferred pronouns. Amos also refuses on First Amendment grounds; he cannot be compelled to obey the university’s arbitrary rule that faculty must misgender students and colleagues.

The university defines transgressing these rules as “misgendering.” Dr. Amos argues that actual misgendering involves using pronouns that do not correspond to a person’s sex, which he (correctly) asserts is an objective, unchangeable reality, one determinable through independent observation and objective confirmation. It is wrong, or at least inaccurate, he argues, to address a man using feminine pronouns, since doing so denies the person’s actual identity.

The demand for preferred pronouns assaults the integrity of truth. The practice essentially requires—he cites George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four to make his point—that he affirm that two plus two equals five.

Charged with unlawful discrimination, Dr. Amos readily admits that civil rights laws protect groups with distinct or inherent characteristics. Protected classes identified in US statutes and precedent—defined by sex, race, religion, national origin, disability, or age—shield individuals from unfair treatment, harassment, or exclusion based on traits, whether innate or acquired, fundamental to their identity.

The purpose of antidiscrimination law and policy is straightforward: to prevent denial of opportunities or rights based on intrinsic or socially recognized characteristics. Dr Amos insists that he has denied no opportunities or rights to trans individuals. He recognizes their existence and treats such persons the same way he treats all students in his classes—as individuals.

Dr. Amos clarifies that membership in a protected class does not obligate others to adopt the behaviors, beliefs, or practices associated with that class. He uses his go-to example: Neither an atheist nor a Christian is legally required to affirm the truth of Islamic doctrine or participate in Muslim religious rituals because religion is a protected class. One is only obligated to tolerate them.

Refusing to affirm beliefs does not constitute discrimination, the professor continues, since discrimination occurs when someone is treated unfairly because of their class membership. No discrimination occurs when outsiders decline to endorse or perform beliefs or practices associated with that group. Protected status guards against coercion; it does not grant the state the power to compel conscience and speech from those outside the protected class.

Forcing atheists or Christians to affirm Islamic doctrine or ritual is a violation of their civil rights. (For the record, Dr. Amos is an atheist.) By the same token, so is forcing them to affirm a chosen gender identity. A transwoman is still a man, just as is a Muslim man.

Dr. Amos’ arguments notwithstanding, the university pursues their case against the professor, claiming that his refusal to use preferred pronouns amounts to misgendering and therefore discrimination.

Dr. Amos sues, arguing that compelling him to use language that contradicts his understanding of biological reality violates his freedom of conscience—a constitutional right that supersedes university policy. It also violates the principle of academic freedom established by his employment at a university, where the freedom to dissent is essential to the progress of knowledge.

At his hearing before the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, he compares the demand that he participate in the rituals of the gender identity doctrine to being forced to avoid pork because Islamic law declares it haram. He asks the committee whether a sociologist of religion would be punished for noting the fact, attested to by Islam itself, that Muhammad married a child and consummated the marriage when his bride was eleven.

Noting a sociologist sitting in judgment of him, Dr. Amos points out that Muhammad’s relationship with a prepubescent minor is pertinent to critical inquiry; it prompts discussion of normative variability across cultures and history. Religion is, after all, a social phenomenon, which differs over time and space. Would a student complaint accusing the sociologist of blasphemy cause the university to file charges against the professor for discrimination? Could justice be obtained by having the sociologist apologize to his students and affirm that Muhammad was the most perfect man in history?

Such things are hard to imagine, Dr. Amos suggests. It runs afoul of religious liberty. Likewise, returning to his own case, to affirm the construct of gender identity and observe its pronoun rules is tantamount to forcing him to subscribe to a belief system he rejects and participate in rituals he abhors. He is no more obligated to the rules of the gender identity doctrine than he is to the blasphemy rules of Islam.

Predictably, the university counters that gender identity is not analogous to religion because the distinction between sex and gender is grounded in medical science. It is not a belief system but a material fact (here, they confess to the qualitative differences among categories protected under civil rights law). To be sure, sex, they admit, refers to objective biological characteristics—chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs—that categorize individuals as male, female, or intersex. And gender, by contrast, refers to behaviors, expressions, and an internal sense of self that may or may not align with biological sex. But the university maintains that both are real: sex is material and independent of society; gender represents a genuine psychological and sociological reality.

For those who suspect I am constructing a straw man, I am actually steelmanning the university’s position. The subjective construct of gender identity is reified by the doctrine the university accepts as true. Gender identity is not merely real; it is more real than sex. How could it otherwise impose itself on the reality of sex? The biological category must yield to the psychological and sociological reality.

Dr. Amos rejects this framework. He argues that, by the doctrine’s own logic, gender as defined by the queer worldview is not an objective category in the same verifiable sense as sex. Its boundaries and rules are established by ideology rather than universally observable evidence. If one accepts that gender is distinct from sex, it is by definition a different category, one not organized by objective traits, but based on individual assertion, sometimes affirmed by a medical professional (although, according to activists, this is unnecessary).

As such, gender identity cannot generate the kind of civil right that would justify punishing an individual for refusing to affirm it. It falls into the same category as religion or other deeply held convictions. The rights of others are at stake, Dr. Amos points out.

He asks the committee to note a contradiction: if gender identity doctrine is allowed to shape institutional arrangements, would it not have men entering spaces exclusive to women, thus violating the right of both sexes to sex-exclusive spaces? What of their rights? Should a belief system upend an equitable system based on the fact of sexual dimorphism? Must a right established on a material fact bend because of the subjective claims of individuals? How could a man believing he is a woman justify violating the rights of women to the exclusive spaces established based on objective differences between males and females?

“But transwomen are women,” the committee objects. Dr. Amos responds that his fate cannot depend upon a contested claim. Certainly not on a falsifiable one. Compelling him to speak and act according to this ideological framework under threat of discipline is a form of compelled belief—precisely the sort of coercion civil rights law was meant to prevent, not enable.

Punishing him for objecting to the reorganization of institutions or modification of his personal speech acts to align with the gender identity doctrine violates his freedom to speak and publish as determined by the dictates of his conscience. He is not a subject in a kingdom where the truth is determined by the monarch. He is a citizen in a free society. His rights come not from government or men, but from laws of nature, as affirmed by the Declaration of Independence and specified in the First Amendment.

This is the stuff of foundational law. The authority of the law is not imposed by an ideology, but by an external truth, one determinable by induction from observation, as well as by deduction from first principles. Even if he appealed to the transcendent authority of God, that appeal itself is a liberty protected by civil rights. If the institution makes a similar appeal, that won’t fly. The First Amendment protects individuals, not institutions. At least not public ones.

Dr. Amos argues that sex is a protected class precisely because it is an objective, immutable reality grounded in anatomy, chromosomes, and reproduction. This is the paradigm of a civil right since it rests on material grounds; it is not a social construct but an observation. Using pronouns that accurately reflect a student’s sex cannot, therefore, constitute sex-based discrimination; it’s an affirmation of the very characteristic the law exists to protect.

Gender identity doctrine, however, demands the opposite: that the professor deny biological sex in favor of an internal sense of self that he regards as (indeed is) ideological rather than factual. In effect, the university is asking him to violate the civil rights protections attached to sex to uphold a newly invented civil right attached to gender. The university is effectively demanding that Dr. Amos misgender his students.

Here, we need to emphasize the importance of distinguishing between classes in civil rights law. Sex is not analogous to belief. Sex is mind-independent. A man is not a man because he is defined as such. Words have no power to create reality unless the desires they provoke yield technology that can change material circumstances. No technology capable of changing the sex of a mammalian species exists. The truth is that a man is an adult male human. He, therefore, cannot be a woman. The iron law of noncontradiction prevails.

Humans belong to a mammalian genus (and, like all mammals, are sexually dimorphic) that exists not because of words but because of natural history. Words used to describe what a man is are only valid when they accurately classify him. One cannot simultaneously affirm sex and a contradictory gender identity and remain rooted in reality. If sex and gender are the same objective reality, then gender identity is not a separate protected class at all. Admitting to this means the entire doctrine unravels. And it should be admitted to.

Compelling Dr. Amos to pretend otherwise is not anti-discrimination, but its opposite. The university is discriminating against Dr. Amos. They are, moreover, demanding that he engage in sexual discrimination by treating men as women; equity demands recognition of the objective difference between the sexes and protections based on those objective differences.

Proponents of gender identity insist that individuals use preferred pronouns because gender identity is a real and objective phenomenon backed by medical and scientific consensus. Of course, the university cannot have it both ways. Either gender is essentially synonymous with biological sex, rendering the modern distinction unnecessary, in which case the entire edifice of “gender identity” as a separate protected category collapses, or it functions like an ideological or religious construct and doctrine, in which case Dr. Amos cannot be compelled to participate.

But the university will try to have it both ways nonetheless by attempting to escape the dilemma. They will do this by appealing to authority. Thus, a major part of the dispute will almost certainly come with a fallacious appeal that eschews logic and rejects science. Dr. Amos must be prepared to show why the appeal is fallacious.

* * *

As noted above (I have written about this extensively over the last several years—see my recent essay Lesbians, Men, and the Homophobia and Misogyny Underpinning Queer Theory and its embedded URLs), the terms gender and sex have been used interchangeably for centuries. Only recently have some—and I emphasize some—insisted on a sharp distinction. The insistence is driven by queer politics.

When challenged, advocates routinely invoke “medical consensus” or “science.” But this raises an obvious question: consensus according to whom? Not all medical professionals and scientists accept the distinction. In biology, “gender” is still used to describe reproductive roles. Moreover, even if every scientist or medical professional in a given area accepted the doctrine, it wouldn’t make it true. Truth has its own integrity, and it is corrupted by men.

Ideology is a powerfully corrupting force. As observed during the Nazi period, science and medicine were subordinated to party ideology in ways that subverted truth. Remember when, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci declared that criticism of him amounted to a rejection of science? Same thing. Maintaining a free mind requires rejecting appeals to scientific or medical authority.

Those who subvert popular consciousness know that the fallacious character of appeals to authority is largely unknown to the masses. The authorities don’t really teach logic and critical thinking in the nation’s schools—or when they feign it, it’s a cover for indoctrination (“media literacy,” “scientific literacy,” etc.).

Taking advantage of imposed ignorance, those prosecuting Dr. Amos cite professional organizations such as WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) and the American Medical Association. Yet this appeal reveals the circularity inherent in their strategy. Dr. Amos will call them out on it.

WPATH traces its origins to the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, founded in 1979 by advocates already committed to the concept of gender identity as distinct from biological sex; the organization—later rebranded—emerged from the very ideological framework it seeks to legitimize through institutional authority. Its standards of care and statements are not independent scientific verdicts; they are the product of a community that presupposes the truth of the ideas it promotes.

This pattern is not unique to gender issues. As I have shown in previous essays (see, e.g., Dianetics in Our Schools; Arwah, Thetans, and Other Deceits), L. Ron Hubbard did not merely propose the idea system he named Dianetics; he built organizations—the Church of Scientology and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights—to wrap those ideas in the cloak of legitimacy.

Per Hubbard’s needs, Scientology portrayed evolving rules and standards as virtues: Scientology was advancing through discovery and refinement. In reality, the doctrine was adapting to challenges to maintain its legitimacy. Putting the matter bluntly, it was adapting its claims as it went along to control those under its sway.

Similarly, medical associations issue statements on contested practices only to face internal disagreement or later clarification. The AMA’s positions reflect institutional priorities and member debates rather than settled, universal truths. The paradigm of this problem in the medical field is the American Psychiatric Association (see my recent The Glass Man is a Man: Negating Delusions by Making Everybody Delusional).

Appeals to such institutions obscure the reality that genuine disagreement persists within the medical and scientific communities. Thus, even if we accept the premise of a changing field of knowledge, which we must in light of discovery and refinement, we must also examine how and why the field is changing. Indeed, how and why any given association exists in the first place must be grasped.

Citing an organization’s stance does not resolve the underlying questions of truth or justification. Institutions are composed of individuals with perspectives, incentives, and sometimes conflicts of interest. Their pronouncements deserve scrutiny, not automatic deference.

Yet the mere existence of a formal body—especially one invoking health, science, or human rights—creates an impression of settled authority even when the underlying claims remain contested, and the organization originates from within the same belief system it defends. The “standards of care” to which practitioners appeal are often shaped by ideological desire and financial imperative rather than genuine medical-scientific progress.

The appeal to circular authority by Dr. Amos’s institution is thus fallacious. The legitimacy of the case against the professor is illusory.

* * *

Rather than treating Amos’s refusal as unlawful discrimination, I have argued in this essay that compelling the professor to affirm the gender identity doctrine through mandated speech violates his freedom of conscience and inverts the very purpose of civil rights law. Compelled speech is unlawful under the First Amendment, which recognizes Amos’s unalienable right to freedom of conscience, speech, and publishing.

In the end, Dr. Amos’s refusal highlights a profound problem in a social order governed by experts and ideologues: no one should be compelled by the state or its institutions to affirm beliefs they do not hold, especially when those beliefs rest on contested ideological foundations rather than demonstrable, objective reality. The most fundamental civil rights protections exist to shield individuals from coercion based on inherent traits, not to empower one group’s worldview to override another’s conscience.

Even when civil rights rules protect those devoted to religious beliefs, they do not warrant universal devotion to doctrine and ritual. When universities—or any authority—demand speech and action that contradict observable biological reality under the banner of “inclusion,” speech and action that violate civil rights themselves, they invert—and subvert—the very purpose of civil rights law.

Appeal to authority transforms a shield against discrimination into a sword of compelled belief and the systematic violation of rights. This reveals the totalitarian desire of the gender identity movement—and the reason why the First Amendment is so central to human freedom.

True tolerance and intellectual integrity require us to distinguish between protecting people from harm and requiring others to endorse contested ideas or take up practices contrary to personal conviction. Institutions gain organic legitimacy not by fiat or self-reinforcing structures, but through transparent evidence and reasoning that can withstand independent scrutiny. That doesn’t happen without people like Dr. Amos.

Until the proponents of gender identity doctrine demonstrate such grounding (which they never will because the premise is plainly false) that might compel its affirmation—whether in the classroom or the courtroom—the practice of preferred pronouns remains an unjustified assault on freedom of conscience. And even if the ground is recognized by most, forcing a man to walk upon it may still violate his conscience.

Individuals must retain the right to evaluate claims on their merits, guided by evidence rather than institutional pressure. Only then can society preserve both genuine civil rights and the liberty of thought and speech that make those rights meaningful.

Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz is an allegory. Beneath a children’s story is a story about political authority, illusion, courage, and identity. In a standout moment, Dorothy’s dog Toto pulls back the curtain and reveals that the powerful, mysterious Wizard of Oz is an ordinary man working the levers of a machine that manufactures the illusion of great, wise power. A charlatan behind a curtain is behind the spectacle.

The scene has become a metaphor for demystification. I have used the allegory in my essays on transnational corporate power. So have others. For the antisemite, the real power is the Jews. He imagines he is Toto pulling back the curtain.

One question that occurs to me, knowing that the Wizard’s commands were those of a charlatan: were Dorothy and her companions right to kill the Witch of the West? The Wizard told them to. They did not question the command. Dorothy wanted to go home to Kansas, where the outside world mattered very little. Did the man behind the curtain manipulate Dorothy?

We’re told a similar story about Israel. Let the Islamic Republic of Iran be the Wicked Witch. The US under Trump has waged war on her. Is she wicked? Americans are told that Kansas will be safer if the Islamic Republic is vanquished. But is this really something that Israel wanted that does nothing to make Kansas safer?

We see Donald Trump on the platform, but behind the scenes, is the President being manipulated by a huckster? Suppose he were; why should we assume it’s Benjamin Netanyahu? This is obvious to the antisemite. Netanyahu is the true Wicked Witch of the West. Why is this? Because he is a Jew.

The ancient hatred has no rational basis. Thinking about it rationally, Christians should admire Jews as a people. Israel is an advanced civilization rooted in Western values and, in many ways, is connected to the sources of Western civilization. Christianity would not exist without Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. He preached from the Old Testament. The Apostles and Paul were Jews, as were many of Jesus’ disciples. Christians view Jesus as the Messiah the Old Testament predicted. The line is straight through. Yet many Christians see in Jews their enemy.

Judaism is not a proselytizing faith. Gentile Christians are not required to become Jews to follow Christ. At the Council of Jerusalem, Paul freed Christians from many of the distinctive prescriptions of Jewish culture—circumcision, food laws, and the ritual/calendar regulations that marked Jewish identity. However, this did not mean that Gentiles were free from the moral obligations Judaism established. Why would they want to be? The Christian Bible includes the Old Testament, and preachers preach from it.

Paul freed Christians not only from Jewish ceremonial customs, but, since Jewish civil law is Israel-specific, those dwelling beyond Israel were also not required to follow Jewish civil law. But Christians were released neither from the Jewish moral code nor from belief in the Jewish god Yahweh. Thus, Christianity carries with it the deep core of Jewish law, reason, and spirituality. Turning one’s back on the spirit of Judaism is turning one’s back on Christianity.

Beyond religious obligation, Jews have contributed to Western civilization in many ways that recommend their way of life. However, adopting the Jewish way of life is not a matter of opting in. Judaism, along with Roman law, is the legal foundation of Christian societies and secular societies whose moral systems are based on Christian ethics, which are themselves rooted in Jewish morality. Judaism is woven into the fabric of the West.

More than law and morality, capitalist logic originates in Judaism. Profit-making, expanding capital through investment, and wealth accumulation are Jewish traits. Both Karl Marx and Max Weber showed that the Protestant Reformation made Jewish commercial practices available to Christians. As a result, the Western world became an economic powerhouse. In time, capitalism became the rational foundation of the world system.

Israel’s technological achievements have produced a military superior to the forces arrayed against it in the Middle East. Shouldn’t Western men find this admirable? There are dozens of Arab countries, many of which have historically refused to recognize Israel or have sought its destruction. However, attempts to overthrow the Israelis state have repeatedly ended in military defeats. Moreover, in the defense of its citizens, Israel has conducted itself ethically. Ethical conduct in war marks moral integrity. This, too, men of the West should find admirable.

Jews are, in many respects, a self-made people, and that ought to impress anyone who values self-actualization and self-determination. Jews provide a model of thinking and acting that men of other faiths—or men of no faith at all—would do well to emulate. So what explains why Jews are hated so much? Antisemitism is on the rise, so this is an important question to examine.

* * *

One source of that hatred is Islam, which compounds the problem of Western antisemitism, especially as the Islamization project unfolds. It is a strange development that Westerners would tolerate Islam in its mists, yet Muslim enclaves are springing up everywhere. Some Westerners are championing Muhammad’s cause—on the left and the right.

One would think that a country like America, with a majority of its citizens subscribing to Christianity, would find Islamophilia to be rare. Islam presents itself as the only true religion. Muhammad revises the histories of Judaism and Christianity to recast the Judeo-Christian tradition as the story of Islam, forcing the traditions from which it derives into the Islamic frame. Why is this not offensive to all Christians?

According to Islamic teaching, the Jews and Christians have distorted God’s original message. According to the Qur’an, God sent an angel to deliver a new revelation that superseded Judaism. Jews, despite being the ancient people of the Book, became enemies in the eyes of Islam because the Old Testament is a deception. This makes Jews appear as deceivers. Tautology is common to religious thinking. Antisemitism is therefore inherent in Islamic thought.

Christianity has its own history of antisemitism, and this history leads some Christians to side with Islamic forces that seek to destroy Israel. What is the source of Christian antisemitism? One part of it is the fact that Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. That is their prerogative: Judaism is their religion; if Jews do not accept the claim of someone who says he is the Messiah, they don’t have to, any more than Christians have to accept Jewish denial of the core Christian claim.

None of this changes the fact that Christianity is intrinsically connected to Judaism. Thus, a ready source of antisemitism is Christian estrangement from its religious roots. When the preacher has the congregation open the Old Testament, the Christian sees himself in the story. He does not see the Jew.

There is more to the explanation. As noted in the introduction, Jews are a highly successful people, and many non-Jews are poor, often because they do not try to succeed or were raised in environments where success was not a priority, or perhaps environments that lack the means and culture to succeed. When a person who has failed in life sees a successful out-group, he may come to resent those who belong to it. Anxiety associated with failure is often rationalized as the fault of others.

Of course, not all Jews are successful. Nevertheless, Jews as a group have been stereotyped as clannish, working collectively to exploit everyone around them to create wealth at the expense of Gentiles. However, to the extent that one could say a Jewish capitalist exploits labor, the same could be said of a Christian capitalist. Singling out an ethnic group for special condemnation in a system one rejects is prejudice sui generis. For the antisemite, the problem is not capitalism per se, but Jewish capitalism. Rather than seeing successful Jews as models of achievement, people who resent Jews treat Jewish success as evidence of something sinister, and the stereotype makes it easy to single out Jews.

If one is truly anti-capitalist, then envy should apply to successful Christians. And we see this on the racial front, with many black Christians blaming their circumstances on white Christians. However, race aside, Christians who resent success cannot easily portray other Christians as an alien group because they are also members.

The slaveowner used the same strategy in a racialized system: the white worker sees himself in the slaveowner and thus is less aware that he is in much the same position as the black slave. At least he is not owned, he tells himself during moments of faithlessness. Anti-Jewish prejudice is similar to anti-black prejudice in some regard. The Christian may be poor, but he finds solidarity with other Christians. With blacks, white Christians can feel superior. With Jews, Christians can feel aggrieved. In both instances, othering serves the same purpose.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment, developed most fully in On the Genealogy of Morality, describes a psychological condition that arises when people who feel powerless, injured, or unable to act directly against those who frustrate them—those whom they have come to believe are responsible for their situation—turn their hostility inward and then transform it into a moral judgment. They reinterpret their situation so that their own weakness becomes a virtue. They make themselves into victims. In doing so, they keep themselves down.

For Nietzsche, ressentiment does not merely produce resentment; the downtrodden achieve a kind of psychological revenge by declaring that their perceived oppressors share morally corrupt traits. In this dynamic, Jews are puppet masters who determine the fates of the marionettes they manipulate. The antisemite sees himself as Toto pulling back the curtain to reveal the charlatan working the levers of power.

The conspiracy theorist has special powers of perception—and that makes him a special man. At the very least, he has this, just as the white Southerner enjoyed his wages of whiteness. Those who disbelieve the conspiracy theorist are rubes. They have been conditioned to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” They are sheep, and the wolf moves unnoticed among them.

Adolf Hitler understood this. Instead of regarding successful Jews as models of achievement, he knew that those who had failed in life or were dissatisfied with their situation could be mobilized against Jews. He exploited ressentiment to draw ordinary Germans under his sway.

This is the scapegoating phenomenon. In primitive cultures, villagers heap their problems onto a goat and then drive the animal out of the village. Jews have been subjected to scapegoating more than any other ethnic group in history. That they have steeled themselves against it is yet another thing to admire about them.

* * *

Today, ressentiment has led some Christians into an alliance with Muslims. This is an unfortunate alliance. And it is strange. What these Christians do not seem to recognize is that, like the Jews whom they loathe, Muslims also do not believe that Jesus is divine. Nor do they believe the man was crucified. What god would let that happen? (To misunderstand the crucifixion is straightaway a reason to reject the authority of Islam.) Jesus is regarded as a prophet in Islam, to be sure, but not the final one. Muhammad is the final prophet, and his teachings are God’s final word. Anything that Christians or Jews say that contradicts Muhammad’s revelation is therefore negated by it.

Islam contradicts Christianity. If the Qur’an is perfect, if it is God’s final revelation, and if Muhammad is God’s final prophet, then the New Testament must be regarded as either flawed or fraudulent. One cannot reconcile the New Testament with the Qur’an: if the Qur’an is true, the Gospels are a lie. Why would Christians ally with those who see them as liars? Likewise, if the Gospel is true, then Islam is a lie. It works both ways. Why would Christians admire liars?

Christians who think that Muslims are their friends have allowed their antisemitism to undermine their capacity for reason and abandon their faith. They are allying with those who deny the truth of their god.

This is not the same as Jews refusing to accept the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. The Jews came before Christians and Muslims, and Muhammad came long after Christianity was established. Christian doctrine makes Jewish morality available for non-Jews. Shari’a negates Jewish law and Christian ethics. Anger at Jews for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah is an in-house squabble. Islam is the yard (it should be beyond the gates).

We see a similar phenomenon among some left-wing progressives and their alliance with Muslims. Consider, for example, Queers for Palestine. If queer people think that, in an Islamic world, they will be permitted the freedoms they currently enjoy—or even be allowed to live at all—then they are living in a delusion.

Explaining how that delusion came about requires a much longer conversation (which I have had in articles published on this platform). Briefly, postmodernism, postcolonial studies, and anti-Western sympathy, in which anything that opposes the West is regarded as good, are behind Islamophilia. When people share the same enemies, then they’re one people in common cause. But Muslims don’t see it that way. For Muslims, the leftist is a useful idiot.

* * *

Antisemitism has produced a strange alliance among far-right Christians, Muslims, and progressives, the latter of whom are also broadly anti-white—even if most of them are white themselves. Via this tortured mix, the far-right and the far-left end up advancing the goals of Islam. Their hatred for Jews is so profound that they support an ideology that seeks an end to Christianity and liberal democracy. Hatred blinds them to that fact. The left was already predisposed to topple the pillars of Western civilization. Antipathy towards the Jews accelerates this end—if we allow it to.

This is an extremely dangerous development in world history. The Wicked Witch of the East is alive and well in Islam. So is the Wicked Witch of the West. Who is actually behind the curtain—who, in this instance, is defending the sibling witches? Not the Jews, but the transnationalist corporation. Transnationalism knows no ethnicity or religion. It is cultureless and godless. It knows only power and privilege. It does not appear at this point that negotiation with witches is possible.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and the other supposed patriots stuffing themselves into the far-right clown car tell us that Trump walked away from the America First movement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If by “America First” one means the doctrine associated with the America First Committee (AFC) of 1940–41, then Trump was never an America Firster. A man cannot walk away from something he was never a part of.

The AFC was fundamentally non-interventionist/isolationist: its central purpose was to keep the United States out of World War II. American Firsters opposed Lend-Lease. Supplying Britain risked drawing the United States into war; America could best protect itself by avoiding foreign conflicts and entangling commitments.

We know how that turned out. It was a disaster. Isolationism allowed the Axis Powers to conquer more territory and entrench power. It made it more costly for America when we finally joined the war. Moreover, Pearl Harbor may have never happened if the AFC had been less persuasive. Tens of millions of lives would not have been lost had the US entered the war earlier.

At its peak, the America First Committee had more than 800,000 members. But its reputation was damaged by the antisemitic and pro-fascist rhetoric of some of its prominent figures. Sound familiar? This is what the new crowd represents. Its isolation is coupled with an antipathy towards the Jews.

However, the phrase “America First” has not always meant isolationism. Before the AFC, it conveyed nationalism, economic protection (tariffs, etc.), and American interests over international obligations. Republicans advocated this position in opposition to Woodrow Wilson’s globalism, i.e., the transnational corporate project today in ascendancy. The project’s ideology is reflected in the progressive movement. The AFC hijacked the name for its own purposes.

The original meaning describes Trump. We don’t have to infer this. Trump has put the matter explicitly. He has always maintained that he is “America First” but not isolationist.

Trump’s policies confirm it. He has not withdrawn America from the world. His administration maintains a global military presence. Trump has conducted military operations against ISIS, launched missile strikes against Syria, confronted Iran, continues to operate through NATO, and has repeatedly used American economic power to shape the world.

The Trump administration’s own description of America First emphasizes “direct, robust, and meaningful engagement with the world,” stressing that America will lead in pursuit of its interests. Trump used this phrase during his first address to a joint session of Congress on February 28, 2017.

We might describe Trump’s approach as “transactional nationalism.” The basic idea is that the United States should engage the world when it serves American interests. Alliances, international institutions, traditional diplomatic conventions, or treaties should not dictate those interests.

The President reiterated his philosophy in his January 20, 2025, America First Policy Directive, which instructs the State Department to make American citizens and interests the priority of US foreign policy.

Greene, Massie, and their associates lie to Americans when they say Trump betrayed the principle of putting America first. The far right is America First in the AFC isolationist sense, right down to the antisemitic and pro-fascist rhetoric. We see this in its support for the Islamic Republic of Iran and paranoid conspiracies about Zionist control of US foreign policy.

Those who turned their back on MAGA are the second coming of the America First Committee. The first coming opposed war with fascism because of Jew hatred. The second coming opposes war against Islamofascism for the same reason. Different generation, same stupidity, same danger.

I’m America First in the original meaning of the term. America First is the DNA of the Republican Party and, before that, was expressed by Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay.

Hamilton was fundamentally a commercial nationalist. He believed American economic development required a strong federal government and access to international commerce. He envisioned the United States as a major industrial power. The nation should not remain primarily an exporter of agricultural commodities. The United States should not be an underdeveloped periphery in the world capitalist economy. A great republic should aspire to more than playing a subservient role in the world.

Madison understood that economic independence required military strength. A commercially powerful United States needed a navy able to protect shipping.

Clay believed all this, too. His foreign policy was explicitly nationalist and expansionist. He understood that putting America first meant projecting US hegemony abroad.

What about attitudes towards the Jews? Here’s where it really gets interesting in light of the rise of antisemitism on the right. Hamilton had an unusually favorable attitude toward Jews. Most striking is a manuscript in Hamilton’s own hand, preserved by the American Jewish Historical Society. “The progress of the Jews,” he wrote, “is entirely out of the ordinary course of human affairs.”

Hamilton didn’t see Jewish success as the work of conspiracy. Rather, it was the industriousness of Jews and divine providence that made the group so extraordinary. On that last point, he reasoned that Jewish survival over the millennia against great odds must have resulted from divine providence. He argued that the explanation for this is found in the Bible.

In a legal case in which Hamilton defended Jewish witnesses against an explicitly anti-Jewish argument, opposing counsel attempted to discredit the witnesses based on their being Jews. Hamilton responded by invoking Jewish biblical history and insisting that Jews were entitled to exactly the same justice as Christians. In fact, Hamilton argued that the history of Jewish persecution was itself an indictment of religious prejudice.

Hamilton had substantial personal contact with New York’s Jewish community. He represented numerous Jewish merchants and maintained close relationships with members of Shearith Israel.

Hamilton and Clay were America Firsters before the term was coined. When I say I am America First, I mean it in that sense. I reject the politics of those who now claim that name. Greene saw he way out the door. Massie was rejected by voters. In their eyes, Hamilton would be seen as a Jewish stooge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hamilton saw in the Jews what any person free of envy and paranoia sees: a people to be defended and emulated.

Greene and Massie are not really America Firsters. They are isolationists, antisemites, and Islamophiles. We know where those politics take us. In the final analysis, they are un-American. No real patriot should support them.

Women will be sexualized regardless of what they wear. First, because women are sexual beings. Second, since men are also sexual beings, the male gaze is sexualized. Nature engineered men and women that way. Even when fully clothed, men will imagine what the woman looks like naked. It’s not as if clothes make men forget they find women sexually attractive.

So, no, the burqa won’t work because some men find modest dress sexy. Are people unaware that hijab porn exists? Men seek out women in hijabs because they find it sexy. Hijab porn is a popular fetish. The presence of the hijab is not about diminishing sexual thoughts; such extreme forms of modesty are mechanisms to control women by punishing them for not wearing what men and prudish women tell them to.

Why have feminists historically criticized conservative moods that lengthen dresses and sleeves? As I heard it growing up, men and prudes imposed their patriarchal and religious ideas on women during these periods. Then a woman comes along and shows skin— and now progressive women are suddenly conservatives? Is modest dress oppressive or not? Is a sexy, half-dressed woman oppressive or what? Make up your damn minds!

Let’s be honest, Sydney Sweeney is sexy, and some women are jealous. They’re becoming Muslims out of raging jealousy. I am starting to think the Atwood women have a fetish for the Republic of Gilead style. Sorry, girls, most of you aren’t as hot as Sweeney. Get over it. Get over people with more money than you. Etc. We’re not doing the Harrison Bergeron. We’re not living by your superficial moral codes. Stop whining and improve yourself.

Do you even need to? A lot of men like obese women. There’s room for everybody, right? You know, inclusivity. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, amirite? Stop trying to make everyone see the world through your stupid fucking eyes.

And the hypocrisy. Good Lord. If sexualizing women is such a bad thing, then why the sexualizing curricula in public schools? Children are being subjected to lectures and materials that dwell on sexuality—not merely sex education from a public health standpoint, but on who the proper subjects of sexual attraction are and whether children may not be the sex that natural history tells them they are. (If progressives cannot be trusted with sex education, then sex education should not be in public schools. I hate to say that, but sex education turns out to be a Trojan horse for normalizing sexual perversion.)

Of course, Sweeney is loathed by progressives; she is a person who knows she is a woman and uses her sexuality to her benefit. Normal people don’t complain about her sexuality because they like looking at beautiful women. It is perfectly natural for human beings to find the female form interesting.

Look at the great works of art down through history—even in prehistory. We have recovered from across the globe carved Venus figurines with exaggerated breasts, buttocks, and vulvas dating back tens of thousands of years. Our species has always been interested in the female form as a sexual object. Why wouldn’t they be? Women are the source of life. And sex is an amazing experience. It’s where babies come from.

Therein lies the problem. That ancient attitude upholds and perpetuates the normative system progressives are trying to tear down—to drive down fertility and make way for sexual perversions. The project has been highly successful in both regards. It’s a vicious circle. Across the West, the population death spiral is becoming palpable.

Progressives hate normality. They decry the very concept of abnormality—except when applied to the normal. Progressivism inverts the good, projecting valorized deviance onto nondeviant behavior and thoughts. The goal is to make normality abnormal and abnormality normal. The goal is to flip instinct and perception.

Is that not obvious? Look at the way young progressives destroy their bodies. They go out of their way to present as Frankenstein monsters—monsters that, to their minds, are no longer clearly male or female. But normal people can tell the difference even when the attempt to erase it is hideous.

The left hates beauty while declaring that which has been uglified as “brave and beautiful.” The project is to redefine transcultural and transhistorical standards of beauty—and not just for people, but for art and architecture. How is brutalism in architecture a thing? Because the left loathes classical beauty.

The hypocrisy I noted at the top of this post is not universal. From everything I have said, it is perfectly reasonable for an adult woman to be sexually provocative around adult men—and adult women, for that matter. They’re adults. You cannot be a free adult if you are not allowed to express your sexuality.

That’s the problem with Islam and strict modesty rules. Are women compelled to wear the hijab truly free? Of course not. That form of objectification intends to obscure the female form. It is, moreover, permission to rape when the woman is uncovered.

What is unreasonable is for adult men and women to decry sexuality while sexualizing children. The hypocrisy is therefore entirely on the side of those who complain about the sexualization of adults but insist on sexualizing children. Social media used to deplatform those who note this: progressives are groomers. There is no other conclusion. (Finally, we can say this without consequence. That’s progress of a kind. But for how long?)

A society is upside-down when it is okay to sexualize children but not okay to sexualize adults. This is the rot of queer politics, and it has taken us to a very dark place. It’s why queer praxis ultimately resolves in pedophilia. As Detrick Jensen has shown, the origin of postmodernism lies in sexual perversion. Postmodernism is an anarchist philosophy, the roots of which are found in the soil of pedophilia and other forms of sexual deviance. It’s not that no rules rule, but that postmodernist rules rule.

Remember, for postmodernists, there’s no truth except for the “truths” they construct and impose by commandeering culture and seizing institutional power. Progressives embrace postmodernism. Anarchism is a post-humanist politics. It’s all part of a chain—and anarchists will put us in chains if we let them.

That is the paradox of anarchy. It dresses tyranny in freedom rhetoric. It rebrands tyranny as liberation. But at its dark heart, it is nihilistic and misanthropic. Anarchists want us to hate ourselves. That’s why it draws the disordered and self-loathing to the project. If the misfit can’t be happy, then nobody can.

Anarchists are at war with human nature and the normative social relations that sustain it. Any decent human being rejects this. But we have to do more than reject it. We have to make war over it. It won’t go away unless we make it go away. Progressives already believe they’re at war. And they’re right. We have to exercise self-defense.

“Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it,” Michael Desronvil said in a statement to CBS News.

Desronvil is the lone juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial voting to convict the mother accused of strangling her three children to death with exercise bands. Three cheers for Desronvil. We need men like him to uphold American virtue.

Readers may know that the judge declared a mistrial on September 4 after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following nearly 40 hours of deliberation. As one anonymous juror characterized the proceedings, “big personalities” attempted to browbeat Desronvil into acquitting Clancy of murder—“not guilty by reason of insanity”—but he wasn’t having any of it.

“I didn’t have any doubts,” Desronvil said. “As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”

Progressives were going after Desronvil like wolverines until one of the most outspoken jurors revealed that he was a black man. After that revelation, the woke mob had to “sit with that,” as the visibly stunned CBS morning host Gayle King put it. (The oppression hierarchy isn’t always obvious.)

Clancy’s claim that command hallucinations told her to murder her children was a central issue in her trial. The issue was whether these hallucinations negated mens rea, the legal notion of the “guilty mind,” and therefore whether she was responsible for murdering her children. This was the “reasonable doubt” the “big personalities” complained to the judge about.

Clancy is not the first person to claim that a voice in her head commanded her to murder. The “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, told authorities and reporters that his neighbor, Sam Carr, owned a black Labrador retriever named Harvey. According to Berkowitz, an ancient demon possessed Harvey and, through him, commanded Berkowitz to go out and murder people.

Berkowitz later admitted he lied about Harvey. He told reporters he said that to prepare an insanity defense. Did Clancy do the same thing? How could one know for sure, since the claim of having experienced hallucinations is a subjective phenomenon? Berkowitz lied about it. Why not Clancy?

I’m not disputing that people hallucinate. But the individual claim of experiencing hallucinations is something of an unfalsifiable claim. One should be especially skeptical of the claim when the individual claiming to experience hallucinations is doing so in the context of a murder trial. The incentive to escape prison by claiming insanity seems obvious enough.

Command hallucinations are presumed auditory hallucinations in which a person experiences a voice instructing them to perform a particular action. Psychiatrists insist that command hallucinations are a well-established clinical phenomenon.

Assuming such a thing exists, psychiatrists add nuance: a hallucinatory command does not, by itself, tell us whether the person will act on the command. The problem is not whether people hear commands, but why some obey while others resist.

The appeal to hallucinatory command is a profound epistemological problem. Just as there is no way to know for sure whether a man really believes he is a woman (or that he believes he was abducted by aliens, etc.), there is no objective means of determining whether a person is lying about their hallucinations. But, for the moment, let’s explore the assumption that a person is actually experiencing command hallucinations and see what psychiatry says about the phenomenon.

Granting that hallucinations are real, researchers have found substantial variation in compliance—that is, whether an individual obeys hallucinatory commands. Rejecting the simple stimulus-response model of command hallucinations, psychiatrists insist that compliance is not automatic; if a hallucinated voice tells someone to perform a dangerous act, it does not follow that the person will do so. Those suffering from command hallucinations are more likely to comply when they recognize, regard as real, or have a delusional relationship to the voice. Another key factor is the voice’s power or authority.

In this view, the crucial question is not merely what the voice says but what it means to the person hearing it. The idea is that an affected individual who regards a voice as entitled to obedience, omniscient, powerful, or threatening experiences greater pressure to comply than someone who hears the same words but regards the voice as meaningless, powerless, or unreal.

Given the subjective nature of claims to have experienced command hallucinations, the fact that the claim is not the principal controversy remains troubling. Yet, granting such phenomena, the controversy in forensic psychiatry turns on whether such commands cause criminal behavior.

The distinction has consequences for criminal proceedings. A clinician assessing someone who reports command hallucinations cannot simply ask whether the voice has issued a dangerous instruction and then assume that the individual is likely to obey it. The question becomes: how powerful does the person believe it to be?

Note the language. How do we determine the power of belief? We know belief is powerful. Anybody who’s ever seen a faith healing knows that. We infer that the person believes there’s a god and that the healer is channeling miraculous power through his body. But the person receiving the anointing could be faking his belief. How do we know? We do know the healing is fake.

To understand why this is important, i.e., whether it matters in adjudicating criminal cases, consider the Muslim terrorist who believes that it is his obligation to perform Jihad. He believes his god commands him to perpetrate violence, and that there are rewards that come with his obedience.

Are the rest of us to regard the terrorist’s god as real, or excuse his actions on the grounds of his faith in illusion? How is a person operating on a presumed god’s dictates any different from Berkowitz obeying the commands of the demon speaking through his neighbor’s Labrador retriever? Or a voice in Clancy’s head commanding her to strangle her children to death with exercise bands?

We’ve noted that, according to psychiatry, the perceived power differential between the voice and the person determines whether the person acts on the command. However, this does not prove that perceived power explains every case; rather, it provides evidence against the idea that compliance is simply an involuntary reflex to a hallucinated instruction. Let’s grant psychiatry this much. That means the person who hallucinates a command might resist the command. Are they therefore responsible for their actions? Not if they can’t resist.

Thus, a defendant who claims that a hallucinated voice commanded them to commit a crime raises questions about whether the alleged hallucination actually existed, whether it contributed to the behavior, and what effect the person’s mental state had on their ability to understand or control their actions. That’s a lot to ascertain with any certainty.

No laboratory test can tell us with any certainty that a person actually heard a particular voice at a particular moment. Nor is there a test that determines variable compliance across individuals. How could there be? We cannot know whether a person hears voices or only claims to. It follows that there is always reasonable doubt about whether a person who appears normal is really insane. (If, as the jury foreman claimed, Desronvil said he understood the concept of reasonable doubt, was this what he was talking about?)

Forensic psychiatrists skirt the unfalsifiability problem by appealing to expertise. They examine the individual’s account alongside medical records, observed behavior, psychiatric history, collateral information, and other available evidence. The conclusion is an interpretation based on criteria the profession established—the same crowd that invented gender identity. Professional opinion substitutes for certainty.

The possibility of malingering—intentionally faking or exaggerating mental or physical illness to avoid responsibility—remains a genuine forensic concern, particularly when a defendant has an obvious incentive to portray criminal behavior as the product of psychosis. Another complication is the problem that some patients conceal or deny their command hallucinations during assessment, as might be said in the Berkowitz case (if we assume he wasn’t lying to begin with).

However, psychiatrists insist that the possibility of malingering or denial should not be confused with evidence that command hallucinations are inherently fictitious or unreliable. They will cite substantial clinical and research literature documenting people who experience such hallucinations, sometimes with serious consequences. The forensic problem is therefore evaluating an individual claim, not deciding whether command hallucinations as a category are “real.”

The language of free will introduces another complication. It may be tempting to describe a person who obeys a command hallucination as having lost free will, or to imagine the hallucinated voice as taking control of the person’s body. Although command hallucinations are widely recognized in psychiatry, no comparable consensus exists that hearing a command reliably predicts compliance or that compliance demonstrates the complete loss of voluntary control.

Assuming the voices are real, the free-will question thus becomes whether command hallucinations operate like a mechanical switch that bypasses the person’s entire capacity for decision-making. We’re told the forensic question is better framed in terms of the person’s mental state and its relationship to the criminal act rather than asking whether the person’s “free will” was completely overridden.

As one might imagine, forensic psychiatrists and psychologists disagree about the proper role of free-will concepts in assessing criminal responsibility. Some argue that free will is conceptually important. Others argue that forensic practitioners should avoid the concept because it is not a legal criterion. What then of actus reus, i.e., voluntary action?

Moreover, it introduces metaphysical questions that psychiatric examination cannot resolve. But is that a question for psychiatrists to answer? Is this not instead a matter for the law to determine? How deeply are we prepared to embed neoclassical criminology in criminal procedure?

As we have seen, forensic psychiatry skirts these difficult questions by treating command hallucinations as a phenomenon requiring individualized assessment rather than as a general explanation for behavior in the affected population. Thus, the field separates (1) the existence of a psychiatric phenomenon and (2) its causal significance for a particular criminal act into two separate questions. How is this science?

At any rate, that’s the forensic psychiatric view. I don’t find it convincing. Or particularly relevant. The reader will have noted my skepticism (I went to some lengths to make it obvious while also being charitable). I can put my skepticism bluntly: Even if we suppose command hallucinations are real, what must they be in any given case? Moreover, what does it matter?

After all, Clancy’s thoughts were telling her to do something bad. The voice in her head was her voice. What else could it be? Doesn’t every intentional homicide involve a brain instructing a body to kill somebody? Clancy and her defenders can claim that she was estranged from her own thoughts, but that’s yet another subjective claim.

I understand the desire to see severely mentally ill people somewhere other than prison. Frankly, I don’t care where these people go as long as it’s not among the rest of us. Clancy murdered her own children. If I believe she experienced command hallucinations in the past and that she cannot resist them, then I must assume she may experience them again—and there is no reason to believe she is capable of resisting them in the future. In other words, I must presume she is unsafe around any children for their sake.

There are two kinds of error risk in this situation: a Type I error (false positive) would be keeping Clancy institutionalized when she is no longer mentally ill or dangerous enough to justify continued confinement—an infringement on her liberty and autonomy; a Type II error (false negative) would be releasing her after clinicians or the court conclude that she is sufficiently recovered, when in fact she remains capable of causing serious harm to herself or someone else.

Massachusetts law explicitly recognizes this tension: continued involuntary commitment requires evidence that mental illness creates a likelihood of serious harm, and if that condition no longer exists, the court can order discharge. Clancy could be released into the public. Was there not sufficient evidence that her mental illness caused serious harm at trial? If we assume that she was insane, was that not what led to the deaths of three children?

Committing a Type II error can have extraordinarily severe consequences even when the probability of reoffending is relatively low. A Type I error can mean prolonged deprivation of liberty even when the person poses no longer-term danger. Given these options, risking a Type I error seems the most prudent course. If Desronvil had the same calculus in mind, then he was right to hang the jury and hope for another trial with a jury without “big personalities,” i.e., militant feminists.

The systemic problem is allowing people who commit heinous crimes to be found not guilty by reason of insanity and allowing them to potentially go free. Indeed, if a man hears voices commanding him to kill, then he arguably represents a much greater threat to public safety than the man who is in command of his own thoughts—and we would never acquit the rational man.

Even if we determine that Clancy did not commit the act voluntarily and with malice, we must assume for society’s sake that she remains a continuing threat to public safety. We can never know for sure that she is no longer a danger. I recognize that the truism that past behavior predicts future behavior is truer as a general statistical principle than when applied to an individual. But it’s true enough to risk a Type I error in extreme cases like Clancy’s.

This essay does three things. First, I summarize Eric Hoffer’s thesis in his 1951 book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, which distinguishes those who change their sympathies by falsifying their beliefs based on evidence and logic from those who do so because of psychological needs. Second, I elaborate on William James’s 1902 book, The Varieties of Religious Experience, to differentiate two cognitive styles: the “once-born” and the “twice-born.” Third, I illustrate the importance of falsification using two examples. I conclude with reflections on confronting the one-born personality in one’s own journey to enlightenment.

* * *

In 1951, Eric Hoffer published The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. This was Hoffer’s first book. In it, he was less concerned with the specific position individuals hold and more with the psychology underpinning the position. I want to briefly summarize Hoffer’s thesis because it bears on this essay’s subject: revising one’s worldview. The paradigm shift I experienced was not the rapid change Hoffer identifies in his subjects; rather, it was a progressive collapse brought about by facts and a willingness to change my mind in the face of them.

The ordinary, reflective person arrives at beliefs as conclusions: he considers arguments and evidence, reaches a position, and may later change that position if his reasoning or the evidence changes. He can move from progressivism to liberalism (or conservatism) after carefully considering these different positions. The same is true for those who abandon religious belief for other—or even embrace unbelief—because his commitment is ultimately to what he regards as reasonable and true. His beliefs are therefore, at least in principle, provisional and revisable.

The true believer, by contrast, does not primarily embrace a cause because he has reasoned his way to it; the cause satisfies a deeper psychological need—for belonging, certainty, identity, purpose, or escape from dissatisfaction with the self. In this case, the relationship between belief and reasoning is reversed: rather than reasoning leading to a commitment, the commitment organizes the person’s reasoning. The individual asks less often (if ever), “Is this true?” Rather, he asks, “How can I understand the world in terms of my cause?” This starts from the wrong position. It leads to motivated reasoning.

Hoffer was interested in people who move from one ideological extreme to another while retaining the same intensity of commitment, not in those who reason themselves in and out of worldviews. How, Hoffer wondered, can someone passionately believe one doctrine and then passionately embrace its opposite? That depends. If it is a reasoned shift, one based on facts and logic, then the man who changes did so on a rational basis. If it is rapid and without a reasoned process, then psychology becomes the proper subject of study.

Hoffer’s answer is that, for the true believer, the particular doctrine was never the deepest object of commitment. The underlying commitment was to the cause itself and to the psychological experience that the cause provided. Some individuals are predisposed to embrace causes first. Consequently, the ideology can change while the personality structure remains much the same. The person who moves from one mass movement to another has therefore not fundamentally changed; he has simply transferred his need for belonging, identity, and purpose from one cause to another.

Hoffer’s true believer should not be equated simply with a fanatic or an unintelligent person. This is not his argument, even though some true believers are fanatical and stupid. A true believer may be highly intelligent and capable of sophisticated reasoning, but he places his reasoning, such as it is, in the service of a prior commitment. Reason becomes less an instrument for discovering what is true than an instrument for defending and rationalizing what he has already committed himself to. Such a man does not use reasoning to falsify his position. He tends instead to deploy sophistry.

In this sense, Hoffer’s true believer is distinguished not by the particular ideology he holds or even by the intensity with which he holds it, but by a characteristic psychological relationship to ideology: the cause provides the self, and beliefs are organized around the cause or worldview rather than the cause or worldview being the conclusion of independent reasoning. This brings me to the subject of this essay.

* * *

A few days ago, a student working to establish a Turning Point USA chapter (the international organization Charlie Kirk founded to organize young conservatives) on campus emailed me seeking advice. He had read some of my essays and wanted a more detailed explanation. He also sought any suggestions I might have about dialoguing with those with whom he disagreed.

One particular essay, The Lakatosian Turning Point: How I Overcame Progressive Programming, prompted him to ask me how I came to abandon progressivism (which I have always been uncomfortable with), as well as my move from socialism to liberalism. Since I elaborate on my reasons in the essay, I won’t rehash all my answers here. One thing I didn’t include in the email was what might be described as soul-searching. I felt those thoughts were a bit too heady for an email. However, I do want to put them down in today’s essay.

Until I studied the claims of critical race theorists, Palestinian activists, queer advocates, communists, and others, I was sympathetic to them. My sympathies resulted from a worldview I now reject. Explaining its structure would take a lengthy essay (and I have already done that in numerous essays). The point I want to make in this essay is that most people believe the things they do because they rely on a worldview they never examine. I rejected my worldview because I suffered from its contradictions—not just belief against fact, but thoughts that ran contrary to principle. This, I found, distressing. So I sought a way out of the suffering. The more I learned, the more I understood that I wasn’t wrong about a few things; I was wrong about many things. Over time, I came to understand why: my worldview was deeply flawed. To end my suffering, I had to revise it.

In his 1902 book The Varieties of Religious Experience, the pragmatist philosopher and theologian William James distinguished between the once-born and the twice-born to describe two different ways people experience life and meaning.

The once-born man’s worldview feels natural. He accepts the convictions he has been given without questioning—perhaps superficial questioning here and there—and certainly doesn’t feel a deep need to pursue radical self-transformation. This is understandable; for most people, the one-born life is uncomplicated. Why complicate the matter by interrogating it? Besides, the once-born man is tribal and aware, perhaps, for the most part, subconsciously, that his tribe may judge him harshly for questioning the tribal worldview. He may lose family and friends. He risks his career and livelihood. So he doubles down. He rationalizes the contradictions. He suffers quietly—if he feels he suffers at all.

The twice-born man, by contrast, has experienced a profound doubt or the inadequacy of ordinary life that makes his natural way of seeing the world untenable. It’s not just contradictory beliefs that haunt him, but an unhappiness that compels him to find a way out of crisis. He wants to be happy, and he is willing to pursue it despite knowing the consequences—even knowing that new sources of unhappiness await. For James, such a man undergoes a psychological or spiritual rebirth, arriving at a new outlook that incorporates the reality of suffering rather than simply denying it. In my understanding of James, that includes embracing the truth his worldview kept at bay with a tangle of rationalization.

For James, the twice-born man is not necessarily a man who has merely adopted a new set of doctrines; rather, the crucial feature is a transformation of consciousness. Unlike with Hoffer’s true believer, a different psychology is at work here. The twice-born man has moved from an initial, comprehensive way of experiencing the world, passed through crisis, and emerged on the other side with a deeper sense of meaning and purpose.

Sometimes a man need not go through that. Many men are right all along, and they don’t need to study to find out why (though they may wish to). But some do. I was such a man. I think being a scientist and a teacher played a role in self-examination (see Freedom, Control, and the Lessons of Openness in Teaching: A Personal Reflection). Certainly, for me, anyway, the times called for it. The madness of the moment was outstripping my old worldview’s capacity to explain and understand it.

* * *

In this section, I use two examples illustrating the evolution of my thought and politics through falsification and show that it was less a case of simply “changing my mind” than of discovering that I had never subjected parts of my worldview to adequate empirical or historical scrutiny. A person falsifies his beliefs, in this sense, when he stops treating them as established simply because they fit within a larger interpretive framework and instead examines the evidence for them and their entailments. Once those beliefs are examined, contrary evidence can force a revision not merely of the individual belief, but of the worldview that had given the belief its meaning. I have written extensively on both examples on this platform, so I will summarize them here.

The first example is the question of lethal police–civilian encounters. I had accepted, largely uncritically, the interpretation supplied by critical race theory: that racial disparities in police use of lethal force were principally evidence of systemic racial bias in policing. That belief was sufficiently embedded in my worldview that I had not seriously examined the empirical literature that might challenge it. Roland Fryer’s 2017 research forced me to do so. More importantly, I realized that Fryer was not an isolated contemporary dissenting voice: Robert Sampson (in the 1990s) and William Wilbanks (in the 1980s) had reached findings relevant to the question years earlier. My worldview excluded them from consideration. The important realization was not simply that I had been wrong about one empirical proposition. It was that I had mistaken an interpretation for an established fact, failing to examine evidence that was available long before I encountered the argument that eventually changed my mind.

The second example involved my support for the gender identity movement. Here, the problem was not that I encountered a particularly persuasive counterargument; rather, I began a much deeper examination of the history of the concept itself—its intellectual origins, its development within medicine and psychology, and the changing assumptions underlying it—to determine whether I was on the right side of the issue. I discovered that what I had regarded as an obvious and settled understanding of human identity was actually a comparatively recent intellectual and institutional development, involving substantial conceptual changes, unresolved empirical questions, and significant entailments. That historical investigation produced the same unsettling realization as the police research: I had been treating the conclusions of a particular intellectual framework as if they were simply descriptions of reality.

The cumulative effect was consequently much larger than changing my mind about two issues. When beliefs that had functioned as load-bearing premises of a worldview failed under closer examination, other conclusions that depended upon those premises became questionable as well. I therefore began reconsidering the framework itself rather than attempting to preserve it by modifying isolated beliefs. In that sense, the change in my political standpoint was a consequence rather than the cause of the process: I did not begin by deciding to change my politics and then look for arguments to justify doing so; I examined beliefs I had previously held uncritically, found that some could not withstand the examination, and followed the implications of that discovery into a broader reconsideration of my worldview. This led to a change in my politics.

* * *

One can know how much self-transformation scares people by suffering the consequences of becoming a twice-born man. I knew that was coming. But it has been worth it. At least it was for me. For the lifelong conservative, since progressives experience him in no other way, he isn’t particularly controversial. Progressives have written him off already. He’s a known adversary from the enemy tribe. But when one is known as a leftist and walks away from the commitments of the extreme end of the spectrum, he has abandoned his tribe. He is an apostate. He has joined the enemy. From the worldview of the leftist, this means there must be something wrong with the man.

The sense of betrayal can be expressed obnoxiously: the tribe wonders what happened to their man. Some of my former students have expressed this frustration. Some think I was always somebody they didn’t really know; I kept my true thoughts well hidden (which means I was being deceptive). Part of the problem is that they saw what they wanted to see. They projected their own politics onto me. They thought they knew me and were surprised to learn they were wrong. And disappointed. But they weren’t always wrong. I changed. And change is difficult for those who see themselves in you. In their eyes, you are a betrayer. I never considered keeping the paradigm shift to myself. It seemed more important to make known what saved me: a commitment to truth. As an educator, I wanted to show others how they, too, can share this commitment.

Freedom and Reason, which began as a travel blog inspired by my trips to Jordan at the invitation of the United Nations University, has evolved into a platform concerned with many things. One of those is recounting my journey through intellectual and political life. It seems the proper place to talk about how a certain character of mind finds a man not only striving for objectivity, but also confronting the barriers that prevent him from admitting the truth that was staring him in the face all along. Doing this takes a degree of humility, even if writing it down doesn’t sound very humble. But somebody needs to say it. So I will.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”—George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The Orwell quote captures the Party’s political philosophy and Orwell’s observation that control over historical memory is a form of political power. Orwell understood that the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. If you control what people believe happened in the past, you can shape what they think is possible or legitimate in the future. Orwell writes, “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered,” and concludes: “History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Have you seen this meme?

Those who share this meme as an accurate representation of history are terribly misinformed. They fall for the Party’s historical revisionism. Who is the Party? In Orwell’s dystopia, it was Ingsoc, Newspeak for English Socialism. In contemporary America, it is the Democratic Party. Party members and those who vote for the Party suffer from motivated reasoning. They have been conditioned to resort to motivated reasoning. Their reasoning moves from a worldview they take for granted. This is why, when you challenge their understanding, they either walk away or resort to violence—when they aren’t already resorting to violence to entrench progressive ideology.

Part of the reason why Democrats are so terribly misinformed (and so fascistic) is that progressives dominate the academy and America’s sense-making institutions generally, and use their hegemony to promulgate false historical and political narratives, ones in which Democrats are portrayed as the party that did all the good things Republicans actually did—and Republicans are portrayed as the party that did all of the bad things Democrats actually did. For the most part, the meme is a camera obscura: it inverts the world. Even where it is accurate, it obscures the deeper truth of Big Government.

Like the Party in Orwell’s book, progressives understood at the start of the twentieth century that establishing the technocratic state and negating the free republic necessitated a long march through the institutions. The long march was imperative to transform popular consciousness to prepare the masses to accept their own subjection in the name of “social justice.” That progressives have been able to so thoroughly warp the historical narrative dramatically testifies to the project’s success. Democrats have enjoyed electoral success over the years because so many Americans work from a false worldview.

The truth exposes the meme as Big Brother propaganda. The Republican Party is actually the party of liberalism. As I have shown on this platform, the Party of Lincoln follows Hamiltonian nationalism in spirit. The Republican Party was a coalition of entrepreneurs and free labor that organized to oppose the slavocracy represented by the Democratic Party. The Hamiltonian paradigm is based on the principle of a strong national government capable of protecting the rights of all people regardless of the states in which they dwelled. The Democrats sought a confederacy based on states’ rights—the Articles of Confederation that the US Constitution replaced.

Democrats did not emancipate the slaves. Republicans did that. Why would Republicans be offended by something they accomplished? It is an absurd framing. True history records that the Democrats were the party of the slavocracy. They rebelled against the Union in a bid to keep their slaves. Republicans defeated them militarily and released all their slaves from bondage. Democrats neither granted black people citizenship nor the right of black men to vote. They vehemently opposed citizenship and enfranchisement for blacks. Republicans were the ones who granted blacks citizenship and the right of black men to vote. The Republican Party drafted and passed the Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth.

Democrats did not grant women the right to vote. For the most part, Democrats opposed universal suffrage. Republicans made this an issue in the 1918 election, winning control of both the House and the Senate. Republicans championed the Nineteenth Amendment and secured for women the right to vote at the national level. President Woodrow Wilson was initially reticent. However, after the National Women’s Party picketed the White House, and coming to believe it was important to the war effort, Wilson supported the amendment. Why would Republicans be offended by championing women’s suffrage? They should be offended that Democrats are credited with the good deed.

Republicans also led the way against segregation. Democrats were the party of racial segregation. Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the Senate. A much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the legislation in both Houses of Congress. Why don’t you know this? The same is true with the Voting Rights Act. Far more Republicans (94 percent, to be exact) than Democrats supported voting rights.

Related to the struggle over civil rights, although this item is not on the list, Democrats opposed anti-lynching legislation. They filibustered anti-lynching legislation when it came through the Senate. In fact, Democrats successfully prevented any anti-lynching legislation from ever becoming law. Is this common knowledge? No, it’s not. I didn’t know this myself until I researched the matter in my mid-thirties in graduate school. I might never have known this fact if the dissertation I was writing had not necessitated clarifying the politics about lynching.

Democrats indeed pushed through a raft of social programs. Some of these programs have benefited Americans, especially elderly citizens. However, an ulterior motive lurked behind the New Deal and the Great Society: a scheme to enlarge the administrative state, establish technocratic control over the population, and entrench progressive ideology. We saw this in the ghettoization of black Americans and the destruction of the black family, which made black women dependent on the government instead of husbands, who were idled by capital migration and white flight and, later, globalization. Progressive Democrats engineered de facto segeregation.

This is why, after Republicans became the party of choice among Southerners (because Southerners desired limited government, and with the dismantling of segregation there was no need to align with Democrats any longer), hardcore Democratic families persisted in the South (especially in Tennessee). Many Southerners who lived through the Great Depression appreciated progressive intervention, such as rural electrification. This was how Democrats maintained the coalition between progressives and segregationists—until the 1964 Civil Rights Act removed the race question and Southerners were free to join the Republican Party en masse.

This is why racial segregation is so much more intense in the North and in urban areas run by progressives than it is in the rural South. Southern whites have always lived around blacks. Segregationist sentiment in the South quickly dissipated after the 1960s. Those of my generation (coming of age in the 1970s) will remember that our high schools were fully racially integrated. In blue cities, blacks are corralled in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods where they are managed by the government. This led black comedian Dick Gregory to quip in the early 1960s, “In the North, they don’t mind how big I get, as long as I don’t get too close.”

The meme’s trick is to distort popular consciousness by confusing labels. True history is very different. The Republican Party is the liberal party (except during the Bush dynasty, in which globalism and neoconservatism aligned with Democratic goals). The Democrats are historically the party of conservatism and progressivism, both of which are illiberal in spirit. Here we must distinguish between old-style conservatism (the feudalist mentality) and modern conservatism, which is really liberalism with traditional Christianity and pro-family sentiment more openly pronounced. Moreover, as I have shown on this platform, progressivism and liberalism are opposites. Progressives oppose the liberal principles of religious liberty, freedom of speech and publishing, and so forth. Modern conservatives embrace these principles.

Do you see the trick? By not telling you that Republicans did all the things that liberals did, the meme manufactures an assumption that liberals are Democrats and Republicans are conservatives. This is a false assumption.

They do this to make you forget or never know that the abolitionist Frederick Douglass was a Republican. Democrats want to claim Douglass as their own. Douglass was staunchly anti-Democratic Party (I documented this in a recent essay on Freedom and Reason). During the struggle against lynching, W.E.B. Du Bois was a Republican. His comrade, Ida B. Wells, was a Republican. Together they founded the NAACP. Democrats will claim all of these activists. At the time, Democrats might well have lynched them if they could have gotten their hand on them.

Black intellectuals have become Democrats because of a principle of colonial collaboration. This is where tribal elites benefit from aligning with the colonizers’ interests in controlling the subjugated population. This is the essence of identity politics. In black America, this involves making blacks dependent on progressives and keeping them confused about history. As a result, blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, even though voting that way undermines their organic interests in having good jobs, good housing, and integral families. The situation has so corrupted black culture that black men are murdering one another at an astonishing rate.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s dialogue substitutes the word liberal for progressive. O’Donnell is not a liberal. He is a demagogue for the Party seeking to regain the reins of the federal government in November. If the Party succeeds, it will fully resume the project of historical revisionism. If allowed enough time, future generations will find it difficult to recover the truth about the American Republic, even if they know to be curious about it. They won’t remember a time when America was a free country. They may even think that slavery is freedom. And those who return to Plato’s cave to tell them about the reality of the world beyond it—their shapes and voices will be distorted into monstrous forms the prisoners must never believe.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears,” George Orwell writes in Nineteen Eighty-Four. “It was their final, most essential command.” That’s the situation of totalitarian rule. However, the Party can achieve something approximating this rule by portraying the institutions they govern as neutral and objective. This is where we’re at presently in the United States (and the West more broadly). Many of our fellow citizens have fallen for the trick, even though no Ministry of Love tortures them into loving Big Brother. At least not yet.

This situation is what Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci described in his Prison Notebooks as ideological hegemony. Those in power write history from their standpoint and act as if the narrative they socialize is the only or truthful one. They do the same with science. How is it that so many people came to believe that men could be women? How can the progressive prole appeal to academic journals to support such an absurd claim? Because progressives colonized science and corrupted its publications. Queen theory is anti-science. Yet it is portrayed as though it’s science. Doctors perpetrate medical atrocities on its basis. This occurs because elites substitute pseudoscience for science. What has replaced science is scientism (see The Corporate Character of Scientism and embedded links).

You can see the trick when a new power comes around. The new party may reset the dial to truth. Those who lost power depict the reset as ideological. The cry goes up: “The Republican Party is assaulting the truth!” Republicans are the ones revising history—by moving the date of America’s founding from 1619 to 1776 and declaring that gender is binary and immutable. Here, the change is the opposite of revisionism: it is the restoration of truth that comes with taking from those who have controlled the institutions the power they used to radically revise history and corrupt science.

A case in point is Trump’s changes at the Smithsonian. What the panic obscures is that the Smithsonian under progressive rule was never neutral or objective. The Smithsonian has been ideological for a very long time. It has promoted, among other things, critical race theory, portraying the Protestant work ethic as white supremacist design. Progressives redesigned the Smithsonian to advance Party power, attempting to manufacture a new common sense. To a large extent, they have succeeded. America is already so far down the road to Ingsoc that millions of proles think that it’s Trump who’s the historical revisionist. Bobby Kennedy Jr. is the anti-science guy.

The left across the West used Gramsci’s insights to embark on the long march through the institutions. In the United States, even though most Americans reject progressive ideas, these ideas nonetheless shape the national understanding because progressives command the sense-making and policy-making institutions. Progressives chill the air and marginalize opposition by portraying the common man as a heathen who just doesn’t understand. The progressive worldview is assumed as orthodoxy. That is ideological hegemony.

The Smithsonian’s corruption proves the reality of the long march through the institutions the left began decades ago. One sees it in public education and elsewhere—everywhere, in fact. One sees it in Americans having soured on their country. It is manifest in the rabble in the streets. Hoffer’s “true believer” has been mobilized. The corruption of Western sensibilities is what lies behind the reemergence of virulent antisemitism, which is infecting both the left and the far-right. Hating America and the West is by design. It is a plan to weaken conventional society by disordering the mind with distorted knowledge. It puts the common man on the defensive by making him appear as the problem. He becomes “bigoted,” “racist,” etc., because he loves his country.

We see this on the other side of the Atlantic, where the rise of the right-wing AfD in Germany has European elites in a full panic. They’re terrified of losing their grip on power to ordinary Germans, whom they see as hobbits who should play no role in the affairs of Middle-Earth. Elites bemoan the rise of the extremism they say they defeated in WWII. But how can the AfD be extreme if 44 percent of those in Saxony-Anhalt voted for them—and the next runner-up only got 17 percent of the vote? That’s not extreme. That’s mainstream. That’s the orthodoxy. And that’s what terrifies elites. The Hobbits are carrying the ring to the furnace of Mount Doom. They’ve eluded the Great Eye’s gaze. Barad-dûr is shaking. (See The Lord of the Rings as a Meditation on the Clash of Civilizations and Peril of Technocracy.)

The struggle over the Smithsonian isn’t over truth versus ideology, but over competing worldviews. But it is more than this. Trump’s intervention is an attempt to reclaim the Smithsonian from progressive ideology. For the left, knowledge is less about truth than it is about power; losing the Smithsonian to truth means losing control to those who seek it. The Hobbits aren’t supposed to have the integral truth; from integral truth derives a different kind of power—authentic legitimacy that makes power authority. Across space and time, elites have always trembled at what the proles might do with authority.

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s political ideology was secular Arab nationalism. He was not an Islamist. Yet, when globalist Islam attacked the United States twenty-five years ago today, George W. Bush went around insisting that Islam isn’t the problem; rather, Saddam Hussein was. He then bombed and invaded Iraq, predictably emboldening the Islamists.

The Bush wing of the Republican Party has been a disaster for America. George H. W. Bush worked with Democrats to advance globalization and bring China into the world economy. His son, while masquerading as a conservative and enjoying Democratic support, carried the agenda forward. Barack Obama continued the project. And Hillary Clinton would have, too.

At the same time, the Islamic Republic of Iran was allowed to gather strength, build and entrench its network of proxy armies across the Middle East and North Africa. Trump is finally doing something about it. However, unlike the First and Second Persian Gulf Wars, the corporate media is assailing him for it. Quite the flip of the switch. The media was Bush’s chief propaganda unit in taking the nation into war with Saddam. Today they tell us that everybody thought Saddam had WMD. No, the media wanted it to seem like everybody thought that.

The neoconservatives were not so stupid as to believe the WMD narrative. They knew what they were doing. They manufactured the narrative. And this is why they’re hopping mad about Trump’s intervention in Iran. His entire existence as a patriotic American disrupts the globalist project. This is also the reason so many people have turned against Israel, currently governed by staunch nationalists prepared to defend their country.

Being the sneaky bastards that they are, the elite took the general bad feelings Americans developed towards the Second Persian Gulf War over time, made sure the public knew it was neoconservatism, and then pinned that foreign policy direction on Trump. But neoconservatism is not what lies behind the Iran intervention. Trump did not bomb Iran to advance the transnationalist agenda. Trump’s program is meant to shift momentum away from globalist restructuring towards internationalism, i.e., a restoration of the Westphalian system of sovereign states operating on nationalist interests instead of globalist logic.

The Trump doctrine has been obvious—if not explicit—all along. Dismantling the Islamic Republic weakens China and strengthens the Western Hemisphere, which in turn enables nationalism in Europe and the popular project to dismantle regionalism (the EU, etc.). The toleration of the Islamic Republic for nearly half a century has been part of the transnational agenda to dismantle the international system that patriots are now rising to defend.

Iran used to be a secular society aligned with the West. The Red-Green Alliance produced a totalitarian and terrorist state and turned it against our greatest ally in the region, Israel. Israel is governed by staunch nationalists who grasp the threat of Islamism, and this drives the globalists up a wall. Why is Israel portrayed as an aggressor and genocidal state when it is engaged in self-defense? This is not difficult to understand once you grasp the logic of globalism and Iran’s role in that. Hamas is a proxy for the Islamic Republic.

People don’t see this because nobody explains it to them. They lack sufficient knowledge to resist the media narrative. They also can’t see how this goes well beyond the Middle East. The Red-Green Alliance in the West is turning Westerners (especially the youth) against their own nations. The left, historically populist and anti-globalist, is today aligned with the transnationalist corporate agenda.

The jet fuel driving anti-Israeli sentiment is antisemitism. Jew-hatred is what holds together the far right, the progressive/socialist left, and the Islamization project. The upshot is that the brain-dead on the right are unwittingly serving the interests of those who will reduce them to neo-serfdom.

The convergence of the Red-Green Alliance and the far-right is the enemy of free and sovereign people. This monstrosity is organized by global elites to derail populist nationalism—that is, patriotic resistance to globalization. The idiots bashing Israel and Trump are either too stupid to see, or they are effectively (if not knowingly) operatives for transnationalism.

We’re constantly being told that Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza. This is untrue. No court has found that Israel is committing or has committed genocide in Gaza. True, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel came to this conclusion, but as I explain in Are You Antisemitic? It Depends on Your Choice of Comrades in the Israel-Gaza Conflict, their findings are untrustworthy because of anti-Israel bias.

Whether a crime has occurred or is occurring depends on a legal definition. Absent a precisely defined statute, no crime has occurred. This is the Roman legal maxim nullum crimen sine lege. The maxim is basic to the rule of law. Genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention is not simply mass killing or even war crimes. Genocide requires specific intent (in legal parlance, dolus specialis) to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.

A court can infer intent from a pattern of conduct and statements. However, in the case of genocide, courts have required that destruction of the group be the aim of aggression. Defeating an enemy or dispersing a population is insufficient grounds to apply the definition of genocide; these are the typical entailments of total war. Total war is not inherently genocidal, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise.

War is a hideous thing, but it is rarely genocidal. At least not in the modern epoch. At least not among modern peoples. The National Socialist project of eradicating the Jews was exceptional. But it is not the only one. Hamas’s goal of driving Jews into the sea is genocidal. Yet it is Israel that is accused of genocide.

The reality of the situation is that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute an act of self-defense after being attacked. Even when not accused of genocide, Israel is condemned for bringing death and destruction to Gaza when Hamas is to blame. As with any other war, it is not possible to hold Hamas accountable without collateral damage. But the premise is wrong. It’s not as if Hamas is a terrorist organization acting independently of the will of Gazans. Hamas is the Gazan government. Hamas represents the Gazan people, just as the Nazi regime represented the German people in World War II.

This is an historic analogy to the Israeli-Gaza situation: Germany attacked its neighbors, triggering a world war. It would be incorrect to say that because one in ten Germans was a Nazi, the Allies should not have addressed the German people with total war. Moreover, many more Germans supported the Nazi Party than were official party members.

Likewise, Hamas enjoys the support of a majority of Gaza’s residents. Support for the terrorist government extends beyond Gaza. If Hamas were allowed to run for elections in the West Bank, polls show that a majority of Arab Muslims living there would put them in office. October 7 was an act of the whole Gazan population. The grim truth is that the majority of Arab Muslims want to see Israel wiped off the Middle East map.

It follows that the death and rubble left in the wake of Israel’s retaliation against Gazans after October 7 are analogous to the death and rubble in Germany following Allied bombing and the ground invasion. It would be absurd to accuse the Allies of genocide because hundreds of thousands of Germans were killed, maimed, and displaced during combat (another 1.5 to 3 million died as a result of the war). It is likewise absurd to accuse the Israelis of genocide because tens of thousands of Gazans were killed and even more were displaced during combat. Again, this is the nature of total war.

There is a high-intensity urban war with large Gazan casualties after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. But it is not a genocide. Frankly, even if a court found Israel guilty of the crime of genocide, it would be a bad verdict, driven by Jew hatred. One need not wait for authority to tell us what is happening in Gaza. We know why Israel is treated differently than other countries.

The lesson is this: When your government pursues aggressive war, you suffer the consequences. War crimes aside (which must be proved in court by impartial judges), the death and destruction of your fellows are your responsibility.

What did Gazans expect? There is no rational nation that will—or should—allow a foreign army to invade and kill its citizens and take hostages without retaliation. Poke Israel, and Israel strikes back. It must retaliate for its citizens’ sake.

The death and destruction that follow aggressive war are attributable to your government and therefore to you if your government takes you to war. If you do not wish to be on the receiving end of the right to self-defense, then don’t vote Nazis or Islamists into power. It’s that basic.