Author: The FAR Platform

Recently, on Facebook, I noted a warning issued by Green Bay Police Department (this is in the city in which I reside) about warming up one’s car in the driveway or garage. Car thieves have been taking advantage of the practice, a practice one might understand is desirable given how cold it gets in Northeast Wisconsin.

A frequent commenter to my Facebook posts wrote, “I don’t condone theft, but who is stupid enough to leave a running car unlocked? They’re basically asking for it to be stolen. Use some common sense, people.” To the snark about those “stupid enough” to leave a running car unlocked, I retorted, “People who live in safe neighborhoods.” When I was growing up in the 1960s-70s, we never used bike locks, locked car doors, or even barred the front door. At the same time, there was a 12 gauge pump action shotgun in the house just in case there was an intruder.

As readers might expect, I had more to say to the commenter. In a follow up comment, I wrote, “Saying somebody is asking for their car to be stolen because they’re warming it up is a lot like saying a woman is asking to be raped because she’s dressed provocatively or that a businessman is asking to be robbed because he’s dressed nice. People aren’t suppose to steal, rape, and rob. Let’s start there.”

But does that mean people should not practice situational awareness and engage in safety measures to protect their property from theft? Maybe I was too harsh; there’s a fine line between preparing people to avoid victimization and victim blaming. The commenter’s remarks stray into the second category. But there’s a way to talk about this that doesn’t. Perhaps people should heed the police warning about this tactic of car thievery. Indeed, they should. In this essay, I leverage my professional bona fides to talk about victimology and hope to show readers how they can promote public safety without engaging in victim blaming. It’s not stupidity. They aren’t asking for their cary to be stolen. But the practice is unwise, and the result unwelcome.

In the realm of criminology, victimology is one subfield, shedding light on the dynamics surrounding criminal behavior, providing knowledge that allows citizens to better defend themselves from those who wish to harm them or separate them from their property. The population of the United States in 1970, when I was eight years old, was 203 million people. In 2020, it had grown to 330 million, becoming more diverse, more unequal, with rising material deprivation. This is associated with a drastic rise in crime over the 1970s-early 90s, quelled by a massive expansion of the criminal justice system.

Open borders and the entrenchment of ghetto culture, a demoralizing force that increases the likelihood that some of our fellow citizens, as well as the new arrivals who lack the moral sensibilities that made America free and safe, an increase in the proportion of the population that works from definitions favorable to the violation of law and transgression of safeguarding norms, in conjunction with leniency in law enforcement, explain the change. But it took more than the expanding the criminal justice apparatus to accomplish crime reduction after the early 1990s; it also took situational awareness among the citizenry. This came with a downside: among other things, children became less free to enjoy the childhood I enjoyed, replaced by virtual activities. Even now, the current crime wave notwithstanding, our freedoms are constrained as much by fear of predation.

However, the threat of crime remains real, and being prepared to avoid victimization may help relieve the fear, reasonable and unreasonable, people may have about being victimized—at least it promises to shake us out of the naiveté that it could never happen to us. This is where victimology studies become useful. Victimologists study the attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics of crime victims, generating insights into the motives and patterns of criminal perpetration, as well as identifying the preventative measures that can be taken to minimize the risks of victimization. Done properly, this can have the effect of increasing our safety while minimizing the impact of fear of crime on personal freedom.

In my interactions with others, I encounter critics of victimology who say the subfield shifts responsibility for crime onto the victim, implying that it blames victims for their own victimization. This can occur in several ways, I’ve been told: focusing excessively on the behavior or characteristics of the victim rather than the actions of the perpetrator; emphasizing factors like victim behavior or vulnerability that may have contributed to the case of victimization. Critics who view victimology this way point out that focusing on victims detract from addressing the root causes of crime and victimization, perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and undermines empathy for victims.

Assuming victimology does these things, the complaints are valid. There is indeed a desire to avoid addressing the root causes of crime and victimization. Anybody with a sufficient grasp of the demographic realities of crime I the context of the politics of our era can also grasp the desire to avoid acknowledging the situation. As I have shown on Freedom and Reason, leveraging the corpus of crime statistics, black Americans, especially males, are drastically overrepresented in serious crime. On a per capita, according to the 2021 NIBRS data, black Americans were approximately 8.8 times more likely to be reported as homicide offenders compared to white Americans. Based on the 2021 NIBRS data, per capita, black Americans were approximately 7.6 times more likely to be reported as robbery offenders compared to white Americans. I will address the other two criticisms over the balance of this essay (and return to the first again).

Supposing victimology shifts responsibility, the problem identified in my response to the Facebook commenter, how do we explain criminal events while at the same time empower individuals to mitigate risk without veering into victim blaming? First and foremost, as stated, it’s imperative to affirm unequivocally the standpoint that the fault of criminal acts resides solely with the criminal. Regardless of actions, attire, or circumstance, the responsibility for any crime lies squarely on the shoulders of those who perpetrate it. Victim blaming, in any form, is not only morally reprehensible but also counterproductive in the endeavor to strengthen public safety. It undermines the fundamental principle of justice and perpetuates harmful stereotypes that exacerbate the trauma experienced by victims.

At any rate, within the field of victimology, there lies a pragmatic approach to crime prevention—one that recognizes the importance of risk mitigation strategies, situational awareness, and understanding the factors that may increase one’s susceptibility and vulnerability to crime. This approach is not about assigning blame to the victim but rather about empowering individuals with the knowledge and tools to safeguard themselves against potential harm.

Consider, for instance, the simple act of locking one’s doors before leaving home. Again, many of us did not do this in 1970, but we should have. (It is still wise to obtain a firearm and learn how to use it.) This basic precautionary measure does not absolve the burglar of responsibility for his actions. He will if determined break and enter whether the door is locked. But locking the door undeniably reduces the likelihood of a break-in, thereby minimizing the risk of victimization. On purely instrumental grounds, burglars seek the path of least resistance.

Similarly, advising women not to enter vehicles with strange men or to avoid secluded areas at night does not imply fault on the part of the assault victim. Men should not assault women or other men. At the same time, women need to be aware that certain environs pose higher risks. They will benefit from the awareness to navigate those environments safely. Hitchhiking was common in my youth. Today, it would be unwise to pick up a hitchhiker—or to be one; that one sees so few hitchhikers anymore is evidence that people are much more reluctant to invite strangers into their cars or to seek rides from strangers.

Victimology illuminates the role of routine activities in shaping vulnerability to crime. While emphasizing that no one should be targeted based on their appearance or actions, an awareness of behavioral characteristics that increase the risk of becoming a crime victim acknowledges that certain attire may inadvertently attract unwanted attention. A conspicuous display of wealth may make an individual a target for theft, not because he deserves it, but because he presents an opportunity for exploitation.

Slain United Health CEO Brian Thompson was not responsible for Luigi Mangione’s action. Those defending the assassin’s actions are engaged in blatant victim blaming. But those working in health insurance are today thinking about where they are and who is present in the wake of an action that anarchists call “propaganda of the deed.” Similarly, individuals who openly display cultural or religious symbols may become targets of hate crimes perpetrated by bigots. The bigots are responsible, but understanding that there are bigots who may harm those they loathe and taking precautionary measures can protect one from harm.

Understanding these dynamics allows for proactive measures to minimize risk, such as avoiding conspicuous displays of wealth or considering alternative routes in high-risk areas—or, if one can afford it, hiring personal security.

Victimology underscores the importance of self-defense training and empowerment initiatives, not as a means of encouraging violence or victim-blaming, but as tools for fostering confidence, resilience, and situational awareness. By equipping individuals with the skills to protect themselves, such as martial arts or self-defense classes, victimology empowers individuals to assert agency over their personal safety and resist victimization. Understanding victim characteristics that attract perpetrators and increase vulnerability to crime is thus crucial in developing effective crime prevention strategies and reducing one’s risk of victimization. Exploring these factors helps to inform risk mitigation efforts and empower individuals to protect themselves more effectively.

Perpetrators often target individuals they perceive as vulnerable or easy targets. This perception may be influenced by various factors, including age, perceived lack of assertiveness, or physical stature. For example, perpetrators may target elderly individuals or those with physical disabilities, assuming they are less likely to resist or defend themselves. Individuals who find themselves in isolated or secluded environments are more vulnerable to certain types of crimes, such as assault, rape, or robbery. Perpetrators are more likely to strike when their victims are alone and unlikely to receive immediate assistance. This underscores the importance of avoiding isolated areas, especially at night, and seeking safety in numbers whenever possible. Individuals who are unfamiliar with their surroundings or are perceived as strangers may be at higher risk of victimization. Perpetrators may exploit their lack of local knowledge to target them for scams, pickpocketing, or other crimes. This highlights the importance of remaining vigilant and seeking guidance when navigating unfamiliar environments.

For example, predators are known to use tactics such as placing sticky substances on car hoods, leaving money, flyers, or other items under windshield wipers to distract or delay a person—often targeting women—while he or she is entering or preparing to drive away in their vehicle. These actions aim to lure the person into diverting their attention, prolonging their vulnerability, or stepping out of the car into danger. To mitigate this risk, it’s crucial to remain alert and prioritize safety over addressing distractions. If you notice an unusual item on or near your car, avoid removing it immediately, especially if you’re alone or in an unfamiliar area. Instead, enter your car, lock the doors, and drive to a safe location before inspecting the item. Maintaining situational awareness, parking in well-lit and populated areas, and trusting your instincts reduces the likelihood of falling victim to such strategies.

Substance use, including alcohol and drugs, can impair judgment and decision-making, making individuals more vulnerable to exploitation or victimization. Perpetrators may take advantage of intoxicated individuals, rendering them less capable of defending themselves or recognizing potential dangers. Never leave a drink at a bar unintended. If somebody buys you a drink, watch his hands. If somebody offers you drugs, make sure you know the person well and the type and the effect of the drugs you are taking. Educating yourself about the risks associated with substance use and promoting responsible consumption can help mitigate vulnerabilities. I am not preaching the anti-drug message. What you decide to do with your body is your business. But if you are going to use drugs, do so safely and with those you trust. This won’t completely eliminate the risks surrounding drug use, but it will decrease the likelihood that you will fall victim to somebody who means you ill and other problems associated with drug use.

In recent years, subway riders have increasingly been opting to lean against the walls while waiting for trains, a behavior driven by safety concerns. As incidents of people being pushed onto the tracks have become more frequent, passengers are seeking safer alternatives to the edge of the platform. For example, in New York City, commuters at stations like Times Square and Grand Central are now more likely to position themselves along the wall, where they feel less vulnerable to sudden pushes or accidental falls. This shift in behavior highlights growing fears about personal safety and the desire to avoid the risk of tragic accidents, prompting some transit systems to reconsider platform designs and security measures to ensure rider safety. A person standing on the edge of the platform is not blameworthy if somebody shoves them on to the tracks. However, leading against the wall while waiting for the train minimizes the risk.

Unfortunately, individuals belonging to visible minority groups may face an increased risk of victimization due to prejudice or hate-motivated violence. Perpetrators may target individuals based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, seeking to intimidate or harm them based on their perceived identity. Being openly gay does not justify the actions of anti-gay bigots. When I was growing up, I would hear males talking about what they would do if a gay man ever propositioned them. I always spoke up in those situations, condemning the sentiment. I don’t want to make meeting people any more difficult than it already is, but whether you’re homosexual or heterosexual, making advances to strangers comes with risks. It is not your fault if another person victimizes you, but there are ways to avoid victimization.

Given the statistics I cited earlier, and in light of the anti-white bigotry that plagues American society, the rule of decades of blaming “white privilege” for the situation of black Americans, there is a much greater likelihood that a white person will be the victim of a black person than the other way around. While it should be that white people can feel safe walking in black-majority neighborhoods, the statistical reality indicates that it is not. For example, blacks are approximately 13 times more likely to murder a white person than are whites to much a black person. Blacks are overrepresented not only in robbery, but also in burglary and theft. Therefore, whites should consider avoiding certain neighbors and situations. For those who say this is unfair to the majority of blacks who don’t engage in crime, Heather Mac Donald put it well in an interview with Glenn Loury, observing this particular typification is a tax imposed by some on others given the overrepresentation of blacks in crime commission.

I confess that I struggle with victimization studies because I understand how it can sound like victim blaming. As I type these words, I review them carefully for the potential to cross that line. I moreover understand that raising awareness of danger promotes fear of situations and strangers. This is probably an unavoidable problem, one perhaps best captured by considering type I and type II errors, which in this case reflect the balance between identifying threats and avoiding false alarms.

A type I error, or false positive, occurs when a person perceives an individual or a situation as a threat when it’s not, potentially leading to unnecessary fear or avoidance. When a woman assumes that someone following her in a parking lot is a predator when the stranger is simply walking to his car, a type I error has occurred. A type II error, or false negative, occurs when an actual threat is dismissed or overlooked, such as ignoring someone’s suspicious behavior that later escalates into victimization. Both errors have consequences: type I errors may lead to unwarranted stress or false accusations; type II errors have implications for safety. Situational awareness and trusting one’s instincts may help mitigate these errors. My view is that it is better to overreact than be too trusting.

* * *

Before leaving this essay, I want to note the problem of cultures that blame the victims of violence for the perpetrator’s actions. Islam’s concept of “purdah,” which means to “avoid temptation of society,” is one of those cultural items. In the concrete, this is manifest in the practice of requiring women to stay behind a curtain, live in a separate room, or dress in all-enveloping clothes, for the purpose of keeping out of the sight of men. Purdah is used by Muslims and their apologists to blame European women for rape by Muslim men.

One may remember a few years ago when Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, faced backlash after he blamed victims of rape for wearing “very few clothes.” When Khan was questioned by the Axios journalist Jonathan Swan about the ongoing “rape epidemic” in Pakistan, the then-prime minister responded by saying: “If a woman is wearing very few clothes it will have an impact on the man unless they are robots. It’s common sense.” This common sense has been imported to the West, where rape has skyrocketed with the mass migration of Muslim men into European countries. It is not women going uncovered that is to blame. But Muslim men use purdah to justify raping “kafir,” i.e., those ungrateful to Allah—a denier, disbeliever, infidel, or pagan.

However, not all gender segregated spaces are oppressive to women. Gender ideology, originating in the West itself, is establishing a culture where men can enter women’s spaces by claiming they themselves are women. As bizarre as that sounds, by repurposing the synonym for sex, namely gender, queer praxis holds that men are entitled to the gender identity of women and therefore to women-only spaces and activities. Women-only spaces exist in the West not for religious reasons, but because of a recognition of the inherent difference between men and women and the risk men pose to women. Spaces free of men foster provide a sanctuary where women are not only freely express themselves, address shared experiences, and build community without fear of harassment or intimidation often present in mixed-gender settings, but also enjoy safe spaces. Indeed, safety is the primary justification for women-only spaces, particularly in contexts like bathrooms and domestic violence shelters, where privacy and security are paramount.

Nonetheless, in both cases, in the presence of purdah or the absence of safe spaces for women, women are blamed for the things that happen to them. In the Islamic worldview, a woman who is not properly covered is blamed for having tempted the man with her body. The analogy given by clerics is that of the apex predator snatching his prey. The shepherd must therefore guard his flock. From the standpoint of gender ideology, women who defend their right to spaces free of men are smeared as TERFs, lose opportunities and reputations, and even subjected to violence. Both of these cultures blame the victims of violence for the abuse and violence perpetrated on them.

There has been growing concern in some European countries, for example in Sweden, about harassment and victimization faced by women, particularly in urban areas with significant Muslim populations. Muslim men are harassing women for not adhering to certain cultural norms, such as the principle of purdah. This issue has extended to other aspects of public life, such as the perception of harassment towards Europeans walking their dogs in certain areas. Dogs are considered dirty in Islamic culture. Additionally, there have been reports of “no-go zones” in cities and towns, where non-Muslim Europeans are cautioned or even discouraged from entering due to safety concerns or tensions between different cultural groups. These developments have fueled debates over assimilation and integration, as well as the practice of cultural pluralism, typically framed as the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with respect for local norms and safety.

For my purposes in this essay about victimology, women and those taking their dogs for a walk must consider the risks of doing so when around Muslims. To be sure, it is not their fault if they are harassed or victimized, but they have to exercise caution for their sake and the sake of their pets. However, the authorities who have not acted to return communities to the level of public safety they once enjoyed are to blame. In this sense, those who continue to support those authorities shoulder some of the blame themselves. This is not blaming the victim, but rather observing the paramount importance of electing to office representatives who grasp the problem of public safety and work to solve it by restricting immigration, deporting those who have no legitimate asylum claim (which should be very narrowly defined and verified), deporting any alien who commits a serious crime, and integrating new arrivals permitted to enter or remain into the national culture to which they have chosen to migrate.

As for gender ideology in the West, this needs to be removed from the nations of Europe and North America root and branch—as should those ideologies that blame white people generally for the problems of black people (critical race theory) and the global North for the problems of the global South (ideas disseminated by postcolonial studies).

A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes
A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies
A little man with a big eraser, changing history
Procedures that he’s programmed to, all he hears and sees

Altering the facts and figures, events and every issue
Make a person disappear, and no one will ever miss you

Rewrites every story, every poem that ever was
Eliminates incompetence, and those who break the laws
Follow the instructions of the New Ways’ Evil Book of Rules
Replacing rights with wrongs, the files and records in the schools

—Dave Mustaine and Danny Ellefson, “Hook in Mouth” (1988)

Before the election, at a small gathering on my front porch, when it was still warm outside, a neighbor expressed his concern about the uninformed people reading and believing misinformation and disinformation on X. Platforms like X, he said, should be policed to remove misinformation and disinformation for the good of society. Given his politics, pro-Democrat and progressive, I felt I could make assumptions about who he thought should serve as commissar. Recently, on Facebook, a former colleague expressed a similar sentiment in the wake of Facebook dropping its fact-checking regime. I asked him whether the “lot of people out there who believe whatever they read, hear or are told at face value” (his words) should believe the fact-checkers. His answer: “[I]f something is verified by multiple reliable sources then yes.”

But how would the people who take things at face value know the fact checkers are reliable? Knowing his politics, I noted that one of Facebook’s factchecking services was Check Your Fact, a service associated with right-wing magazine The Daily Caller, co-founded by Tucker Carlson. The service’s tagline is “We check the facts so you don’t have to.” From the organization’s site: “The Daily Caller’s fact-checking team is funded by The Daily Caller’s general news budget, as well as revenue generated through advertising. Check Your Fact is also partially funded by Meta, which contracts the outlet to do third-party fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram.” I posed the question to my former colleague: “Were you confident during Meta’s factchecking era that an organization owned by former Fox News host and current Trump advocate Tucker Carlson would steer those who take things at face value in the right direction?” Obviously, it is a rhetorical question.

In 2019, Science, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), published an exposé on Check Your Fact in its section ScienceAdviser, “Facebook fact checker has ties to news outlet that promotes climate doubt.” (I presume you received the memo that there is to be no doubt about climate change.) Science is the same magazine that published the editorial “Transgender health research needed,” in which the authors told its readership as fact that “TGD [transgender and gender diverse] people have gender identities that differ from society’s expectations based on sex assigned at birth. Gender-affirming care consists of personalized health interventions that help patients achieve their goals of decreasing gender dysphoria and increasing gender euphoria. Hormone therapy, surgeries, and mental health services help TGD people live in alignment with their gender identity and expression, consistent with the accepted biomedical ethics principle of respect for autonomy, articulated by philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress in 1979.” Presumably, Science is the sort of a reliable source those who take things on face value are supposed to trust—in contrast to The Daily Caller’s Check Your Fact service Meta hired to check facts.

Recall the censorship on social media platforms of COVID-19 information that contradicted the prevailing narrative developed by the medical industrial complex and states and government and nongovernmental organizations around the world. Social media platforms, news outlets, and government agencies took steps to suppress or flag content that diverged from what was portrayed as the mainstream scientific consensus, particularly when it came to alternative treatments, the origins of the virus, and vaccine efficacy. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube enforced policies that often removed posts or accounts that promoted conflicting or “unverified information.” “Experts” argued that this censorship was necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation that could jeopardize public health. When Elon Musk assumed control of Twitter (now X), he ended the practice (on this and several other matters, such as the expression of gender critical views). In the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election, Mark Zuckerberg has followed suit, ending Meta’s relationship with fact-checkers.

Why is there so much angst over these developments? From the elite side, this isn’t hard to understand. “Advertiser concern,” is a euphemism for the concerns of corporate governance. Corporations do a lot more than move product. They manage perceptions. They govern the populace. They can’t do that when platforms allow for the free trucking of information. But perhaps popular trepidation over these developments is not hard to understand, either. A population conditioned to accept on face value the claims of “multiple reliable sources” cannot determine for itself its beliefs. Not knowing what to believe produces anxiety, which is often projected onto the “lot of people out there who believe whatever they read, hear or are told at face value.” Not seeing their own egoism in supposing that, while they know what the truth is, others cannot be trusted to know the difference between what true information and something else, they leave that matter to those with whom they share ideological affinity, assuming that the fact-checkers in Meta’s employ fit the bill. In other words, they themselves take at face value “facts” from sources purported by some authority to be reliable. It is a hopeless paradox.

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley introduces the concept of “mandatory perception,” a feature of the World State’s relentless efforts to control how individuals feel, think, and view reality. Through pervasive methods, such as hypnopedia, or sleep-teaching, which is learning by hearing while sleeping or under hypnosis, citizens are conditioned from birth to accept societal values without question. Conditioning implants beliefs that shape mass perceptions of the world, creating a population that sees conformity, obedience, and stability as the highest virtues. Individuality and personal interpretation are systematically suppressed in Huxley’s dystopia. The World State fosters an environment where deviation from the collective mindset is not just discouraged but unsettling, even threatening. By programming people to perceive their world in narrowly defined ways, the World State ensures its citizens remain compliant and content, incapable of challenging the status quo. The result is a society where perception is not merely shaped but dictated, leaving no room for alternative viewpoints or independent thought.

Today, this is known as “perception management.” Perception management is the deliberate effort by corporations and governments to influence how individuals or groups interpret information, events, or situations. It’s a strategy used in advertising, marketing, and public relations, in politics, to justify military action, etc., to shape public opinion, suppress dissent, and maintain control over narratives. The process involves carefully curating messages, emphasizing certain aspects of reality, omitting or downplaying others, to guide the audience toward a desired understanding or reaction. At its core, perception management leverages the psychological principles of cognitive bias and framing. By controlling the context in which information is presented, those managing perceptions can influence how people interpret that information. When one knows it, he sees it everywhere. A political campaign might highlight a candidate’s achievements while deflecting attention from controversies, crafting an image that aligns with voters’ aspirations. Perhaps this is expected. Is it expected that the entire media apparatus would highlight controversies to deflect attention from the candidate’s achievements and virtues to turn voters against him?

Often subtle—always subtle to those who don’t know what’s happening—, this practice has profound effects, particularly when used to sway public opinion on contentious issues. The rise of digital platforms has amplified the reach and complexity of perception management. Social media algorithms, targeted advertising, and influencer endorsements create environments where tailored narratives can spread rapidly and persuasively. This dynamic makes it increasingly challenging for individuals to distinguish between authentic information and content designed to manipulate their perceptions, underscoring the importance of media literacy (the opposite of factchecking) and skepticism (central to critical thinking) in navigating today’s information landscape. The regime of factchecking is not only a strategy for imposing Huxley’s mandatory perception, but also for obscuring the manipulation inherent in the present workings of social media.

One can see this power in the way the media apparatus can turn on a dime and cause tens of millions of people to believe or disbelieve something today about which they held the contrary view the day before. Things that were never true become always true. The paradigm is the case of Donald Trump.

Before entering politics, former President and current President-elect Donald Trump, a prominent real estate developer from Queens and a television personality, had expanded the family business into a global brand, becoming synonymous with luxury and opulence through high-profile properties, casinos, and ventures. Known for his larger-than-life persona, Trump was a frequent figure in entertainment (talk shows, SNL, etc.), sports, and tabloids, sports, rubbing elbows with celebrities and politicians while cultivating an image as a charismatic billionaire and shrewd dealmaker. In the 2000s, Trump became a cultural icon through his role as the host of the reality TV show The Apprentice, which showcased his commanding personality. However, when Trump announced his run for president in 2015, the media’s portrayal underwent a dramatic shift. Once celebrated as a pop culture icon, he became a polarizing figure in American politics. Far from framing the man as a voice for disenfranchised Americans and a disruptor of the political establishment, the media and partisans portrayed him as a fascist (even comparing him to Hitler) and a racist.

Why this shift occurred is easy enough to explain. Trump was adored as long as he was on the outside the sphere of corporate state power. His fierce independence and views on political economy and foreign policy were tolerated because they could have no effect on policy and world affairs. The people who adored him were believed to be well under the control of the power elite. When he entered politics, that changed. His meteoric rise in the ranks for Republican contenders terrified elites, not only because o his views, but because he brought tens of millions of disaffected Americans with him. He gave them a voice when they were suppose to have no voice. So the hegemony machine flipped the switch, and Trump was transformed. A face became a heel. His wickedness was bottomless. He was a Russian stooge, determined to sell out America to the arch-villain Vladimir Putin. He was a rapist. An insurrectionist. A dunderhead and a kook. Anything and everything said about him was believed by tens of millions, and no amount of factchecking could change their opinion. For those who disbelieved the mandatory perception, their wickedness was a bottomless, which justified harassing the red MAGA hat wearer or disinviting an uncle to Thanksgiving Dinner—or worse: open disappointment that an assassin’s bullet missed its target.

The efficacy of hegemonic power tells us that a large proportion of the population already lives in Huxley’s World State. The popular turn against Trump is one example. There are many others. “MeToo” set feminism on its head. Racism is ubiquitous. Over a number of years queer theory redefined gender, but one day we just seemed to know that affirming the obvious—that a man cannot be a woman—would rightly be met with negative sanction and shame, that we would even think of ourselves as terrible persons for having even thought this, even though everybody thought it only a little while ago. The very fact that we know without being told that this or that is an entirely unacceptable opinion, a belief that can have no purchase in polite society, testifies to this power.

The magic of this power lies in its ability to erase what came before it, since what came before it, if allowed to be the subject of mutual knowledge, negates the thing we’re all supposed to know as eternal truth. Indeed, the wholesale and immediate reconstruction of common sense is perhaps the scariest aspect of hegemonic power. And that is why the fact-checker has no place in a free and democratic society.

Put your hand right up my shirt
Pull the strings that make me work
Jaws will part, words fall out
Like a fish with hook in mouth

I want the public to be prepared for the return of the propaganda term “family separation” when the Trump administration begins the mass deportation of illegal aliens. I have written a great deal about immigration over the years, starting in the summer of 2018 when I was on a research expedition in Scandinavia witnessing the effects of the 2015 wave of illegal aliens that threw Europe into turmoil. From Sweden, I watched the chaos at my own southern border and the media-manufactured hysteria surrounding “family separation.” Here are some of those essays (the last one from October 2020): Immigration, Deportation, and Reductio ad Hitlerum; Law Enforcement and Family Separation; The Situation at the Border and How to Respond to it; Migrant Detention Facilities are Not Fascist Concentration Camps; The Interstate System and the Experience of Safe, Orderly Immigration; The Attempt to Gaslight America Over Open Borders; The Rhetorical Function of Family Separation and Family Reunification.

I’m a criminologist. I am focused on the matter of arrest, detention, and incarceration. Today, some two million people are in prisons and jails in America. That figure is somewhat misleading since it doesn’t convey the phenomenon of “churn” in our jails, where some ten million people flow through jails across America every year. Quite often, when a man or a woman is arrested and either detained in jail or sentenced to time in jail or prison, he or she is separated from their families. In the case of long-term imprisonment, this separation could be for years. Yet you rarely if ever hear people talking about family separation in this context. You won’t hear the media saying that we should end arrests, detention, and incarceration because it separates families. Nor will you hear this in other countries across the globe. Arrest, detention, and prison are common items in the world inventory of state practices. It’s called “public safety.” It would be as absurd to advocate for ditching public safety because of family separation as it would be to advocate for sending children to prison to be with their parents.

Why is this term being used in the context of deportation? It isn’t obvious? Because the corporate state does not want deportation of illegal aliens because businesses need illegal aliens for super-exploitable labor, to drive down wages for native workers (which disproportionately affects black and brown workers), and to change the demographic composition of the country for political purposes. (To read some my recent essays on this, see The Project to Replace Native Born American Labor; A Case of Superexploitation: Racism and the Split Labor Market in Springfield, Ohio; The Defenders of Mass Immigration Insult Native-Born Labor; The H-1B visa Controversy: The Tech Bros Make Their Move.) So a propaganda term has been devised—used extensively during Trump’s first term—and selectively deployed to undermine the very project the American voters sought in the 2024 election: the mass deportation of illegal aliens. As I wondered rhetorically in those earlier essays, did you hear that term during Obama’s administration? Obama deported millions of illegal aliens. No, you did not hear that term.

That being said, mass deportation has an advantage that incarceration does not. A man who is put in the back of a police car, detained in a jail cell, or sent to prison cannot—and should not—take his family with him. Family separation in these cases is a matter of course. Sometimes tragically, sometimes to the benefit and relief of the family, a criminal suspect or convict is separated from his or her family. But for a man or woman who is here illegally, his or her family can—and should—be deported together, or at least deported to the same place so they can be reunited. If they don’t seek reunification, then they can work that out in their home country. Of course, a great many of those who have entered our country illegally are not here with their family. They are military-age males here to take advantage of the wealth we built. They must go first. But the families must also go. Without borders and immigration controls, we don’t have a country. Don’t let misguided humanitarian sympathies cause you to falter at a time where patriotism and nationalist resolve are needed to save our republic.

I want to urge you to watch this interview. You will learn a lot from it. It could change your life. I teach this material in my Freedom and Social Control class. It appears at several points during the semester. I do media and propaganda as thought control. Thats obvious. But I also do it when I cover the sick role, and the medical-industrial complex (psychiatry being the focal point) and the reason it manufactures life-long patients, namely profit. (The government does this by creating dependents.)

I have several essays about this on my platform Freedom and Reason: A Path Through Late Capitalism. This subject, like many of the other subjects I cover, would never be accepted for publication in academic journals, and so I publish here. But it would be pointless even if academic outlets permitted this information to appear given that only a handful of people—often the most deeply indoctrinated among us—read academic journals. The paywalls are too high for the ordinary person. Perhaps that’s okay because most of what one finds there is nonsense. What might be useful to masses is obscured by jargon.

Here’s what’s not nonsense (I will try to avoid using too much jargon): You are being managed, and there’s a lot of effort invested in obscuring that fact. Those managing you know that popular awareness of how you are being managed will give you insight into your personality and help you resist your managers’ schemes. The managers know, or at least those who developed the techniques they use know, that gullibility and suggestibility are variable across individuals, and that everybody is to some degree capable of being conditioned. They use that knowledge to tailor the techniques of mind control. Knowing where you lie along the distribution of these traits and the different management techniques used to leverage that variability could help you avoid being manipulated.

Since most of you are not in that universe, you may not be aware that universities offer courses and organize thematics around the topics of conspiracy theory and dis/misinformation. These courses and thematics are designed, whether the curricular designers and administrators are aware of it (most aren’t, frankly) to dissimulate the technology of thought control by making awareness of its techniques appear as the product of paranoia. Talk the way I talk and you are the type of rube who listens to Bobby Kennedy, Jr., and that crowd. Obviously, I am guilty as charged.

For those unfamiliar with the term, dissimulation is the opposite of simulation. The latter involves making something that doesn’t really exist, or is actually something else, appear as if it does or is what is presented. This is happening all the time now, for example in the phenomena of simulated sexual identities. Once artificial intelligence, robotics, and virtual reality are fully realized, Baudrillard’s precession will be fourth order. In contrast, dissimulation is making something that does in fact exist—such as the fact that you are being managed—appear as if it doesn’t really or that it is not what you think it is. The most convincing simulations will thus be those for which the process by which they are produced is dissimulated.

With thought control techniques, you’re “supposed” to know that these things exist but disbelieve that they have real effects and distrust those who tell you what the purpose behind it all is. The dissimulation of thought control is key to maximizing its effectiveness.

We all remember The Wizard of Oz (here referring to the 1939 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer film). The Great and Powerful Oz was a simulation. Toto, because he is a dog, is free of the capacity to be manipulated by dissimulation (dogs are affected by simulations for the same reason), pulls back the curtain to expose the huckster pulling the levels that work the simulation.

At first you see evil. This man is an exploitative narcissist (which he is). But by humanizing the huckster and rationalizing his manipulations, and by leaning into his charisma and confidence (both simulations), the human and humanoid characters continue to trust him even after he is exposed as a huckster. Indeed, he becomes even more powerful in his naked moment (which is still fiction, but I ask you to suspend your disbelief for our purposes here).

Remember, the technicolor part of the film is a dream. The huckster appears in both the black-and-white “real world” and the technicolor dream (ponder that juxtaposition later—or now, if you wish) expressing empathy. But his life is hucksterism. He appears to have more power in his manufactured authenticity. At least his power is more subtle. He uses it to exploit the gullibility and suggestibility of the fellowship for his own profit, whether it’s sustaining his life at the edges of black-and-white communities in his traveling van or ruling the Emerald City, where he uses parlor tricks like the Horse of Many Colors to amaze the citizens there.

While the huckster can give the humanoids—the Tin Man, the Straw Man, and the Cowardly Lion (all metaphors)—a symbolic item that completes them, they are all figments of Dorothy’s imagination—or rather sublimations of personalities in her black-and-white life. Dorothy and Toto are real (the Fourth Wall is only broken by the Wicked Witch of the West in the dream world). Oz cannot complete Dorothy. Only Dorothy can do that. And she finds, in the final analysis, that she is already complete. She was all the time. There’s no place like home.

Remember the short story “It’s a Good Life?” Maybe you saw the Twilight Zone adaptation. The world was destroyed and only Peaksville left untouched. This was home. Those trapped in Anthony Fremont’s dream (nightmare) never wake up—if it was a dream at all. They couldn’t kill Anthony because he would know. Dorothy sought the dream Land of Oz because she felt trapped. She found adventure after being knocked unconscious. The dream was very real. It was in color. Any everybody around her was in it.

Governor Gavin Newsom complains about the politicization of California’s wildfires. But these fires are the consequence of his politics—the politics of woke progressivism. The consequences of ideology in the actions of powerful people (more accurately in the hands of those who have been given power because of their subservience to it) are inherently political. Newsom and his crowd are to blame for the catastrophe. The tactic of depoliticization to meant to create the illusion that the situation is not political by claiming that others are politicizing it, and they do this not only to stay in power, but to keep in place the policies that created the problem.

I am not going to provide a detailed analysis of an unfolding situation for that very reason—it’s unfolding. But I do want to acknowledge the unfolding situation and make a few comments about it. At this point, we can draw some conclusions.

Putting the matter charitably, this situation is in large measure the result of misguided environmentalism. Donald Trump was right when he explained the problem to Joe Rogan on the latter’s podcast in October 2024. But this wasn’t the first time Trump had said this. Back in August of 2020, for instance, he told a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, “I see again the forest fires are starting.” Like an oracle, he continued: “They’re starting again in California. I said, you gotta clean your floors, you gotta clean your forests—there are many, many years of leaves and broken trees and they’re like, like, so flammable, you touch them and it goes up.”

Here is Trump saying it to Newsome’s face in November 2018:

Politicians and the punditry make fun of Trump’s criticism of forest management. “Come on, man!” was the response of out-going president Joe Biden, mocking Trump’s observation that California “sweep” the forest floor. Representations of Trump’s criticism dwell on the phrase “rake the forest.” They did this Trump’s COVID-19 response. They had Trump telling Americans to “inject bleach” and “drink fishtanks cleaner.” They had Rogan eating “horse paste.”

However, Trump did indeed recommend raking and sweeping the forest floor, and for good reason: effective forest management can significantly reduce the severity and spread of wildfires in areas like California. While it may not be possible to prevent all wildfires (it’s not, if we’re honest), proper management strategies can greatly mitigate their effects.

The consequences of the current wildfires is not the result of global warming, as progressives tell us, but the result of government failure to properly maintain California’s forests, and because elites have diverted water to the Pacific—water shortages have hampered firefighting efforts. Trump has also talked about California’s water policy.

What about the problem DEI in firefighting? That also plays a role in preparedness. There is a need to hire based on aptitude, attributes, integrity, and talents, not on the basis of identity. If a woman can fight fires alongside the men and do so effectively, then by all means she should be allowed do so. But lowering standards so more women can fight fires alongside men undermines preparedness. The need for strength and stamina in this occupation (and many others) tells us that, by and large, it is men we seek for this role, and men within a certain distribution of attributes and skills.

Even in the face of such obvious truths, progressives insist that we blame the fires on the abstraction of climate change. They do this to divert attention from their failure to properly manage the forests and the consequences of California’s water policy, and the institution of DEI.

This situation is not merely due to incompetence and bad policy, but because those who push the climate change narrative, and woke progressivism more generally, have influenced authorities to formulate and establish destructive policies. We can’t control the wind. We can’t stop crazy people and saboteurs (often the same person) from setting fires. We have to know what we can control and get ideology out of preparedness.

Why Californians continue to vote for politicians and policymakers who fail them testifies to the power of partisan politics and the role of woke ideology in making people stupid. The best thing any man can do is get as far away from progressive thinking as he possibly can and insist that society replace ideology with common sense and practical science and reap the benefits of reason and truth. California is on its way to being a failed state (which probably explain why Canada wants to annex it, along with other failing states such as Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington).

* * *

Progress is being stymied by those suffering from the imposed idiocy of ideology—and others are made to suffer on account of it. They call the stupidity “progressive” to convey what is not there, a genuine commitment to progress for the sake of humanity.

It’s no accident that progressivism emerges in the United States during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century at the same time the conscious and intentional manipulation of public attitudes via manufacture of propaganda (renamed “public relations”) emerges. Progressivism presents itself as a reform movement aimed at addressing problems associated with corporate governance, for example political corruption. These are problems that cannot be denied. The ideology is designed to obscure the harmful effects of corporate power, which is inherently corrupting, and to handle the problem of popular resistance to the situation corporate personhood produces. It’s why the crime of bribery is sublimated as the normal practice of campaign finance. Etcetera.

Progressivism should refer to the belief in human progress, modernization, and social improvement, and the popular governance structures that will realize these commitments in our daily lives. But it’s a common propaganda tactic to conceal the opposite of what something is by calling it what it is not—and accusing those wise to the deceit of “politicizing” what it really is.

“Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man, where he seeks and must seek his true reality.” —Karl Marx (1843)

More and more, organizations critical of religion, or that demand the separation of religion and government, have become advocates for religion. We see this with the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the latter from which I resigned a few years ago for this very reason. That these orgs don’t appear to understand what constitutes religion is part of the problem. But, more than this, they have become captured by an ideological tendency that advances belief systems that share with religion the key characteristics that define this social phenomenon. Indeed, religion is a species of ideology, a chief characteristic of which is alienation from reality.

On December 28, 2024, in a letter published on Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is Real, Steve Pinker resigned from the Honorary Board of the FFRF. Pinker wrote “With sadness, I resign from my positions as Honorary President and member of the Honorary Board of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The reason is obvious: your decision, announced yesterday, to censor an article by fellow Board member Jerry Coyne, and to slander him as an opponent of LGBTQIA+ rights.” I left the embedded link so readers can read for themselves the way those who defend the ideological corruption of science twist language, perhaps in part to convince themselves, but in effect if not in intent to disorder the thinking of the general populace, which prepares them also for ideological corruption.

I want to reproduce here the first paragraph of that organization’s justification for censoring and slandering Coyne to convey my point: “The Freedom From Religion Foundation is dedicated to protecting the constitutional principle of state/church separation, which ensures religious beliefs do not dictate public policy. While advocating for LGBTQIA-plus rights is an indirect component of our mission, we recognize that many attacks on these rights are rooted in attempts to impose religious doctrines on our secular government.” Do you see what FFRF did there? In reality, the imposition comes from queer praxis demanding that government (which includes academic) institutions respect the establishment of religion, which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. FFRF does this by failing to recognize or obscuring the fact of queer theory as religious faith.

https://twitter.com/eweissunburied/status/1877859505465180285

We also see this corruption in the actions of academic institutions retarding the progress of science by permitting religious belief to determine how, for instance, anthropologists and archeologists go about their work. Consider the case of Elizabeth Weiss. Weiss is an anthropologist and professor emeritus, formerly associated with San José State University (SJSU), whose work on the study of human remains, particularly in the context of indigenous repatriation laws and ethical considerations in archaeology and anthropology, has been made controversial. Weiss is known for her outspoken criticism of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a 1990 US law that requires institutions to return certain cultural items, including human remains, to affiliated indigenous tribes. Weiss has argued that restrictions imposed by laws like NAGPRA hinder scientific research, particularly studies that rely on skeletal remains to advance forensics (useful for criminalistics, for example) and our understanding of health, human history, and human evolution.

In 2021, Weiss posed with a human skull on social media to promote her book (coauthored with bioethicist James Springer) Repatriation and Erasing the Past, which critiques NAGPRA and raises concerns about what Weiss describes as the politicization of science and the loss of research opportunities due to government policies. This image and her commentary was portrayed as insensitive and framed as part of a long history of desecration of indigenous burial sites in the name of scientific research. Because her discipline has been captured by ideology, Weiss’s actions and views have drawn criticism from scholars who advocate for ethical and respectful treatment of human remains, particularly those remains belonging to what are described as marginalized and historically oppressed communities.

Weiss’s stance and that of her opponents represent incommensurable standpoints, providing a paradigm of why the separation of science and democratic government, on the one hand, and religion and other ideologies, on the other, is vital for the progress of knowledge and technology. 

I must digress here and note that Weiss was married to J. Philippe Rushton, a Canadian academic widely condemned for his research on race, intelligence, and behavior. I suspect this relationship had something to do with the controversy over Weiss’s work. Rushton, who served as president of the Pioneer Fund, a foundation known for supporting research on heredity and eugenics, is best known for his application of r/K selection theory to human populations. In his work, Rushton argued that racial groups differ in traits like intelligence, reproduction, and social behavior, attributing these differences to genetic factors. His research has been widely criticized for the promotion of scientific racism, perpetuating stereotypes and misrepresenting the complexity of human diversity. Many scholars have condemned Rushton’s work as pseudoscience.

I am not here to condemn Rushton’s work. However, readers should know that when I cover it in my course on criminological theory, I am critical of it. That’s my job as a teacher. I am here to defend science from ideology, and in this regard it is relevant to note that, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Rushton’s work became the subject of an investigation by the University of Western Ontario, where Rushton was a professor, to determine if it constituted misconduct or violated academic standards. The investigation ultimately concluded that while Rushton’s research was controversial and offensive to many, it fell within the bounds of academic freedom.

The fact that there was even an investigation, and the fact that the university distanced itself from his views (as a public institutions, they should have no position on the matter other than to defend the academic freedom of their faculty, as well as uphold the principles of the First Amendment, namely the freedoms of conscience, speech, and publishing) testifies to the ideological corruption of our academic institutions. Moreover, in 1989, Rushton was investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police under Canada’s hate crime laws. No charges were filed, but the fact that such laws exist have a chilling effect on free speech and scientific practice.  It is not the role of government in a free society to police speech and research interests. Public institutions free of ideology do not behave this way.

Returning to Weiss’s situation, in 2021, she was removed as curator of the university’s skeletal remains collection and had her access to these materials revoked, actions she perceived as retaliation for her stance. How could she not? In response, Weiss filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the university, alleging that her academic freedom was being infringed upon. After a legal battle lasting more than a year, she reached a settlement with the California State University Board of Trustees in June 2023. As part of the agreement, Weiss agreed to retire at the end of the 2023-2024 academic year, with included being granted emeritus status. Following her departure from SJSU, Weiss has continued to advocate for academic freedom and scientific inquiry. She joined Heterodox Academy, an organization that promotes viewpoint diversity in academia, and remains active in public discussions about the influence of sociopolitical factors on scientific research. (A brief account of her situation was reported on in Higher Education.)

One objection to my argument in this essay is that some of what I have identified as religion in my writing is not in fact religion, or even ideology, but ways of being that exist outside of those parameters, often accompanied by reference to homosexuality, assuming that homosexuality and gender identity are commensurable rather than oppositional. It is therefore important to determine what counts as religion. In my career as a sociologist, I am not merely well read in the area of religion studies, but have taught sociology of religion and published in journals and presented in conference sessions that center the study of this social institution. Moreover, as an undergraduate, I minored in anthropology and could have, with a few additional courses, declared a major in the field. I want to give you the definition of religion I have derived from these disciplines, both of which are purported to be scientific disciplines.

Religion, from both anthropological and sociological standpoints, is broadly understood as a system of beliefs, practices, and symbols through which individuals and groups relate to the sacred or transcendent, often providing cohesion, meaning, and structure to human existence. Religion encompasses the moral codes, narratives, and shared rituals that shape social organization and cultural identity while addressing existential questions about being, as well as life and death. Both disciplines emphasize the embeddedness of religion in social and cultural contexts, examining how religion informs and shapes, and is shaped by human interaction, power dynamics, and historical processes. Religion is a social institutions, and both history and prehistory suggest the existence of a need in humans to seek the transcendent and to ritualize their behavior. We might put it this way: religion is the sublimation of human instincts and primal fear, acts of reification foreign to other animals because they lack the depth of reflexive consciousness common to humans.

The obvious examples of religion in the Western world are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, collectively known as the Abrahamic traditions. But Scientology, with its notion of the thetan, a being that exists in all of us that must be revealed through acceptance of doctrine and participation in a ritual (auditing), is also a religion. There are others that I will come to, and one of these—the matter of queer theory—lies at the heart of Coyne’s situation. All of these doctrinal systems have at their core nonfalsifiable propositions, i.e., claims that are by their very instantiation not subject to empirical confirmation or refutation. Examples of such claims are angels and devils, heaven and hell, and souls and thetans. When a person testifies to an otherworldly experience that requires that you accept or affirm their claims based on faith, i.e., belief without evidence, then you have been provided with such an instantiation.

Gender ideology, or queer theory, shares all of the characteristics of religion. The construct of “gender identity” is the analog to the soul in Christianity or the thetan in Scientology. Seeing this is really just a matter of swapping out terms: Queer theory is a system of beliefs, practices, and symbols through which individuals and groups, seeking transcendent experience, typically framed as the enlightened seeking of euphoria (the religious experience), manifest in the desire to transform bodies to achieve this state, related to what is defined as the sacred, that is the queer person, a living fetish or totem, which in turn provides cohesion, meaning, and structure to their existence, as well as to those who have chosen the queer person to be their totem, an existence said to be fraught with dysphoria, understood as the unbearable discomfort of being trapped in the wrong body, thus demanding sympathy and allyship.

The associated ritual moves beyond mere agreement among congregants to this church that these claims contain truth to involve the medical-industrial complex, where doctors serving as a priesthood apply drugs and surgeries in an alchemic manner to release the trapped gender identity by altering the physiology and modifying the apparent morphology of the physical body of the congregant. Moreover, demonstrating imperialist ambition, the church of gender demands that those who disbelieve the doctrine nonetheless observe it and participate its its sacraments, such as treating sex and gender as distinct phenomenon, referring to men as women and vice-versa (or as capable of having both, other, or no gender at all), and tolerating men in activities and spaces reversed for women (thus assaulting the institution of women’s rights). Those who resist doctrine and oppose the associated ritual are subject to censorship and other punishments. In this way, queer theory is highly similar to militant Islam (which explains why the former has become allied with the latter).

That gender ideology advances falsifiable claims does not it return to the brink of religious status. In the past, I have characterized queer theory as “religious-like” and “quasi religious.” Sometimes I still do. But close examination of the ideology reveals it to be a full-blown religious system. The claim that a man is a woman is indeed a falsifiable claim, since gender is a scientific term denoting gametes, sex-determining chromosomes (or other systems of sex determination), and reproductive anatomy, all of which can be confirmed or disconfirmed through objective examination of the claim. However, those who subscribe to the doctrine of queer theory attempt to side-step falsification by redefining gender as something other than a synonym for sex and disappearing it into the subjective realm. One is the gender one say he or she is, and that is all that is needed to demonstrate the existence of gender identity.

The nonfalsifiable character of gender as so rendered by the religion is why congregants to the church of gender either cannot or refuse to provide a definition of gender beyond the mantra that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman, a tautological formula common to religious claims. We see this in the Orwellian chant “Transwomen are women” (a slogan that at once denies its purported truth). Readers will have confronted such tautological forms before. How do we know there is a soul? God told us there is. How do we know there is a God? Because the Bible tells us so. Why should I accept the Bible as an authoritative source on the matter? Because the Bible is the inspired word of God transmitted through men. Rinse. Repeat. Apply the same tautologies to Islam, Mormonism, or any other religion. Indeed, where such formulas appear, it suggests the presence of religious thinking.

For the record, a woman is an adult female member of the species Homo sapiens. As a scientific matter, gender is binary in mammals (and other classes of animals) and immutable. That means there is neither third or other genders, nor individuals without gender. It also means that mammals cannot change their gender; only simulations of other genders may be manufactured (occasionally convincing copies), simulations made possible by technologies made possible by science taken up by ideologically-captured and profit-generating institutions—in the same way the doctors in Nazi Germany enlisted science in the commission of atrocities during the Holocaust.

These facts constitute a brutal truth, one that a person only escapes (but not really) by resort to religious thinking, however twisted to make it appear that they are working from a rational standpoint. Denial of truth is a sure sign of anti-science sentiment. This is why it is so bizarre to see self-identified humanist and rationalist organizations like FFRF and the ACLU embracing queer theory and censoring those they find have committed the offense of working from a gender critical standpoint, that is the stance that accepts the truth of gender as I defined it above.

For those who accuse me of merely claiming the truth of the matter, they can do this by having assumed the post-truth stance of postmodernism and critical theory corrupted by its nihilism. I can’t claim the truth really, as this crowd sees it, because what pretends to be the truth is only a narrative constituted by power—and power means there is an “oppressor” and an “oppressed.” Lurking there is the “truth” of the “epistemic privilege of the oppressed.” Hence we have governments working with indigenous people to retard the progress of science. Ironically, the postmodernists tell us that there is in fact truth—but their truth, the one they claim they have the power to make it so.

Alongside post colonial studies and queer theory is critical race theory (CRT), which also constitutes a religion. I have written about CRT many times before (as I have about post-colonial studies and queer theory), arguments that are usefully summarized here. CRT as with post-colonial studies and queer theory, form the doctrines that underpin the dissemination of diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI (perhaps arranged alphabetically, but perhaps so arranged so as to avoid an acronym that spells out an undesirable conveyance, one that itself conveys a truth, as we can see by the collapse of complex systems across the West).

CRT constitutes a religion for the following reasons. First, it treats individuals as personifications of abstract demographic categories. In this way, it makes a pretense to science. To be sure, abstractions can be useful for scientific work. For instance, they can identify areas requiring further inquiry. For example, if the average median income for black men is significantly lower than it is for white men, then we might then try to determine why we see this. It is an important question. But the disparity is not in itself an explanation of anything. Moreover, it does follow that every actual black or white man has an income identical to the group average. To quote Karl Marx from his critique of Georg Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, an essay that begins with a critique of religious consciousness, “man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.”

Second, CRT advances correctives to the social injustices it calls into existence based on abstraction-as-explanation that are characteristic of many religions, namely the doctrines of collective and intergenerational guilt, responsibility, and punishment, the adjudication of which is left to DEI and civil rights law, places these doctrines have not place to be in. Indeed, the government respecting the establishment of the religion of CRT is a major source of injustice with respect to actual people. To wit, the practice of collective guilt, responsibility, and punishment finds individuals experiencing treatment on the basis of race and ethnicity (the latter often conflated with race in this ideology) and not on the merits of their accomplishments, aptitudes, character, and talents. The great diversity of these merits in any given demographic category are ignored such that individuals from purportedly disadvantaged and oppressed are given opportunities and dispensations based on selected attributes that construct the abstraction rather than those that should merit their include. Likewise, intergenerational guilt, responsibility, and punishment holds individuals responsible for things they did not do but rather on the basis of assigned membership in an arbitrarily (albeit not randomly) selected abstract demographic category.

Gender ideology, as informed by queer theory, mirrors the essential characteristics of a religion, built on non-falsifiable claims, tautological reasoning, and ritualized practices that demand both personal transformation and societal adherence. Central to this system is the construct of “gender identity,” functioning as an analog to the soul in traditional religious frameworks, upheld through institutional mechanisms such as the medical-industrial complex, which facilitates its physical and symbolic manifestations. Like other belief systems rooted in abstraction, queer theory, alongside critical race theory and postcolonial studies, elevates subjective narratives to the level of sacred truths, enforcing conformity through social penalties and institutional power.

This ideological framework, by rejecting objective scientific inquiry in favor of relativism and power-centered epistemologies, fosters anti-scientific sentiment and undermines reason, even as it paradoxically claims alignment with progressive, humanist values. The imposition of its doctrines, from redefining language to reordering societal structures, reflects a broader cultural regression that prioritizes group identity and ideological purity over individual merit and empirical truth. As with other ideologies that take on the trappings of religion, this movement demands scrutiny. Its unchecked influence risks eroding the foundational principles of rational discourse, scientific progress, and individual liberty.

There is no better time to proactively exclude religious ideologies from our public institutions than right now. It is way past time to do this, which the current situation testifies to. As bad as it is, it will get worse if we don’t fight harder. Once ensconced in bureaucratic arrangements, ideologies determine the organic appetites of once-democratic institutions meant to serve us and not our masters. This is true also for corporate arrangements. The longer religious ideologies—or any ideologies, for that matter—are permitted to define our respective statuses and determine the workings of public and sense-making institutions, the more they determine us, and the greater the negative consequences are for societal progress and the paramount necessity of making sense.

I’ve been stressing since May 2024, when a Manhattan jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, charges stemmed from payments made during his 2016 presidential campaign allegedly to conceal alleged affairs with adult film actress Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal, that a man is not a convicted felon in the state of New York until the jury verdict is affirmed and recorded by the judge at sentencing.

As of this morning, folks can finally repeat with confidence the propaganda line that Trump is a “convicted felon.” In the zombie case against Trump, on the basis of Judge Juan Merchan’s public signaling, an assistant district attorney stood to utter, “We must respect the office of the Presidency. So we request unconditional discharge, as the Court has indicated. This creates the status of convicted felon, as he appeals. The People recommend it.” Excellent choice of words; the ruling does indeed create a status, a manufactured label useful to those desperate to delegitimize the leader of the populist-nationalist movement that threatens Establishment power. Yesterday evening, a divided Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump’s criminal sentencing to go forward. What if Merchan had changed his mind and sentenced the President-elect to prison?

Trump was put through what sociologist Harold Garfinkel, in an article published in a 1956 issue of the American Journal of Sociology, called a “status degradation ceremony.” Since a civilized society can’t just call a man a convicted criminal and have him be so (albeit people do and think so), you have to put him through a formal ritual proceeding that makes him appear as one. It is validation via ceremonial. In the Manhattan hush money case case, by resurrecting expired misdemeanor charges that are very rarely pursued, and conjuring them into felonies by having juries (grand and trial) to image an underlying crime with no requirement that they all agree on the crime they’re imagining, a court has created a convicted felon without prescribing any punishment—no prison time, no community supervision, no fines, no nothing. And while avoiding a constitutional crisis by not sentencing a President-elect to prison, Judge Merchan gave Trump’s opponents a rhetorical weapon to wield against his agenda.

I have a point I am working towards, but before I get to it I have to say something about the substance of the case. Applying the principle of charity to steel man the prosecution’s argument, the theory of the case was that Trump orchestrated these payments to influence the election by suppressing potentially damaging stories. How that constitutes a felony is beyond me. It is common for prominent figures with deep pockets to give into extortionists in order to protect their reputations from false or damaging claims. This is why the prosecution team left it to the jury to rationalize the matter—as long as those rationalizations yielded a unanimous verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Getting to my point, the reflex on the left to work into every discussion of Trump the phrase “convicted felon” carries in it a self-delegitimizing force if made obvious. I have in the past noted that one of every three black man is a convicted felon—and many of these far worse that placating grifters—before wondering aloud whether a third of black men in America should be barred from public service, or whether their status as a convicted felon constantly thrown in their face. We might ask about the case of Nelson Mandela, a convicted felon who is widely seen as a great man who did great things. Should we go around constantly inserting into every conversation about Mandela the fact that he led the militant wing of an anti-government organization that was engaged in sabotage and violence?

In 1961, Nelson Mandela co-founded uMkhonto weSizwe (MK), the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), which carried out acts of sabotage against government infrastructure and other violent action. These acts were intended to undermine the apartheid regime and force it to negotiate. Those who make Mandela out to be a hero are quick to note that Mandela’s decision to engage in armed struggle came after years of discrimination, oppression, and systemic violence faced by the black population in South Africa, which left little room for peaceful resolution. He was a reluctant terrorist? No, not a terrorist at all—a freedom fighter leading the struggle against an unjust and oppressive system.

Of course, Mandela’s actions were seen by the government as terrorism. And so he was arrested in 1962, and convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 for his role in planning sabotage and plotting to overthrow the government. After 27 years in prison, Mandela was released, ultimately becoming South Africa’s president in 1994. So a convicted felon served as the president of the country that made him a convicted felon.

If a domestic organization in the United States engaged in similar acts of sabotage against government infrastructure, the US government would almost certainly classify it as a terrorist group. This label would be supported by arguments about the illegitimacy of using violence to achieve political aims and the threat such actions pose to public safety and national stability. The broader public will likely view the group negatively, particularly if media and political narratives emphasized the disruption caused by its actions without adequately addressing the grievances driving the resistance.

The events of January 6, 2021, at the Capitol, provide an imperfect analogy. Imperfect because one must elevate a police riot to terrorist action by those so provoked, and make a sitting president the ringleader of the insurrection. Also imperfect because the Establishment was not able to pull off the charge of insurrection on the legal front. However, it was able to manufacture the impression of an insurrection by constantly repeating the label, and millions of gullible citizens made stupid by partisan ideology were predictably impressed. Where those waging lawfare were able to get a verdict and a conviction, they had to turn to a state court in a blue state (to be sure, orchestrated by the US Attorney General’s office), transmogrifying a trivial matter. And, though he did not move forward with the insurrection charges (or the Mar‑a‑Lago documents case), special prosecutor Jack Smith has a report that Attorney General Merrick Garland has said he will release to the public. The smear merchants are salivating.

Should moral calculus shift depending on context? If the US government were widely recognized as oppressive, systematically denying rights to a segment of its population, surely domestic and international observers might frame the resistance as justified. After all, wasn’t that how the left rationalized the color revolution during the summer and fall of 2020? What about the American Revolution or the Civil Rights Movement—don’t these demonstrate how perceptions of resistance evolve over time? Even figures who were once labeled as dangerous or subversive—for example, Martin Luther King Jr., who was closely monitored by the FBI’s COINTELPRO program—are now celebrated posthumously when their causes are vindicated.

What about the January Sixers? They’re convicted felons. Hundreds are sitting in prison as I write these words. How will public perceptions about them evolve over time? And what about Trump? Will the degradation ritual the Establishment has put him through be sufficient to make the label of “convicted felon” stick, to valorize, as we say in sociology, a master status?

Today, several former presidents sat in observance of former-president Jimmy Carter’s passing. The current president, Joe Biden, gave the eulogy, focusing on Carter’ s “simple decency.” Former president Barack Obama and former and future president Donald Trump sat next to each another engaged in lively conversation. Vice-President Kamala Harris, sitting in front of the presidents’ row, appeared to roll her eyes at the two. Former president George W. Bush walked into the scene with his chest puffed out.

What was not mentioned was Carter’s involvement with the Trilateral Commission, an experience that played a significant role in shaping his political trajectory. In fact, Carter was a founding member of that organization. George H. W. Bush, who was CIA director when Carter entered office, also had strong ties to the Trilateral Commission, particularly through his connections with David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. I say both of these presidents’ names in the same breath because both reflected the Trilateral Commissions desire to establish global governance, expressed as the “New World Order” in Bush’s September 11, 1990 speech before a joint-session of Congress.

The Trilateral Commission, established in 1973 by Rockefeller, aimed to parlay the historic cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan into a New World Order. The commission provided Carter with an opportunity to engage with prominent thinkers and policymakers, those whom Antonio Gramsci would have classified as “organic intellectuals,” in this case those who represented the interests of the transnational corporate and financial elite.

This association with the Trilateral Commission elevated Carter’s visibility on the international stage. To dissimulate the agenda of the Trilateral Commission and Carter as its vessel, the image of Carter the peanut farmer was projected. The narrative portrayed a humble Christian man of simple decency coming from nowhere to lead the nation back from the twin disgraces of Watergate and the Church Committee Hearings, a narrative reinforced by the seeming penance paid during his long ex-presidency by occasionally driving nails into 2X4s before a fawning media.

A key figure in Carter’s connection to the Trilateral Commission was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political scientist who served as the commission’s first director. Brzezinski became a close advisor to Carter and significantly influenced his foreign policy. Indeed, after winning the presidency, Carter appointed Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor. Brzezinski’s emphasis on geopolitical strategy, particularly in managing US-Chine relations, US-Soviet relations, and the Middle East and Central Asia.

It was Carter who recognized the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate state of the Chinese people. The normalization of diplomatic relations was guided by Brzezinski. Normalization with the totalitarian Chinese Communist Party opened up a range of opportunities, not just in politics but also in science and trade, paving the way for China’s gradual integration into the global economy over the subsequent decades. President Biden was a champion of this cause. His role in the funeral was not merely because he is the sitting president. He played a major role in advancing the agenda. (See Hell on Earth or Earthly Heaven? The Totalitarian Threats Facing the West.)

It was under Brzezinski’s guidance that Carter toppled the democratically-elected government in Afghanistan in order to compel the Soviet Union to honor the mutual defense pact they had established with Kabul, thus ushering in decades of clerical fascism, associated death and destruction, and the total subordination of women under the Taliban (see Sowing the Seeds of Terrorism? Capitalist Intrigue and Adventurism in Afghanistan; Jimmy Carter, Trilateralist, Entering Hospice; Everybody Loves Jimmy Carter). It was also under Brzezinski’s guidance that clerical fascism came to power in Iran, subjecting the Persian people to the brutality of ayatollah and mullahs to this day. (See Who’s Responsible for Iran’s Theocratic State?)

And don’t forget Carter’s action of selling the Panama Canal, a structure the United States built and dozens of men died in building, for one dollar. As I wrote about yesterday, in Monroe Doctrine 2.0, Donald Trump has signaled that America wants it back.

Update (10:50 PM): Listening the PBD podcast. Tom Elsworth made a great case for acquiring Greenland here on Apple Podcasts: California Wildfires, Gulf of America, Zuckerberg Kills Meta Fact-Checking. The conversation is in the order of the title. Scroll forward (or listen to the whole thing). In summary: There are minerals there. China is trying to acquire them.

I know for most Trump’s rhetoric regarding Greenland and the Panama Canal comes as a surprise or an absurdity—a shock even. But Trump has been talking about these acquisitions for a long time. And he is not the only one. Nor are his ambitions unusual to United States history. There’s a reason for this: enhancing national security through territorial expansion. His ambitions are not personal, but patriotic and strategic.

There is precedent for this in American history. A cornerstone of US foreign policy, aimed at limiting European influence in the Western Hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine was articulated in 1823 by President James Monroe. The doctrine declared that any attempts by European powers to colonize or interfere in the affairs of the nations of the Americas would be viewed as acts of aggression against the United States. In return, the US pledged to refrain from involvement in European wars or internal affairs.

We’re used to looking at the world map from the side and not from the top. The perspective determines how we think about the world and the security risks the actual proximities of nations pose. Russia seems very far away when viewed from the side. It’s not. Sarah Palin was correct: you can see Russia from Alaska on a clear day. For this reason, Alaska, acquired by the United States from Russia in March, 1867, via a treaty negotiated by US Secretary of State William Seward, was a vital strategic acquisition. The acquisition provided not only strategic advantages, but access to vast natural resources, as well as a stronger presence in the Pacific for trade and territorial expansion. Abundant wealth in natural resources, including oil, has proved Alaska to be an immensely valuable asset.

We think about the top and bottom of the planet as covered in ice caps, which also messes with our grasp of the situation. The South Pole is a continent. However, the North Pole is not a land mass at all but a sea. This sea separates North America from Russia. It’s not a big sea. At least not big like the Atlantic or the Pacific. Given Democrats constant ranting about the danger Russia poses to our democracy, they should appreciate this fact more than anyone. Obviously Democrats and Republican allies are not shy about interfering in the affairs of Europe to harass Russia on its Western Front.

At present, Greenland is an autonomous territory in the sphere of the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland became a colonial possession of the Norwegian crown during the medieval period. Greenland established home rule in 1979 and expanded its autonomy in 2009. Today, while foreign affairs and defense remain under Danish control, Greenland manages most of its internal affairs and has its own parliament. Incorporating Greenland into the US sphere of influence provides the Western Hemisphere with greater security in the region. Greenland desires complete independence from Denmark, and Denmark has signaled its openness to negotiations with the United States over Greenland’s future.

As for the Panama Canal, its strategic and economic value should be obvious to everyone who understands why the United States built the canal in the first place. The canal is presently controlled in a major way by the Chinese Communist Party, which represents a much greater threat to world freedom than Russia. Rhetoric aside, Democrats don’t really care about the China problem. They have spent the last fifty years selling out American to China to enrich their corporate masters in world cities across the West. They have moreover been busy installing the CCP model of control in the West (a major part of the significance of Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 election). But the rest of us should care. China is Orwell’s dystopia on steroids.

Now, I am not saying we should take over Greenland or the Panama Canal. I am saying that I understand why this is being considered. It’s not some wild idea that only Trump could dream up. It’s something that should be discussed and debated. The People would do well to disregard the incessant mocking by progressives and hear out the argument.

As for acquiring Canada, which Trump is flirting also with, is not such a good idea. Canada would become our largest state. It would get about the same number of electoral votes as California. Canada is more like California than it is like, say, Texas. Just saying, Republicans, Canada as our 51st state might likely secure Democratic Party hegemony for generations. This is a country that had Justin Trudeau as prime minister for a decade.

For their part, Canadian officials have floated the idea of incorporating California, Oregon, and Washington into Canada. Others have suggested Canada acquire Minnesota. I am not saying these are good ideas, either, but these are our worst states, fitting better with the Canadian idea as it has developed than they do with the American Creed. Of course, this idea is the worst idea because it diminishes the world’s greatest hope for democracy and freedom. So we hope instead that these states come around—and there are promising signs that they will in time.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”—Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

“The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do; they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle on the wall of the laborer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” —George Orwell, Evening Standard

The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 is a landmark case liberating the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution from the hands of progressive gun grabbers. The Court valorized the Second Amendment intent to protect the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to service in a militia, and struck down provisions of the District of Columbia’s gun control law that effectively banned the possession of handguns in the home and required lawful firearms to be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia emphasized the historical and textual analysis of the Second Amendment, stating that its prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause, which guarantees the right to keep and bear Arms. The Court held that this right is rooted in the natural right of self-defense which predates the Constitution. Following the Heller decision, the 2010 ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago extended the Second Amendment’s protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, solidifying the Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment as applicable across the United States.

What predates the Constitution is the right to self-defense found in English common law, principles shaped over centuries that became a cornerstone of the legal system in England. At its core, common law recognized that the use of force, including deadly force, is justifiable in circumstances where an individual reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself, others, and his property from an imminent threat of unlawful violence and usurpation. Thus the right to self-defense is tied to the concept of necessity, emphasizing proportionality and immediacy—that is the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the threat faced, and the danger immediate and unavoidable. This principle reflects the necessity of the individual’s right to safety and the broader need to prevent violence and maintain public order.

By the time of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England in the eighteenth century, self-defense had become firmly established as a lawful justification for the use of force. Blackstone articulated that killing in self-defense is not to be considered murder if the act was necessary and provoked by an unlawful aggressor, provided the defender’s response was proportionate. The evolution of this right, as well as its justification, can be traced through several key legal doctrines. For example, the “castle doctrine,” derived from the idea that a person’s home is his sanctuary, held that individuals were not required to retreat before using force to defend themselves within their own home. And while the law traditionally imposed a duty to retreat when outside the home, if safe to do so, before resorting to deadly force, over time, some states have modified the duty to retreat, with greater recognition given to the rights of individuals to stand their ground when faced with a threat.

It is paradoxical, then, that gun laws in England are among the most stringent in the world. The focus there is on strict regulation and control of firearm possession and use, with the ostensive overarching goal of minimizing gun violence and ensuring public safety. The laws governing firearms in England are primarily outlined in the Firearms Act 1968 and its subsequent amendments. However, even if the United Kingdom has abandoned its commitment to common law in this area, the principles of self-defense in English common law has had a profound influence on the development of legal doctrines in the United States and other jurisdictions, where the right has been enshrined in constitutional and statutory law. This speaks to the importance of a constitution and a bill of rights that is less subject to the whim of those who would put a false sense of security over the need of the people to defend themselves, their neighbors, and their property.

Reflecting on all this, I recently stirred the shit on Facebook by noting the fact that the choice of cars and trucks as weapons has become common. Only few days before I posted this, an ISIS devotee, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, drove a truck through a crowd in New Orleans, killing more than a dozen people and injuring dozens more. This was not a one off event. Readers will recall that in November 2021, Darrell Edward Brooks Jr. drove a SUV through the annual Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, killing six people and injuring 62 others.There’s no constitutional right to a car or truck, I wrote, so why don’t we ban them? One of the progressives who frequently challenges my postings said, “Because the main use of cars and trucks is transportation. The main use of guns is killing.”

I noted that guns are used for hunting and self-defense, all legitimate uses. Bow and arrows, knives, spears, slingshots are used for these purposes, too. If the main use of bow and arrow, crossbow, and the spear are used to kill or otherwise incapacitate a person, should these weapons be banned? “If the number of killings via spears and bows was even remotely close to the number of killings via guns, then it should be considered,” was the response. “They banned Jarts just because there were 3 deaths in the 30+ years they were sold—how many fatal shootings were there in the past 30 years?” I wondered aloud: Why do numbers matter? Isn’t one person killed by a crossbow enough? One, two, a thousand—death is manifest. Is there some number of dead gun grabbers have in mind? If so, how could the number not be arbitrary? 

I went on to observe that, if numbers matter, more people are killed by hands and feet every year than rifles. More people are killed by knives every year than rifles. In fact, knives are the second most common instrument used in killing after handguns. What should we do about hands and feet and knives? I noted that lawn darts were never intended to be weapons. They were designed as toys for children. When it was discovered that they punctured skulls and caused other injuries when used correctly, they were banned. Clackers were banned, too, when it was discovered that their action often sent shards of glass flying. There are a lot of products banned or restricted because they cause death and injury when this was not their intended purpose (e.g. alcohol and cigarettes). Cars are a good example.

There is something fallacious about noting that things that can be weapons but intended for other purposes should be banned or restricted in the context of a discussion about the right to keep and bear arms. Admittedly, I risked provoking this fallacy by my sarcasm. But in taking the bait, a red herring was dragged across the thread. Guns, knifes, crossbows, bow and arrow, and many other things are designed to kill and injure animals, including people—and that’s the point of preserving the people’s right to them. Are gun grabbers opposed to defense of self and others? Is a person obligated to stand by while another person murders him or his family, friends, and fellows? Of course not. A gun is as useful for this purpose as a car is for getting to and from work. The question who benefits from taking guns away from citizens. George Orwell answered that question in his 1941 Evening Standard.

Of course, guns are more effective than knives and other weapons for legitimate purposes because they are more likely to deter attackers, and this is why it is paramount to preserve for protection of home and person the deadliest of weapons. The CDC estimates that there are between 60,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US each year. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates that there are about 70,000 defensive gun uses every year. A lot of people are alive today because they had access to a gun and used it to deter or thwart an attack that could have lead to their death or injury or to the death or injury of others.

Rinse and repeat: “The primary purpose for knives, hands, and feet is not killing. The primary purpose for rifles and guns is to kill.” That’s was the response with which I was met. So I made the point as clear as I could by appealing to man’s animality: It’s built into humans to kill. For tens of thousands of years our species used hands and rocks and sticks to acquire food and to defend ourselves from apex predators and other men in other tribes—and in their own. The gun is only a more effective tool for these necessary and natural ends. Animals and plants have evolved and specialized parts to more effectively acquire food and defend themselves from predators. Humans use brains and culture to do this. Humans make better weapons to more effectively effectuate their right to survive and to thrive. Rights aren’t manufactured by states; rights reside in species-being.

“Really? It’s necessary to go into a church or a synagogue or a nightclub or a grocery store or a school and start shooting??? That’s a fucked up attitude.” I had to take this one on with a great deal of charity. There are men who believe this is necessary. But there have been numerous instances where individuals have carried out attacks in crowded places using knives or other bladed weapons instead of firearms. These incidents share characteristics with mass shootings—targeting random or specific groups in public places like stores, schools, churches, or transportation hubs.

Yes, knife attacks have yielded significant body counts. One notable example is the 2014 Kunming Railway Station attack in China. In March 2014, a group of attackers armed with large knives and machetes targeted civilians at the busy railway station in Kunming, Yunnan Province. The coordinated assault resulted in 31 people being killed and over 140 injured. Four attackers were shot dead at the scene, while one was captured and later convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Despite the lack of firearms, the attackers exploited the element of surprise and the vulnerability of unarmed civilians, demonstrating how mass casualty events can occur with weapons other than guns. Those who were being slaughtered had to wait for the police to intervene, since the totalitarian Chinese state does not allow its subjects to go about armed.

The person with whom I am arguing—as do too many others—must assume that guns have agency, that they’re able to get up from the resting place and go out and shoot people. But guns don’t shoot themselves. They’re a tool people use for various activities, some of which good people rightly oppose. The same is true of knives. The knife is a tool used for various activities, sometimes for cutting and killing people. If these activities are not in self-defense or in the defense of others, then the person wielding the knife has likely done a bad thing. But the knife is only the instrument used in carrying out the bad thing. On its own, the knife is incapable of doing anything at all. It possesses no agency. Nobody asks why a knife did something.

Gun control doesn’t change these truths. Norway has strict gun laws, indeed, among the most rigorous in Europe. Yet, in 2011, Anders Breivik carried out the deadliest attack in Norway since World War II. Breivik first detonated a car bomb in Oslo’s government quarter, killing eight people, then traveled to Utøya island, where he opened fire at a Labour Party youth camp, killing 69 people, most of them teenagers. The bomb didn’t make and detonate itself. The firearms Breivik used didn’t shoot themselves. The man built and detonated the bomb. He pulled the trigger while defenseless individuals ran for their lives. Norway’s strict gun laws didn’t prevent the massacre. A determined person will obtain and deploy the tools he needs to manifest his objectives. If he can’t obtain a thing from here, he will obtain it from there; if he cannot obtain one thing, he will obtain another. Nothing could demonstrate this more effectively than the 2014 Kunming Railway Station and Utøya island massacres.

Nor are guns the reasons people kill. It was not guns that moved Omar Mateen to enter the Pulse Nightclub in 2016 and murder 49 people and wound more than 50 others (see Orland and Religion; No Muslim Ever Called Me Faggot and Other Nonsense). It was Islam and the homophobia intrinsic to that ideology that moved him to target a gay nightclub. Mateen would have perpetrated this action whether the United States had Norway’s gun laws or not. (Check out the gun laws in New York City and in Chicago and see if the murder rates are acceptable in those cities.) To be sure, as noted, a gun makes a person potentially more lethal, but that’s a good thing. This is why citizens need access to guns—so they can effectuate their inherent right to self-defense and their moral duty to protect others with greater certainty in the outcome. Had those at the Kumming Railway Station been armed, perhaps so many people would not have been killed and injured.

When I listen to people who speak like this person I have been arguing with (and too many of them do), the Utøya island massacre is not the first thing that comes to my mind. My mind goes to the woman huddled in the corner of her bedroom waiting to be beaten, raped, maimed, or murdered without any means to effectively defend herself against an abusive husband or an intruder. If she had a gun, and knew how to use it, and was willing to use it, she would not only be able to potentially save herself, but, if her aim was true, rid the world of a scumbag. She wouldn’t have to wait for the police—who may not ever come to her rescue. Gun grabbers put misguided dogma over the right of human beings to effectively defend themselves against those who mean to harm them. In the end, and I know this is cliché, but the only people who would be impacted by strict gun laws are those who are inclined to follow the law. They would lose a precious right, a right as fundamental as those of conscience, speech, and publishing.

I confess to putting dogma over the right of human beings to effectively defend themselves against those who mean to harm them in the past. It wasn’t that long ago that I was so misguided. As recently as my 2019 essay, A Truly Awful Commentary on Gun Control and the Value of Life, I wrote, “Given all the facts, how do we combat mass killing in an optimistic era of declining crime and violence? Many of these sources will take a while to diminish or remove. But one of the sources we could ameliorate almost immediately and achieve the greatest effect: remove the means to perpetrate mass death. Comprehensive gun control and bans on most types of weapons and ammo.” I cringe when I read these words today (just as I cringe when I read my past defense of gender ideology), especially when I consider that my past perspectives were built not from facts and logic but from the ideology. I was in my fifties when I reconsidered some of my positions and found them fatally flawed. The upside is that, while I regret my former position, I also benefit from understanding why people adhere to dogma.

* * *

In reviewing the draft of this article, it struck me that the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to weapons is part of a much greater problem the people of that island face today. The effective rejection of the foundation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK had embraced, is part and parcel of that islands descent into totalitarianism. “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression” Article 10 begins. “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The article should have stopped there. But it was 2013 and, of course, there had to be qualifications: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Thus, while I have you here, it’s worth noting that the abandonment of the right to keep and bear arms in the United Kingdom parallels the abandonment of the right to freely express opinions in speech and writing. This development, like the evolution of gun control, is paradoxical, as well, as the right to free speech is a concept also rooted in English common law. To be sure, there isn’t an explicit right to free speech in the early days of English law, and English law traditionally imposed limitations on free speech, including restrictions on speech that was deemed blasphemous, defamatory, or seditious, but the idea that individuals should be free to express ideas and opinions without fear of punishment gradually nonetheless became an important legal principle. Even in the early days, freedom of speech became particularly important in legal contexts, such as parliamentary debates (see the Bill of Rights 1689 that emerged after the Glorious Revolution). Over time, English common law further expanded the idea of freedom of expression, and the growth of a free press played a key role in the development of modern free speech principles.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the protection of free speech in the UK became more formalized, particularly through international agreements such as the ECHR. Article 10 enshrines the right to free expression, though, as the reader can see from above, it allows for certain restrictions, such as in cases of national security or protecting the rights of others. Enshrining the right to free expression is in principle a good thing, but the restrictions identified there effectively negate the right when prioritized over the human right itself. Readers familiar with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convenient on Civil and Political Rights, which attach no trammels to the right, might wonder why the ECHR has become the UK standard. They might consider further why the Muslim world rejects those earlier documents and how that could be influencing the choice the UK has made on the matter.

We’re told that the concept of “protecting the rights of others” within the framework of Article 10 is meant to balance free speech with other important rights and societal interests. There is no shortage of videos of police using this language to suppress the speech and writings of the people of that island. This could involve situations where the exercise of one person’s right to free expression could infringe upon the dignity of others. For instance, speech that incites hatred, which is interpreted to includes expressions of ethnic, racial, or religious antipathies that purportedly lead to discrimination or societal harm. Similarly, in cases where speech is said to jeopardize the health or safety of others—such as spreading false medical information that could endanger public health—the police may intervene and actually harm individuals by arrest and imprisonment.

Where the fundamental rights of others include a right to be free from offensive speech or supposed misinformation, then free speech is effectively non-existent, since the purposes of free speech include offending others and being able to utter what the government claims are falsehoods. A free society has no commissar. If an Englishman says, for example, that Islam is condemnable for the harm it encourages against homosexuals, as I did earlier in this essay, and Muslims find this offensive (which they do), then that man risks being found guilty of hate speech and punished for his opinion—and opinion that may save his country if heeded. Indeed, if I say anything that Muslims take offense to then I risk censorship and punishment. There must be some reason why those who work the levels of the British government are doing this.

Christopher Hitchens warned us…

pic.twitter.com/iWUGEpveHs

— John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) January 6, 2025

Americans are truly fortunate to have a bill of rights that enshrines freedom of speech and punishing in its first article. The First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Like the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment, the rights listed in the First Amendment have been incorporated. Moreover, as with the Second Amendment, there are no limitations on the First Amendment. Trammels on either are left to legislatures subject to judicial review. Some of those identified by the ECHR are not among the limitations. Nor should they be. To be a free society, the United Kingdom must come home to the principles that make a society free. They should put back on the wall of the laborer’s cottage or working class flat the symbols of democracy—guns and free speech. As Orwell told them, tyrants won’t do that sort of thing. That’s a task for the People.