freedom and reason

I want to share an example of being wrong from my own life. My purpose is not just to illustrate how ideology can lead a person to a flawed understanding, but also to urge the public not to abandon the concept of equity in the justified backlash against DEI. This essay is inspired by a Facebook post that challenged those who oppose DEI to courageously reject each word in the acronym—diversity, equity, and inclusion—along with the purpose they convey. The post was intended to shame opponents of DEI, but it framed the issue disingenuously. The real task is not to accept or reject these words based on how they have been co-opted but to reclaim their proper meanings. In this essay, I focus on equity to illustrate the importance of clear and consistent definitions.

In the 1990s, while in graduate school, I was assigned to teach an introductory sociology course. While lecturing on inequality, I presented affirmative action as an effort to promote equity, which I defined as ensuring equality of opportunity. To illustrate this, I began with an analogy: wheelchair-bound children. I believed that by starting with a clear example of a physical barrier, I could then apply the concept to racial disparities. After all, who would object to accommodating wheelchair-bound children?

I explained that a teenager in a wheelchair needs a ramp to enter a school building. This accommodation does not guarantee academic success, but it does ensure that the student has access to the same educational opportunities as others. In my mind, this was a clear example of equity—removing a tangible barrier to opportunity.

A student interrupted, asking, “Are you saying black people are like crippled people?” To my ears, his question implied that he found the analogy offensive because he saw disability as an inherent deficiency in a judgmental way. My response was dismissive: “Is there something wrong with being disabled?”

Years later, I came to understand the deeper significance of his question. He was pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. While wheelchair ramps are an example of equity, affirmative action is not. The disadvantage faced by disabled individuals is partly because society is designed for those without physical impairments. A wheelchair ramp addresses an objective, verifiable need. Racial disparities, however, do not stem from inherent physical limitations but rather from complex social, historical, and economic factors. The causes of racial disparities are contested and difficult to isolate, making policies designed to address them inherently more subjective.

My inability to grasp this distinction at the time stemmed from ideological conditioning, which had redefined equity to justify group-based policies under the guise of justice. This is how ideology can constrain logical thinking, and why critical self-examination is necessary.

Equity, properly understood, focuses on removing tangible barriers to opportunity while allowing outcomes to be determined by individual effort and circumstances. The example of a wheelchair-bound child needing a ramp is appropriate—he is not guaranteed success, but he is given the same access as his peers. In contrast, affirmative action does not remove a concrete barrier; it selects individuals based on race, treating them as members of a collective rather than as individuals.

A more accurate analogy can be found in gender differences. There are clear physical distinctions between men and women that justify differential treatment in certain areas, such as sports. Women’s sports leagues exist because strict equality—forcing women to compete directly with men—would systematically exclude them from competition. Equity, in this context, requires separate leagues to ensure fair opportunity. This differs from racial affirmative action because it is based on an objective, measurable difference rather than an abstract social construct.

Similarly, economic disadvantage presents a tangible and measurable disparity. Poverty, regardless of race, creates barriers to opportunity. Poor individuals face limited access to quality education, healthcare, and economic mobility. A class-based approach to equity, which targets disadvantaged individuals irrespective of race, is more effective at reducing disparities and promoting fairness. In contrast, race-based policies assume uniform disadvantage within racial groups, ignoring the fact that economic circumstances vary widely among individuals of the same race. Addressing class-based barriers ensures that assistance goes to those who genuinely need it, rather than being distributed based on racial identity.

This distinction is crucial in the broader discussion of fairness and justice. Equity should be about removing clear obstacles to opportunity, not about enforcing proportional outcomes. Affirmative action, as it is commonly practiced, does not eliminate barriers—it creates a new form of discrimination by prioritizing racial identity over individual circumstances and merit.

DEI frameworks often distort the meaning of equity. They claim that equality means treating everyone the same, while equity involves ensuring equal outcomes. This redefinition is misleading. Properly understood, equity is a form of equality—it ensures equality of opportunity by accounting for real differences in circumstances. However, when equity is redefined to mean achieving uniform outcomes across groups, it ceases to be about fairness and becomes a tool for ideological work.

In practice, if equity is to be just, it cannot be based on ideological constructs and speculative social theories. It must be grounded in objective realities—physical, economic, and structural barriers that can be addressed without resorting to group-based discrimination. If we are to reclaim equity from ideological distortion, we must insist on applying it consistently and rationally, ensuring that it remains a tool for fairness rather than an instrument for enforcing ideological conformity.

The American Republic will be $52 trillion in debt by 2035. Interest on the debt will crowd out spending on programs that benefit the people. We will in the end bankrupt the nation. We have to stop Trump from exposing the swindle.

Knock from your head any virtuous notions or respect for law and tradition. The proper function of the executive of the federal government is not good stewardship of the taxpayer dollar but obedience to the plan, obedience of the sort displayed by Biden and Harris and the progressive rank-and-file. To be sure, they’re an embarrassment to watch, but we need demented and unintelligent stooges who fear and loathe the salt of the earth.

What’s the plan, you ask? It isn’t obvious? We shovel money into the ravenous maw of the transnational corporate elite until there’s no country left. I never said that was a bad thing. On the contrary, it’s a good thing. We will dress it in the flags of nations and glorify the international rule-based order. We will demand the free flow of capital and labor across the globe.

“Isn’t a country for the people?” the proles will predictably cry. Don’t laugh in their faces. But we must finally disabuse them of this silly notion that they actually have a country. They don’t. They’re serfs. They just don’t know it yet. And serfs must bend the knee to their betters. Smear the recalcitrant as fascists and racists. Discipline them for their obstinance. Mock them for their fidelity to family and country. On second thought, laugh in their faces.

MAGA is just a bump in the road. Keep your chins up. Take the long view. It may take a little longer, but we will get it done in the end. We have a world to win. After all, Michael Parenti was right. We have only ever wanted one thing: everything.

“Choose love” is a terrible slogan when the agenda requires perpetuating the perception that racism is a problem in America. We can’t have a positive slogan in the end zone. We must have a divisive slogan that alerts those who watch the NFL to the need to suggest that there are racists among them.

As for myself, I won’t watch the Super Bowl because the sport is corrupt, the championship game engineered. However, ideally, there should be no slogans. The NFL should not assign to itself the role of moral entrepreneur. But if any slogan is to appear, hats off to the programmers who decided to promote a positive one rather than one that recalls the mass hysteria of 2020, a moral panic that led to cities being wrecked, law enforcement being Fergusoned, and citizens being intimidated and, in numerous instances, injured and even murdered. The NFL played a major role in this.

But don’t fret, those who wish to keep alive the divisive message. Snoop Dog and Tom Brady have teamed up for a Super Bowl commercial to [hashtag] “Stand Up to All Hate.” I suppose they could have promoted the slogan “Choose love,” but since the NFL will paint that slogan in the end zones, that would be redundant. Here we get the yin and yang of the ideology. After all, we can’t assume that people know that love is good and hate is bad. (Is love always good? Is hate always bad? That’s another conversation.)

What is a “moral entrepreneur”? This is a term we use in sociology to refer to power actors who work to influence or create laws, policies, and social norms based on their moral values or beliefs. These entrepreneurs actively campaign for certain behaviors to be defined as acceptable or deviant, often with the goal of protecting what they consider the greater good of society, an endeavor that often involves manufacturing evil. The moral entrepreneur challenges existing norms and create new ones by pushing for change on issues like social justice. Moral entrepreneurs use their influence and resources—in a word power, derived from wealth—to shape public opinion and public policy, attempting to transform societal values in line with their agenda, which is dressed in the language of ethics and morality.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” —Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

I no longer live in the great state of Tennessee (my home state—perhaps I will one day return there), but I keep up with matters there, especially when they touch on matters of national concern. The Tennessean reported on Tuesday that “Tennessee Republicans file bill to allow public schools to reject undocumented children.” By “undocumented,” propagandists mean illegal aliens. In US law, the term alien has historically referred to any non-citizen (see 8 U.S. C. § 1101, 8 U.S.C. § 1365(b), etc.). Illegal broadly means not permitted by law, and it applies to both civil and criminal violations. Those who are here illegally are therefore illegal aliens. If they or their parents crossed the border illegally, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325 or § 1326), their presence here constitutes a criminal offense. If they overstay their visas, it’s a civil penalty. That said, here’s what I think is important to consider in this case.

If and when a school denies enrollment to illegal aliens (the legislation leaves that determination up the district), it is sure to be challenged by enterprising attorneys and advocates for illegal aliens and thus trigger judicial review. Nothing is ever really or inherently unconstitutional from the standpoint of stare decisis, the legal principle that courts follow precedent but are at the same time permitted to overrule precedent and trigger judicial review. This is because either the precedent was poorly decided (based on flawed reasoning or an incorrect interpretation of the law), the legal landscape has shifted (over time, changes in societal values, technological advancements, or other factors might make past rulings no longer relevant or just), or the law evolves (courts may find that constitutional interpretations, evolving understandings of rights, or new legal theories warrant a departure from established precedent. In other words, the law is never really settled, as everybody recently found out with Dobbs, which ended the 1973 precedent established in Roe v Wade concerning abortion rights. Indeed, this is likely the point of the legislation, to attempt to overturn the precedent in question, Plyler v. Doe (1982).

This is not a bad thing. Legislatures have the power, I will assert the obligation, to trigger judicial review because, as the representatives of the people, their duty is to express the popular will, with due respect to the individual, and this must presume that the people are not weighed down by past political attitudes or shackled to moribund manifestations of law. The judiciary’s role in a constitutional republic eschewing the tyranny of majoritarianism is to work from law and principle to determine whether the interpretations of the law are valid, as well as whether majority desire conflicts with the liberties and rights of individuals, and hence on which side the law and those who administer it must come down.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that no government can make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens. This is one of those instances where the plain text of the clause leaves little to no wiggle room for judges. Whether an illegal alien has the same privileges and immunities is a more open question, albeit the term jurisdiction tells us something about the status of persons to which the article refers. Given that those here illegally can be deported (and even naturalized citizens under certain conditions), whereas native-born citizens cannot, it’s not safe to assume that illegal aliens are entitled to the things citizens are. Indeed, any honest reading the article tells you that they are not. Just as the man who breaks into your house is not entitled to your stereo system, the man who breaks into your country is not entitled to the things your tax dollars buy. And that’s the way it’s supposed to be in a representative system where the citizen is sovereign. If anybody from anywhere can exploit public resources, then the citizen has no country.

On the question is whether the precedent established in Plyler v. Doe will stand or fall, whatever one thinks of the matter, one must keep in mind that the Supreme Court in 1982 had a different composition than the Supreme Court in 2025. Most of the court’s justices then were appointed during the 1960s-70s progressive era. Even moderately conservative justices, for instances Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, evolved into left-leaning judges on the bench. I don’t see a lot of evolving on the bench today—and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. To be sure, it depends on where the observer stands. I trust where I stand is clear enough.

The almost certain judicial review provoked by Tennessee’s actions—if enacted and contested guaranteeing it—will land the question finally in the lap of the Supreme Court, and given the Court’s present-day composition, it is probable that Plyler v. Doe will not survive. It will likely go the way of Roe v Wade (1973), Chevron (1984), and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), precedents established during the progressive era of the Court. If overturned, it will make life difficult for those who are in the country illegally, which will in turn disincentivize the desire of those who wish to illegally enter our country or overstay their welcome to exploit resources meant for citizens. If the Court also overturns US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that all persons born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status, are to granted citizenship, then the Court can make it even less desirable to enter or stay in our country (you can read my essay on that matter here: “Blatantly Unconstitutional”? Ending Birthright Citizenship for Illegal and Certain Other Aliens).

The movement to reclaim America for Americans is a noble one, one patriots hope the Supreme Court will affirm in its pending sessions.

So the problem, as I am coming to understand it, is that Elon Musk is really only interested in obtaining private information on citizens in order to turn these over to the dark web to associates and like-minded bad actors can use these data to hack into bank accounts and steal identities. This is Musk’s motivation for taking over the agencies and departments of the federal government. That’s what I hear. Elon Musk is taking over the government.

Is that what people think is going on here? That the chief executive, Donald Trump, has no business determining what the agencies and departments under his authority are doing and the money they are spending and that he has no authority to determine the composition of the team that will determine this? What kind of chief executive has no fiduciary responsibility to his constituents? Isn’t that one of the most important functions of a chief executive?

Apparently not if it’s Donald Trump. Special case. Obviously. Trump has to be stopped from the doing the job he was elected by the majority of the nation to do. The people shouldn’t know how the government spends their money and what it spends it on.

But to get serious for a moment, on the information gathering front, I suggest that folks might consider the fact that the corporate state, in its vast array of agencies and departments, has been collecting data on all of them for decades.

Where is the flipping out over the National Security Agency (NSA)? Have folks not heard of SIGINT? No? It gathers information by monitoring a myriad of communications—emails, internet activity, phone calls—to establish “total situational awareness,” ostensibly for national security purposes. It’s a giant broom that sweeps up all your data.

Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSA collected (past tense?) bulk phone metadata (who called whom, when, and for how long) from US telecom providers. We know this because Edward Snowden, who Democrat Senators recently called a “traitor,” blew the whistle on the practice in 2013. Now the government says it isn’t doing this anymore. Unless it needs to.

Trump didn’t do that. That program was established by the man who crudely paints, needs help putting on a raincoat, and gets hugs from Michelle Obama. Still, as adorable as he is, given the vast amount of data the NSA collects, the agency’s surveillance practices and the significant threat these pose to privacy, those concerned about matters of privacy might put the NSA on their list. Maybe gather in the streets with signs and slogans and demand the government take down that agency and its programs. Maybe get a Democrat delegation to march on the NSA headquarters and demand to speak to the administrative assistant at the welcome desk.

If they’re serious about privacy, of course.

Did readers know that government agencies, businesses, medical facilities, and educational institutions routinely require your Social Security number (SSN) for identification and record-keeping? The Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) use SSNs to manage their records. The SSA assigns and manages SSNs for tracking earnings and benefits. The IRS requires SSNs for tax reporting and processing. Other government agencies—Medicare, state DMVs, welfare programs—use SSNs for identification and benefits administration. Financial institutions (banks, credit bureaus, lenders) use SSNs to verify identity and credit history. Medical facilities use SSNs for insurance and billing purposes. Educational institutions use SSNs for financial aid and student records.

Then there are Employer Identification Numbers (EINs). Corporations, LLCs, partnerships, non-profits, estates, and trusts rely on EINs for tracking financial, tax, and legal matters, similar to how SSNs are used for individuals. Your identification is strew across the United States, likely across the world. This is because, without proper identification numbers, essential functions like banking, healthcare, legal transactions, taxation, etc., would become inefficient or chaotic. The Executive has access to these data, by the way. Now Elon Musk does.

Did readers know that Franklin Roosevelt implemented audits of government agencies and financial oversight as part of the New Deal to ensure federal programs were running efficiently? He didn’t do this himself, of course. He used teams of auditors. In 1939, he created the Bureau of the Budget, now part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to provide financial oversight. His administration also strengthened the General Accounting Office (GAO) to audit federal spending. There were no lawsuits filed to attempt to stop him. Not that I know of anyway.

Among the departments Roosevelt closely examined was the US Treasury. He audited the Treasury to determine its finances. That’s because Roosevelt, as President, was the chief executive, and the Treasury Department is under his authority. Because Roosevelt implemented large-scale government spending programs, he closely monitored Treasury finances to fund relief, recovery, and reform efforts. He worked with Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. to determine finances. See, like Trump, Roosevelt was a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility. (See what else Roosevelt did here: Bold Executive Action: A Historical Note.)

But then Trump doesn’t really care about fiscal responsibility. He only cares about letting crackerjacks like Big Balls see your personal data for nefarious reasons.

Now Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has the Jerusalem Cross tattooed on this chest, said yesterday that he is committed to getting the Pentagon to pass a clean audit within four years. The Defense Department has failed several audits in a row. Pete is messing with the DoD’s record. Unfair.

Could it get any worse? Yep. Forbes is reporting that DOGE’s Gavin Kliger (not Big Balls) posted a “problematic” social media post in which he called Hillary Clinton “retarded.”

Let’s call off the Trump presidency. This is unbearable.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “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.” I have written extensively on Freedom and Reason on matters of religious liberty and freedom of speech. In this essay, I focus on the Free Press Clause considering revelations that various government agencies in the executive branch of the federal government have been subsiding partisan media. 

Just as Elon Musk performed a great service to the nation by releasing of the Twitter Files—internal company documents discovered after taking ownership of the platform, now X, revealing government influence in the manipulation of information—in the employ of President Donald Trump, the man has drawn the nation’s attention to another very serious problem in the realm of mass media: the government subsidizing partisan press outlets, such as Politico. Government subsidies to the media present the same problem identified in the Establishment Clause—to wit, the government cannot endorse, favor, or fund any religion. This principle is meant to prevent government entanglement in religious affairs. Likewise, press freedom requires independence from government influence to avoid conflicts of interest and undue state control of information and opinion.

The Twitter Files signaled the problem of undue state control, exposing biased content moderation at a major social media platform. Especially troubling in the Twitter case (and this is true also of Facebook and other social media platforms) was the level of direct government intervention. The files revealed coordination between Twitter executives and government agencies on issues like COVID-19 and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, as well as progressives agenda such as antiracism and gender ideology. Musk framed the disclosures as a victory for transparency and free speech, and he was right about that. Critics point to Musk’s own influence over platform policies that raised questions about his commitment to neutrality. But this is a commitment attributed to him and an impossible ideal to achieve, nor is it desirable. Neutrality isn’t the issue. Independence is.   

Neutrality in media has always been a myth. Speech has content. The goal is diversity of content, not an impossible standard. One cannot imagine neutral content because neutrality is unobtainable. Any content claiming to be neutral could only be propaganda wrapping around itself such rhetoric. A free press is about something else: freedom from the government and an open system permitting viewpoint diversity. If we were to appeal to any sort of neutrality at all, it could only be a euphemism for the situation secured by the firewall between government and the press. Just as state-sponsored religion undermines religious independence, state-funded media compromises journalistic independence. In both cases, financial dependence on the government creates a conflict of interest, making it harder for institutions to remain in any sense autonomous and free to serve their respective audiences.

This is the heart of the problem with the government funding media organizations, whether the outlet is national or local. Yes, that means that media without sufficient income from non-government sources risk failure, but this is not a reason for the government to subsidize the media. The Free Press Clause serves to protect the freedom of the press from government interference, and that precludes government subsidies even at the risk of failure in the market. The clause is there to ensure that journalists and media organizations can operate independently, publish information, and, crucially, report on government actions without fear of censorship, suppression, or retaliation. Whatever the inherent problems of the media in a capitalist society, this protection is essential for maintaining an informed public, holding those in power accountable, and fostering open debate in a democratic society. 

We call the media the Fourth Estate to underscore its role as an independent check on power. As such, it sits alongside the other three branches (or estates) of government—the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The free press functions as an external and unofficial watchdog, ensuring transparency, exposing corruption, and fostering considered debate—whatever party is in power, whatever ideology is in vogue. A free press is therefore an essential pillar of democracy, responsible for holding those in power accountable and informing the public. 

In decrying the cutting of funding to media organization, selective or generally, progressives are defending another estate, the Administrative State (and the technocratic apparatus), an unelected and unaccountable estate operating inside the Executive, a vast army of federal bureaucrats comprising a permanent Washington establishment, with all the interests bound up in it: the Pharmaceutical-Medical Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. This establishment, captured by corporate power and progressive ideology—this is who is subsidizing the partisan media to manipulate public opinion into supporting the narrow corporate interests and goals of the transnational corporate class. The same forces that corrupted social media, have long corrupted the traditional media. 

When the role of the Fourth Estate is compromised by financial dependence on the government, it comes under the sway of the very power it is meant to scrutinize. To be sure, existing in a corporate capitalist environment, it is already compromised by the interests of the social classes it serves. But, again, these interests do not speak with one voice. The problem of corporate power is thus amplified when channeled through the administrative state, which can then be used to advance the agenda of the most powerful actors. The joining of a government subservient to corporate interests functions to concentrate and focus those interests. As Karl Marx famously noted in the Communist Manifesto, “the state is the executive committee of the whole bourgeoisie.” By that he meant that the state serves the interests of the capitalist class rather than the general population. The state—through its institutions and laws functions to maintain the economic power of the bourgeoisie, protecting their property and interests. Even in democratic societies, the state is not neutral but rather exists as a tool of the wealthy and a system of inequalities. Government funding of the press on worsens the situation: the state, already organized to manifest the interests of the bourgeoisie in law and policy, makes the nominally free press even more of an instrument of corporate power, undermining its role as an independent check on authority. To be sure, this role is an ideal, but when under the employ of the government, the ideal has no chance of serving its purpose. 

This is why press freedom and independence—whether from government control or corporate interests, albeit not fully obtainable in the latter because of the fact of the capitalist mode of production—are fundamental to its function as the Fourth Estate. Just as we have the separation of church and state, we must have the separation of the press and state; the only way to dilute corporate power is with media diversity, and that can only be achieved, if only by degrees, by keeping separate the executive committee and the free press. By guaranteeing freedom of the press, the First Amendment helps prevent government overreach, allows for investigative journalism, and enables the dissemination of diverse viewpoints, functions fundamental to any sort of democracy. Despite corporate power, systems are complex, and democracy, liberties, and rights remain present. We erase their presence when the corporate state controls the press. At that point, it becomes only propaganda. 

Even if government funding of the press is structured to be at arm’s length—i.e., through public media organizations like NPR, PBS, or the BBC (the US government also gave money to the BBC)—there remains the risk that government officials will use financial leverage to shape coverage overtly or subtly. This can manifest in direct interference (e.g., pressuring editors and journalists) or indirect self-censorship, where journalists avoid reporting too aggressively on government failures for funding restrictions. If a society is to achieve total separation of press and state, then the practice of state-run media must also be abolished. 

Even if a publicly funded outlet operates with integrity, itself a problematic claim, there’s a public perception problem. Critics can claim it is biased in favor of the government and thereby undermine trust (in any case, trust must be earned, not conferred). To be sure, commercial media—while independent of government—faces pressures from corporate advertisers and interests, which introduces its own set of biases. Indeed, in many cases, the press is itself a mouthpiece for the corporation. But since the free press in a capitalist society is also a business enterprise, one dependent on advertisers and customers and shaped by market dynamics, there can in the end be no firewall between the press and corporate power. Nowhere in the First Amendment will one find language suggesting there should be. The First Amendment deals with the power of government. It separates the government from religion, speech, and the press. These firewalls are obtainable in the democratic sphere.

A common misconception, particularly among those unfamiliar with Marx’s critique of the state and capitalism, is that government power acts as a counterbalance to corporate power. In fact, they are intertwined. Many people view public or government-funded media as an antidote to the influence of privately owned corporate media, assuming that the former serves a democratic function by providing unbiased information in opposition to the interests of big business. However, Marx argued that the state is not a neutral actor standing apart from the influence of capitalism; rather, it functions as the executive committee of the capitalist class. This means that the state—through its laws, institutions, and financial systems—ultimately serves the interests of the capitalist elite, even when it appears to be acting on behalf of the public.

When government funding supports media outlets, it reinforces this relationship, as media organizations become financially dependent on the state, thus compromising their independence. In this context, whether media is privately owned or government-subsidized or is itself a public entity, the end result is the same: both are shaped by the broader capitalist system and the interests of those in power. This creates an illusion of democratic oversight, where government is perceived as a check on corporate power, when in fact both are interlinked in sustaining the capitalist order. By obscuring this connection, the distinction between public and private media appears more significant than it truly is, thus masking the deeper, undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of the corporate state.

It should be obvious to readers that a truly free press must be both editorially and financially independent of the government, for it cannot be the one without the other. As I have argued, ad I want to emphasize this point, this goes for the rebuttal that government funding can be useful in supporting public interest journalism, particularly in areas underserved by the market. One might propose strict safeguards to emplace to prevent political influence from corrupting the mission of the press, but this is unworkable in practice. In the end, the very institution meant to check power becomes compromised by it. This is under the control of the people. The people elected Donald Trump to check the undue power of corporate media and the administrative state that serves its interests, to check the progressive agenda and the project of big intrusive government which it by and large opposes. They elected Trump to rein in the bureaucracy and technocratic control. And they elected him knowing that Elon Musk would be appointed to carry out their desire. 

The rise of new media—digital journalism, social media, and independent content creators—has transformed how information is produced and consumed. Unlike traditional media, which operates through established institutions with at least ostensive editorial oversight, new media allows for decentralized and immediate dissemination of news, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. Social media platforms enable anyone to share news, shaping public discourse in real time. The desire of elites to continue traditional media, captured by corporate state power, is manifest in their desire to save traditional media from demise.

Legacy media is how the corporate state established and perpetuated the hegemonic power of the oligarchy. The oligarchy thus suffered a massive blow to its power when Musk reformed Twitter, with other social media platforms following suit. The power elite is now frantically trying to keep alive the legacy media; its needs a bulwark against the rise of citizen journalism. But the free press project is about citizen journalism. That is the purpose of the Fourth Estate. The democratization of information has expanded access to diverse perspectives and that terrifies the oligarchy. They need the legacy media, and the assistance of government, to tell the public that the new media is problematic. They depict algorithm biases, echo chambers, misinformation, etc., which, to be sure, are problems, as threats to democracy, while defending the threat to democracy posed by government-funding of legacy media. They are themselves fighting to keep alive bias, echo chambers, and misinformation. 

To be sure, the new media platforms are owned by private corporations, and because of this they hold immense power over public discourse; the concerns about censorship, political influence, and corporate control over what information is amplified or suppressed is warranted. This evolution in media complicates the traditional notion of press freedom, as the watchdog role of journalism is now entangled with tech companies, user-generated content, and government pressures to regulate digital spaces. But that is why the presence of Elon Musk on the media landscape, and Donald Trump on the political one, are such significant developments. Thanks to the populist-nationalist movement, the people are now able to reclaim their democracy, and vital to reclamation is sharply limiting corporate state power in matters of the Fourth Estate. It will be by raising up the democratic attributes in a civilization rooted in democratic republican values and liberal principles that we can, at least to a substantial degree, counteract the problem Marx identified in his writings. At the very least, by restoring the free market, we can make our capitalist system more democratic and responsive to the popular will.

After Musk obtained Twitter, he didn’t keep the corporate-government collusion he discovered going. He exposed it. He showed America how the administrative state directed Twitter to lie to Americans about the origins of the weaponized coronavirus and the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. He ended the practice of censoring and deplatforming users for correcting the falsehood that men can be women. The Twitter Files told us why the company kicked the President of the United States off the platform—and a myriad of other authoritarian actions. The revelations told us that what we had been told was “conspiracy theory” was instead pattern recognition.

Now, thanks to the installation of DOGE in the Executive, Musk has scaled up the project to expose corporate-government collusion to disseminate ideology detrimental to truth and normality (Victims of Their Own Design: DOGE and Progressive Panic). Elon’s “goon squad” is showing the world what I have known for years, that the corporate media is a propaganda organ of the project of managed decline of the American Republic and to advance the transnationalization of corporate power. Musk knows that if the light of America goes out, then the world loses the greatest beacon for freedom it has ever known. Trump knows this, too. The cavalry has arrived and progressives are in full meltdown over it.

Last night on Facebook, I posted that elites are terrified at the prospect of their schemes seeing the light of day and the public understanding how the system works. I wasn’t speculating. You might have wondered why the mainstream media is so drenched in gender ideology, globalism, identity politics, and open borders. Why it’s so anti-American and anti-family. Now you know. It’s because, in part, the administrative state, long ago captured by progressives, gives pipers like Politico millions of tax dollars to play their tune.

When Trump called the apparatus “fake news” establishment pundits said he was undermining the legitimacy of the Fourth Estate. No, the Fourth Estate delegitimized itself. It is likely that it was never legitimate. Trump hit the nail on the head, and he wanted to make sure Americans know this because, as an outsider to establishment power, but one who had as a celebrity been allowed to see the apparatus from the inside, he knew how and why the power elite works the levers of mass consciousness and would undermine the populist-nationalist movement—the movement to reclaim and restore the American Republic, to wake us from a long national nightmare.

Opposing the practice of government agencies using our tax dollars to fund the propaganda that undermines our families and our nation for the sake of the transnationalist agenda, that portrays white working class Americans as oppressors, and casts the West and normality as the root cause of the world’s problems is a natural reaction, but people can only fully have their natural reactions if they know what’s going on. The power elites have had us paying for our own demise and progressives are desperate to keep that fact from the public. They know that it’s only going to get uglier the more rocks Musk turns over.

The corporate state has now moved aggressively to thwart the awakening. In a late Wednesday filing, Justice Department lawyers agreed to a proposed order that would largely prevent the Treasury Department from sharing sensitive financial data with DOGE. Under the agreement, two individuals linked to Musk, employed by the Treasury Department, will retain access to sensitive information, but on a “read-only” basis. If approved by the district judge overseeing the case, the agreement will remain in effect until February 24, when both sides will return to court to argue over a longer-term preliminary injunction. Earlier, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had issued an ultimatum following arguments over DOGE’s access to sensitive Treasury records: either the DOJ and the federal unions that filed the lawsuit agree to a temporary injunction blocking DOGE’s access, or the court would reconvene on Friday to determine whether to issue a temporary restraining order.

In a rear-guard action, exploiting panel rules to delay the vote, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee postponed its consideration of Kash Patel’s nomination to lead the FBI until next week. Patel’s nomination was on the committee’s agenda today. Democrats exercised their right to request a one-time, one-week delay. A similar move was made last month regarding Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination. Democrats stall nominees for time to build faux-popular resistance to the confirmation process. Don’t fret too much. Patel is expected to receive a committee vote from Republicans next Thursday, as well as the floor vote. But don’t take anything for granted. Here’s how to contact your Senators: Contacting U.S. Senators.

My social media feeds—especially Facebook and X—are nonstop pandemonium from freaked out rank-and-file progressives who sit at the terminal watching their hegemony fracturing. No doubt they are buoyed by the lawfare action—there are many more to come—by federal bureaucrat to retain their power. I get why losing their power must feel like an existential crisis. Technocrats depend on keeping democracy at bay. It’s not just that their power is evaporating; their entire worldview is being shattered by the truth. They have no real legitimacy—and without legitimacy, authority is exposed as naked power. However, even if progressives retake that power, tens of millions of more Americans now know what going on. The people see the plans progressives have for America. They see that the populists and their leaders have been right all along They now see that the plans of the power elite will end the republic they love.

The Trump administration cannot allow lawfare to stymy their work. I suspect the concession is strategic. I hope it is, because they need to find all the pools of money scattered across the agencies they’ve secretly used to fund the propaganda apparatus. They must defund that apparatus and deconstruct the administrative state and dismantle the technocracy. While they’re at it, cut loose NPR and PBS. No more state-run media. That’s just to beginning. They have to go after the Department of Education and the other agencies and departments that are scrambling the public mind. They need to make this the beginning of the end of the corporate state. Trump only has four years. The blitzkrieg is necessary. Contact the White House and tell them to not let up. Not that I think they will, but President Trump needs to know that the nation is behind the project to make America great again.

“For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.” —Matthew 13:17

I want to tell you a story that gets to the heart of why so much organized energy is devoted to silencing certain views at universities across the West.

Once upon a time, there was an emperor who loved new clothes more than anything. He spent all his money on fine garments and enjoyed parading through the city to show off his latest outfits. One day, two swindlers arrived at the palace claiming to be master weavers who could make the most magnificent fabric in the world. Their cloth, they said, had a magical property: it would be invisible to anyone who was unfit for their position or hopelessly stupid. Intrigued by this promise, the emperor ordered them to weave a set of clothes for him. 

The swindlers set up looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on them. Ministers and officials, sent to inspect the work, saw nothing but, fearing they would be thought unfit or foolish, they praised the fabric’s nonexistent beauty. When the suit was “finished,” the swindlers presented it to the emperor. Although he saw nothing, he too pretended to admire it, not wanting to appear unworthy. He put on the invisible garments and went out to parade before his subjects. 

The townspeople, not wanting to seem stupid, pretended to admire his fine clothes. But a small child in the crowd spoke up: “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” At first, the crowd was silent, but soon they began whispering and laughing, realizing the truth. “But he has nothing at all on!” at last they cried out. The emperor was upset, for he knew that the people were right. But, though embarrassed, he continued walking proudly, unwilling to admit his nakedness.

Obviously, this is not an original story. You knew that already. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is a classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen. The typical interpretation of Andersen’s tale is that it highlights the dangers of the power of social pressure, pride, and vanity. It’s a parable that reflects real-life situations where people go along with falsehoods to avoid looking bigoted, foolish, and mean—because they know that is how they will be portrayed if they don’t. It also teaches that truth, even when spoken by a child, has the power to break illusions. 

All these are indeed among the lessons of the parable, but I see something else in Andersen’s tale: the importance of mutual knowledge. Until the kid speaks up, everybody knows that the emperor is naked, but they don’t know that everybody else knows that the emperor is naked. The small child has not yet been socialized in civil inattention—or indoctrinated to withhold truths offensive to the emperor (this is why totalitarian desires command of early childhood education). That a child sees what a man sees gives the man confidence to publicly acknowledge the truth of what everybody sees: the emperor is naked.

Andersen’s parable applies to our universities under the hegemony of woke progressivism. Being called to account these days in public universities occurs when one’s pronouncements contradict the prevailing ideology. The demand that professors uphold a particular ideology by professing it, or at least by not openly criticizing it, is to deny the presence of a naked emperor; only by preventing mutual knowledge around the truth of things can fictions be sustained. When myths fall, actions lose their cloak of justice. The righteous become a mob.

Perpetuating fiction is what lies behind the demand, albeit often subtle, that professors engage in newspeak, Orwell’s term for a neurolinguistic project to change cognition. Manufacturing an illusion takes a great deal of effort, but illusions are always fragile, because they are just that: illusions. Therefore rule-following is crucial and the targeting of those who do not follow the rules necessary.

But whose rules? The rules humans have operated by for millennia? The rules that come with instinct? Rules based on reality and reason? Or the rules of a new minority demanding conformity to its ideology in order to sustain necessary illusions? In the case of new rules, it is particularly helpful to those wishing to impose them on others that the institutions and organizations in which they move demand that everybody follow them. It is moreover understandable that those who call the new rules into question make those who require them to feel unsafe.

Whether they think the new rules are good, every professor and student who reads this essay knows the rules and the pressure to follow them. Trepidation at violating them is palpable. The earnest professor who slips up and violates a rule feels terrible guilt and apologizes a second time after a sleepless night. Professors and graduate students talk about the tyranny of the rules in hushed voices at academic conferences. They’re talking about the emperor and they don’t want the emperor to overhear.

This is a bad place for the Enlightenment project. Open and free spaces are unsafe because they allow the truth to be spoken aloud and for mutual knowledge to be formed. They should therefore be unsafe in the sense rendered here. If we make them safe in that sense, we cancel the project. For if we are forced to appreciate the emperor’s new clothes when there are none (or even when the emperor is fully dressed, for that matter), then we live in an unfree society—at least not as free as we should have it. We must therefore secure those spaces with a different sense of safety.

Freedom requires more than reminding people about the right to free speech and the value of academic freedom. A man often needs to feel free to tell the truth. To be sure, that free feeling is only potentially obtainable when he is not told what to say or punished for saying what he is told not to. But some men need beyond reassurance that they may safely speak their mind encouragement to say the things that others wish they wouldn’t in an environment free of retribution. Finding that free feeling requires the active promotion by those in authority of the values that are central to the Enlightenment project, chief among them critique of all things existing.

Maybe a man will never find his courage. But other men will. Courage is contagious. And this is why so much organized energy is devoted to silencing certain views at universities across the West.

One of the abilities of a genius intellect is the ability to think about phenomena and problems in an abstract and global sense and then to use this understanding of systems and the interconnections among elements to make predictions, a practice closely linked to that of explanation, to see how things will work out based on first principles or initial states. Put another way, the ability to think abstractly, recognize deep interconnections, and predict outcomes based on first principles are hallmarks of genius. Both Albert Einstein and Elon Musk exemplify this trait, albeit in different ways, which I will come to later in this essay. 

But before I get the traits that mark Einstein and Musk as geniuses, I want to expand on the point that, in a deep and fundamental way, prediction and explanation are closely linked; one might even argue that they are two sides of the same coin. Both involve understanding the underlying structure of a system, recognizing patterns, and applying that knowledge to either anticipate future events (prediction) or clarify past or present phenomena (explanation). That prediction runs in both directions is crucial to recognize; we can test hypotheses about future and past causes and correlations.

Today’s essay concerns this matter because progressives are fond of creating boogeymen of those who contradict claims made in the service of their agenda, which is changing the world to fit their ideology, attributing to their enemies low intellect to make their own pronouncements appear in contrast the work of high intellect. This tactic is central to legitimizing the presence and practices of progressivism in technocratic governance, since the practice of elevating technocracy over democracy depends on the widespread assumption that common man just isn’t up to self-government. Like Trump, portraying Musk as having low intellect is a paradigm of this progressive tactic. Such portrayal was certain once Trump and Musk were drawn into politics, as their presence in government threatens progressive hegemony. Before then, they were admired, even celebrated.

In science, inference is central to the predictive power of theories. A good scientific theory not only explains why things happen but also predicts what will happen under different conditions. For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity explained why Mercury’s orbit deviated slightly from Newtonian predictions, but it also predicted the bending of light around massive objects—something later confirmed during a 1919 solar eclipse. The fact that a theory successfully predicts outcomes is strong evidence that its explanations are fundamentally correct. Einstein had the ability to know phenomena or things existed without seeing them. He could determine the outcome of a process before it was set in motion because he grasped the nature of the initial state.

We see this in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Models that can accurately predict outcomes often have implicit explanatory power. This is why AI is such a powerful tool beyond computational speed. If a neural network can predict stock market trends based on certain inputs, it suggests that those inputs are meaningfully connected to market movements, even if the mechanism isn’t fully understood. Musk, in his engineering-driven mindset, often speaks about first principles thinking, which is essentially a method of both explanation and prediction. By understanding the nature of systems, Musk can predict the outcomes of changed system states. Crucially, something doesn’t have to have already happened to know what will happen if the system is changed and I want to spend a moment on that matter, as denying or obscuring this truth is a tactic progressives use to deny or obscure the deleterious effects of their policies. 

Those who wish to advance ideological-political agendas are fond of saying in the face of pushback that the future states imagined by their opponents have not happened, or are infrequent, and that therefore their concerns are unfounded. When concerns were raised about males identifying as girls or women in female sports, those advocating allowing males into female sports dismissed those concerns by claiming that there was no or little evidence of negative effects, therefore the desire to exclude such males was an expression of prejudice against trans identifying males. However, scientific facts about the advantages males have over females, recognition of those differences and an explanation for them, accurately predicts that males would dominate females in female sports.

Similar predictions were made with respect to such males in female prisons. Rape and pregnancies were predicted, and these things subsequently happened. While these outcomes were expected, those who push the queer agenda denied them. At the same time, they wanted these outcomes, which is obvious in the way that men succeeding in women’s domains are celebrated by progressives. These outcomes are celebrated because progressives have changed the system via power derived from having colonized society’s sense-making and policy-making institutions. Thus, the claim that something undesirable will not happen is a lie; progressives desire the undesirable. 

Leaving subterfuge to the side (ideology makes smart people stupid, so a lot of those pushing the agenda come by their fallacies honestly), a person pushing the queer agenda while denying or obscure its deleterious impact on girls and women is committing the fallacy argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The argument from ignorance fallacy occurs when someone claims that a statement is true (or false) simply because it has not been proven otherwise. It’s an error in reasoning that relies on a lack of evidence as proof of something, rather than offering direct evidence to support the claim. Put another way, an argument from ignorance occurs when one assumes that because something has never happened or isn’t happening that it cannot or will not happen.

In the case of males in women’s sports, dismissing the predicted advantage in sports due to the relative absence of males assumes that because the condition (males being allowed) hasn’t been met, the predicted outcome (advantage) cannot or will not occur. This reasoning incorrectly assumes that the lack of evidence disconfirms the prediction. However, the advantage still exists if males were allowed to participate; the absence of that condition doesn’t prove the outcome won’t occur. We expect the outcome because of our knowledge of the facts, which are denied by the queer activist because the agenda seeks validation of the false claim that men who say they are women are women. Thus the progressive ostensibly rejects predictions based on the assumption that a lack of immediate or concrete evidence means the issue won’t materialize in the future.

This dismissive stance ignores the underlying factors, essentially focusing on the absence of past instances rather than on the rational prediction that can be made from known principles. The scientific facts about male and female physiology (such as physical strength, muscle mass, and hormonal differences) lead to logical predictions that males have physical advantages in certain sports, and similar reasoning about social and psychological factors can predict challenges in environments like female prisons. If these predictions are based on well-established principles, facts, or theories, the person dismissing them is overlooking the importance of reasoning from facts and the predictive power that comes with understanding initial conditions. 

This dismissal is a failure (often intentional) to acknowledge the validity of predictions based on established knowledge and exposes the person as eschewing logical reasoning—in the case of queer theory to advance an ideological agenda; the denial of the potential consequences is based on an appeal a lack of direct evidence in the short term, instead of considering broader principles that logically lead to these predictions. Predictive thinking relies on a systems understanding—recognizing patterns and anticipating future outcomes based on those patterns, which are grounded in scientific facts. Ideology disorders the capacity to think in a logical way. We have thus allowed fallacious thinking to command our institutions, and the consequences of having allowed this have been consequential and widespread.  

Here’s another example. Supposing there is at present no evidence that affirmative action or the lowering of standards with the objective to change race and ethnic proportionalities will increase the number of unqualified people in critical fields of endeavor, such as medicine, and that therefore such concerns that it is or will reflect not the predictive power of the person making the objection but instead reflect the objector’s race or ethnic bias. The claim is that his opposition is not based on an understanding of the nature of the situation but on an ideology that predisposes him to imagine such outcomes to thwart progress in the project to achieve race and ethnic equity.

In this way, the rational thinker is portrayed as an irrational one, driven by race and ethnic bias, which adds to the mix another fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy. But it is obvious that lowering the standards in medicine will increase the likelihood of incompetent doctors, which will result in poorer and even lethal outcomes. Why wait for these deleterious outcomes to manifest to abandon or prevent the initiation of policies that will lead to them? Setting aside the fact that determining the fate of individuals based on group membership is discriminatory (committing yet another fallacy, that of misplaced concreteness) and therefore should be stopped or disallowed for that reason, affirmative action leads to negative outcomes. Resort to name calling will not in the end obscure the results.

As with the problem of males in female sports, the person denying the predictions is dismissing concerns about the potential negative consequences of affirmative action (including discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity obvious at inception) on the grounds that there is no immediate or concrete evidence to support them, assuming the absence of proof in the short term means the issue won’t arise in the future. This reasoning fails to consider the broader principles, historical patterns, and existing research that predict future outcomes, focusing instead on the lack of current evidence to dismiss possible long-term effects. The predictive power of established facts and theories about human behavior, socioeconomic trends, and systemic dynamics is ignored. This failure to recognize the validity of logical predictions, grounded in knowledge and reasoning, exposes the person as relying on a narrow, short-term perspective rather than considering broader, more reliable frameworks for anticipating outcomes. 

There is a video widely shared on the Internet of a dialogue between Elon Musk and Don Lemon in which Lemon challenges Musk on the latter’s opposition to affirmative action and DEI on the grounds that it will increase incompetence in the field of surgery. Lemon asks Musk for evidence that this has happened. In the clip I provide above, Lemon denies that standards are being lowered. Musk contradicts Lemon’s claim by citing the case of Duke University. As Dave Rubin points out in his commentary (also in the clip) we know this happening across the nations in our universities and our high schools, thus providing a superb example of how to avoid the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

I shared that clip because of what Rubin adds to it, but it does not fully convey Lemon’s resort to ignorance. Below I provide a longer clip that shows Lemon engaging in the fallacy of argument from ignorance thereby providing a paradigm of the tactic progressives use to deny the consequences of the policies they foist upon the public. They deploy the fallacy as a “gotcha” device, that if you cannot identify a negative consequences then the policy must be a sound one. It is not a particularly clever rhetorical trick, frankly, but it can catch an opponent flat-footed if he doesn’t know about the fallacy. Logic and critical thinking is not typically included in public school curricula. For the progressive, whether he knows it is a fallacy or not is unimportant; he has been socialized to reflexively use it in debate. Progressives are well conditioned in the art of sophistry. Lemon engages in another logical error when he claims that because white doctors make mistakes, that Musk doesn’t have a concern. But this only provides Musk with an opportunity to demonstrate the logical way to think about the problem, avoiding the fallacy Lemon commits. (Lemon’s note about Tuskegee is absurd. The National Medical Association supported the Tuskegee Syphilis Study during its duration.)

I stress the point that without evidence of outcome incompetence is the predictable consequence of lowering standards. But the role of ideology here must also be stressed. Musk says what he does because he understands the situation. Musk is a logical thinker. Lemon cannot grasp Musk’s point because he believes, like other progressives, that blacks are underrepresented in the field of surgery because of racism and this belief derails whatever natural capacity he might have to understand. What is this ideology? That of critical race theory, or CRT. In his book, How to Be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi argues that disparities are not indicative of the inherent abilities of different racial groups but are the result of racist policies and ideas. It is either one or the other, he insists, and so you can either only be an antiracist or a racist. Kendi emphasizes that acknowledging these disparities is crucial for identifying and dismantling the racist structures that perpetuate them. But this is a fallacious argument, and it’s part of the reasons Lemon can’t grasp Musk’s point. 

The underrepresentation of blacks in fields like medicine need not be attributed to racial disparities in inherent abilities but can be attributed instead to a variety of factors, including cultural variation in attitudes towards learning and work, historical and systemic barriers to education, access to resources, and so forth. These barriers have created disparities in academic achievement and professional qualifications, making it more difficult for blacks on average to meet the high standards required in fields such as medicine, which is why they are underrepresented in those fields. Progressives must acknowledge this fact since they go to the heart of their claim that racism remains a problem. They take the fact of disparity as proof of its cause, but in doing so admit to the disparity. They are in a bind; whatever the explanation for these facts, efforts to change standards to increase representation will carry the same effect as if the differences in ability are innate; there will be an increase in incompetence which will in turn lead to negative outcomes, which in this case can be debilitating and lethal. Medicine is already dangerous enough without increasing the number of incompetent practitioners. Lower standards may lead to greater representation of blacks in medicine. But it will also lead to a greater number of incompetent doctors. Since medicine is about competency in practice, DEI goals have no place.

Progressives are fond of policies based on demographic abstractions, so the counterargument that not all black individuals are incompetent provides no refuge. Of course not all black individuals are incompetent. Dr. Ben Carson, a world-renowned brain surgeon, is black. But Carson did not earn his lofty reputation because he is black, rather because he is talented and dedicated to his craft. However, not all black men vying to be brain surgeons come with the same level of judgment, talent, and dedication to the art. Thus, while changes to standards may be seen as an attempt to address the effects of these inequities and provide more opportunities for underrepresented groups to succeed, the negative consequences of reducing standards are predictable. Why are there high standards in medicine in the first place if not to exclude incompetent practitioners and thereby reduce the likelihood of harmful consequences for patients? That’s common sense.

This is crucial to understand because the ability to predict future events based on known facts, such as the advantages males may have in physical sport, is itself explaining the dynamics of the situation. There is symmetry here; it works the other way around. When those predictions come true, it reinforces the original explanation. Denying such predictions would be ignoring both systemic reasoning and empirical observation and failing to consider how these explanations provide a framework for anticipating future events based on current knowledge. This ignorance allows people to assert in a self-satisfied way that, not only will the worst not occur if the state of the system is changed, but that because it has not occurred (at least to their knowledge), that the outcome will a good one. Thus, via fallacious reasons, progressives make their agenda appear desirable. Ultimately, whether we are explaining the past or predicting the future, we are engaging in the same intellectual process: recognizing patterns, identifying causes, and applying logical reasoning to understand the world. Progressives only recognize the patterns they wish to, and these are almost always in the service of their agenda.

All that said, let’s return to the matter of genius, since in deciding on which cognitive style to adopt, we should be looking to those who possess it, not to ideological hacks who only seek to advance an agenda. Presuming nobody would deny he was one, Einstein used first principles thinking to develop his theories of relativity, redefining our understanding of space, time, and gravity. Instead of accepting existing Newtonian mechanics as immutable, he questioned its foundational assumptions and built a new framework based on simple yet profound insights, such as the constancy of the speed of light. His ability to conceptualize the universe abstractly—through thought experiments rather than direct experimentation—demonstrates a deep systemic understanding of reality. Einstein is thus a ready exemplar of a rational cognitive style.

Musk, while not a theoretical physicist, applies similar principles in engineering and business. He has repeatedly stated that he solves problems by breaking them down to their fundamental truths and reasoning upward, rather than relying on conventional wisdom, and you can see this in how he works and what he has accomplished. His cognitive style has allowed him to revolutionize industries. For example, he saw that traditional rocket manufacturing was inefficient and vertically integrated SpaceX. His ability to foresee long-term trends, such as the importance of sustainable energy and space colonization, is rooted in this systems-level, predictive thinking.

Both Einstein and Musk demonstrate that genius is not just about knowledge but about seeing the invisible connections between things, predicting future possibilities, and reshaping the world according to reasonable ideas. Don Lemon is no genius. He could not see what Musk was saying. Based on the popularity of a version of that video clip circulating among and shared by those harboring great antipathy towards Musk, Lemon is not alone. The rank and file ensconced in the progressive worldview are rendered incapable of using the superior cognitive style. Those who steer them exploit the inferior cognitive style to organize popular support for their various projects.

There has been considerable speculation that Einstein may have been on the autism spectrum, though the diagnosis did not exist during his lifetime. We might point to traits such as his delayed speech development (not speaking fluently until around four years old), intense focus on his work, and a preference for solitude as possible indicators. Einstein also exhibited rigid behaviors, such as wearing the same type of clothing daily, and had an unconventional way of thinking, often disregarding societal norms. Additionally, some accounts suggest he struggled with social interactions and forming close relationships. To be sure, Einstein was also known to be engaging and humorous in the right settings (so is Musk). While Einstein’s neurological profile remains a topic of debate, the debate highlights the emerging conversation about neurodiversity and how historical figures might fit into modern frameworks of cognition and behavior.

Musk, on the other hand, has publicly stated that he is on the autism spectrum. During his Saturday Night Live (SNL) appearance in 2021, he revealed that he has Asperger’s syndrome, which is now classified under autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Musk displays some of the typical traits of autism, such as intense focus on specific interests, social difficulties, and a unique way of thinking. His awkward social interactions, literal communication style, and deep obsession with technology—all align with ASD characteristics. At the same time, Musk has shown adaptability, entrepreneurial skill, and strong leadership—all which demonstrate that neurodiversity can be a strength. (This brings into question whether psychiatry’s conflation of Aspergers and autism generally was a valid move.)

The attitude of progressives towards Musk’s neurodiversity considering their celebration of difference and diversity betrays their profound sense of elitism—whatever their position in the status hierarchy. If one has spent any time on social media, or watched corporate news outlets, the way progressives mock with extraordinary derision the physical appearance, speech, and behavior of those with whom they disagree is obvious. Accusing people of fatphobia while mocking Trump for being overweight is just one of a myriad examples one could provide. It is for this reason that I often say that progressives strike me as adult versions of the mean girls’ table in high school. I’m not saying that progressives aren’t smart. Progressives are some of the most intelligent people I have met. It is not much different here than it is for the religious faithful, who also believe in impossible things. It is also the case that people of average intelligence, if they adopt the superior cognitive style I am describing, can accurately explain and predict outcomes. This is why the average person knew that allowing men in women’s spaces will have deleterious effects, or why it is a bad idea to lower the standards in critical fields of endeavor. Again, it’s common sense.

Einstein’s exact IQ is unknown because he was never formally tested. However, various estimates place it somewhere north of 160, this based on his intellectual achievements and problem-solving abilities. For comparison, a score of 130 and above is typically considered “gifted,” whereas IQ scores of 160 and above are indicative of “exceptional” intelligence. Einstein’s groundbreaking contributions to physics suggest he was well within the exceptional range. To be sure, IQ may not always the best measure of genius, as creativity, insight, and perseverance also play crucial roles in groundbreaking discoveries, but the score is nonetheless widely recognized as a hallmark of genius. Musk’s exact IQ is unknown because he has never taken a publicly available IQ test. However, estimates place it in Einstein’s range based on his problem-solving abilities, technical knowledge, and success in multiple industries.

Einstein and Musk are thus both widely regarded as geniuses even while excelling in different domains with distinct intellectual approaches that nonetheless adopt the cognitive style I have described. Einstein’s intellectual strength lay in deep theoretical reasoning, often working in solitude to develop abstract mathematical models of reality. He valued contemplation and imagination, conducting thought experiments to explore the nature of space and time (his book The Theory of Relativity: And Other Essays, which I read as a child, had a profound impact on my thinking, and I will forever be grateful for the rich intellectual environment with which my parents provided me that included this and other great works). The practical applications of general relativity are found everywhere, from atomic energy to satellite communications.  

Musk’s genius lies more in practical application, moving effortlessly between deductive and inductive reasoning, evidenced by his exceptional engineering skills and entrepreneurial prowess, with his focus on applying scientific and technological advancements to real-world industries. Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and other ventures are revolutionizing transportation, space travel, and artificial intelligence. Nonetheless, while he is not a scientist in the traditional sense, Musk’s ability to integrate business strategy, engineering, and physics has allowed him to push the limits of innovation in multiple industries and demonstrate a cognitive style worth wide adoption. There is a reason Musk is the richest man in the world, and we would do well to emulate his approach. To be sure, that requires setting aside ideological concerns, but we would do well to do this, too.

Finally, I hasten to clarify that while IQ measures certain types of cognitive abilities, like pattern recognition, logical reasoning, and abstract thinking, success in fields like business or politics also involves a wide range of other qualities, such as emotional intelligence, strategic thinking, leadership, negotiation skills, and resilience—all of which can be just as crucial to achieving success as raw intellectual ability. Trump’s ability to build a business empire, run a presidential campaign, and win the presidency despite being a political outsider can be seen as indicative of his strong strategic thinking and unconventional problem-solving skills. Trump’s success suggests that he possesses a high level of intelligence, though it may not be captured fully by a traditional IQ test. I am closing with Trump because, as noted at the outset, progressives hold him in as much contempt as Musk since both have turned their talents to saving the American Republic, a project inimical to the corporate project of managed decline in order to prepare the masses for the big and intrusive technocratic world government progressives seek. 

Let’s not forget that when Roosevelt took office in 1933 and began implementing his New Deal programs, he was accused of authoritarianism. Critics, particularly from the Republican Party and business sectors, argued that his extensive use of executive power to create agencies and programs represented a drastic departure from traditional democratic governance—that centralization of power in the federal government undermined individual liberties and “state rights,” a euphemism for our federalized system.

Republicans in particular expressed concerns that Roosevelt’s policies were leading the country toward a more centralized and potentially dictatorial government. For its part, the Roosevelt administration emphasized that the New Deal programs were necessary reforms, framing the initiatives as essential for protecting democracy and promoting economic recovery.

In a historic analog to X (Twitter), Roosevelt produced “Fireside Chats,” radio broadcasts that directly communicated with the American public to explain his policies and reassure citizens about his intentions and build public support. Roosevelt sought to build a broad coalition—labor unions, farmers, and progressive intellectuals—to strengthen the political base for his policies. When faced with legal challenges to the New Deal, his administration defended its initiatives in court. Roosevelt administration framed its actions as a legitimate response to a national crisis, positioning itself as a defender of democracy rather than a threat to it.

The progressive panic isn’t really about bold executive action. It’s about which party is taking bold executive action. Progressives might do better to argue policy rather than attempt to manufacture a moral panic. But they won’t because their policies are strongly disliked by the public. So, on second thought, what option do they have but the old playbook?

The question of which period of bold action was authoritarian is not my object here, but something I have explored in depth on Freedom and Reason. But I do want to note that, in the aftermath of Roosevelt, there was a gradual but significant shift in union density from the private sector to the public sector. Private sector unions represent the working class, which has been decimated by globalization (off-shoring and mass immigration). Public sector unions represent the credentialed class, the professional-managerial strata, reflecting the vast increase in the federal bureaucracy that progressives initiated and Roosevelt accelerated. Today, union density in the private sector is at a record low—under six percent. In contrast, public-sector union density now stands at 32.2 percent (even higher in local government).

This trend marks a shift in political power from the working class to the class that manages them for sake of the ruling class. Deconstructing the administrative state shifts power back to working people. Without private sector unions, the people now depend on populist government to represent them. Perhaps that is even better. Noting these facts in part answers the question about which period of bold action is authoritarian.