freedom and reason

Imagine if one of Trump’s sons screwed his other son’s widow and lied on a federal form about his compulsive crack cocaine use, all while purchasing a hand gun, speed loader, and ammunition. That’s a felony. And the widow thing (wow). Imagine there’s a laptop that has video of the son with a prostitute tooting lines and engaging in gun play. Even more than this, the laptop has information on the father. There are emails in the trash bin. There might be some incriminating items in there. Now imagine the son is on trial and the prosecution introduces the laptop into evidence. What would your Google News feed look like right now? All this is happening right now. Be honest.

Ask yourself these questions: What government agents could Trump have counted on to take possession of his son’s laptop and conceal it during the campaign? Which high ranking intelligence officials could have been deployed to assert, in an open letter, on the basis of their authority and expertise, that the laptop looks like Russian disinformation? Could Trump have depended on Facebook, Youtube, and other social media platforms censoring and deplatforming every user, including media companies, attempting to share the story? Can Trump depend on the legacy media right now to prioritize other news stories over his son’s situation? How shall the media explain why is didn’t report on the laptop when it first knew about it? Why did the social media companies censor the story? And what about those intelligence officials?

If the inverse of the last eight years doesn’t seem plausible, indeed if it seems absurd (which you know it does), then you are confirming suspicions millions of Americans have that the administrative state, the culture industry, and the mass media are all pulling in the same direction. They are working for a side. The meaning of this is significant. It means that the dominant institutions of your society that you depend on for information, and that preserve your history and enrich your culture, are not truth seeking institutions, but a myth making apparatus that serves the interests of a ruling class, obviously one Trump betrayed. Do I need to say this? The ruling class is not you.

Betraying the class he ascended to would be the last thing Biden would ever do. He became one of them because of subservience to their needs, not because he did anything of significance. The ruling class needs cheap disposable labor. The ruling class needs to sell weapons and make war. It needs mass consumption. The ruling class needs to control the dominant institutions of our society. To make sure things run smoothly, the ruling class needs obedient servants, like Biden. Those who disobey, or who do not serve, or who might serve us, are marginalized and eliminated using various techniques. There is a universe of examples. Their marginalization and elimination will be framed in terms of “justice” and “saving democracy.” That’s how to detect a ruling class.

* * *

Hunter Biden’s laptop—the original device with hard drive intact—has been entered as evidence in court by prosecutors in his Delaware trial. Remember when you were told that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation during the 2020 election? Remember how CIA chiefs and top agents signed an open letter saying just that? The FBI had possession of the laptop in later November or early December 2019.They knew they were lying. Take this in. The intelligence community, the community that is supposed to protect our democracy, misled the public to thwart democracy. Take this in, as well: this is the same time frame as the first impeachment of Trump. Remember the phone call he made to Ukraine to find out what was going on between the Biden family and the Ukraine government? Trump was suspicious. And he was right to be.

On my blog, on December 19, 2019, I published an essay titled The Conspiracy to Overthrow an American President. I wrote there, “Hunter had accepted a board seat on Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings, which gave the appearance of a political favor to Joe, who was at the time the Vice-President of the United States. Biden admitted to an audience during a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that he threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless they fired a prosecutor he did not like.” In October of 2020, I published New York Post Drops a Bombshell on the Biden Campaign, in which I discussed the suppression of a New York Post article that “reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.” Trump was right. That was a perfect phone call.

Democrats are off the chain. The Party is the tip of spear in remaking America in the image of the Third World. Today, absurdly, Attorney General Josh Kaul’s office in Dane County (a progressive swamp) filed charges against Kenneth Chesebro, James Troupis, and Michael Roman. The men, all Trump associates, are charged under a statute that criminalizes attempting to forge legal records or other public documents.

But these men didn’t forge legal records. The situation of Hawaii in the 1960 presidential election as their precedent, where Democrats and Republicans sent different slates of electors to Congress (Nixon declined to toss the Democrat slate and put the matter to Congress even though he had the authority to do this, thus handing the election to Kennedy), the Republican Party in some states named alternative electors in 2020. Wisconsin was one of them. Of all the states, Wisconsin, the state with the most evidence of rigging, had not certified its electors by the safe harbor deadline.

Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (quietly but radically revised in 2021), Pence, like Nixon, had the authority to include or exclude electors as he saw fit, which could be challenged by Congress. Members of Congress could in their own right raise objections to electors. This rhetoric of “fake electors” is propaganda. Putting it charitably, Pence had misunderstood the law (it appears he was misled by the attorneys around him). But other Republicans hadn’t (Gosar, Cruz, Perry, and Hawley) and raised objections—as had Democrats in 2004 (which I supported because of evidence of rigging in Ohio). The “insurrection” stopped the process of disputing certifications. (Far from keeping Trump in office, the events that day secured Biden’s victory.)

I voted for Evers in 2018 because of what Walker was doing to the UW system—my deep dive into gender ideology was a few years away (Democrats aggressively push the queer agenda throughout Wisconsin’s public institutions). It was during 2020 that Evers’ authoritarianism became obvious. He appears mild mannered; behind the visage is darkness. Now, emboldened by the Trump’s conviction in a kangaroo court in Lower Manhattan, his administration is engaged in lawfare against his party’s political enemies.

This is the third year the Pride Progress flag has been raised beside City Hall for the month of June. You can watch the ceremonial raising of the flag here. I wrote about this last year (see Flying Pride Again—Or Are They?)

The First Amendment was set down in writing as fundamental law because the founders of the American Republic extolled the Enlightenment values of freedom of association, conscience, and speech. By these lights, city hall should be a politically-ideologically neutral space. The city is violating the rights of its citizens.

Imagine if a conservative mayor flew the Christian nationalist flag. Or the RNC flag. Or the Appeal to Heaven flag. Or the Don’t Tread on Me flag. Would that be appropriate? I think the outrage would swiftly tell us it wasn’t (albeit probably not for the right reason).

The US flag flips on the pole because this is our country. The mayor could fly the state flag, if he chose to, just beneath the US flag, in deference to federalism; that would represent all citizens, as well. But the Pride Progress flag is not representative of the people of Green Bay. It is not the flag of my family and many other families and should not be flying over this or any other public space.

The Pride Progress flag is more than unrepresentative of Green Bay’s population; it is a distinctly divisive flag, polarizing people along lines of gender and race. It should not be flying here.

It’s insane that my rejection of something as insane as the belief that men can be women would even be a matter of contention—at an institution of higher learning who reason for existing is pursuit of the truth and defense of that pursuit. This individual puts the matter as I have put it in different words. That it is not Peter Boghossian’s hand that is front of her is the same quality of truth as the statement: “Trans women are men.”

I have been using George Orwell’s 2+2=5 example from Nineteen Eighty-Four. Gender ideology is 2+2=5. It’s the denial that this woman’s hand is in front of her face. It’s hokum. All of it. It’s a perversion of the truth. This means that the medical industry and the associations and regulatory bodies that manage the public’s perception concerning this matter are deceiving people for prestige and profit.

But it’s more than this. This is not merely the greatest medical scandal in history (indeed it is that); it proves we no longer live in a secular republic founded upon reason and science. This is why half of America, with a lot of smart people included in that number, agree that the verdict in Kafka’s The Trial is fair. They live in a post-truth world. And the scariest thing about this situation is that they want to live in this world.

Education is not the antidote to alienation. That’s because education is indoctrination. And that’s because our institutions have been captured by progressive ideology, beneath which lurks corporate power. The project to make America great again is indeed about reestablishing the great traditions of the Western past—traditions lost to postmodernist corruption.

So, as we navigate Pride month, let’s rededicate ourselves to the truths that gender is binary and immutable—and further recognize that these facts have to do with homosexuality in that denying them harms gay and lesbian people. Conversion is the process of changing or causing something to transition from one form to another, in this case to produce a simulated sexual identity. Trans is deceptive mimicry, mimicry designed to either deceive others or deceive oneself. Be a force multiplier in reestablishing mutual knowledge about scientific facts by conveying these truths, even if only in small groups or by sharing the content of others. If you must act in bad faith, then at a minimum don’t lie to yourself. At the very least, see what you see.

In July 2020, during the COVID19 pandemic, I received a typewritten anonymous letter with a fake return address from another state but actually postmarked as originating in the city I live in. It was somebody near me. I opened it in the backyard with my wife present. The letter was shot through with envy, hostility, and resentment. I have a few suspects in mind, but without a confession I will probably never know for sure. I figure that it had to be a man because there was so much rage in it. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine a woman being motivated to write such a letter whatever its tone.

The thing that bugged me about the letter, in addition to the fact that the contents indicated that it was somebody I had interacted with before, likely somebody I worked with, which is creepy, was that the author was upset because, according to him, I had become a right-winger. I had no way of responding to the charges.

I can guess about the things that marked me as having crossed the line. I criticize Islam. For progressives, that makes me “Islamophobic.” I oppose illegal immigration. That makes me “xenophobic.” I’m what they call “gender critical.” So I’m “transphobic.” Black Lives Matter and critical race theory? “Negrophobic” perhaps? (Don’t roll you eyes; that’s an actual term, archaic now, of course—as all these terms will be one day.)

None of these are right wing positions, as I have shown on the pages of Freedom and Reason. Irreligious criticism is central to leftwing thought. The OG of leftism, Karl Marx, spared no religion in his criticism of the painkiller. Christopher Hitchens, the celebrated leftwing essayist, was no less critical of Islam than I am. Hitchens worried as well about immigrants, his predictions prophetic in light of Europe’s current situation. Marx told his comrades that the British capitalist imported Irish labor to undermine the standing of the British proletariat. What Hitchens’ position would have been on gender ideology I can’t say; he died in 2011 before the emergence of that particular mass psychogenic illness. He was, as I am, pro-gay and lesbian, but that is a different matter. Marx’s admiration for Darwin and his notes on Lewis Morgan’s Ancient Society (worked up by Frederich Engels after Marx’s passing) make clear he would have had seen gender ideology for what it was: a neo-religion.

As for their views on race, except for his position on reparations assumed for the sake of an Oxford style debate, I detect no differences between Hitchens and myself. My dissertation was a Marxist analysis of the intersection of race and class and its association with patterns punishment over a five hundred year period, so I know something of Marx’s views here. He saw the oppression of racial groups as emergent from capitalist exploitation. Slavery in the United States was driven by economic interests. Colonialism, which involved the subjugation and exploitation of non-Europeans, was a tool of capitalist expansion. Racism was both a product of and a justification for colonial exploitation; racial and ethnic divisions were manipulated to maintain control and economic dominance. He argued—in a letter to Abraham Lincoln, no less—that capitalists used racism to divide workers, thereby preventing them from uniting against their common exploiters. He emphasized the need for workers of all races and nationalities to unite in the struggle against capitalism. I confirmed all of this in my work.

I am a feminist. Some might find Hitchens lacking in that department. Marx saw the oppression of women as intertwined with the capitalist system. Workers were exploited by capitalists, but women were doubly oppressed—both as workers and within the family structure. Marx and Engels commented on this in The Communist Manifest (I wrote the preface to the Clydesdale edition). In his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, based on Marx’s notes on Morgan, Friedrich Engels theorizes that the patriarchal family structure emerged alongside the rise of private property, linking women’s oppression directly to economic systems. Marx acknowledged the economic contributions of women, both in the workforce and in the domestic sphere. He saw women’s labor in the home as essential to the functioning of capitalism, although it was unpaid and undervalued. Marx supported the idea that women’s liberation was essential for the overall emancipation of humanity. Abolishing private ownership in capital promised to emancipate women from the patriarchal relations that have oppressed them over the centuries.

Since there are many sorts of feminism, let me tell you that I subscribe to what has been in the past called a “difference feminist,” as opposed to a “sameness feminist.” The difference between the genders are such that the pursuit of equality requires equity to ensure women are not disadvantaged in domains where men are stronger and faster. Overlapping distributions not withstanding, if we treat men and women the same, then we can not treat them equally. I am a staunch defender of reproductive freedom; men do not face the same circumstances that women do in this regard. I am opposed to strident gender roles (as the previous paragraphs should have made clear). I am also a gay liberationist, which is not to deny heteronormativity, but rather to say that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as everybody else, including the right to marry. What do I care is a man loves a man?

Like Marx and Hitchens, I am an atheist and a secularist. I advocate freedom of conscience. People are free to believe what they will. People are free not to believe what they will. I believe in freedom of the press and speech. We are free to write and speak our thoughts and opinions. We are free to express our emotions. We are also free from having to write and speak and feel the way others wish us to. In the 1840s, Marx wrote several articles criticizing the Prussian government’s censorship policies (see his series of articles On the Freedom of the Press, published in 1842 in the Rheinische Zeitung. In these articles, Marx argued that freedom of the press was a necessary condition for political freedom and that censorship was inherently reactionary and counterproductive. Censorship, he argued, is a tool of the ruling class to maintain control and stifle dissent. Marx believed that free speech is essential for exposing injustices and for the development of a critical, informed public. Influenced by Enlightenment thinkers and early liberal ideas, Marx’s arguments for free speech are rooted in his broader philosophical beliefs about human freedom and the role of the state.

I am a strong proponent of freedom of association and assembly. People must be free to be with whom they wish and avoid those with whom they wish not to. They must be free to meet together to share ideas and challenge power. All these rights—and the right to conscience—are found together in a single article in the US Bill of Rights, the first one, and echoed in international covenants, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These are indeed human rights. They are functional to other rights. Secularism requires the exercise of speech critical of religious and religious-like ideology—and even of scientific claims. Marx held that free discourse is crucial for challenging and transforming oppressive social and economic structures by enabling those working from a materialist conception of history to announce their discoveries in the same way Darwin announced his. This is all purposeful, aligning with Marx’s emphasis on the importance of class consciousness and the need for workers to be able to discuss and critique their conditions openly.

I oppose concentrated power, whether it is corporate power or state power or religious power, and this is why we must have the freedom to speak freely and to criticize our betters. I dread the administered life, and being compelled to act in bad faith. Just as I am committed to a public life, I am committed to the individual’s right to privacy, to be left alone in his self and in his possessions, to be unmolested by the police without probable cause to suspect wrongdoing, to receive a fair trial, and to have means to defend himself in a court of law. To remain silent. I believe also in his right to self defense, and the defense of his home and innocents, and in the right to means to effect these ends.

None of these positions is rightwing even if some right-wingers advocate some of them. As I have always understood it, rightwing means believing that there is a natural hierarchical order to things natural and social. A right-winger believes some men are destined to rule over others, that there are betters and lessers. In his heart, he is an elitist. He believes in the patriarchy, the natural order of things gender-related where women are to dutifully assume their subordinate and natural role in society. He believes this also about those whose skin color differs from his. For him, human nature is aggressive and avaricious—but also lazy and in need of discipline. He is a romantic; deep down he pines for the days when kings and noblemen took their place on their thrones and estates, and those beneath them knew theirs. He sees in the captain of industry the sovereign’s analog. He likes war. And the penalty of death. He believes in God and devils. He wishes his worldview was everybody’s, so he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state. He doesn’t believe in sexual freedom, either; homosexuality is unnatural, a perversion, contradicting God’s plan. He likes tradition. And obedience.

What we see in the progressive tendency is a lot of these rightwing characteristics, albeit often in sublimated form. The world progressives represent is the world of corporate statism, administrative rule, and technocratic control. They are the cleric for the corporate state. The rank-and-file reside in the professional-managerial class as academics, bureaucrats, cultural managers, and propagandists. Their roles are functional to capitalist power and profit; they have internalized neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Critical race and queer theories are embraced throughout the corporate structure and the institutions that perpetuate that structure, not because these are leftwing ideas, but because they are not. As Marx told us, they divide the working class. Identitarianism and its coding as diversity, equity, and inclusion is the new rightwing expression. As with the old racists, in opposition to individualism, or to class solidarity, progressives tribalize society and establish rules regulating human interaction—rules everybody is required to follow despite having never participated in their creation or consented to them. A myriad of oppressions not merely eclipse the class struggle, they undermine it.

With progressives, diversity is not diversity in belief and opinion, but to be found in the multiplicity of tribes, with some tribes more equal than others. Equity is not the equity of the difference feminism I described earlier, but the doctrine of equality of outcomes based on tribal averages, with some tribes more equal than others. Being inclusive is not tolerating difference, but excluding difference of opinion, censoring unauthorized thought—the very condition Marx condemned as manipulative and oppressive. Restricted thought is pressed into the brains of children. Education becomes indoctrination. In the progressive space, men are held to rightfully claim the personage of women, trespass upon their spaces, take advantage of their opportunities, and bathe in the accolades mean for them. In this space, safeguarding children becomes bigotry. The classical liberal values of the Enlightenment embraced by Marx and Hitchens are replaced by their opposite: postmodernist and technocratic reworkings of premodern mythologies and tyrannies. Progressivism is its opposite: regressive, its rituals atavistic—inquisitions, witch-finders, and all the rest of it.

Beneath the corporation and the professional-managerial class is the vast majority, the masses who build the structures, grow the food, deliver the goods, serve the customer, and fight the wars. To return to my political and moral commitments—they are to these people. This is my choice of comrades: The construction worker. The farmer. The factory worker. The day laborer. The shopkeeper. How are these commitments rightwing? I am committed to the pursuit of scientific truth. The truth cannot be bigoted. Why must I believe a lie for the sake of the true believer? Treating individuals as concrete personifications of abstract categories is fallacious. To say so is not racist. It’s the opposite. To say a white man is bad because he is white—that’s racist.

And what about nationalism? A republic is a political-juridical system that represents the interests of the citizen. The citizen is sovereign in a republic, not the monarch or an installed president teetering atop an unelected and unaccountable technocratic apparatus. A republic requires national integrity and a shared culture to serve a common purpose. It must define and secure its borders for the sake of the citizenry that has given its consent to be governed according to democratic and rational processes. This is called nationalism, and it’s not rightwing. Ask the colonized about their nationalist struggles. Find out what they believed. I’m confident that it wasn’t for the most part rightwing.

The leftwing standpoint presents with political and moral beliefs, opinions, and practices that generally advocate for substantive equality, individual justice, and the reduction of social hierarchies. Left-wingers advocate for measures that reduce economic disparities and improve the conditions of people, such as higher wages, safe working conditions, the right to unionize, and social security. Left-wingers argue for public ownership or regulation of key industries providing necessary goods and services (energy, sanitation, etc.). Education, housing, and access to food and medicine are major issues for the left. Left-winger advocate for civil rights, including the protection of minorities. This encompasses efforts to combat racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination. Left-wingers emphasize the importance of environmental protection, prohibitions on habitat destruction, resource conservation, and sustainability. Left-wingers embrace liberal values, such as free speech, individual rights, and personal freedoms (if they don’t then they aren’t really leftwing). This includes a commitment to upholding democratic principles and protecting the rights of individuals to express their views openly without fear of repression. Left-wingers are committed to secularism and embrace a scientific worldview.

Those political and moral beliefs, opinions, and practices define me. I am not rightwing. And those who accuse me of this have either never learned or have forgotten what it means to be leftwing. Which is why they appear more like right-wingers than what they claim to be in their virtue signaling. You see it in the attacks on those who dissent from the woke progressive line. As readers of my blog know, a group of students on the campus where I teach circulated a petition this spring in which they sought signatures to affirm their demand that the university fire me. Many of these students portray themselves as leftwing. Many of them even claim to be Marxists. But this is impossible. One of the reasons they desire to see me terminated is because my views on gender are rooted in scientific materialism. They even reject the scientific view of gender in favor of the postmodernist tactic that reduces gender to a tautological definition to depathologize boundary transgressions. With this definition they advocate for men to trespass upon women’s spaces. How can such misogyny be leftwing? It can’t.

Import the Third World, become the Third World. That’s what we just saw. This won’t stop Trump. He’ll win the election if he’s not killed first. But it does mark the end of the fairest justice system in the world. Anyone who defends this verdict is a danger to you and your…

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) May 30, 2024

I am less optimistic than Carlson. I wrote in response to a comment on my Facebook feed in the immediate aftermath of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in the history of the American Republic: “The corporate-state slide from soft to hard fascism begins slowly—then accelerates exponentially. A people wake up one day and the hellscape a handful of them warned the rest about is upon them. We passed the Rubicon when charges were filed and cases taken up. There’s no going back to the way we were. We have to drive the authoritarians from their strongholds.”

“Anyone who defends this verdict is a danger to you and your family.” This is true. Charitably, people celebrating this verdict don’t understand the necessary conditions for the survival of a constitutional republic based upon classic liberal values. We’re following Rome’s path to demise—from republic to empire; but the devolution to the latter is more rapid in our case because it is intentional. Progressives don’t see it because they want it. They want technocracy and the administrative state. Either they hate or don’t understand America and what she represents to history or, before today (if forever who knows), what she will mean to the future of mankind.

Also, while the celebrants may claim to have read them, they never really read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four or Kafka’s The Trial. Yes, they may have read these warnings in the sense that their eyes scanned the pages and they wanted to look learned in front of their peers (or maybe it was a class assignment), but they didn’t comprehend what they were reading. To be sure, not everybody doesn’t understand; some have seen in these works the path to and the methods of Oz, the Great and Terrible—without the beneficence, of course. That flying monkeys are often sheep we knew when they dutifully put diapers on their faces and lined up to get jabbed with experimental mRNA products. But wolves wear the same clothing, so don’t be naïve.

Amid their jubilation, Democrats feign to have found great respect for the justice system. Remember how Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal was dismissed as an expression of racism (even though the victims were all white)? The Central Park Five? Ad nauseam. Do Democrats really expect everybody to forget how for year the Party has tirelessly endeavored to delegitimize the justice system or how they constantly run down the American Republic? They’re replacing 1776 with 1619 as the starting date. They’ve fashioned a new myth of original sin, smearing the nation that abolished the cruel legacy of a racialized slavery as founded in white supremacy. As they tell it, the country is illegitimate from inception. This is clear in their lack of reverence for the core institutions of our republic. They target Supreme Court justices from a desire to expand and entrench the administrative state—the unconstitutional, unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government. That desire is totalitarian.

I am terribly distressed by all this. I knew it was here. I’ve been writing about it for years on Freedom and Reason. But to see the judicial system deployed for political purposes without the hopeful message a handful of New Yorkers might have sent to the authoritarians by doing the just and patriotic thing puts the threat to all our freedoms on another plane. They succeeded and millions are applauding. And Republicans have proven themselves ineffectual in stopping them. I posted elsewhere a variation on that Facebook comment: “We crossed the Rubicon when charges were filed and courts took them up. It’d be nice if these authoritarians made a whip for their own backs with these actions. But Republicans just lay there—even when you poke them with sticks. It’s what the establishment Republicans were hoping for anyway.” Then I changed my cover page to an upside-down United States flag.

Is there movement? “Republicans join Trump’s attacks on justice system and campaign of vengeance after guilty verdict,” an Associated Press headline reads. It’s made unclear to the reader that the piece is an editorial working as pro-regime propaganda. It’s filed under “Politics.” It can’t possibly be a news article. “The swift, strident and deepening commitment to Trump despite his felony conviction shows how fully Republican leaders and lawmakers have been infused with his unfounded grievances of a ‘rigged’ system and dangerous conspiracies of ‘weaponized’ government into their own attacks on President Joe Biden and the Democrats.” “Unfounded”? You’re not a serious person if you use this word in this context. The system is rigged and the government weaponized—it’s been found out and the conspiracy a matter of record. Denying the facts of rigging and weaponization is to admit one is untethered to reality. Or that one is a propagandist who deals in gaslights.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor under state law in New York. The state sets a two-year statute of limitations on the offense (New York law, CPL § 30.10(2)(a)). The charges in question had expired years earlier. That’s why employees in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office referred to the continued circulation of the charges as a “zombie case.” Various officials who looked at the case declined to prosecute—that was until Attorney General Merrick Garland deployed his number three at the Justice Department, Matthew Colangelo, to serve in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, had declined to prosecute the case. Even Bragg himself, who ran for office on a “get Trump” agenda, had declined to prosecute the case before the White House intervened. The House needs to bring all this out. Subpoenas should be flying.

Falsifying business records becomes a felony if performed to commit or conceal an underlying crime (known as a predicate crime). That is, some voodoo was needed to resurrect the charges. But when the inevitable guilty verdict was handed down, Trump wasn’t convicted of any underlying crime, since no underlying crime was ever specified. Rather, in Kafkaesque fashion, prosecutors conveyed to the jury (selected for their bias against the president) the crime of violating federal election law with a vague theory that Trump desired to appear more appealing to voters during the 2016 election by minimizing the distribution of negative information about him, i.e., the standard practice of impression management. No state prosecutor has ever charged anyone with such a predicate crime in the nation’s history. Prosecutors also insinuated two alternatives, both just as theoretically vague, something about falsification of additional documents and tax violations. The judge presiding over the case, Juan Merchan, told the jury that they didn’t have to all agree on which theory they preferred, just make sure the verdict was unanimous. (See former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig’s Intelligencer piece “Prosecutors Got Trump—But They Contorted the Law.”)

Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, is president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm. Merchan’s top client is Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial. Also a client is the Senate Majority PAC, a major Democratic Party fundraiser. Judge Merchan himself donates to ActBlue, Progressive Turnout Project, and Stop Republicans. When Trump, along with many others, raised ethical concerns about what was obviously a conflict of interest, Merchan put in place a gag order punishing the president for continuing to talking to about the conflicted situation. The president, exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, a vital right for a criminal defendant facing the awesome power of the state, was fined several thousands of dollars and threatened with jail time.

Trump’s defense team was never informed as to nature of the accusations against him in advance of the trial. No predicate crime was identified in the indictment but instead developed over the course of the trial. In other words, they made it up as they went along, and even then it never materialized. There was no theory of the case. In New York State an indictment must be presented stating that there is sufficient evidence to bring a felony charge against the defendant and specify the charge to be prosecuted at trial. This requirement is found in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Add to this the First Amendment guarantee to free speech and press, and the Sixth Amendment guarantee that Trump had a right to a jury composed of impartial members drawn from the local community, as well as protection from convictions unless every element of the crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the same jury. How can a jury prove elements of a crime not specified in the charging documents, let alone never developed at trial?

I agree with those who say we need to highlight that every decision Judge Merchan made in the case that advantaged the prosecution, as well as the matter of his unconstitutional gagging of the defendant, but, more importantly, at its core, even if one accepts the theory that Trump violated federal election law, the case is unconstitutional—and not just because the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated; it should never have been brought because federal campaign finance violation or any other federal crimes lie outside Bragg’s jurisdiction as the district attorney of Manhattan. Such matters fall to federal prosecutors, not to local domains. That’s why the underlying crime was never specified; only a vague theory was offered to the jury to engineer a conviction so Democrats could campaign against a convicted felon.

Let’s make the political utility of the conviction even more obvious that it already is. The indictment listed 34 felony charges but never specified the crime Trump allegedly concealed. The 34 felony counts were misdemeanors arbitrarily elevated to felonies. Without specifying the underlying crime (actus reus—rendering absurd any attempt to establish mens rea), the court attempted to skirt the law while violating the principle of federalism in alluding to federal election violation. Any judge with only a little more integrity than Merchan would overturn this case on appeal for any or all the reasons identified in the foregoing. But Trump is unlikely to get any relief in New York State’s appellate system, which is just as corrupt as the Manhattan DA’s office. The case will have to go up to the Supreme Court (which may be packed by then having sidelined Trump). In the meantime, Democrats will be able to chant the number “34” to the delight of their brainwashed minions. With the documents and the Georgia election interference cases at a standstill, and the New York civil fraud trial only boosting his poll numbers, the “hush money” case was the best hope the Democrats had, and they secured their conviction.

I don’t want to get in the weeds on this, but it is worth noting that, without a case, Bragg and crew had to put on a circus. At the center of the negative information Trump allegedly suppressed is an unproven claim by porn actress Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) that she and the president had a consensual sexual encounter in 2006. The president denies the encounter, and in 2018 Daniels was ordered to pay $293,000 of Trump’s legal fees after her libel case against Trump was dismissed. She was later ordered to pay an additional $245,000 after her appeals failed. In other words, when Trump said he didn’t have sex with Clifford, she sued him for libel, and the court not only dismissed the case, but punished her for bringing it. Clifford’s efforts could be construed as an ongoing effort to extort money from Trump. The attorney who worked with Clifford on the NDA (nondisclosure agreements are a standard legal device used in impression management and the protection of information), adjudicated felon and serial perjurer Michael Cohen, to whom Trump paid legal fees, paid Clifford for her silence while he skimmed off the top tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, the NDA Cohen directed Clifford to sign in exchange for money was never signed by Trump. The prosecution put both Clifford and Cohen on the stand. The handpicked jury was apparently impressed by the spectacle.

Take time today to think about the Kafkaesque maneuver of elevating misdemeanors to felony status without either proving the underlying crime or showing that what was alleged was an even crime at all—while putting on the stand a porn actress whom a court ordered to pay the president more than half a million dollars in legal fees and a disgraced attorney who pocketed thousands of dollars from a presidential candidate in what looks like an extortion scheme. Take time to consider the constitutionality and fairness of a case alluding to the violation of federal election law tried in a local court in one of the most corrupt cities in America in which numerous constitutional rights were violated.

Putting this another way, and when you understand what happened here, if you are honest with yourself, you will see clearly the political motive behind it: because Trump allegedly attempted to minimize negative information about him that he reasonably expected would be used by the Clinton campaign and establishment media to appear more appealing to voters during the 2016 election, he committed the predicate crime of running for president with an intent to win. And because he won, and because he is on track to win again, he is the target of a lawfare campaign organized by the Democratic Party. That’s the real motive here. Trump won the presidency in 2016. The establishment denied him reelection in 2020. Had he ridden off into the sunset after January 20, 2021, none of this would be happening. But he didn’t, and the tens of millions of Americans at his back threaten the establishment’s hold on power.

The establishment also needs to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat by manufacturing the perception that her repeated claims that 2016 was rigged are justified. X users are already suffering the obsessive tweeting about Clinton’s denied presidency. But it’s not just about rehabilitating her image (and possible future run). It’s about covering up the Democrat’s project to undermine Trump. The Obama White House, the Clinton campaign, and the FBI manufactured the Russian collusion case involving Trump (the Steele dossier, Crossfire Hurricane—classified files related to Crossfire Hurricane being the raison d’etat for the FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in the foundering documents case). If they had only known about Clifford’s claim during the campaign (the story broke in 2018). All they had was “Grab ‘em by the pussy,” which Steve Bannon cleverly negated by bringing to the debates several of Bill Clinton’s rape victims.

The conviction in a Manhattan courtroom, in one of the most corrupt justice systems in America, confirms the reality and purpose of the various lawfare projects that many of us identified from the start. The establishment never thought Trump would win. They were terrified by what he might do as president, so they worked tirelessly to undermine his presidency, with considerable success. They’re even more terrified about the prospect of a second Trump presidency. A second term, this time with a clear plan to deconstruct the administrative state (Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Project), is a clear and present danger to the globalist project of managed decline—mass immigration, power projection abroad (NATO expansion and war with Russia), entrenchment of the technocratic apparatus and accompanying ideology (progressivism), and perpetuation of the deep state.

In the 1960s, documented by the Church Committee hearings in the 1970s, these same forces discredited and neutralized politicians and leaders who threatened their goals. They defamed and even assassinated their enemies. Today, they use disinformation (Russia collusion, a phone call to Zelensky, an insurrection nobody has been charged with) and lawfare (impeding ballot access, impeachment, zombie cases, show trials) to undermine a presidency. The hoaxes and lawfare are dutifully dissimulated by academics, cultural managers, and establishment journalists. Trump derangement syndrome is so pervasive that those who should know better are cheering on the fascistic state tactics of the establishment.

The Democratic Party and their surrogates are telling everybody that Trump and the “MAGA extremists” (slur your words and you’ll have Biden’s mantra) are delegitimizing the judicial system by condemning the verdict. But the delegitimation of American institutions is not because millions of Americans are calling bullshit on what was clearly a show trial worthy of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, of the People’s Republic of China. The delegitimation is occurring because those institutions have been captured by forces who use the machinery of what’s supposed to be a system of justice as a weapon against their political enemies. Meanwhile, when it comes to the real and serious crimes that affect ordinary Americans every day, especially those living in urban spaces, those same forces sabotage the machinery and people die. The only conclusion I can come to is that these forces hate American and intend to replace it with a tyranny. And that, comrades, is why our fathers were revolutionaries.

Jamie Raskin and people like him are a threat to the existence of an independent judiciary (read his op-ed in The New York Times here). Protecting the integrity of the Court is how a people secure the stability of a constitutional republic over time. Disqualifying judges, eliminating tenure, and imposing ethical rules derived from the ideology of political parties rather than the emergent logic of the law rooted in a rights-based approach politicizes the judiciary. More than any power of government, the judiciary in a common law system must remain independent. That the Court makes decisions Democrats don’t like is hardly a good reason to undermine the independence of the judiciary. On the contrary—it’s the worst reason.

On a practical level, the attitude makes a whip for its advocates’ own back. If ever there is a conservative government in place that lasts for any period of time, Raskin and his ilk will sorely miss the progressive judges who were tossed by the conservative majority the first chance they got. Raskin’s argument is drunk on a period where progressivism runs the administrative state and the White House. That may not be a permanent situation. His argument is a lot like a majority religious persuasion wishing to impose its faith based doctrine on the people; those advocating its hegemony will sorely miss religious liberty when another religious persuasion dethrones it.

But Democrats think like authoritarians and know they control the administrative apparatus. Raskin wants the Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland to intervene and collude with the other judges to take out Alito and Thomas so that Democratic Party wishes will have a better chance before the Court. This is not only action politicizing the judiciary; it’s also election interference. The Democrats already crossed the Rubicon by waging lawfare against a former president. We are already hearing threats from the other side that they will do the same. Imagine if partisan Attorney Generals on the other side when in power determine which judges are not impartial and remove them the bench for selected cases.

I’d like to think Raskin is just a fool on the hill. But there are many fools on the Hill. More than fools, though—they’re authoritarian. Progressivism is truly a totalitarian mindset. You can see the spirit at work in the ubiquitous presence of the double standard. Progressives want Alito to muzzle his wife. The clip to which Steve Bannon and Mark Paoletta refer in the clip below finds Melissa Murray (NYU law professor) complaining to Joy Reid about the hypocrisy of a jurist who overturned a 1970s ruling on abortion that even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said was a bad ruling failing to control his wife. Alito had responded to Senators Richard Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse’s request that he recuse himself in cases pending before him in a letter by reminding them: “My wife is a private citizen, and she possesses the same First Amendment rights as every other American. She makes her own decisions, and I have always respected her right to do so.” (For more, see Would it Be Better if Judge Alito Appealed to Hell? See also Politicizing the Court and More Reductio ad Hitlerum.)

Bannon jokes with Senior Fellow at @amrenewctr @MarkPaoletta on the WarRoom that MSNBC want “A Handmaid’s Tale” to be real life because they are baffled about how Justice Alito and Justice Thomas don’t control that actions and opinions of their wives. pic.twitter.com/McMLujz5QZ

— VISH BURRA 🏴‍☠️ (@VishBurra) May 30, 2024

Speaking of hypocrisy, what’s up with this?

* * *

There is a 19-year-old Florida man who is facing felony charges for peeling out on the Pride Progress flag mural—his tire marks washed away by sunlight and rain. Dylan Brewer, 19, of Clearwater, turned himself into the Delray Beach Police Department yesterday. The incident took place around 8:30 pm on February 4 at the intersection of Northeast First Street and Northeast Second Avenue. The flag needs repainting anyway because, as all road paint fades and peels. Moreover, there are new tread marks on the flag (Brewer is not alone in finding the flag objectionable. Any man in a truck peeling out on that flag might commit some misdemeanor, ordinance, etc. (noise, perhaps), but the idea that this is a felony or (effectively) a hate crime is ludicrous.

While you may think it petty, peeling out on the flag is an expression of dissent. Does the dissent originate in antipathy towards gender ideology? Perhaps. But not necessarily. And there’s nothing wrong with antipathy toward gender ideology. It is wrong to use taxpayer money to paint the Pride Progress flag murals on public streets. It’s the same wrong as painting BLM flag murals on public streets or murals of Saint George Floyd of Fentanyl with angel wings on public buildings. Public spaces should remain politically and ideological neutral spaces. Get this nonsense out of our public schools and libraries. Get it off our police cars. Stop flying these flags over government buildings. To compel people who travel public roads or enter public buildings or whatever to receive propaganda messages on a daily basis violates the First Amendment. We don’t live in North Korea. (For the record, I said the same thing about Louisiana to become first state requiring the Ten Commandments be posted in schools. “When Muslims take over a state, what’s to stop them from posting the five pillars of Islam in public schools? This is a people making a whip for their own backs—and ours.”)

Here’s an idea for progressive elites: how about going after the robbers and thieves preying on flesh and blood human beings instead of those dissenting from the mainstreaming of paraphilias by marring the symbols of a neo-religion that don’t belong in public spaces in the first place? We know why they won’t: neither public safety nor freedom of conscience concern them in the least.

* * *

The Biden campaign is making something of Trump’s alleged racism. So the GOP is making something of Biden’s long and unambiguous record of expressing racist sentiment. It’s hard to think of any politician in the modern era who is more racist than Joe Biden—especially judged by the lights of progressive ideology. Racist beliefs are intrinsic to Biden’s belief system. It’s the way he ticks. The most disgusting expression of this is in the way he sees black people as his lackeys.

At the same time, he reflects the general attitude of progressives towards race. When Biden said that any black man who doesn’t vote for him isn’t black, anybody who pays even the least bit of attention to such things recognized that attitude in the way progressives talk about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and every other black man wo strays from the plantation.

When Barak Obama was running for president in 2008 I had a colleague who remarked to me during lunch at convocation something like, “You in particular must be really excited to vote for the first black man for president.” As the professor on campus who taught race and ethnic relations and who had spoken publicly numerous times on racial issues, my reputation as a civil rights advocate was well known. She was of course referring to Obama, who I was not voting for. I responded with, “You mean Alan Keyes?” To say that she was taken aback is an understatement—she never talked to me again. Alan Keyes isn’t really a black man, you see—by the lights of progressive ideology. (Look up Alan Keyes. Look into his 2008 presidential campaign. Is he black?)

Joe Biden’s problematic racism over the years. Here are 7 minutes and 30 seconds of Joe Biden being racist. Joe Biden has always been a problem. Agree? pic.twitter.com/KjrPP1sPAE

— DEL (@delinthecity_) May 16, 2024

* * *

Finally, I have yet another example of the problem of inaccuracy and imprecision in language. In this example, former president Ronald Reagan misrepresents the terms “conservative” and “liberal.” He also errs in defining fascism. So you know what I am referring to, here’s an accessible clip:

‘If fascism ever comes to America, It will come in the name of liberalism’ – Ronald Reagan 1975

How prophetic that statement was… @skamaraj32 pic.twitter.com/ZwtstNbTU4

— UN (@UshaNirmala) February 15, 2022

As he describes it, what Reagan presents as conservatism is actually liberalism. Liberalism is about limiting government to maximize individual freedom. To be sure, today’s conservatives are substantially liberal, but conservatism still comes with the desire to control people’s minds and bodies, so it quite doesn’t work as a synonym. What Reagan presents as liberalism is actually progressivism, again, as he describes it. Progressivism advocates private control over capital with government regulation of people for the sake of corporate power and profit (he leaves this piece out of his definition of fascism). Progressivism is the ideology of the corporate state, which comes in soft and hard fascist versions, all of which are self-evidently antithetical to liberalism.

The disappointing thing about this is that, at this time, Reagan knew this and blew an opportunity to explain to the people the meaning of the words elites use to confuse the people. Given his communication skills and populist sensibilities this would have been of great benefit. Progressives tagged their standpoint “liberal” to disguise the establishment and entrenchment of the corporate state over against democratic republicanism. Because citizens rightly see progressivism and the technocratic apparatus it animates as freedom-stealing, liberalism misused as euphemism caused the word to take on bad connotations (which Rush Limbaugh’s daily three-hour rants pressed into the public consciousness); meanwhile progressivism became confused with populism to appeal to justice-loving people to trick them into supporting soft fascism.

I have people tell me all the time that words change meaning. But what they actually mean to say is that is that words change usage, including misuse for propagandistic purposes. Liberalism is not like a political party, e.g., the Republican Party, that starts off as a populist abolitionist party and then becomes a part of the corporate state establishment. Liberalism is a word referring to a set of principles. If you do not believe in the principles, then you are not a liberal. You don’t get to carry the label with you when you leave the principles. It’s like Christianity—there are only so many tenets of the faith you can abandon before you are no longer one. If we are not clear on the meaning of words, then cannot have meaningful communications. This is why I am so stubborn about using the right words to accurately convey ideas. (See The Problem of the Weakly Principled; Gender and the English Language; Manipulating Reality by Manipulating Words; Linguistic Programming: A Tool of Tyrants.)

If by “Marxist” one means those who work from the vision of the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), with Karl Marx as the principal theorist, it is crucial to understand that their goal was not to undermine the work ethic in the revolution. Rather, it was to transfer the forces of production from the capitalist class to the working class. The IWA, which stood in solidarity with the Republican Party and the Union during the Civil War, deeply valued the work ethic while putting labor at the center of its focus. Their long-term aim was to develop technological forces to reduce the amount of necessary labor, thereby liberating individuals to pursue other activities. Such a transformation, however, was not feasible given the economic and technological conditions of their time.

Marx articulates this view in the socialist slogan: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” This principle emphasized the importance of rewarding individuals based on their contributions, reflecting a commitment to fairness and productivity within the constraints of their society. Recall Marx’s passage in the preface to Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy observing theorizing: “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.” This highlights Marx’s belief in the gradual evolution of society based on material conditions and productive capacities.

In contrast, the people claiming to be “Marxist” or “neo-Marxist” today are mostly progressives albeit most of them don’t know this—credentialed technocrats of the professional-managerial class and their children. Progressives envision a transition from late capitalism to a form of global neofeudalism, which also embodies fascistic elements, where working people will become serfs living administered lives on high-tech estates. This shift is designed to allow the power elite to maintain their wealth and privilege. Consequently, the radical ideas taught to students under the guise of Marxism—Critical Race Theory, queer theory, postcolonial studies, etc.—have little to do with Marxist thought. They are instead expressions of bureaucratic rationalism. As Marx pointed out in his critique of Hegel: “The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge.”

Given these historical conditions, I no longer describe my politics as socialist. I have said this before, but I want to briefly elaborate the reason why I say this. The rise of the corporate state has negated the revolutionary potential inherent in capitalism—perhaps forever. Nevertheless, our immediate need is to attempt to restore the democratic-republican ethos and return to the purer capitalist relations organized within nation-states. This will allow for the continued development of conditions necessary for future social transformation. Following Marx, these conditions must clearly emergent before we can once again speak meaningfully of socialist revolution. This is why I support the populist revolt in the Republic Party and the project to deconstruct the administrative state.

The emergence of postmodernism as a distinct philosophical movement traces back back to the mid-twentieth century, with roots in various intellectual developments in art, literature, philosophy, and social theory. A significant precursor to postmodernist thought is found in the work of French philosopher and literary theorist Jacques Derrida, particularly his development of what he called “deconstruction” in the 1960s. Deconstruction challenged traditional notions of language, meaning, and truth, paving the way for postmodernist critiques of fixed categories and foundationalist epistemologies. Foundationalism posits the existence of a stable, unchanging group upon which knowledge, meaning, and truth are established and elaborated. The concept is prevalent in traditional Western philosophy and associated with the idea of a stable reality that can be grasped through fact and logic.

In the realm of literature, authors such as Jorge Luis Borges explored themes of fragmentation and indeterminacy of traditional narrative structures that resonated with later postmodernist concerns (see Borges 1946 short story “On Exactitude in Science,” which inspired Jean Baudrillard insights in his 1981 Simulacra and Simulation). Jean-François Lyotard’s 1979 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge is may be regarded as the seminal text that brought postmodernism to broader attention. In this work, Lyotard famously describes the postmodern condition as characterized by an incredulity towards grand narratives and a skepticism towards meta-narratives of progress and enlightenment. Michel Foucault’s critiques of power, knowledge, and the construction of truth played a significant role in shaping postmodernist thought, as well, particularly through his historical analyses of discourses and institutions. (Foucault is regarded as the father of queer theory, a subject I tackle in a forthcoming essay.)

Accompanying the denial of truth that comes with the claim of narrative multiplicity in postmodernism is a tolerance for deceit and deception. Since, in the postmodernist gaze, no narrative is objectively true, only “true” because power imposes a situation or desire and feelings find the narrative aligning, no narrative is false, either. This is the work of the nihilism lying at the heart of the philosophy that reduces ontology to the epistemic fog of relativism. Put another way, having disappeared the world into perception and methodological anarchy, anything goes. Those who subscribe to postmodernist extremism have no problem lying to others or to themselves about who or what they are—if they think they’re something they aren’t or can’t be, they can’t be wrong about that because there is no real truth to it, only what they think they ought or want to be, i.e., “my truth.”

This is a big part of what lies behind the “post-truth“ condition. This condition is often described as a cultural and political climate where objective facts hold diminishing sway in public discourse. In this situation, emotions and ideological affiliations outweigh verifiable information. Several factors are theorized to contribute to this phenomenon, including the proliferation of digital media, the rise of echo chambers and filter bubbles on social media, declining trust in traditional institutions, increasing political polarization, and emotional appeals in communication. Political and cultural elites tell us that the consequences of the post-truth condition include erosion of trust in democratic institutions, polarization of public discourse, spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories, and destabilization of shared reality.

Addressing these challenges necessitates promoting media literacy, critical thinking skills, and a renewed commitment to the value of objective truth in public discourse and decision-making. In spirit, this is a good set of interventions; in practice it depends on who is doing the intervention and the standpoint from which they operate. In a situation where it’s corporate state that is organizing the post-truth condition and its the progressive-captured extensions of this apparatus doing the work to bring everybody back to the truth, that’s a problem. To be sure, misinformation is a thing, but associating this with the propaganda term, “conspiracy theory” gives away the game. The shared reality that is being destabilized is the hegemonic ideology that perpetuates the corporate state. That hegemony is not the hegemony of scientific materialism but of corporate profit.

In November 2021, in Refining the Art and Science of Propaganda in an Era of Popular Doubt and Questioning, I discuss the annual common theme programming at the college where I teach, which that year carried this title: “Truth: Information, Misinformation, and Democracy.” As I described it then, “the series of events reeked of progressive angst over the rise of the popular voice and the concomitant decline in the faith in the academic priesthood, with the implication that faculty should be aware of some line established by some commissar in some high office somewhere.” We see this when the corporate state directs pharmaceutical companies and the public health apparatus to use the population for medical experimentation without regard to the ethics of Nuremberg established in the wake of the Holocaust. Why should the Code be regarded if there is no truth behind ethics? The program’s emphasis on masks and vaccines, as well as racial justice, may it feel like it hailed from a desire for shared reality, but in truth it moved from the imperative of corporate profit and advanced the program of political disorganization by promulgating misinformation under the guise of combating misinformation.

Part of the post-truth condition is secured by the widespread socialization of a moral philosophy called consequentialism. Consequentialism, which holds that normative appropriateness depend only on the consequences of one’s actions and that the appropriateness of the consequences is in the eye of the beholder, which is relative to the individual (however organized or perceived as groups), which includes hedonism, shatters any deontological commitment (absolute or moderate) to common moral intuitions, intuitions that may very well be determinable by the methods of scientific materialism (such as universal humans rights), which are now rejected because of the methodological anarchy of postmodernism.

Holding to this view, is it any wonder that a man can trespass on the opportunities and spaces of women by claiming a “truth” from his point of view that he is a woman, too? The only ethic that matters is the one he asserts, since this is his truth not yours. The state is at his back, so if any truth is recognized, it is the one manifested by power. Not male power, mind you. Not in this case, anyway. Essentialisms are selectively allocated based on power, too.

Here’s the role of power in truth determination. The man claims he is “legally a woman,” as an official decree cannot actually change biological reality, but that comes along with the endorsements of the constellation of professional associations that legitimize the exploitation of gullible and vulnerable people by appealing the “evidence-based” medicine. Imagine the state declaring the world to be flat. It could. It just has no reason to. At the moment.

"I see you as a bloke" 📺 pic.twitter.com/y0tn7VP3TX

— Biology Rules Ok (@OkayBiology) May 20, 2024

In my previous essay, I parenthetically noted my borrowing of language by Imre Lakatos, a Hungarian philosopher of mathematics and science. I want to follow up with Lakatos here. Lakatos introduced a framework for understanding the dynamics of scientific progress in The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs (published in 1978, posthumously, based on his lectures and notes from the 1960s and 1970s), which aimed to elucidate the complex interplay between evidence, theories, and heuristic strategies in the transformation and advancement of knowledge.

Central to Lakatos’ framework is the distinction between positive and negative heuristics, which he conceived as essential components in the evolution of scientific theories. Positive heuristics are characterized by their role in guiding scientific inquiry towards the formulation of new hypotheses and theories. They encompass the methodological principles and strategies that scientists employ to generate novel ideas, construct theoretical frameworks, and formulate conjectures about the natural world. Positive heuristics serve as catalysts for scientific innovation, driving the exploration of new avenues of research and the development of explanatory frameworks. Conversely, negative heuristics are concerned with the critical evaluation and refinement of scientific theories. They encompass the methodological criteria and principles used to assess the empirical adequacy, explanatory power, and predictive accuracy of existing theories. Negative heuristics operate by identifying and scrutinizing anomalies, inconsistencies, and empirical shortcomings within established theoretical frameworks. Through the process of critical appraisal and empirical testing, negative heuristics facilitate the revision, modification, or abandonment of theories that fail to withstand empirical scrutiny or adequately account for observed phenomena.

Lakatos’ scheme of positive and negative heuristics thus offers a dialectical perspective on the transformation of scientific knowledge. Rather than viewing scientific progress as a linear accumulation of facts or a straightforward march towards truth, Lakatos emphasizes the interplay between the generation of new ideas and the critical evaluation of existing theories. Scientific advancement, according to Lakatos, is characterized by a continuous process of hypothesis formation, empirical testing, and theoretical refinement, in which positive and negative heuristics play complementary roles.

This resonates with the central thesis of Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn argued that scientific progress is punctuated by periods of normal science, characterized by the dominant paradigm or theoretical framework, and revolutionary episodes, marked by paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions. In this context, positive heuristics correspond to the process of paradigm construction and the formulation of new scientific frameworks, while negative heuristics correspond to the process of paradigm evaluation and the identification of anomalies or inconsistencies within established paradigms.

I raise Lakatos here because, in his work, there is an alternative to the nihilism inherent in the postmodernist’s critique of scientific knowledge production. We can have our cake and eat it, too.

Lakatos described positive heuristics as a protective belt around what he called the “hard core,” a central, unalterable component of a scientific research program. The hard core consists of the fundamental principles, assumptions, and core beliefs that define a scientific theory and provide its theoretical foundation. If the hard core goes away, the program is dead. Positive heuristics operate to protect and reinforce the hard core by generating auxiliary hypotheses, additional assumptions, and ad hoc modifications that shield the core theory from empirical refutation.

In this sense, positive heuristics serve to rationalize and defend the core tenets of a scientific theory, even in the face of empirical anomalies or contradictory evidence. By elaborating auxiliary hypotheses or introducing supplementary assumptions, positive heuristics aim to reconcile discrepancies between theoretical predictions and observed phenomena, thereby preserving the coherence and integrity of the core theory. Thus, positive heuristics function as a kind of intellectual scaffolding that supports and sustains the edifice of scientific knowledge, shielding it from potential challenges or falsifying evidence.

Negative heuristics operate to challenge and refine scientific theories by identifying inconsistencies and empirical shortcomings that threaten the coherence or explanatory power of the core theory. Negative heuristics facilitate the critical evaluation and revision of scientific theories by subjecting them to empirical testing and scrutiny. Through the process of anomaly recognition and empirical testing, negative heuristics promote the progressive refinement and development of scientific theories, ultimately contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

The case of Paul Feyerbend and his 1975 book Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge punctuates the difference between the postmodernistic approach (Feyerbend does not fit neatly in that box, which had not at that time fully emerged as a movement) and Lakatos’ more normative approach to scientific mythology. Feyerbend challenged the notion of a unified scientific method and questioned the authority of scientific institutions and dogmatic adherence to methodological rules. Feyerabend argued for methodological pluralism, advocating for the inclusion of diverse perspectives, methodologies, and heuristics in scientific inquiry. He famously proclaimed that “anything goes” in science, suggesting that there are no fixed rules or methodological constraints that should govern scientific practice.

To his credit, Feyerbend insists that scientists remain free to pursue unconventional ideas, challenge established paradigms, and experiment with alternative methodologies without fear of censorship or disciplinary reprisal. Ironically, this presumes a universal truth that lies beyond power that postmodernists reject. Rejection of universal and knowable truth is the essential error of postmodernist thought.

George Floyd should be alive. He deserved so much more.

Today, I join all those who loved him and all those touched by the civil rights movement he inspired in remembering the tragedy and injustice of his death.

He changed the world.

Now, let's act in his memory. pic.twitter.com/uPSCkxFMRs

— President Biden (@POTUS) May 25, 2024

George Floyd’s death, while tragic and avoidable, may have changed the world. But not in the way the Biden campaign suggests here.

Floyd’s death led to further depolicing, prosecutorial passivity, and decarceration, developments that have, along with Biden’s mass immigration scheme, put all our communities at greater risk of crime and violence. His death was also used to expand and entrench the racist practices poorly disguised as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

At the same time, arson, harassment, intimidation, looting, monumental desecration and other acts of vandalism, murder, and rioting—all the thing that followed his death—expanded mutual knowledge about the lies of the Black Lives Matter confidence game.

A greater and growing number of citizens now know that the claims of systemic racism in lethal police encounters and prison commitments comprise a mythology about race in America. Moreover, these effects removed the veil from DEI. More people now understand what this rhetoric of “racial reckoning” really means and what it entails.

The events triggered by Minneapolis, like the “hands up, don’t shoot” myth of Ferguson, driven by the deceits of woke progressive propagandists, have accelerated the awakening that make Biden’s reelection, already in jeopardy because of his America Last policies, all the more unlikely.

So, yes, in this sense, Floyd’s death changed things. Let’s act on his memory. Let’s put Democrats out of power and save the American Republic. When you vote, remind yourselves of who runs America’s cities. All the criminal violence and demoralization, fatherlessness and gangs, poverty and joblessness—those are Blue Frankenstein creations.