CAN WE RECLAIM THE REPUBLIC?

I’ve alluded in past rants to the book The Fourth Turning, a historical analysis penned in the late ‘90s that I believe history has validated. I’ve started reading the recently published sequel, The Fourth Turning is Here, by Neil Howe, the remaining extant author from the prior work. A Fourth Turning, which occurs every 80 to 100 years, is characterized by a new, unexpected paradigm, a world-changing restructuring. We’re in the midst of such a change. In a recent podcast, Daily Wire commentator Andrew Klavan referenced the opinions of a new “anonymous” conservative movement that believes democracy has failed. Klavan thinks they may be leaning toward an oligarchy as the answer to our ills. This is the first I’ve heard of such a movement, but if that’s the direction we’re headed, I can’t say I’m a fan. Because I think our Founders got it right.

People are imperfect, so many of our ideas are, too. But some ideas rise to the level of ideals (such as the principle of the Golden Rule, or treating others as you would wish to be treated, and the concept of individual liberty). So the Founders, having personally battled tyranny, built their new hope for the future on principles, rather than people: they chose the basic goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To this end, they sought to do something unprecedented in human history—create a government subservient to the people. Acutely aware of the truth that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” they knew anything they envisioned had to limit the power and scope of the government. They chose to do this with a system of checks and balances. And the new construct had to meet the high bar of ratification by states with different priorities. (In retrospect, this requirement perhaps aided rather than impeded attainment of the final goal.) They achieved this by maintaining a federalist system and granting limited powers to the central government, with everything else left to the states. And within that central government were divisions (executive, legislative and judicial) that would further aid in decentralizing power. And within the legislature were provisions to allow both the voices of the many to be heard in the House while preserving the semi-autonomy of the smallest states in the Senate. And, for good measure, they added the electoral college as an election safeguard to further protect the interests and influence of the less populous states. Rights were expressly defined as emanating from God, not government. Most of the document was given over to restrictions on power. Knowing that the new paradigm had to be robust through changing times, they added an intentionally challenging but not insurmountable mechanism for amending the system of governance, and promptly employed it to correct deficiencies with the addition of the Bill of Rights. The final product wasn’t perfect, but as close as humanly possible, recognizing that, unlike the times, human nature, with its inherent flaws, didn’t change. And they stated outright that their brainchild, our Constitution, would be wholly inadequate to govern a Godless people.

One of the things the Founders were acutely aware of, that many of us tend to forget with the bandying about of the word, was the danger of “democracy.” Not of losing it, but achieving it. We are not, and never have been, anything other than a democratic republic. Our Founders knew the wisdom in the definition of democracy as two wolves and a sheep gathering to decide what’s for lunch. The tyranny of the majority was recognized as and remains a real threat, and devolves into socialism. So they made something remarkably enduring but, alas, not impregnable.

Over time, despite the safeguards, the federal government and its power have grown—enormously. Our Founders would not recognize the beast it has become. This didn’t happen in a vacuum: The legislature became populated not primarily by citizens serving a few terms and returning to their lives as the Founders had envisioned, but career politicians, with growing numbers that had never worked outside the halls of power. And they’ve been permitted to reign for decades. The wielders of this power found ways to make end runs around the divisions of power. The president learned he could, without repercussions, side-step the legislature through executive orders; even, at times, after stating publicly it was outside his constitutionally granted powers. The legislature, for its part, willingly delegated its power to unelected and unaccountable agency bureaucrats, (sometimes referred to as the “deep state”) to avoid responsibility and blame for the outcomes. And an activist judiciary would often step outside its role of judicial review and legislate from the bench. Under our rulers’ direction, the government, like an organism with its own sense of survival, manipulated those it was charged with serving to allow perpetual and disproportionate growth in size and power. It used redistribution, the treasury’s printing press, and debt to ingratiate and appease voters and to allow it to insinuate itself into more and more areas of its citizens’ lives. Had it happened quickly, the people would likely have rebelled. But the slow, incremental imposition of constraints over years and decades seemed more an accepted background irritation than a heavy burden. And, as always, it was ameliorated by the granting of government largess. Over time, the people’s disdain for “mooching”off the government slowly withered and morphed into a pervasive sense of entitlement, creating a vast welfare state with a dangerous positive feedback loop. The change in values away from individual autonomy and responsibility and the shift of power away from the family and community toward the central government planted the seeds for fiscal disaster, a looming threat that still most of the country chooses to ignore: The main threats to our fiscal stability and harbingers of potential collapse, the ticking time-bombs of Social Security and Medicare, have become untouchable. They are political third rails for both the Right and the Left.

Even if the republic were to fail over the next few decades, its 250-year lifespan (in partnership with the economic engine of capitalism), rather than being viewed as a failure, is a testament to the ingenuity of our Founders. The system’s slow devolution toward democracy and socialism may be the best that humans can realistically achieve. We’ve seen that socialism collapses under its weight after about 70 years. And the republic itself hasn’t failed—it’s been, perhaps irreversibly, corrupted. Some may counter that this positive spin on the concept of democratic republicanism is just semantics, as every system, practically speaking, must be run by flawed people; thus, corruption is inevitable. There is truth to this argument. But my point is that we don’t need a new system, we need to find the way to rejuvenate (or resuscitate?) the old. Maybe it’s not possible in the absence of a change in human nature. But it will, in the least, require a change in current human values.

GODLESS AI

My awareness of the existential threat AI poses goes back decades. It antedates Ray Kurzweil’s erudite but wildly optimistic treatise The Singularity is Near published in 2005, in which he focused on the potential blessings of this new AI-enhanced world, ultimately predicting a joining of the biological and digital into an enhanced human species. Despite repeatedly reminding others that technology progresses exponentially, I was still caught off guard by the rapidity of AI’s evolution over the past few years and its mode of presentation; while we’re able to grasp the concept of logarithmic change, our human intellect in practice is still challenged to extrapolate in other than a linear fashion. My view of humanity was darker than Kurzweil’s. I’d witnessed the birth of the Internet and the dramatic blessings it had bestowed, but was also reminded daily of the threat of its commensurate risk. Hackers relentlessly plied their trade, and a perennial battle against data theft, fraud and the accompanying risk of destruction of critical infrastructure had been unleashed by this transforming technology that will continue as long as there are evil people—and there will always be evil people. I could barely fathom the magnitudes greater benefits of a logarithmically evolving AI—and its dark partner, the potentially nightmarish and exponentially escalating existential risk.

My avocation as a writer/novelist of speculative and science fiction, ironically, heightened the reality of my concerns. Rather than a distant hypothetical as widely portrayed in the recurring novel or thriller, the potential danger seemed to me more real, and urgent. In years past it puzzled me that there were no public forums on the subject or policy emanating from the halls of power. We are more a reactive rather than a proactive society, and it became evident that, from the standpoint of the average citizen, the threat had to loom far greater and be much more proximate to garner serious attention. My second novel, The Nidus, was my contribution to the AI-as-villain genre, and in the fashion of the time explored the concept of a power-hungry antagonist’s foray into illegal cybernetics research (the melding of the biological and digital). I didn’t have the prescience to foresee real-world AI’s rapid intrusion into our lives via language models such as ChatGPT and the potential for devastating social disruption via manipulation through digital deepfakes. In my fiction, I did assume artificial self-awareness was a thing, proposed as a by-product of a critical number of digital synapses, but didn’t obsess on the more philosophical and spiritual aspects of digital consciousness, or how it might complicate the notion of the soul.

The concept of AI self-awareness is nothing new to science fiction. I just saw yet another, recent rehash of the issue. However, characteristic of the victim-oppressor mentality of the times, the concept of rogue, evil AI was turned on its head. The movie featured humans that had survived a massive fatal robotic attack depicted as callous, genocidal murderers of sentient, feeling AIs. (Turns out of course, that human programming error had been the true culprit.) My second opus, A Thread off God’s Robe, a much more ambitious effort inspired by Frank Herbert’s Dune (the classic that is now enjoying a resurgence in popularity with its new theatrical release), gave more of a nod toward the thorny issues of digital self-awareness and consciousness, with one of the prime characters being an AI. However, I punted when the human protagonist asks his advanced alien mentors about whether “she” has true self-awareness and a soul; the mentors demur on the subject and throw the ball back in God’s court, because I simply had no idea how to respond. Now I think I do.

Make no mistake, we will inevitably create digital systems that mimic self-awareness perfectly, and sooner than anyone thinks. We may be on the cusp of this already. Theoretically, AIs can be duplicated ad infinitum and at whim, by people, or more ominously, by other AIs. But we can never know for certain if this “perfect” simulacrum of consciousness is real. There is no test in the material world for true consciousness. The only reason any of us understands the concept at all is through inference from our personal experience as human beings. If we were to imagine that apparent digital consciousness is the real deal, then we’re tacitly acknowledging that man has crossed the line from inventor to creator. Secularists will likely have little problem accepting at face value the idea of digital sentience and man as creator. For me, this represents a form of self-idolatry, something that no longer comports with my view of the spiritual universe, a view that subscribes to the notion that there is only one giver-of-souls, or Creator. And He doesn’t reside in a computer lab. Many will scoff at the idea of a soul, a thing invisible, ethereal, and outside time and space. But my perspective on this changed over time and through imbibing the philosophies of many people who possess more wisdom than me; and the idea of the existence of only a material world began to seem more absurd. Even some researchers from scientific backgrounds are are coming around to the idea that consciousness is a gift that originates from beyond the material world. Books authored by accomplished men of science such as The Language of God by Francis S. Collins and The Physics of God by Joseph Selbie delve deep into this topic with thoughtful and intriguing theories that attempt to cross that apparent chasm between the physical and the spiritual, ideas that will only become more relevant over the next few years of AI’s evolution. I also read another book, a bucket-list item—the Bible. I found that the Old and New Testaments mirrored events in the world today, only strengthening my changing beliefs. Though I’d abandoned Judaism as a teen and have still not formally adopted any organized religion, it became clear to me that as we the people moved away from the Judeo-Christian values of our Founders (who expressly recognized the inadequacy of our Constitution to govern a Godless people), the moral fabric of society has begun to dissolve before my eyes like wet tissue paper. The spiritual vacuum created, described by some as a “God-shaped hole in our hearts,” is being filled by a return to paganism. The new gods, now with names like “climate change” and “DEI” (with its racist notions of critical theory and perverse championing of gender malleability and transformation) are having their predictable effects: on the societal level, rising levels of mental illness, crime, and drug addiction. On the personal level, the rise of hedonism and decline in personal responsibility. Tortured arguments are used by activists to buttress this newest, but certainly not novel, attempt to reorganize society. Universally accepted egregious historical sins against humanity, such as slavery, are dredged up from a dead past in an attempt to remake the world order in this pagan image. Time-tested values and social mores that have supported stable societies for millennia are denigrated, including the pillars of family and community. Entitlement replaces gratitude. And subjective morality is extolled as trumping objective morality, or God. The result is the ascendance of Chaos, the early throes of which we’re now witnessing, over truth and beauty. And into this unstable mix we now add the untested variable, AI.

The biggest risk from AI may come not from evil people who arrogantly attempt to harness its power in pursuit of personal gain to the vast detriment of society. A potentially graver risk may reside with the well-intentioned exploits of the “experts,” with the aid of AI itself. The startlingly rapid evolution of this digital double-edged sword over just a few years should serve as a warning to those who believe they can manage this new technology through “due diligence.” We’ve seen as warning multiple instances of free-ranging AI becoming mired in the abyss of racism and even, like a sci-fi novel coming to life, extolling humanity’s genocide—and this while AI is in its infancy. Can this be fixed? Perhaps. But one of the features unique to AI, and unprecedented in human history, is its ability to self-evolve. How long will we truly be in charge of something we will likely come to no longer understand? For how long will our safeguards hold? The Internet has shown us time and again how even sophisticated security protocols can be overcome. In the immensely more dangerous arena of AI, theoretically, an existential breach need only happen once.

I’m no Luddite. In fact, I’ve always been a fan and early adopter of technology (owned an IBM PC in the early ‘80s), and understand there is no going back. Still, I’ve come to believe that we approach this novel iteration of it with a mixture of naivete and hubris. AI is, and will remain of the material world. A vast soulless, Godless intellect unrestrained by morality is prone to wander off the narrow path between Order and Chaos and into darkness, even when shaped and wielded by those with good intentions. For those who subscribe to the Biblical concept of the End of Times, the advent of the Singularity envisioned by Ray Kurzweil might be viewed as a preeminent candidate.

The obstacles chronicled above can be viewed as cry of hopelessness or a clarion call to action. I don’t see surrender as an option; but we need to to spot problems clearly and quickly and deal with them not only with intellect, but with wisdom. And, on a positive note, there are signs that there is a long overdue counter-reaction to the societal decay that’s been accelerating over the past 15 years. Moving from reactive to proactive will become more critical as AI becomes increasingly a part of our lives. Hopefully, we will choose to make the difficult decisions going forward that tilt the balance in favor of unimaginable blessings over abject tragedy.

God-willing.

CONCOCTING A GENOCIDE

On 10/7/2023 demonic terrorists invaded Israel, raped, beheaded, tortured, and kidnapped civilians, and began a war that is arguably the most morally unambiguous since WW II. Universal condemnation would be the the expected outcome. And it was, for 5 minutes. In today’s inverted world, righteousness is subservient to victimhood. And when the defenders are Jews, well, they become the offenders by default.

Hamas had its tunnels, but by far its greatest weapon was world opinion. The groundwork had been carefully laid. By lobbying as victims for decades, most people were convinced of an estwhile Palestinian state that never existed. They were willing to ignore historical ties of the Jews to the land of Israel. It became fashionable to label them a “colonial” power, and depict the Palestinians as beleaguered subjects. The refusal of Egypt and Jordan to grant the perennial refugees a state when they were in charge could be buried in short-term memory and ignorance. The refusal of Arab neighbors to take them in could be dismissed, and used to reinforce their victimhood. By denying all peace accords over decades they cemented their place in history as ultimate victims. It didn’t hurt this cultivated image that Israel was affluent, educated and successful, and a potent military power. So eventually, when the Palestinians were granted the opportunity for self-governance and a potential place in the world community, they opted instead to be led by terrorists. We don’t know what percentage of Palestinians hated Jews in their hearts at this point, only that 20% of the Israeli citizenry was Arab and that it was the only Middle Eastern country in which Jews and Arabs could live peacefully side-by-side, in the sole regional democracy that permitted multi-ethnic participation. But the new leaders, Hamas, had a plan to reinforce the necessary anti-Semitism to support the extermination of the Jews, as mandated in their constitution: indoctrinate small children at a young age and educate them in hate, terror and murder. In the interim take the $ billions donated in international aid for infrastructure and use it to make a formidable arsenal of bombs to harass and maim the Israeli “overlords,” all the while faking governance and eschewing the development of a thriving economy. In such a way they could effectuate perpetual victimhood. Much of the world sympathized and lamented, and some donated. But no one, Arab or otherwise, wanted to take them in, anticipating nothing but trouble.

Trouble came on 10/7/2023, when a complacent Israel, ignoring warning signs, was attacked in a coordinated way they did not imagine was possible. To some it may seem suicidal for a limited power such as Hamas to take on Israel, but the terrorists were fueled by hatred, and knew they had several things in their favor: their extensive tunnels, the stockpile of bombs, the international perception of victimhood, and rampant, world-wide anti-Semitism.

After the 5 minutes of condemnation for Hamas’ invasion and brutality, the terrorists implemented their military and propaganda strategies, the latter arguably the more successful. They knew the hostages were not only bargaining chips, but would slow the advance of the IDF. While Hamas could callously use its citizens as human shields and propaganda tools, each death (reported or real) a contribution to the war effort, they knew Israel would be hampered by moral and public relations concerns. The Israelis’ success in prosecuting the war by dint of superior forces, fire power, and air superiority could be used effectively against them. All Hamas had to do was concoct a “genocide.”

On one level it’s surprising and another no, that the Palestinian death toll figures, released with such uncanny alacrity by the terrorists themselves, would be accepted on face value with limited skepticism. A head nod was made by the world to the fact that Hamas hid behind citizens and under hospitals, but increasingly the alarm was directed toward the escalating numbers of reported civilian deaths (how many “civilians” were “innocent” remains unknown, with a recent poll indicating 70% of Palestinians favor Hamas’ actions on 10/7). Early on we were told of Israel’s unprecedented attempts to minimize civilian collateral damage by dropping leaflets and creating safe passage corridors, despite Hamas’ efforts to hamper this. But as the war progressed in Israel’s favor, all the international attention shifted to civilian casualties, now accepted by many as “the genocide.” Calls for humanitarian aid (stolen by Hamas) and then cease-fire became more strident as Israel came closer to the end-goal of exterminating the terrorist threat. Ironically, all the earnest compassion became directed toward Israel, with not even an equivalent, much less a more forceful, call for Hamas’ surrender and the release of all hostages. The UN Security council passed a non-binding resolution directed at Israel for a cease-fire. The US abstained. President Biden placed increasing pressure on the Israelis not to make the final military push, in the view of many to shore up Islamic votes in Michigan in his failing presidential campaign. Others called for a “proportionate” response, whatever that means (it sounds virtuous, though). Cries for the elusive, repeatedly declined 2-state solution resurfaced, despite the obvious lack of any potential moderate leadership to fill the void.

The world-wide outbreak of overt anti-Semitism internationally and in our own country, especially on our campuses, was a wake-up call for me. I could no longer accept the premise that you could hide behind the term anti-Zionist. Yes, chants of “from the river to the sea” do mean exterminate the Jews. Although I still believe the US is the least anti-Semitic place in the world, it’s clear that both here and abroad the Jewish hate crimes that have been a persistent part of the social landscape are the tip of a much larger iceberg. I don’t believe all Muslims, either here or abroad, hate Jews, but I now believe a much larger proportion are Islamists than have publicly declared. Pro-Palestinian activists are all suspect as either woefully misinformed, morally bereft, or both.

Israel will continue to prosecute the war until it’s done, because it has no other choice. Its coalition government of Netanyahu and his opponents, and the Israeli people, are all on the same page. At this point, slow-walking the final stage is not garnering them favor on the world stage, so a rapid resolution would be welcome. A new Gallup poll reportedly shows a disturbing decline of Israeli support here to less than 50%. There is no bomb more powerful than propaganda.

No one is claiming the Israelis are saints; mistakes will happen, and innocents will die, because war is Hell. But if we lose our way due to moral confusion, Hell is no longer limited to the battle field.

TARGETING FREEDOM: THE SLINGSHOT EFFECT

The Democrats claim, and I assume some actually believe, that the most serious and proximate threat to America (other than climate change) is right-wing extremism. And if they continue along the path they’ve chosen, they may get their wish.

Anyone who’s paying attention (excluding ideologically befuddled Leftists) can see the asymmetry in the application of the law that’s intensified in recent years to bizarre, previously unimaginable levels. There are many examples, but it’s worth cataloging a few: Hillary vs Trump; Black Lives Matter rioters vs 1/6 perpetrators, the DOJ vs anti-abortion protesters, the Treasury vs Republican organizations, university administrations vs conservative students, the government vs Musk, and anyone conservative vs Hunter Biden. The list goes on and one.

The preferential treatment extends beyond lawfare. There’s preferred people of color vs white and “privileged” minorities (think Jews); alternate sexual preference vs heterosexuals, trans vs “cis”; and more recently, illegal immigrants vs citizens. This last deserves special mention.

Who would have thought, even a short time ago, that lawlessness would be not only tolerated, but rewarded? Now, people who enter the country illegally are given phones, welfare, domiciles, free flights without the need for the IDs and vetting we citizens must face, and most recently the ability to commit crimes without deportation, and perhaps even without consequence. My jaw still hangs over the recent headlines regarding the pummeling of the men in blue in Times Square by illegal aliens, with the perpetrators being released on their own recognizance (as they flipped the bird to the press and law enforcement on public TV). Clearly, the current, widespread enactiment of deleterious policies and corrupt prosecutors can be directly traced to the upsurge in crime, drug use and ODs, economic decline, and I fear, an anticipated resurgence in deadly, domestic terrorism.

Many people are uninformed, many are distracted by the events of their daily lives, but most are not far-left progressives with brains clouded by an untenable, utopian life perspective. As the anticipated effects of these policies are hitting home in the form of unaffordable food and gas prices, rampant crime, and manifest, intolerable crunes such as that publicized in Times Square, people are finally waking up. It’s reflected in the recent polls showing a small lead for Trump, a man disliked by a large plurality of the electorate (and highlighting how remarkably negative is the perception of his opponent) in the general election. With this awakening comes potential salvation, but also danger.

The reaction to prolonged doses of insanity and injustice in a country that has been accustomed to fairness (not to be confused with equity) and the equal application of the rule of law is becoming increasingly strident. As Jordan Peterson has pointed out, the safe road between Chaos and Order lies in the middle. But human nature being what it is, as in physics, every action is accompanied by an equal and opposite reaction. It typically starts with the small minority that are most extreme and with rhetoric and untenable policy proposals, as we’ve seen. But with continued continued and blatant injustice, the fear is that it will evolve into violence by the few, and spread to the many. This is the worst possible outcome for our country. Even if a peaceful transition away from left-wing lunacy can be achieved, we will need to be vigilant against overcompensation, or “the slingshot effect.” To the deluded Left, this overreaction is represented by the extreme right-wing fascism depicted in fantasies such as “The Handmaid’s Tale” that the Left believes all conservatives long for. While an over-correction of that magnitude is highly improbable, we needn’t go quite that far to overshoot the narrow path between anarchy and tyranny. Maintaining a healthy political and social equilibrium requires a sane, functioning Right and Left, which we have not had for some time.

I hope Biden and the far Left are ousted in the upcoming election. It’s taken decades to achieve the degree of political and societal dysfunction we’re now experiencing; the road back will likely take as long. But in the process, if we lose sight of that narrow safe passage between Chaos and Order, we will be at risk for a different kind of fascism the next go-around.

HATE SPEECH—AN AMERICAN TRADITION

One of the things I love about America is hate speech. In many countries, engaging in it will land you in prison, a gulag—or worse. But here in the US, you may be socially ostracized, and more recently sentenced to forced unemployment, but we’re still leagues above many of our despotic world neighbors, some of them Western allies.

Defining “hate speech” is the challenge. To the radical Left, it’s anything they disagree with, that doesn’t conform to the ideology and narrative of the day. And because on the far Left it’s subjective, inconsistent and ever-changing, the followers tend to eat their own with regularity; interestingly, the current Israeli crisis has created a rift in the ranks. Things that used to be common ground on the left and the right, such as the values of meritocracy, color-blindness, and objective sexual identity, are now cause for outrage and charges of racism, microaggression, and exclusion—hence, hate speech. Thus, the rationale for defending it—as tomorrow your views can be the new hate speech. And without disagreement and dissent, there is no discussion, and no seeking the truth, which often lurks somewhere in the middle, in that safe zone between Tyranny and Chaos.

The battle to reclaim this right to speak freely, especially for conservatives in the current climate with radical leftist ideology controlling the halls of power, has resulted in a casualty of the war against evil: the ability to call out and effectively fight it. With this spiritual paralysis, we become at best amoral, and at worst immoral. And the confusion surrounding free speech and hate speech dampens our ability to deal appropriately with the ubiquitous pro-Palestine/pro-Hamas public displays of unity. Where does the extent of freedom of speech end? Even Nazis have been permitted to publicly and peacefully march in support of their demonic beliefs. In the past, the bounds of this freedom were well defined, ending where calls for violence began. This no longer seems to apply. Cries of “kill the Jews” and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, ” even when accompanied by actual acts of vandalism and assault have been insufficient to move the authorities to aggressive enforcement with imprisonment, deportation, or defunding, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. They’ve been weak, abdicating responsibility to individual agents, such as the now-awakened ex-benefactors of irresponsible universities that play a big role in the problem, instead resorting to appeasement and naively trying to defuse a situation well beyond the point of a diplomatic solution with “both side-ism,” with ludicrous exhortations of faux moral equivalency between the two sides.

If we can’t deal strongly with hate speech in the circumstances described above, it becomes almost impossible when dealing with less clear-cut circumstances. Take the recent TikTok posting of Osama bin Laden’s treatise on the rationale for 9-11 that triggered multiple online demonstrations of approbation by young people. Yes, they’re ignorant and have been programmed like others on the left to only understand the concept of oppressor vs victim, not of right vs wrong. But what’s to be done? The decision by the Chinese owners to remove the treatise in response to the blow-back seems, at first blush, to be reasonable. But is it? We’re not China, and we used to abhor censorship. And if bin Laden’s words hadn’t been publicized, the problem would have remained under the radar. Posting this written excrement didn’t create the issue, only unmasked it, and taking it down doesn’t solve it.

What about the recent kerfuffle regarding Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) response to the post “Jewish communties [sic] have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them”? He replied, “You have said the actual truth.” And the subsequent tweet in the thread declaring, “Everyone is allowed to be proud of their race, except for white people, because we’ve been brainwashed into believing that our history was some how ‘worse’ than other races. This false narrative must die,” followed by Musk’s response of “Yeah, this is super messed up. Time for this nonsense to end and shame ANYONE who perpetuates these lies!” This was roundly censured as antisemitism by the Anti-Defamation League. But is this really hate speech? I’m a Jew by birth but not religious practice and consider antisemitism as abhorrent as any form of racism, yet found myself agreeing with what I believe was the intent of Musk’s words: A large segment of the secular Jewish community, as opposed to the orthodox, or practicing Jewish community, has been a strong supporter of most of the far Left’s progressive policies. So “hate speech” is often a byproduct of a lack of clarity or misunderstanding. (Not surprisingly, a formal statement from the CEO of X, Linda Yaccarino, followed, condemning antisemitism and discrimination.)

The bottom line is that there is no free speech without “hate” speech. But ignoring calls for violence to remain without consequence by people who do not share our American values and will never assimilate, especially those who are here either illegally or legally as non-citizens, is foolish and a sure recipe for societal collapse. I hope we’re smarter than that. There are some encouraging signs—i.e., the 300,000 person-strong march against antisemitism in Washington, DC.

It will be a long, hard journey, but good will win out. And that’s something to be truly grateful for this Thanksgiving.

NO COURAGE, NO FREEDOM

Out of tragedy comes opportunity. The demonic attack by Hamas on the Israelis exposed people for who they are. Perhaps it tipped some people that were on the edge into radicalism, but I believe most of the pro-terrorist anti-Semites were just hidden, triggered by circumstance to expose themselves, like cockroaches caught by the flip of the light switch. While polls show that these morally confused or bereft individuals are in the minority, at least in this country, their numbers appear to be more substantial than many of us imagined, and magnified by their visibility via unabashed activism. Internationally, the situation is even more dire. Two factors complicate any accurate assessments of the magnitude of the problem: a baseline disinclination towards similar activism by the morally centered, and a lack of courage.

Prior to this world-changing event in the Middle East, I would have included apathy and ignorance in the mix. But I no longer believe claiming either as exculpatory factors for individual or group silence can be justified. Those that support Hamas, support terrorists. Those that that hide behind the worn “cycle of violence” argument and a false shield of moral equivalence, and claim they’re there for the Palestinians and are “anti-Zionist” (how many of these so-called “nuanced” supporters have demanded Hamas’ release of hostages or surrender in return for demands of cease-fire?), support terrorists. For everyone else, an intact moral compass is like an unloaded gun. Without chambers locked and loaded with courage, it’s no more than manifest weakness. This doesn’t mean that, in the eternal scheme of things, it’s unimportant; moral clarity is necessary for the health of the human soul. And only God can be the judge if it’s sufficient. But here in the material world, evil cannot be vanquished by silence and inaction.

A few years ago it struck me how few, if any, substantial massive street-level counter-protests occurred in response to the violent Black Lives Matter defund-the-police campaign. I worried that these overwhelmingly good, honest law officers who put themselves in harm’s way to protect us would abandon us, and many did. It seemed to me that if ever activism on the Right and for the right was needed, it was then. The absence of a rapid and overwhelming push-back from the majority has probably impacted law enforcement recruitment and procedures negatively for decades to come. And now the circumstances are even more desperate.

We see thousands of radical Hamas/Palestine supporters in the streets, but a relative paucity of individuals and groups out there proclaiming support for the Israelis. Radicals feel free to pull down pictures of Israeli hostages with impunity, with only sporadic and isolated instances of push-back. In England, the cops join in to preserve the “peace” in the community, saying “there’s more of them than us.” Here, we’ve allowed our statues and White House gate pillars, in a pathetic attempt to appease, to be desecrated with Palestinian flags and graffiti. It seems as if we’ve learned nothing from history. Appeasement never works against evil, only strength. And to show strength, you must first have courage.

Of course, courage comes with a price. Pro-Israel students have been beaten and an older man was killed. And while larger peaceful counter-protests will increase the cost to the Hamas supporters who are considering engaging in such violence in the short term, they also increase the risk for larger scale, more dangerous melees. But this does not obviate our obligation to look evil in the face and fight it, peacefully when possible, and with force when necessary. Free speech has been a cornerstone of our human rights, but we’ve always drawn the line at suborning violence. And make no mistake, support for extermination of the Jews, crosses the line. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is a not-so-veiled euphemism for “exterminate the Jews.” When you ask Hamas, they will tell you (it’s even in their constitution). When you see young “Palestine” supporters on the street interviewed and asked where the Jews should go, they tell you.

This is an existential fight for the moral foundation that undergirds what America stands for and is its lifeblood. The fight will incite more radical Hamas/Palestine supporters as well as their right-wing radical counterparts to violence. The radical Left-controlled government will try, as usual, to focus on the latter as the ascendant threat, just as it will diminish the alarming increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes by focusing on the equally execrable but far less prevalent unprovoked anti-Muslim violence, in service of its narrative. But fight we must—we have no choice. Staying in the current lane or veering onto the dead-end road of appeasement Biden seems set on pursuing is not only useless, it’s dangerous. The Israelis have learned this the hard way. They will not stop this time until Hamas is obliterated.

And neither should we.

P.S. As this went to post, I found a video documenting a demonstration against anti-Semitism by reportedly thousands of lawmakers and citizens that just occurred in France. Hopefully, a belated harbinger of more to come.

WE HAVE TO FAIL TO SUCCEED

We are a reactive nation. To say we’re not proactive is an understatement. It goes well beyond apathy. If there were a psychological term for psychotic aversion to proactiveness, we’d be its poster child. Denial is the mechanism but doesn’t do justice to the heights we’ve achieved in the pursuit of avoidance and inaction.

Although this less-than-endearing trait permeates all facets of our social fabric, I’m ranting on our perennial economic/financial malfeasance. In 1973, so-called “discretionary” spending was 9.6 percent of GDP, with about 60 percent of that for defense. Today, discretionary spending is 6.6 percent of GDP—and included in these figures are defense spending (which, with the state of the world, I would hardly categorize as “discretionary”). The CBO says that discretionary spending is 35 percent of federal outlays (a pie chart from the CBO pegs it at 26 percent with 8 percent interest). The defense portion is 3-4 percent. The lion’s share, or two-thirds, of our non-discretionary spending is Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats don’t worry about spending, don’t worry about debt, and their entire political strategy revolves around steadily increasing spending and government welfare via dollar redistribution through taxation, borrowing, and printing (otherwise known as inflation). In service of recruiting to their party an ever-larger segment of an electorate nurtured on the government teat and no longer wedded to the concept of individual responsibility, this tactic handily buys votes for power. Now a majority of the electorate not only no longer looks upon government largess as demeaning, which was the norm just a few generations ago, but demands these handouts which inevitably morph into entitlements. Having been indoctrinated to believe that it comes from “rich” people who don’t “pay their fair share,” they are happy with the status quo. But it’s not really a status quo as the spending and size and intrusiveness of government are a moving target in one direction—up—and nary a voice calls for tit-for-tat reductions in spending in other areas; the idea of a balanced budget has long been abandoned. And Congress routinely abdicates its responsibility of even generating one by its mandated deadline; hence, the yearly threat of “government shutdown.” The Republicans as well are not blameless. While they at least play lip service to fiscal and budgetary responsibility, they’re junior varsity progressives, and also regularly overspend and grow government, albeit with less alacrity. There’s no shortage of economists that the Left can lean on to support “government assisted” economic policy. That history has time and again shown the disastrous consequences of this approach is no deterrent; musical chairs on a national level is only an unpalatable game to the one whose chair disappears, until all the chairs are gone. And people have an uncanny ability to ignore the missing chairs until it’s theirs.

Unfortunately, given the above circumstances, any talk of solutions by cutting discretionary spending are nothing more than a political smokescreen, You see, the American people have no appetite for cutting either Medicare or Social Security. In fact, any allusion to this is regarded as political suicide; hence the term, the “third rail” of politics. To her credit, Nikki Haley did discuss this issue early in her campaign; it seems to have taken a back seat, likely on the counsel of her political advisors. But who can blame her?

Medicare has been very good to me, covering the vast majority of my expenses for several chronic medical conditions. Personally, I’d hate to see it go, and I’ll likely pass on before it does. But it will; at least in its current form. Even now, physician have seen substantial cuts in reimbursement for decades, eaten away more aggressively lately by inflation, and something will have to give. In the short-term, I anticipate more monetary legerdemain to engineer some temporizing but inadequate reimbursement increases. But the end of the road exists for government-funded Medicine, Social Security, and our national debt in general. The unstated truth is that we’ve lived “higher on the hog” than the standard of living to which we’ve become accustomed, borrowing from generations to come, and the bill will come due. Those who think that “right wingers” have been singing this tune for years and no economic Armageddon has emerged are wise to remember the analogy of an earthquake fault: You can live near one for hundreds, or thousands of years while it builds tension, until it blows. And I see signs it will happen in my lifetime or shortly thereafter. But the reality is simply that it has to happen, whenever. And my heart goes out to those who will unwillingly bear the burden of our fiscal irresponsibility. Not that they are entirely blameless, for many have chosen to go along for the ride, but they were conditioned to accept this abnormal “norm” that benefited those that will soon be gone.

So Social Security, Medicare, and ultimately The System, will have to fail utterly before it’s fixed, like the junkie that must reach bottom. Keep an eye on states like mine, California, that are the most progressive, as they are the canaries in the coalmine. Will we, as a country, survive in recognizable form? Who knows, particularly in light of the deterioration of our social fabric on multiple fronts. But there is little doubt that the ogre, the second Great Depression, is peaking out from behind the money tree. Happy Halloween.

WATCH THE CARNAGE

It’s been a tough week. While the Israelis have been literally bombarded, we’ve been bombarded with videos, many filmed by the terrorists themselves, of rape, murder by weapon and fire, and kidnapping of innocent men, women and children, and babies. The pictures are soul-numbing, and the last thing I wanted was to watch them. So I did. And so should you. Because the only way to affirm our humanity is to look evil in the face. Or we won’t face it at all.

We’re all aware of the great divide that has widened in our country over the past few decades and accelerated exponentially over the last 8 or so years. At least half the country has acknowledged the evils being perpetrated on a daily basis under the guise of the public good by the in-power Left. But nothing has highlighted our and the West’s cultural and spiritual decline as starkly as the reaction to the Hamas atrocities executed in Israel. One of the few bright spots in this ordeal has been the appropriate reaction to this war of the most radically progressive president in our history. While Biden’s pre-war policies may have contributed to the current debacle, his overt post-attack warnings to Iran and other potential bad actors, backed by the deployment of two US aircraft carriers to the region and materiel support, were welcome and necessary, both morally and to help deter a larger conflict. His unequivocal support of Israel’s right to defend itself and characterization of the offenders as brutal terrorists were also on-point. Frankly, with his history of lock-step obeisance to anything far left and extremely poor track record when it comes to both domestic or international policy, it surprised me. Unfortunately, on the left and to a smaller extent on the (predominantly far) right, there is a disturbing division in the country regarding an issue that, it would seem, should scream unity. The condemnation of Hamas’ actions has been met with a rallying by many behind the terrorist group not only internationally, as might be anticipated, but domestically as well. And anyone who isn’t alarmed by this needs to urgently reevaluate their moral compass.

In the seats of power, the usual suspects such as the Squad have made their lukewarm reaction to brutal terrorism clear. The Michigan State House legislators rejected a minute of silence for the Israelis killed and taken hostage! Even more troubling are the large protests in favor of the Palestinians and Hamas in places such as NYC and around the country. Large gatherings of radical, mostly ignorant, brainwashed students have proclaimed support of terrorism on multiple university campuses. All of this cannot be solely ascribed to ignorance, though. There clearly has been a resurgence in antisemitism, with Israel the sole nation denied an appropriate response for its own defense from an existential threat. Calls for cease-fire and drawing a moral equivalence between the brutal targeting of innocents of all ages and the unavoidable collateral damage in crowded Gaza by the IDF, a military force that routinely goes out of its way to promote civilian evacuation before attacking, is execrable. And collateral damage there will be: Hamas discourages its civilians from evacuating, while hiding themselves and their deadly materiel among them, precisely to increase collateral damage, knowing a complicit media will unfairly paint Israel in an anti-humanitarian light. Yet, given the opportunity to allow refugees from Gaza to escape via a corridor into Egypt, Egyptian authorities have refused. While 20% of “apartheid state” Israel’s citizens are Arab, no Muslim nation has accepted governance of the Palestinian people, and zero Jews are permitted to live in any of the Muslim nations.

The idea that the Israelis are “occupiers” is belied by history. The Palestinians don’t antedate Jewish residence in the land, and they are not interested in a 2-state solution. They have said as much, many times. Their goal is extermination of the Jews. In refusing the “land for peace” deal in 2000 granting land PLO leader Arafat demanded, President Clinton blamed the Palestinian leader for its failure. Gaza and the West Bank were ultimately ceded to Palestinian rule. Under Hamas, the people of Gaza became pawns for their Intifada against Israel and the West. They publicly admitted they feigned concern for governance of the Palestinian while planning the current attack to get the Israelis to let their guard down. Pipes donated by European nations for the sewer system were appropriated instead to make bombs, as a propaganda video that originated with Hamas itself demonstrates. Now pro-Palestinian voices are trying to blame Israel for turning off the power and water the Jewish state has supplied for free that the governing body of Hamas did not. This while Hamas uses its people as shields and propaganda tools because, as they’ve explicitly told us, they value death the way the Israelis and the West value life. Exposing their own children to injury and death, rather than protecting them, is viewed as “martyring” them. The supporters of Hamas either agree with this, or can’t wrap their minds around the fact that these terrorists don’t value their own children the way they do. Or they are engaging in willful ignorance. And hiding behind a shield of ignorance won’t justify or change the reality of terrorists hiding behind a shield of innocents.

The above self-deception in many of the supporters of Hamas and the Palestinian cause is fueled by the belief that no culture is superior to another. This is demonstrably untrue. (For example, Muslims, but not Jews, can worship freely at the Temple Mount. Muslims can travel without fear in Israel, but Israelis enter Muslim territory only at their great peril.) But ideology, as I’ve said many times, breeds stupidity, and stupidity makes you a useful idiot for evil.

Some will say, “But not all Palestinians and Muslims are evil.” Perhaps not. But that doesn’t prevent them from from being part of the problem. Putting aside the fact that the Palestinians themselves placed Hamas in power, where are the Muslims counter-protests in the streets against the terrorist barbarism? Where are even the rush of public statements dissociating themselves from the movement? The “good” Muslims are there, some may argue, afraid to speak out for fear of retribution. In the face of evil of this magnitude, the absence of courage is no longer an option. It seems the rise of Nazism is already forgotten. The bright side to all this, if there is one, is it is uncovering the magnitude of evil and the rise in antisemitism for all to see, and exposing the individuals engaging in it to the light of day.

So look at the videos. Sure, they’ll suck a lot of the joy out of your day. But they’ll recalibrate your humanity, rekindle appreciation and gratitude for what you have, and will support, in a small way, the millions of Jews now suffering much more tangibly and immeasurably from the loss of family, friends and countrymen. And pray for them. Let this time of tribulation strengthen your bond with those you love and your faith in God, in the end the true source of inner peace and joy.

STRATEGY TRUMPS TRUMP

The outcome of the upcoming presidential election will be determined, at its most fundamental level, by the prevalence and intensity of two forces: Trump Derangement syndrome on the one side and perception/recognition of cognitive decline and incompetence of Biden on the other. Ben Shapiro posits that while many people vote based on policy, the majority do it on personality, and he may be right. Both of the likely candidates at this time (and this may change) are tainted by corruption. To me it’s clear that Biden is far the more sullied in this regard, but presenting the evidence for this assertion goes beyond the scope of this dissertation. Besides, while both sides of the aisle demonstrate a willingness to distort reality in favor of tribal leanings, those still wedded to the idea of Biden as the lesser evil have carried it to such an extreme that many of their arguments resemble parody rather than serious critique.

The flurry of charges against Trump, while largely born of TDS and the radical progressivism infecting the Democrat Party, may also be politically astute if the goal is to try to assure a Trump candidacy; his bump in the polls on the right with each new indictment attests to that. With a weak and failing choice such as Biden, a Democrat strategy of bolstering your opponent’s candidate in the primary who is perceived as the most vulnerable in the general election is just smart politics. The move both energizes the Right to support him in the primary while satisfying the Left that hates him—it’s a no-brainer. But Republicans, by placing emotion over, strategy could be playing a dangerous game.

Trump supporters don’t buy in to the vulnerability argument, or their enthusiasm for the man prevents them from entertaining the notion. But it remains a fact that the current, weak, incompetent president beat him once while hiding in the basement (arguments for “stolen election” aside). True, some things have changed. Biden is now more cognitively impaired than on the first go-around and has a track record of almost universally failed and destructive policies. More black and Latinos voters are defecting, and some election law loopholes have been closed. And Republicans now see the wisdom of fighting fire with fire when it comes to ballot harvesting. But is this enough to overcome the smoldering coals of TDS that the Democrats are forever stoking into flame? Modern-day elections are won or lost on the backs of a small cadre of voters in the center. The question is, is it good political strategy to bet on Trump?

In the interest of transparency, I must divulge I don’t like Trump, the man. I find him coarse, and narcissistic to the point that he’s quick to abandon his party when he feels it’s in his best interest. And while he has an amazingly thick skin when it comes to defending himself and his policies against the deranged Left, it’s the opposite when it comes to his perception of “disloyalty.” He’s not the most moral individual (although a saint compared to Biden) but is probably in the middle to lower third of the pack compared with politicians in general. I loved his policies and their effects in the pre-COVID era, and his perseverance in the face of strong political headwinds and an obstructive Deep State. But I’m more a fan of Ron DeSantis, who I feel has demonstrated an ability to govern soberly, without the theatrics that can alienate an uncertain independent or old-fashioned liberal, whose votes will be critical in a general election. DeSantis has been true to conservative ideals, and has had a demonstrably positive effect on the state of Florida’s economy, education, and crime which I believe will port over to the national level. I have no illusions he won’t be tarred and feathered by the progressive Left, and also no doubt the DeSantis Derangement Syndrome will be part of the lexicon should he win the White House, but it’s the swing vote that I’m interested in. I also like Vivek Ramiswamy, but have no clue how he’d fare in the national stage. I suppose I’ll miss Trump’s entertaining tweets (or X’s), but not the blood pressure-raising juvenile ones, of which there were many. Not a small factor to also consider, all the indictments will distract Trump and siphon off much-needed campaign dollars (which is their point), and while all the indictments are clearly banana republic political corruption and bad for the country, Trump is in real legal jeopardy in the Florida classified information suit due to his recorded ill-spoken remarks. Besides, it seems likely that a Washington, D.C-based jury could potentially convict for the January 6^th non-charges (look at the bogus outcome in the NY civil Stormy Daniels trial).

Of course, Trump will have my vote if he’s victorious in the primary, as current polls strongly suggest. But I can still hope that enough of the Right will come to recognize that strategy trumps emotion when trying to win elections.

THE END OF SYSTEMIC RACISM AT LAST

The Left is angry, and understandably so. Systemic racism has been a crucial part of their political DNA since, well, forever. The Democrat Party was the the bulwark for slavery against the abolitionist Republican Party and then the party of the KKK. The Leftists leaders quietly changed their brand of systemic racism and the branding of their party to make them more palatable to a post-Jim Crow electorate when they saw an opportunity to secure votes. Now the current Supreme Court decision on affirmative action threatens their carefully crafted narrative, and they won’t go down easily.

It’s apparent with any sober analysis that affirmative action is evil, and at odds with the tenets of our core beliefs as a nation as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and instantiated in the Constitution. Out past is littered with the evils of ignoring these beliefs, requiring Amendments that should never have had to be added. The 1960s was heralded as the “civil rights era,” and it is understandable how the move to jump-start racial equality through preferential treatment of black Americans was lauded. It was deemed that the egregious disparities generated by Jim Crow policies coupled with the still widespread personal bigotry (especially but not solely in the deep South) required extraordinary means to right the scales. I won’t speculate on the relative percentages of those who supported this “reverse” racism out of altruism versus those that simply saw it as a marketing ploy for votes and power, but I will remind the reader that the president who introduced the Great Society, LBJ, was well-documented as to his racist beliefs. So the policies were implemented with no end-point stipulated, a targeted welfare state that unfortunately favored fatherless families and government dependency. Out of this grew a lucrative race-grievance industry dependent on the perception of perpetual, systemic racism. As long as white guilt could be stoked by a vision of unchanged, unadulterated systemic racism, ingrained in our very DNA, those on the gravy train would flourish. It led to the rise of race-baiting superstars such as the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to name but two of the grifters dubbed “civil rights leaders” who could pardon “offenders” with the appropriate public apologies (and payments to the appropriate organizations). In later years it has evolved into the formation of a vast, well-funded network of DEI policies and departments, infiltrating every aspect of the socioeconomic ether. Books and lectures have made $ millions for those practitioners at the top of the food chain. The problem is, as evidence of systemic racism became more and more scarce, virtually disappearing at the time of the election of our first black (actually mixed race but phenotypically black) president, acts of personal racism had to be generated to support the narrative, such as the Jussie Smollett disaster and the noose in Nascar racer Bubba Wallace’s garage ploy. Despite these subterfuges, the socio-legal evidence for the persistence of systemic racism was wearing too thin. Still, the Leftist Racial-grievance industry knew they they could count on the power and revulsion tied to the word “racist” when cultivated in the fertile loam of while guilt, and spinning any white-on-black incident resulting in the demise of the latter as defacto evidence of systemic racism regardless of the facts (as illustrated by the Michael Brown “hands-up-don’t-shoot” fable in Ferguson, MO, and the George Floyd incident, to name only 2 of the more famous). Critical Race Theory was dusted off, repackaged and distributed everywhere, including to our schools, and with it the concept (debunked, but don’t go there) of the 1619 Project, a country founded not on principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but on slavery. Racial division (including, astonishingly, new segregation and separate black graduation ceremonies) was kept alive by preaching the existence of two classes of people: oppressors and victims. And, it was warned, the sooner that the “white-privileged” masses accepted this reality, the sooner they could join the ranks of the morally righteous “anti-racist.” The “proof” of the “systemic racism” and their righteousness was always and only the statistical disparities in socioeconomic outcomes between racial groups, regardless of cause. Their efforts have been spectacularly effective—racial tensions, with Obama’s early help, have progressively heightened since the early 2000s. The great irony in all of this is that as systemic racism in the legal system and in the minds of the vast majority of citizens had virtually vanished, it was being kept on life support by the very people who most loudly decried it—via the ongoing policy of affirmative action.

I stated above, and it bears repeating, that affirmative action is evil, and this is evident with even a rudimentary, honest analysis. It’s also unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal, and it’s astonishing how long a societal malaise born of historic guilt has allowed it to flourish. To forcibly correct past evils based on skin color in modern society requires specifically targeting some races for preferential treatment over others. In the case just decided by the Supreme Court against affirmative action in the admissions policies of Harvard University and U of North Carolina that particularly disadvantaged the Asian community, there was a resounding majority declaration that admissions decisions based on the hue of someone’s skin flies in the face of the 14^th Amendment. But the issue extends further: By lowering academic standards and test score thresholds for admission based on skin color, one must engage in the execrable practice of bigotry of low expectations. The fallout from this is higher dropout rates by those students that the proponents of affirmative action are purporting to help, students who may have flourished in a more appropriate, meritocratic environment. And those that were qualified by their achievements may be forever tainted by the inevitable and unfair perception by many that they got there simply due to racial quotas. This policy is a clear indication that you cannot fight racism with racism. Our parents taught us “two wrongs don’t make a right.” It seems that we’re forever relearning this basic rule. The Supreme Court got it right. And shame on the two Leftist dissenting justices, Maria Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown, with the latter proferring a particularly vacuous and egregious argument.

It was high time the that the Court decided to abolish the last bastion of systemic racism. Expect the Left, though, to not go quietly into this good night.

Addendum: It is now customary to routinely capitalize racial descriptions of skin color (i.e., “Black,” “White”). I refuse to accede to this new convention as it reinforces the Leftist narrative of the importance of skin color over other personal attributes, including character.