A new book blames “progressive” intolerance and malfeasance.

Mar 4, 2026 George Leef

In 1987, Allan Bloom warned about The Closing of the American Mind. In 2018, Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff warned about The Coddling of the American Mind. And now Lawrence Eppard, Jacob Mackey, and Lee Jussim warn about The Poisoning of the American Mind. This academic trio (Eppard is professor of sociology at Shippensburg University, Mackey professor of classics at Occidental College, and Jussim professor of psychology at Rutgers) have collected 50 mostly short essays to make the case that bad trends in education and the media are getting in the way of the ability of Americans to discern truth from falsehood.

The “guardrails” that used to restrain the publication of misleading or even blatantly false information have been largely demolished.Eppard’s opening essay, “The Golden Age of Information,” makes the point that, although people have access to more information than ever before, much of it is unreliable and even dishonest. He laments that the “guardrails” that used to restrain the publication of misleading or even blatantly false information have been largely demolished, such that it is now common for Americans to live in ideological “silos” where they receive only stories that have been curated to support a particular point of view. Many Democrats never hear anything critical of what their party does, and the same is true for Republicans. Worse yet, we have been led to believe that any dissent is not merely mistaken but immoral. Therefore, argumentation is pointless, and political victory by any means necessary over the forces of evil is essential.

It is now common for Americans to live in ideological “silos” where they receive only stories that have been curated to support a particular point of view.This situation is compounded by the fact that our universities have become very politicized. Eppard observes that “ideologically charged and empirically questionable research is being done in some academic fields around a variety of topics (perhaps most prominently about issues related to gender and race) at the same time that there is a growing tendency across academic fields to inject those findings into the public discourse.” Scholarly research used to be carefully scrutinized, and if it did not rise to a high level of proof it would not be published. But now, it’s sufficient for writers to rely on their “lived experiences” and feelings.

At the same time as many “scholars” are producing a flood of research purporting to find social and economic problems that call for the expansion of governmental control, it has become perilous for anyone to dispute them. Several of the book’s chapters discuss cases where professors were sanctioned or even terminated because they dared to question such findings. Our information ecosystem has been undermined by the way advocates can use power to silence dissent and limit the kinds of questions that may be investigated.

In his essay “The Constitution of Knowledge,” Jonathan Rauch maintains that the pillars of that constitution are eroding. For example, it was formerly accepted that any hypothesis could be advanced, but that is no longer true. Academics now face severe trouble if they argue in favor of positions that don’t fit the “progressive” worldview. He concludes, “If universities foster cultures of conformity rather than of criticism, if they traffic in politicized orthodoxies and secular religions, then the winner is not social justice but trolling. Which is all downside.”

This problem is especially acute in the social sciences. In his essay, Professor Carl Bankston notes that college leaders are complicit in the attack on knowledge by declaring that speech and research are unwelcome if they can be said to violate the “core values” of the institution. Thus have professors found themselves in hot water for, e.g., talking about the downsides of “affirmative action” or environmental policies.

However, the hard sciences are also suffering from constant attacks by those who insist that their longstanding rules are unfair and somehow prop up “white privilege.”

In a devastating essay entitled “In Defense of Merit in Science,” Professor Dorian Abbot (along with quite a few co-authors) explains the damage to science that has been done by the leftist obsession with “equity.” That is to say, what matters is not individual achievement but ensuring that we have enough “representation” in science by members of various minority groups.

Abbot writes the following:

Liberal epistemology prizes free and open inquiry, values vigorous discourse and debate, and determines the best scientific ideas by separating those that are true from those that are likely not. […] In contrast, identity-based ideologies seek to replace these core liberal principles, essential for scientific and technological advances, with principles derived from postmodernism and Critical Social Justice, which assert that modern science is “racist,” “patriarchal,” and “colonial,” and a tool of oppression rather than a tool to promote human flourishing and global common good.

Bowing to governmental pressure and ideological demands, merit is giving way. Increasingly, faculty are chosen because they have the right backgrounds, and research money is allocated to those who are investigating wasteful but politically correct projects. Researchers are now expected to practice “citation justice,” which means that they must cite a sufficient number of published papers by women and minorities. One of the latest fads is “research” into “decolonizing” various aspects of science, such as pharmacology, which entails teaching about drugs developed from folk remedies and emphasizing contributions by non-Europeans.

Perhaps the most poisonous aspect of all is the spreading idea that certain beliefs may never be questioned.Perhaps the most poisonous aspect of all is the spreading idea that certain beliefs may never be questioned.

Abbot observes, “Attempts to demonize, inflict reputational damage, or silence critics of social engineering practices by characterizing them as racists, white supremacists, or worse is particularly detrimental to the open intellectual environment in which scientific inquiry into difficult social problems thrives.”

In many academic precincts, intolerance has become a badge of honor.In his essay, Professor Jussim gives a good example. He is among the scholars who have criticized the research purporting to show that “microaggressions” against minority students and workers are both common and damaging. When confronted by skeptics, one of the leading proponents of microaggression theory, Professor Monnica Williams, replied that to argue with her position was itself a microaggression. Jussim and other writers also point out how weak concepts gain acceptance through “idea laundering.” That is the practice of getting ideological allies to approvingly cite a dubious paper so often that it becomes common knowledge.

Bad mental habits are being inculcated in the minds of students. The idea that “progressives” should not allow arguments against them to be heard (introduced in the 1960s by the radical professor Herbert Marcuse) is now widely accepted. Today, true-believing students declare that speakers they dislike will cause harm to “vulnerable” populations and seek to ban them. In many academic precincts, intolerance has become a badge of honor.

Strangely, the book itself helps to show another aspect of our poisoning, namely academic publishing. When the editors submitted the manuscript to George Mason University Press, it contained a chapter detailing long-accepted (but now “controversial”) biological differences between men and women. GMU Press said that the chapter would have to be eliminated before they’d publish. (You can read about that here.)

The Poisoning of the American Mind has, I would say, a rather narrow target. The many Americans who live in ideological silos will ignore the book, thinking that everything they do is justified by the moral imperative of beating back the assault on civilization that the other side represents. Our best hope is that some higher-education leaders will realize how deeply complicit they are in the undermining of Americans’ ability to use their minds and start looking for antidotes.

George Leef is director of external relations at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.

Menu

Oliver Hung, Pexels

New Book Encapsulates Higher Ed’s Problems

A collection of expert essays says “it’s worse than you think.”

Jun 17, 2026 George Leef

Suppose you have a friend who knows little about American higher education but is eager to learn about it. You might want to recommend to him a book that introduces the subject with readily understood essays covering the range of problems we face.  A good choice would be Higher Education in America: It’s Worse Than You Think. The book consists of nineteen essays by people who have been on the front lines in the battle to rescue our colleges and universities from the menaces of mediocrity and politicization.

So, what has gone wrong with American higher education?

One theme that recurs throughout the book is that most of our colleges and universities have lost their sense of mission. As Hillsdale College president Larry Arnn writes in the foreword, they have converted the “sublime activity of education” into a “manufacturing operation.” Rather than working with young minds to help them learn how to discover truth, most colleges just want to process through as many graduates as possible. And worse, instead of enlightenment, students are often steeped in conflict, taught that certain groups are oppressors and others oppressed.

In his introduction, Christopher Rufo observes, “The great project of liberal education, designed to inculcate knowledge of the truth, appreciation of the beautiful, and the civic virtue necessary to advance both, has been replaced by bureaucracies, activism, anti-Western ideology and empty credentialism.” College degrees that used to betoken a wide range of knowledge and skills now signal nothing. Rufo argues that education and liberty are inextricable and we need to worry for our civilization because many students now graduate without the slightest appreciation for liberty.College degrees that used to betoken a wide range of knowledge and skills now signal nothing

Among the reasons why college has become such a poor value is the way the federal government makes it so easy to borrow to pay for it. In his chapter, Preston Cooper concludes, “For too long, colleges have taken advantage of an opaque and dysfunctional financial-aid system to strong-arm students into paying higher tuition than they would in a free and competitive market.” That’s what we need.

Can’t American students depend on colleges for a high quality education? Supposedly, our accreditation system ensures that they do, since colleges and universities (at least those that accept federal funds) have to obtain accreditation from an agency approved by the Department of Education. Unfortunately, obtaining the stamp of approval from an accrediting agency does not ensure that students receive a sound education. In their chapter, Jonathan Butcher and Madison Marino Doan disabuse readers of the notion that accreditors ensure that students receive a good education.  Accreditors, they observe, don’t actually investigate courses to see if they have serious academic standards, but instead focus on institutional inputs—and sometimes those inputs are the wrong types, such as “diversity” among faculty.  

That many American students receive a weak education in college is the theme of the chapter by Adam Kissel and Madison Marino Doan. They investigated the course offerings at many of our supposedly finest schools and found that it would be easy for students to avoid intellectually challenging ones and coast along taking courses that focus on pop culture and politics. And, generally, colleges have cashed in by luring in students with weak academic preparation by dumbing down the curriculum and offering lots of enjoyable amenities. Kissel and Doan conclude that it’s time to make college hard again and to stop subsidizing it with easy government loans.

One of the most frequently heard complaints about our colleges is that they allow faculty members to substitute political advocacy for objective teaching. In “The Leftist Monopoly Problem,” Andrew Gillen shows that this is a serious concern. Many academic fields are now completely dominated by professors who embrace a leftist worldview that is hostile to individualism, limited government and free enterprise. Such professors usually want to hire only ideological allies by screening out applicants who might voice differing views. Gillen makes it clear why this matters, writing, “When one side dominates, only truths that conform with that political ideology will be acknowledged. Inconvenient truths will be ignored, dismissed, or explained away.” Academic fields thus become hidebound and intolerant.Many academic fields are now completely dominated by professors who embrace a leftist worldview that is hostile to individualism, limited government and free enterprise.

What is the experience of college like for today’s students? In his chapter, Kyle Washut argues that it is far different from what it used to be. He writes, “For many students, going to college at a legacy institution involves faculty who do not teach, the students themselves spending little time on learning (and what time is spent studying is on classes of little rigor or in slanted “studies” departments) and immersion in terrible experiences of loneliness and anxiety, all while spending vast amounts of money and garnering large quantities of debt.” In short, we have lost sight of the purpose of education. He argues that one step in the right direction would be a law that would empower universities with large endowments to create smaller colleges under their umbrellas with a traditional academic focus.

At the heart of our drift away from the serious, useful college education of the past into the often feeble and politicized education of the present is poor leadership. Few college and university presidents have been willing to say “no” to the ruinous trends. In his chapter, George Harne drives that point home. He writes, “Unfortunately, leaders of colleges and universities frequently derive their leadership not from the natures and highest purposes of their institutions but from the worlds of leftwing politics, moralistic-therapeutic culture, the corporate book trade, or some combination of the three.” If we are going to restore academic standards and integrity, we will need to choose leaders who are deeply committed to the educational enterprise, not to promoting themselves or their personal views.

And there is also the faculty problem, which John Sailer discusses in depth. He writes, “Today, an increasing number of faculty have come to see their scholarship as a means for advancing a political agenda. These scholars—more accurately, scholar-activists—place primacy on the categories of race, sex, and ethnicity. They often invoke faculty-lounge neologisms, such as ‘racial capitalism’ and ‘decolonization.’” Over the last several decades, the pipeline into academic life has been altered so that it greatly favors candidates from “underrepresented” groups, so long as they favor leftist activism. Those who don’t fit are filtered out.

Our college leaders love to spend money but much of their spending is on projects and programs that are inimical to the nation’s long-run good. For that reason, Jay P. Greene argues, donors ought to stop ladling money carelessly into college coffers. He suggests that billionaires direct their educational giving toward the founding of new institutions that will once again provide higher education that is untainted by politics. As for wealthy Americans who don’t have the funds to start new universities, Greene suggests that instead of trying to establish good programs at existing schools, which are apt to be taken over by leftists eventually, they direct their money to help programs at those new schools, such as the University of Austin.Our college leaders love to spend money…on projects and programs that are inimical to the nation’s long-run good.

Kenneth Marcus, in “Antisemitism on College Campuses,” shows how virulent that has become, as student organizations, faculty committees and even administrative programs spout anti-Semitic rhetoric and commitment to intifada. This has come about, he argues, because “ideological movements have gained influence in the humanities and social sciences, replacing the older ideal of the university as a neutral forum with a model in which higher education serves as an instrument for social and political transformation. When that view takes hold, the safeguards against bias and partiality weaken.” They certainly have.

There is much more in this hard-hitting book, which I recommend to anyone who wants to know the truth about what has happened to higher education in America.

There’s a particular dangerous breed of dishonest Democrat politician who speaks in moderate terms to get elected, only to govern as a radical.

Allan J. Feifer | June 27, 2026

There’s a particular dangerous breed of dishonest Democrat politician who speaks in moderate terms to get elected, only to govern as a radical.

America is threatened not only by its openly radical elements, but by politicians who present themselves as reasonable moderates while advancing policies that steadily undermine the foundations of American capitalism and constitutional government.

I want America to survive as the exceptional country I grew up in. That requires us to confront an uncomfortable reality.

Every day, Americans are told that the greatest threats to our future come from foreign adversaries, economic competition, or political polarization. Those dangers are real enough. But the more immediate threat is internal: a growing and particularly vocal class of politicians who speak the language of moderation while advancing ideas that move the country further away from the foundational principles that made it prosperous, free, self-governing, and the envy of the world.

The loud radicals are easy to identify. They openly criticize capitalism. They openly advocate socialism, egalitarianism, and, if you listen to their words carefully, communism, vocalizing a belief that the end justifies the means. They openly call for sweeping transformations of American society. Whether one agrees with them or not, at least they are honest about what they espouse.

The greater danger comes from what I call the Trojan Horse Politicians.

These are the polished, camera-ready public officials who rarely describe themselves as radicals. They speak instead of “fairness,” “equity,” “compassion,” “democracy,” and “reimagining” institutions to reassure you that they’re not radical. Their rhetoric is designed to be reassuring, almost somnolent in intent. Their tone is reasonable. Their presentation is carefully crafted to appear moderate and pragmatic, even when a student of history knows differently.

Their policies, however, often point in a very different direction.

Again and again, proposals are introduced as modest reforms only to result in greater centralization of power, larger bureaucracies, heavier regulation, increased dependency on government programs, an ever-increasing share of GDP by government, and diminished space for private enterprise. Ideas that would likely face strong resistance if presented honestly are repackaged as common-sense adjustments, temporary measures, or acts of compassion.

The Inflation Reduction Act itself illustrates the phenomenon. Supporters presented it primarily as an anti-inflation measure. At the same time, critics argued that its true significance (as has been shown over time) lay in its industrial policy, climate initiatives, and the expansion of federal influence over key sectors of the economy.

The strategy is not new. Throughout history, major political transformations have rarely arrived announcing themselves as revolutions. They arrive incrementally, wrapped in language designed to reduce opposition and reassure the public that nothing fundamental is changing.

We can see this pattern throughout modern American politics.

Many of the most visible figures on the left openly advocate policies that would dramatically expand federal control over healthcare, energy, education, housing, and labor markets. Critics argue that such proposals would weaken or even replace the market-based system that generated America’s unprecedented prosperity with a more centralized, government-directed model with little accountability, as most government-run programs have proven to be.

But these openly ideological figures are not the Trojan Horse.

They are the visible edge of the movement.

The Trojan Horse is the politician who claims unwavering support for capitalism while supporting policies that steadily restrict it. It is the official who presents ever-expanding government authority as merely a technical adjustment. It is the public servant who insists that every new crisis requires another transfer of power from citizens and communities to distant institutions that thrive on additional power and the attendant requirement to grow the bureaucracy and silence opposing voices.

Their success depends on language. Voters naturally resist radical change when it is described honestly. They are far more willing to accept the same changes when they are framed in terms such as moderation, fairness, expertise, or necessity. Voters can be and are swayed by rhetoric, the creation of boogeymen, and the passion that these Trojan Horse politicians generate so well.

This is why clarity matters.

Americans deserve to know exactly what policies are being proposed, what assumptions underlie them, and what consequences they may have. Citizens cannot make informed choices when political language becomes a tool for concealment rather than explanation.

The danger is not disagreement. Disagreement is essential to a healthy republic.

The danger is political camouflage.

A free society depends upon honest debate between competing visions. It cannot function when controversial ideas are disguised behind soothing rhetoric that obscures their true implications. A free society also depends on thinking individuals who value their self-interest, but not at the expense of destroying the very society that made everything possible.

That is why this moment demands more than partisan loyalty. It demands courage. It demands individuals willing to place principle above comfort, career, and political convenience.

Recently, John Healey resigned as Britain’s Defense Secretary, warning that Britain’s defense posture “falls well short of what is required for defense and the country at this dangerous time.” Whether one agrees with his conclusions is beside the point. The willingness to publicly challenge prevailing policy and accept the consequences remains increasingly rare in modern politics.

America needs more of that spirit.

We need elected officials willing to speak plainly. We need public servants willing to challenge prevailing narratives when they believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. We need leaders who value truth over approval and conviction over advancement.

Most of all, we need citizens willing to recognize that the future of the American experiment will not be determined solely by the radicals who openly attack it. It may be determined by the far more respectable figures who claim to be preserving it while gradually transforming it into something else entirely.

History teaches that republics are rarely lost all at once.

More often, they are surrendered piece by piece, compromise by compromise, under assurances that there is nothing to worry about.

That is why the Trojan Horse remains such a powerful warning.

The danger is not always outside the gates.

Sometimes we build the horse ourselves and wheel it inside.

God Bless America!

Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow at 1plus1equals2.com.

Every big city in America where the population is declining, businesses are closing, public safety is failing, and national relevance is diminishing suffers from the same handful of leadership failures.

John Perry | June 27, 2026

Every big city in America where the population is declining, businesses are closing, public safety is failing, and national relevance is diminishing suffers from the same handful of leadership failures. Cities don’t become helpless has-beens due to budget shortfalls, racial tension, natural disasters, or any of the other common excuses cities like Los Angeles use to explain or justify their decline. Along with New York, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities currently spiraling down the drain, LA is going from bad to worse because of four mistakes its leaders have perpetuated.

These failures are both predictable and preventable. But history tells us that as mayor, Karen Bass will have a hard time implementing the simple changes required.   

Here is why cities wither and die:

1. Failure to keep citizens safe — If people don’t feel safe on their own streets, nothing else matters. Productive, law-abiding, taxpaying residents deserve protection from criminals, vagrants, and other undesirables. It’s the responsibility of the police and the judicial system to establish and preserve a safe environment. Failing cities prioritize the rights of criminals over those of their victims. This turns the whole public safety system on its head. Lax policing standards, cashless bail, soft-on-crime prosecutors, and continued financial investment in policies that have failed to solve homelessness, addiction, and street crime all lead to trouble. Where the government turns a blind eye to criminal behavior, hard-working taxpayers who generate jobs and revenue leave for safer pastures, to be replaced by hordes of the unemployed who contribute nothing. Certainly, there are mentally and physically needy people in any city who must be helped. Letting them shoot up in a tent under the freeway is not helping them.

Angelenos could take a cue from the former mayor of Coronado, California, Richard Bailey. In his city, homeless people had two choices: get help or leave. “Although there are a myriad of reasons that people end up homeless,” he observed, “they eventually only fall into two camps — those that want help and those that do not.” City police “make it very clear that we don’t tolerate encampments along our sidewalk, and we don’t tolerate other code violations… An individual either chooses to get help or they end up leaving.” As a result, the homeless population of Coronado was zero.    

2. Failure to provide effective schools – Families with children are the backbone of any thriving community. Responsible parents — the ones who have steady jobs, volunteer in the community, support local businesses, pay taxes, and obey the law — will stop at nothing to send their children to the best schools they can. In Detroit, the decline of public schools in the 1970s sent more residents packing for the suburbs than the racial upheavals of the 1960s. The city had some of the highest per-student costs in the country, yet consistently ranked last among major cities in student performance. Other failing cities today have a similar story: Chicago schools are more than $9 billion in debt, even as enrollment declines, and produce some of the worst results in America.

Successful leaders face this and other problems not with studies and platitudes but with action. After years of weak performance and broken promises, the Texas Education Agency took control of Houston public schools. In the face of predictable whining, race-baiting, and calls for “due process,” the state, after reviewing 462 applications, installed Mike Miles as the new Houston superintendent. With degrees from West Point, UC Berkeley, Columbia, and a stellar track record, he had no time for excuses. “Schools do not struggle because of the students they serve or the communities they are in,” he said. “Students fail because the district fails to support them.” His results have been spectacular. Problem solved. This is one of the reasons why Houston is on track to replace Chicago as America’s third-largest city.

America’s third-largest city.

Advertisement

null

3. Failure to keep the cost of living manageable – Los Angeles, like Chicago, Seattle, New York, and other failing cities, is living hopelessly beyond its means. In order to fund vast social programs that attract homeless addicts from around the country, meet extreme and unrealistic environmental standards, and support a hopelessly bloated bureaucracy, the cost of living in LA is through the roof. Less expensive options, with fewer restrictions and less red tape, are available nationwide to prove that high prices are not inevitable.

Prospering states help their cities keep costs in check. The average price of a house in California is about twice that of Texas. Yet Texas has no state income tax, and a budget surplus. Florida has a population of about 23.5 million; New York has about 20 million. Florida’s state budget is half of New York’s. Yet Florida has no state income tax and a budget surplus. Although Florida and Texas face the same national and international challenges as California and New York, they produce very different results. Ambitious people and their capital go where they’re welcome, not where leaders treat them like piggy banks to be looted.  

4. Failure to keep corruption in check – There is corruption in every American city; it’s unavoidable in a fallen world. But it has to be held in check for governments to function and serve their constituents. While Detroit suffered over the years with mayors Charles Bowles (a fan of the Klan who became the first mayor in America to be recalled), Richard Reading (sentenced to prison for accepting underworld bribes), and Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted on 28 felony counts, including mail fraud and racketeering), Los Angeles makes news almost every day now with another corruption story. There is probably one in the headlines today.

Unchecked corruption robs cities of their resources, energy, and legitimacy. One of the reasons Chicago struggles is there has been no change in leadership to clean house: Democrats have controlled the city since 1930. Like Chicago, Los Angeles desperately needs a new team to sweep those nasty streets from top to bottom.     

All these urban failures are a result of poor leadership. The way to turn them into success is to vote out failing leaders and vote in new ones. This is harder than it sounds due to the Curley Effect. Named after James Michael Curley, the fiery Irish mayor of Boston in the early twentieth century, this is the tendency of mayors elected on the basis of identity politics to promote policies popular with their core constituents rather than policies good for the city. Thus, history tells us that as mayor, Karen Bass will continue to govern not to improve the lives of Angelenos, but to safeguard her voter base.  

During his twenty years as mayor of Detroit (1974-94), Coleman Young stayed in power because he knew who his voters were and what they wanted, and satisfied them no matter how the city suffered as a result. Taxes and expenses went up; policing and other services went down. Between 1970 and 1990, Detroit lost a third of its population, falling from 1.5 million residents to 1 million (today it’s about 650,000). Unemployment doubled. Households in poverty rose 60%. But the black population – Young’s most reliable constituents – increased from 43% to 75%, cementing his position in the seat of power.  

Zohran Mamdani, Brandon Johnson, Karen Bass, and others follow the Curley Effect playbook. Their base is defined by race and class identity politics. They play to these constituents’ demands for less policing, more welfare, environmental extremism, supporting the unions, and soaking the rich.

The results are there for all to see: Great for being re-elected. Terrible for the citizens and cities these leaders are supposed to lead.

John Perry is a ghostwriter and collaborator, as well as the author of more than a dozen books including Sgt. York: His Life, Legend, and Legacy (Fidelis, 2021). His latest book is The Detroiting of America: What Happened to the Motor City, Why Other Cities Followed, How Detroit is Coming Back (Fidelis, 2024).

Leftists seem to share an insatiable desire to seek out the miserable in everything.

Pete Colan | June 27, 2026

Over the years, I’ve had many different social media conversations with people who are leftists. Not political conversations (I avoid open social media discussion of politics with leftists), but rather many other topics. I have found a common pattern; they seem to have a remarkable lack of self-esteem, because they often seek only sympathy or praise, and they share an insatiable desire to be miserable. There is no desire to have a conversation or intellectual debate. Although there are many examples, I will limit myself to three (chronologically widely spaced) in this article.

I should preface this with some background; I am a successful engineer who has designed and produced many different complex mechanical products (I have eight patents), whose product longevity ends up being typically longer than prior art. I credit that achievement with an innate understanding of statistical probabilities and the ability to exercise creativity in the industries where I’ve applied it. I thrive on statistics not only in my professional life but also my private life, which sometimes maddens my wife when we play board games, and I spend too much time examining probabilities.

Story #1: When COVID hysteria was headlining social media, I followed much of the hype with great interest, hoping to learn as much as I could about this “novel” virus from available data. While New York City was publicly hailed as the COVID “hot spot,” I examined available data from CDC (as skewed as it was…) and could not confirm it. But my leftist friends were apoplectic about the lack of support and sympathy for all those poor New Yorkers who were dropping dead in the streets. In some of their social media posts, I pointed out how there was an abundant lack of actual data to support that conclusion.

Over the years, I’ve had many different social media conversations with people who are leftists. Not political conversations (I avoid open social media discussion of politics with leftists), but rather many other topics. I have found a common pattern; they seem to have a remarkable lack of self-esteem, because they often seek only sympathy or praise, and they share an insatiable desire to be miserable. There is no desire to have a conversation or intellectual debate. Although there are many examples, I will limit myself to three (chronologically widely spaced) in this article.

I should preface this with some background; I am a successful engineer who has designed and produced many different complex mechanical products (I have eight patents), whose product longevity ends up being typically longer than prior art. I credit that achievement with an innate understanding of statistical probabilities and the ability to exercise creativity in the industries where I’ve applied it. I thrive on statistics not only in my professional life but also my private life, which sometimes maddens my wife when we play board games, and I spend too much time examining probabilities.

Story #1: When COVID hysteria was headlining social media, I followed much of the hype with great interest, hoping to learn as much as I could about this “novel” virus from available data. While New York City was publicly hailed as the COVID “hot spot,” I examined available data from CDC (as skewed as it was…) and could not confirm it. But my leftist friends were apoplectic about the lack of support and sympathy for all those poor New Yorkers who were dropping dead in the streets. In some of their social media posts, I pointed out how there was an abundant lack of actual data to support that conclusion. Of course, I was criticized, ridiculed, and eventually blocked. Well, a little-known truth is that Trump did come to the rescue by sending USNS Comfort in March of 2020. It had 1,000 beds and nearly 1,300 personnel on board. Andrew Cuomo welcomed it while he braced for “a tidal wave of coronavirus patients.” In the one month it was there it treated — wait for it — 179 people.

Story #2: There was a leftist candidate running for a local (small town) office post-COVID. He bragged about how he was “deployed” on a COVID mission to a small town about 2,000 miles from here. He was not a doctor and indeed had no medical credentials whatsoever. Nobody knows why he was “deployed” or who sent him when the destination he went to was far from being a “hot spot.” Frankly, it reeks of a personal vacation disguised as a mission of compassion, like so many other leftists did during the lockdowns. Anyway, in his campaign, he bragged about his high level of fatigue from stuffing body bags in the intense heat from the staggering death toll and sitting with people who died alone in hospital rooms while he held their hand and their families had to wait outside. The outpouring of sympathy regarding his claims (without question) from his friends was quite disgusting, and I couldn’t take it, so I called him out. First, why he (a non-medical person) was “deployed” from one small town to another for three months for no apparent reason didn’t make any sense; second, the death toll he claimed was many orders of magnitude higher and disproportionate than statistical average nationwide and third, the notion that he (a non-medical person), was allowed to be with people dying of COVID while family was locked outside also made zero sense. I was chastised by everyone sympathetic to his self-proclaimed heroism… and blocked.

Story #3 A social media post recently showed up from a leftist friend where he grumbled about a package that took almost a month to arrive from Carrier A (a common ground-based shipping company). He went on to grumble about how the service from Carrier A was consistently poor. His sympathetic leftist friends predictably took it from there with their usual cries of sympathy and their own exaggerations about the poor service from Carrier A. Well, I have a business manufacturing products that I ship in volume all over the world. I do about $10,000 worth of business annually, exclusively with Carrier A, and have for about 20 years. In that time and many, many thousands of packages shipped mainly within the USA, but also to every continent on planet Earth, to residents and businesses, hospitals, hotels, apartments, and many other types of facilities, exactly zero packages have shown up damaged and only two were ever lost, with Carrier A confirming that they were stolen off the back of their truck in a parking lot so the claim was immediately honored. On the other hand, I used Carrier B (the other common ground-based carrier) for several years before switching to Carrier A because damaged, misshipped, and lost packages were common; typically, once per month. And they never once honored a claim; somehow, it was always my fault. Many incoming packages are still shipped today with Carrier B, and my experiences are similar… although a much smaller volume of incoming compared to outgoing, the incidents of damaged and lost packages remain statistically too significant to ignore. I shared my experiences with Carrier A with my friend, suggesting that although it’s not impossible for a package to be mishandled, statistically, Carrier A is, overall, a stellar performer compared to other carriers because I have the receipts (in volume) to prove it. Again, since I was not entirely sympathetic in agreement with my friend, a reply demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of statistics. “It’s not about volume. If we as individuals order a package to be delivered by {Carrier A}, we deserve the same level of service as you.” I have no answer to that. I have not been blocked yet, but I’m sure that’s coming.

What Would C. S. Lewis Have Thought of AI?

June 26, 2026By Benjamin M. Osborne

Share this post?

Facebook X Truth Social

What would C. S. Lewis have thought of artificial intelligence? I doubt he would have begun with the machine. Indeed, Lewis always began with man.

He would not have asked first whether AI can write a poem, draft a law, tutor a child, or write a sermon. He would have asked, “What sort of people want a machine to do these things for them?” He would have asked, “What have we already lost when we greet such a tool not with care, but with wonder?”

That is why reading The Abolition of Man in 2026 makes the work feel more like a book written for the age of the chatbot. Lewis warned that we “make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.” By the chest he meant the trained physical sources of love and judgment. The head thinks. The belly wants. The chest teaches a man to love what is good, hate what is evil, and submit both thought and appetite to truth.

AI has no chest. It has no loves. It does not know courage, shame, mercy, sin, or worship. It can regurgitate “writing” about these things, but it cannot live them. It can compose a prayer without praying and a sermon without fear of God. It can say “I understand,” but, in truth, there is no “I” and no understanding.

The machine is made. Man, on the other hand, is made in the image of God. Machines are tools. Men have souls. When we forget the difference, we do not raise up the machine. We lower the man.

Lewis saw this danger before AI, data centers, and servers. Modern man wants to conquer nature. But when man throws off moral law, “man’s conquest of Nature” soon becomes the rule of some men over other men. AI will not govern itself. Men will train it, tune it, censor it, sell it, and use it to govern other men. And man’s flawed idea of man will pass into how and what it trains AI to say and do.

That should trouble us. A tool trained by people who think speech is harm will teach others to fear plain speech. A tool trained by people who hate limits will teach others to hate limits. A tool trained by people who think man is only a bundle of wants will answer as if man were no more than that. No software is neutral when its makers are not.

George Orwell helped us see what is coming. In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote that bad public speech is not just clumsy. It is dishonest. It piles up long words, stale phrases, and soft names until the facts disappear. The words do not defend the act; they rename it, doing what the Prophet Isaiah condemned: calling evil good and good evil, so the honest argument never has to happen.

Orwell called this inflated style a kind of euphemism. It falls on the facts like snow. It blurs the outline. It covers the blood. The great enemy of clear language, he said, is insincerity. When a man’s real aim differs from his declared aim, he reaches for cloudy words. He does not say what he means because he does not want others to see what he means.

AI can make that habit effortless for those who want to practice it. It can turn a lie into a memo, a threat into a policy, a command into a recommendation, and a sin into a service. It can help the coward sound kind and the tyrant sound calm. It can give every evasion a pleasant voice.

We already live under this kind of speech. We are told to say “care” when we mean killing, “safety” when we mean censorship, “equity” when we mean favoritism, “misinformation” when we mean dissent, and “progress” when we mean decay. AI did not invent this perversion of language. It only gives it a faster tongue.

So the first Christian rule for AI is simple: Do not let the machine teach you to lie.

Use it, perhaps, as one uses a calculator or a plow. But do not kneel to it. Do not ask it to replace your mind, your memory, your judgment, or your conscience. Do not let it write what you have not dared to think. Do not let it soften what ought to be said plainly.

A sane people would teach children to read old books before they are encouraged to prompt new machines. It would teach them to write one honest sentence before asking software for 10 smooth ones. It would teach them that words are acts. They can bless, wound, hide, reveal, tempt, and tell the truth.

Lewis would not have feared AI as a rival soul. He would have feared the man who sees in it a mirror and likes what he sees. The machine has no chest. But does man still have his?

The explosive expansion of mail-in voting — turbocharged during COVID and conveniently never rolled back in many blue states — punched a massive hole in American election security. Conservatives raised the alarm for years. They were dismissed as paranoid. The media shrugged. Meanwhile, ballots kept flying through the postal system with zero meaningful verification that the person on the envelope was, you know, an actual eligible voter.

But something just shifted. The federal government has stumbled onto a devastatingly simple enforcement mechanism, and the states with the dirtiest voter rolls are already lawyering up. Funny how that works.

From The Post Millennial:

The US Postal Service General said Wednesday that states refusing to comply with a presidential order requiring the submission of voter information could have their mail-in ballots halted.

During a Senate hearing testimony, Postmaster General David Steiner defended the administration’s position, saying the US Postal Service was not being politicized and that compliance with the proposed requirements would determine whether ballots are processed.

Read that again slowly. The Postmaster General — under oath, in front of the United States Senate — just told every non-compliant state in America that the mail stops if they won’t verify their voters. No hedging. No bureaucratic weasel words. Just a clean, direct ultimatum.

The masterstroke

President Trump’s executive order, “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” is almost disarmingly straightforward. It directs federal agencies to coordinate on verifying that mail-in ballots reach only eligible American citizens. The USPS — which, let’s remember, is a federal agency — would require states to submit their absentee voter lists before processing a single ballot. Steiner called it the “manifest.”

No manifest, no mail.

The policy also ties federal funding to state compliance, which adds a second pressure point. This isn’t some novel power grab cooked up by White House lawyers at midnight. It’s the federal government directing its own agency on how to conduct its own operations. The postal service answers to the American taxpayer — not to state officials who’d prefer to keep their voter rolls buried in a filing cabinet somewhere.

The opposition tips its hand

Right on schedule, several Democratic-led states and voting rights organizations filed lawsuits. They’re calling the policy “plainly unconstitutional.” A federal judge has allowed one challenge to move forward.

But here’s the question that keeps going unanswered: if your voter rolls are accurate and your elections are squeaky clean, why burn money on attorneys to avoid a basic verification check? The resistance itself tells you everything.

Senator Gary Peters tried to corner Steiner during the hearing, pressing him on whether USPS would still deliver ballots to states that refuse to hand over their absentee voter lists. Steiner didn’t blink. “Under our proposed regulation, no,” he replied. “We would tell the state that we need the manifest.”

That’s not politicization — it’s the bare minimum of competent governance. Strange how those two concepts get confused so often in Washington.

The road to November

With the 2026 midterms on the horizon, this policy draws a bright line. States that comply signal they have nothing to conceal. States that dig in and resist? They’re essentially advertising that their voter rolls can’t survive scrutiny. Good luck explaining that one to your constituents.

For decades, the conservative movement has championed voter ID, citizenship verification, and transparent election administration. These are common-sense positions that consistently poll well — even among independents. Trump’s executive order opens an entirely new front in that fight, leveraging federal infrastructure to accomplish what blue-state legislatures have stubbornly refused to do themselves.

The legal battles will drag on. Cable news panelists will shriek about voter suppression between commercial breaks. None of it changes the core argument: before the United States Postal Service delivers a ballot, it should confirm that ballot is going to a verified American citizen.

That’s not suppression. That’s a republic acting like it actually cares about its own survival. And for the first time in a long time, the federal government is backing that principle with real teeth.

Key Takeaways

• Postmaster General Steiner confirmed USPS will withhold mail-in ballots from non-compliant states.
• Trump’s executive order leverages federal postal authority to enforce voter verification.
• States resisting basic voter-roll transparency are raising serious questions about their motives.
• Federal funding conditions add a powerful second layer of accountability for compliance.

Sources: The Post Millennial

We view dealings with Iran from one election to another, whereas Iran views its wars as a global matter that affects everything and runs on a cosmic timetable.

Allan J. Feifer | June 26, 2026

We view dealings with Iran from one election to another, whereas Iran views its wars as a global matter that affects everything and runs on a cosmic timetable.

Recently, I watched the 1966 epic Khartoum, with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. Khartoum dramatizes the struggle between British General Charles Gordon and the Sudanese religious leader Muhammad Ahmad (the Mahdi) during the 1880s siege of Khartoum. In the film, the Mahdi informs General Gordon that Allah has commanded him to pray at every major mosque in the world and kill all who refuse to submit to him.

Whether entirely accurate or not, the scene captures a challenge secular governments have faced throughout history: confronting movements that view political objectives not as interests to be negotiated, but as divine commands to be fulfilled. How little has changed.

If the West wants to understand Iran, it must begin with a simple but uncomfortable truth: Iran does not see its proxies as separate entities. It sees them as extensions of Iran itself—armed, funded, trained, and ideologically fused to the Islamic Republic. Attack a proxy, and in Iran’s eyes, you have attacked Iran and, by extension, its divine destiny. This is not a metaphor. It is Iran’s fundamental doctrine.

Western analysts routinely miss this. They treat Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and an entire constellation of Iraqi and Syrian militias as independent actors with local agendas. Iran does not. Iran sees its roughly 20–30 proxy and partner militias as the instruments through which it intends to shape—and ultimately dominate—the regional order.

These groups operate not only across the Middle East, but in Asia, Africa, Europe, and even North America, where Iranian operatives and proxy-linked networks have carried out surveillance and assassination plots for decades.

What matters, though, at least to Iran, is that to challenge Hezbollah is, in effect, to challenge Iran itself. That is the point that must be understood if we are to prevail, hopefully through negotiation, but if necessary, through war.

This misunderstanding of Iran’s proxy system bleeds directly into the debate over the U.S.–Iran MOU and the broader question of how to negotiate with Tehran. Much commentary on the subject is earnest but lacking a good grounding in Iranian geopolitics and history.

To understand why Iran behaves this way, one must understand what Iran believes itself to be. Iran is not merely a state. It is a revolutionary theocracy, and that identity is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the regime’s raison d’être.

The Islamic Republic’s constitution embeds Ayatollah Khomeini’s doctrine of velayat-e faqih—guardianship of the jurist—which asserts that Islamic clerics must rule the state so that God’s law can be implemented. This is not merely a domestic principle. The revolution was conceived as a universal one, intended to spread beyond Iran’s borders and challenge political systems the regime regards as illegitimate, which includes many other Muslim countries.

This is not a secret, intra-Iran concept. Iran’s leaders have said all this repeatedly. The revolution, they insist, is not simply Iranian; it is global in aspiration. It is meant to awaken the oppressed, topple un-Islamic governments, and export the Islamic Republic’s model wherever possible.

The Supreme Leader is not merely a political figure but the interpreter of God’s will. The IRGC is not merely a military force but the instrument charged with protecting and exporting the revolution. Support for proxies is not framed as a strategy but as obedience to God—a religious duty to defend the oppressed and wage jihad against injustice.

Once this worldview is understood, Iran’s behavior becomes far more predictable. The regime consistently overreaches because it believes three things with absolute conviction:

·      Allah is on its side.

·      America is weak, impatient, and unwilling to sustain casualties.

·      The Iranian people are instruments of divine will, and their suffering is acceptable—even necessary—in service to the revolution.

Iran’s worldview is not unique in history; other regimes have fused divine purpose with national destiny. Imperial Japan’s wartime application of Bushido is one example.

When governments become convinced that history, destiny, or God is on their side, they can absorb levels of pain that would break more conventional regimes. That is why sanctions, domestic unrest, and military pressure often fail to produce the outcomes Western policymakers expect. The regime has demonstrated repeatedly that it is willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of its own citizens rather than deviate from what it views as its revolutionary mission.

This ideological rigidity shapes every negotiation. The Obama administration spent more than two years securing the JCPOA, and Iran is likely to use the same playbook now: delay, stall, and wait out the American political calendar. Iran has no comparable calendar. It does not need to appease voters. It believes time is on its side because God is. All it must do is survive the current American administration, whatever its posture.

The United States, by contrast, is often impatient—eager for closure, eager for de-escalation, eager for a “solution” that Iran may view merely as a temporary expedient that can be “agreed to” for whatever time is useful.

This is the asymmetry that defines U.S.–Iran relations. It is not merely a matter of tactics but of worldview. If we fail to understand the Iranian theocracy’s ethos, we misinterpret everything we see. We negotiate from a position of weakness despite overwhelming strength. We allow Iran to dictate the terms of engagement because we misunderstand the nature of the adversary. This is not a knock on our president; what the public sees and hears is not necessarily what is occurring behind closed doors.

Iran’s proxies are not bargaining chips. They are the mechanism through which the Islamic Republic advances what it believes to be the Will of Allah. Until Western policymakers grasp this fully, every negotiation risks being lost before it begins, Iran will continue to outwait, outmaneuver, and outlast us, not because it is stronger, but because it is more patient, more ruthless, and more ideologically committed.

This is the nature of the beast.

God Bless America!

Human nature did not suddenly become flawed when Europeans arrived.

George P. Brooks | June 26, 2026

Today, the word colonialism is treated almost like a curse word. Mention it in a classroom, on social media, or in many political circles, and you’ll immediately hear words like exploitation, racism, oppression, genocide, and theft. For many people—especially younger generations—colonialism has become history’s ultimate villain, the so-called “original sin” from which nearly every modern problem supposedly springs.

As a conservative, I’ve always thought this view was far too simplistic.

Now, before anyone starts sharpening their pitchforks, let me be clear: colonial powers absolutely committed injustices. Wars were fought. Peoples were conquered. Resources were taken. Some populations were devastated. These are historical facts, and serious people should acknowledge them honestly.

But history is rarely a Disney movie with obvious heroes and villains.

The uncomfortable truth is that conquest, expansion, and empire are as old as humanity itself. Long before Europeans sailed across oceans, empires were rising and falling all over the world. African kingdoms conquered neighboring tribes. Arab empires expanded across North Africa and the Middle East. The Mongols swept across Asia and Europe. The Aztecs ruled over subject peoples through military force and tribute. The Romans practically turned conquest into an art form.

Human beings have always expanded when they had the power to do so.

What makes Western colonialism different is not simply that it conquered territory. What makes it unique is that the very civilization responsible for much of modern colonialism also produced the ideas that eventually challenged and condemned it: individual rights, constitutional government, abolitionism, freedom of speech, and the belief that all people possess inherent dignity.

That irony is almost never discussed.

In modern culture, colonialism is often presented as though it produced nothing except suffering. But history is more complicated than that. Alongside exploitation came institutions and systems that still shape much of the modern world.

Railroads. Modern medicine. Universities. Scientific advancement. Written legal codes. Representative government. Modern banking systems. International trade networks. Infrastructure. Public sanitation. Advances in engineering and agriculture.

None of this means colonialism was wholly good. It wasn’t. But neither was it wholly evil.

Here’s a question that almost nobody asks: What would the world look like if colonialism had never happened?

Would globalization exist in its present form? Probably not.

Would international trade be as extensive? Almost certainly not.

Would many of the technologies, institutions, and political systems that billions of people depend upon today have spread as rapidly? Again, probably not.

Entire continents might have remained isolated from one another for much longer. Scientific discoveries would have traveled more slowly. Modern medicine might not have spread as quickly. International commerce, for all its flaws, would likely be far less developed.

The modern world as we know it—our interconnected global economy, worldwide communication networks, international legal norms, and shared scientific knowledge—was shaped in significant ways by centuries of exploration, trade, migration, conquest, and yes, colonialism.

History doesn’t offer us the luxury of running controlled experiments. We cannot rewind time and discover what a world without colonialism would have looked like. But we should at least acknowledge that many things people take for granted today emerged from that complicated historical process.

So why has colonialism become such a dirty word?

Part of the reason is understandable. During the twentieth century, scholars and activists rightly highlighted abuses and atrocities that had often been ignored or minimized. This correction was necessary.

But somewhere along the way, nuance disappeared.

Increasingly, colonialism became not simply something that happened in history, but a catch-all explanation for virtually every modern inequality and social problem. In some circles, it has become an all-purpose moral framework: if something is wrong in the world, colonialism is assumed to be the root cause.

That narrative is emotionally satisfying because it clearly identifies victims and oppressors. But it can also oversimplify history and unintentionally strip people of agency.

A society that constantly teaches people that all of their problems originated generations ago risks creating a culture of grievance rather than one of responsibility and self-determination.

As conservatives, many of us believe that while history matters, personal responsibility matters too. Nations, communities, and individuals cannot remain forever imprisoned by the failures and injustices of previous generations.

Another problem with modern anti-colonial thinking is that it often romanticizes the societies that existed beforehand, as though pre-colonial civilizations were peaceful utopias living in perfect harmony.

They weren’t.

Like all human societies, they were capable of extraordinary achievements and extraordinary cruelty. They waged wars. Practiced slavery. Conquered rivals. Established hierarchies. Expanded territory.

Human nature did not suddenly become flawed when Europeans arrived.

None of this excuses wrongdoing. It simply reminds us that history is messy because people are messy.

The real lesson of colonialism is not that one civilization was uniquely evil. It is that power has always shaped history. Every civilization, given sufficient strength, expands its influence politically, economically, culturally, or militarily.

The question for us today is not whether colonialism was entirely good or entirely bad. It was neither.

The better question is this: Can we study history honestly—recognizing both the suffering and the achievements—without reducing the entire human story to a simplistic morality play?

I believe we can.

And we should.

10:54:20 AM by Angelino97

California is a blue state, and one of the manifestations of its political orientation has been a tolerance for one of the nation’s highest levels of taxation.

The state’s tax rates on retail sales and personal and corporate incomes are among the highest of any state. Although tax rates on real estate are relatively moderate, high property values still translate into high bills for their owners.

Specific taxes, such as those on fuel, utilities, cigarettes, liquor, medical care, gambling, guns and ammunition, contribute even more. Overall, state and local governments and school districts collect around $400 billion in taxes every year, more than $10,000 per Californian, according to the Tax Foundation. That’s the fifth-highest per capita burden nationwide.

The state budget now being hammered out behind closed doors contains a raft of relatively minor taxes, such as a new one on managed health care services, and another on software.

Meanwhile, dozens of local governments are seeking voter approval of new sales and parcel taxes. The November ballot could contain several tax-related measures, some that would increase levies, and some that would curb tax hikes.

Collectively, they test the appetite of California voters for raising the state’s tax burden, and there’s some evidence that their tolerance is waning.

In May, the Public Policy Institute of California asked a sample of the state’s voters how they would address the state’s chronic budget deficits and was told that 55% of them they “want to pay lower taxes and have a state government that provides fewer services,” as researcher Dean Bonner put it. Even among Democrats, solving the state’s deficits mostly through taxes drew only 10% support.

A couple of weeks after the poll was taken, California had a primary election that included 92 local measures that would either increase taxes directly or approve bond issues that would automatically increase local property taxes to repay them. Only 57.5% of them were approved, the California Taxpayers Association calculated, a sharp drop from the 70% increase level of other recent elections.

Interestingly — and perhaps importantly — voters’ sourer attitude about taxes was even evident in notoriously progressive San Francisco. Its voters rejected Proposition D, which would have increased the city’s tax on large corporations whose executives are paid 100 times or more of rank-and-file employees, and Proposition C, which would have boosted the city’s gross receipts tax on businesses.

Tax increases in two other Democratic regions also bit the dust: a new tax on vacant residential properties in San Diego and a sales tax hike in Contra Costa County. Voters in Los Angeles County passed a sales tax increase for healthcare, but only by a paper-thin margin.

So what’s behind what appears to be a shift among California’s voters, who are overwhelmingly Democrats? It’s probably a reaction to the state’s ever-increasing costs of living.

The same revelatory PPIC poll about taxes also found that Californians are worried about inflation.

“More than four in ten Californians (44%) identified the cost of living and the economy as the most important issue facing the state; the second most commonly chosen issue was housing costs and availability (14%),” the pollsters revealed. “Economic anxiety has continued to grow in recent years; today, three in four Californians expect difficult economic times ahead for the state. About seven in ten or more across parties, regions, and demographic groups are pessimistic.”

Pessimistic voters tend to reject measures that would increase their living costs. We’ll find out much they dislike taxes in November.