These are three outright lies (George Floyd, Renee Good and now Alex Pretti); you are able to definitively triangulate between three to tell what’s going on—two events by themselves would have been enough, but there’s no arguing with three.
The real issue is, not your refusal to “believe your lying eyes”, but, first, the mentality of the insurgents, then, the ultimate motivation for their wanting, to the point of being death-fanatics, to overturn reality, to accomplish, in the term by Friedrich Nietzsche, a “transvaluation of values”, which is just a fancy “philosophical” term for calling evil: good, and good: evil. The end consideration is, where does this turning the earth that was once God’s paradise for men, into hell on earth?
The facts will come out in the end. Just as the facts are known about the case of George Floyd and Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin, for anyone who would care about the truth–though it has been made so ugly, that most “decent people” don’t want to know. Lie #1: “Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd.”
(The Truth: George Floyd caused his own death by such a massive overdose of fentanyl that it’s remarkable that he could even stand. Derek Chauvin impeccably followed his police training for the protection of George Floyd. Minneapolis prosecutors and judges were so committed to the living lie that “police disproportionately target African Americans for arrest” that they were willing to totally suborn the judicial process. Derek Chavin has not yet been pardoned by President Trump. Derek Chavin was stabbed 22 times in prison.) The point of the whole exercise was to telegraph an electric shock to all Police Officers that “We DON’T Have Your Back”.
In the same way, the truth can be clearly known by anyone who is willing to trudge through the sewer of stinking lies about the death of Renee Nicole Macklin Good after she was shot by ICE Officer Jonathan Ross. Lie #2, with which you can triangulate to the truth: “Jonathan Ross shot Renee Nicole Good without justification. (The Truth: Renee Nicole Good committed lethal vehicular assault against Officer Jonathan Ross, sending him to the E. R. where he was found to have sustained internal hemorrhaging.)
Lie #2 is in pursuit of justifying the “opinion” that ICE Officers are evil, that undocumented migrants are inherently innocent, that U. S. laws about immigration status are unjust, and that they should be resolutely resisted, to the point of placing one’s life in jeopardy. This means that you as a citizen of good repute have no rights, that your vote counts for nothing, that any criminal from anywhere in the world let in by the Biden Administration can harm your family, that you have no recourse to self-defense or justice, that all you have can be taken from you and you can’t do anything about it.
So now that George Soros is using his nearly unlimited funds to foment revolution in the U. S., highly organized teams of insurgents are flocking to conflict points like Minneapolis, like they did to Milwaukee, Portland and Seattle. It’s 2019 all over again. The press are falling into line like lockstep. No longer are the Big 3 T. V. networks doing the propagandizing, you are seeing the click-bait headline grabbers peddling lies to you, and their overwhelming preponderance has got you believing the lies.
So now if you can get past the ugly truth about the shooting of armed insurgent Alex Jeffrey Pretti, the man in the bald pate and Fu Manchu beard “who was an E. R. Nurse”, if you will look at the footage, with the sound turned down, just to see that officers were trying to disarm him, and suddenly jumped back, as evidence that he brandished a firearm at them, then responded with legally and morally justified force to the lethal threat Pretti posed to them. You will have to run the gauntlet of lies, with Lie Number #3 in our brainwasher’s gallery, “ICE Agents Murdered an Innocent, Un-Armed Protester.”
(Sorry if you don’t like Alex Jones–he predicted the 9/11 Twin Towers attacks three months early, in June; there’s nothing uglier. Here is the footage of Alex Jeffrey Pretti acting like a rabid rattlesnake armed with a gun, at https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/2015215528478900526.)
You should run through past instances of The Big Lie (“repeat it often enough…”). Treyvon Martin posed a security risk in half-African American George Zimmerman’s neighborhood, had Zimmerman down on the ground and was beating him to death. President Obama’s remark that Treyvon Martin could be his own son, is witness to the death-spiral ethos in the fatherless Black community, that YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO RESIST POLICE AUTHORITY TO THE POINT OF DYING FOR IT. With the triumph of DEI, now the empty ethos of the fatherless Black community has spread to the morally bankrupt, “educated” white populace.
This ultimately stems back to the influence of Obama’s Communist mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, who thoroughly vested Obama in the Cultural Marxist foundations that were brought to fruition under the influence of “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky–who dedicated his book to Satan.
Immortal, incorporeal, vastly superior intellects, irrevocably embracing evil, absolutely merciless in seeking to destroy us. You have been seeing it in science-fiction since the original Star Trek t.v. series, but you can’t believe it in real life.
Okay, there’s no Devil. And he is not an enemy of the imaginary God, in a universe that is only driven by the rules of physical science.
Except that the world gives ample evidence that there are weird, tragic, catastrophic phenomena that can’t be due to mere blind chance.
You know that evil has a reality that can’t be explained away by our deliberately-dumbed-down “education” system. Something is terribly amiss.
These “demonstrators” who are chasing people down the street trying to maim or even kill them, are thoroughly imbued with a spirit of evil, that is highly organized and purposeful.
It can’t be explained away by the conventional headline lies.
You are in a war. Your family may not be an immediate target, but they’re coming for you. They intend that you will have nowhere to hide.
You just couldn’t believe that they could be such outright liars.
Saturday on CNN’s “Newsroom Live,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis was an “execution” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Ocasio-Cortez said, “There’s a second angle that appears to be circulating much closer to the incident where you see the victim, I believe his name is Alex Pretti and immediately preceding that incident in ICE officer had pushed violently a woman to the ground and he had come over to help get her up. And that is what precipitated this incident. That very quickly led to an execution, a deadly shooting in the street. What we are seeing here is a momentous, pivotal moment for the United States. And I cannot underscore enough how precipitous this moment is.”
She added, “ICE and CBP, what we’re seeing here, we will see, which agencies were responsible but at the end of the day, under this so-called excuse of border security, where Minneapolis is over 300 miles from the United States border, we have an unleashing of federal agents and violence, exerting a tremendous amount of violence and loss of life against the American people who are well within their First Amendment rights. And in this case, it seems as though well within their Second Amendment rights.”
President Trump has the world playing taps for the New World Order, and that’s a
President Trump has the world playing taps for the New World Order, and that’s a good thing. In the process he dealt the UK’s Keir Starmer what appears to be a fatal blow. And in Minneapolis, a combination of communists and NGO-paid rioters are trying to replay the George Floyd Summer of Love and is instead showing why ICE’s work is essential to good order. The media is trying to help the rioters by concocting a “bait boy” fable.
Davos
Niall Ferguson sums up, ”The reality is that Trump won Davos, hands down. And not only did he win it; he owned it. I have never before seen a single individual so completely dominate this vast bazaar of the powerful, the wealthy, the famous, and the self-important.”
He did it by forcing a realistic assessment of the state of the world, which the Davosinian caviar munchers seem to have ignored for too long. He made clear that globalization was dead, that it failed the U.S., failed Europe, diminished prosperity and made them subservient to their enemies. In a prelude to the meeting, Trump and his administration whipped up the prospect of annexing Greenland. This prompted French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney to gasp that such a move would rupture longstanding multinational geopolitics. Once the Davos crowd was all atwitter about the monster U.S. grabbing Greenland, Trump called the whole thing off. It was a deliberate distraction in which he ended up getting exactly what he wanted in Greenland without it costing us a cent.
The problem with all of this is the premise that Trump ever seriously meant to annex Greenland or to impose new tariffs on the Europeans. Why would he when a) the United States already enjoys (under a 1951 treaty with Denmark and a 2004 agreement with Greenland) all the military access to the frigid island it could every possibly need, while the Danes pay for the heavily subsidized inhabitants of the island; and b) Trump means what he says on Truth Social only about half the time, according to The Wall Street Journal’s recent analysis of 2,700 substantive Truth posts. I’ll say it again: Half the time he’s bluffing. And it was the same when he was on Twitter in series one. [snip] Ten years ago, Europeans made the mistake of taking Trump neither seriously nor literally. Now they make the opposite mistake of treating him both seriously and literally. [snip] The fact that Trump carries out only around half the threats he makes on social media is a feature, not a bug — and it’s certainly not a sign of weakness. It is a deliberate tactic designed to leave counterparties uncertain.[snip].
The reason Trump forced Greenland to be the No. 1 topic at Davos, I suspect, was to keep European leaders from meddling in America’s Middle Eastern and Eastern European policy. It was notable on Wednesday how little the president said about Iran and Ukraine. That is because his administration has plans afoot for both countries.
The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike group are currently in the Indian Ocean en route to the Persian Gulf and are preparing strike package options on Iran for the president’s approval. KEEP SCROLLING, MY TABLET IS MESSED UP.
President Trump has the world playing taps for the New World Order, and that’s a good thing. In the process he dealt the UK’s Keir Starmer what appears to be a fatal blow. And in Minneapolis, a combination of communists and NGO-paid rioters are trying to replay the George Floyd Summer of Love and is instead showing why ICE’s work is essential to good order. The media is trying to help the rioters by concocting a “bait boy” fable.
Davos
Niall Ferguson sums up, ”The reality is that Trump won Davos, hands down. And not only did he win it; he owned it. I have never before seen a single individual so completely dominate this vast bazaar of the powerful, the wealthy, the famous, and the self-important.”
He did it by forcing a realistic assessment of the state of the world, which the Davosinian caviar munchers seem to have ignored for too long. He made clear that globalization was dead, that it failed the U.S., failed Europe, diminished prosperity and made them subservient to their enemies. In a prelude to the meeting, Trump and his administration whipped up the prospect of annexing Greenland. This prompted French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney to gasp that such a move would rupture longstanding multinational geopolitics. Once the Davos crowd was all atwitter about the monster U.S. grabbing Greenland, Trump called the whole thing off. It was a deliberate distraction in which he ended up getting exactly what he wanted in Greenland without it costing us a cent.
The problem with all of this is the premise that Trump ever seriously meant to annex Greenland or to impose new tariffs on the Europeans. Why would he when a) the United States already enjoys (under a 1951 treaty with Denmark and a 2004 agreement with Greenland) all the military access to the frigid island it could every possibly need, while the Danes pay for the heavily subsidized inhabitants of the island; and b) Trump means what he says on Truth Social only about half the time, according to The Wall Street Journal’s recent analysis of 2,700 substantive Truth posts. I’ll say it again: Half the time he’s bluffing. And it was the same when he was on Twitter in series one. [snip] Ten years ago, Europeans made the mistake of taking Trump neither seriously nor literally. Now they make the opposite mistake of treating him both seriously and literally. [snip] The fact that Trump carries out only around half the threats he makes on social media is a feature, not a bug — and it’s certainly not a sign of weakness. It is a deliberate tactic designed to leave counterparties uncertain.[snip].
The reason Trump forced Greenland to be the No. 1 topic at Davos, I suspect, was to keep European leaders from meddling in America’s Middle Eastern and Eastern European policy. It was notable on Wednesday how little the president said about Iran and Ukraine. That is because his administration has plans afoot for both countries.
The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its strike group are currently in the Indian Ocean en route to the Persian Gulf and are preparing strike package options on Iran for the president’s approval.
If the Greenland gambit was insufficiently obvious a signal of the U.S. having run out of patience with and regard for the globalists, the president formally withdrew us from the World Health Organization, adhering to the agreement that we had to give a year’s notice (which we did) before leaving. The WHO deserves this for its mishandling of the COVID-19 virus, its very close ties with China, and its mismanagement. Over a year ago, HHS head Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. criticized WHO for becoming “mired in bureaucratic bloat, entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest and international power politics” along with the fact that we contribute far more than other members.
I think that critique is a fair estimate of all the existing major multinational organizations.
Melanie Phillips says the old world order is dead because Western universalists destroyed it. And as online posters say, she brought the “receipts.”
Carney and other liberal leaders lamenting the end of the globalist game are merely acknowledging that Washington will no longer tolerate it. They fail to admit, however, that they have been propping up an international order that promised liberal ideals but delivered the opposite.
These are the leaders who continue to develop economic ties with China, one of the principal threats to freedom and security in the world.
These are the leaders who, for more than four decades, appeased the fanatical Islamic regime in Iran as it exported terrorism and mass murder around the world, pursued the development of nuclear weapons, waged proxy war against Israel and oppressed its own people. Over the past few weeks, as at least 16,500 Iranians were murdered in their attempt to bring the regime down, these world leaders said virtually nothing and did even less.
Even now, France, Spain and Italy are actually blocking the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — the main instrument of the regime’s global aggression — as a terrorist organisation.
The leaders in Davos have continued to allow Russia to launder its ill-gotten money through their capitals and have done little more than wring their hands over Ukraine.
They say they don’t like bullying leaders like Trump. But these countries have themselves relentlessly bullied Israel at its time of maximum need.
They have punished it for defending itself against genocide, promoted Hamas lies as truths, and incentivised the Palestinian Arabs in their aim of exterminating Israel by continuing to fund the Palestinian Authority’s rewards for terrorist attacks and the indoctrination of its children in murderous hatred of Jews.
So their hypocrisy in throwing up their hands in horror at what America has become is epic.
In place of the lumbering, corrupt UN, Trump seems to be putting together a Board of Peace. Phillips expresses very rational concerns about some of the invitees, particularly Qatar and Turkey, and of some of his personal characteristics, but on balance approves:
Trump is motivated by love of America, Western civilisation and the Jewish people. His political opponents, on the other hand, are motivated by hatred of America, Western civilisation and the Jewish people — or are chillingly indifferent to those who are.
There’s surely no contest.
Trump’s new world order has emerged because the old one has so catastrophically failed. International law and transnational institutions were created to destroy the power of imperial overreach in the interests of peace, freedom and justice. But that international order has betrayed and abandoned peace, freedom and justice. The outcome is a Caesar in the White House.
The biggest loser of the week was Keir Starmer, who embarrassingly had to abandon his public and widely bruited plan to hand the very strategically important Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which never owned them, and to pay Mauritius, which is now more closely aligned with China, thirty-five billion euros to top off the gift.
Lord Daniel Hannan provides a detailed summary of the importance of the islands and the history of British, U.S., and Mauritius’ connections to them. Trump was entitled, under a decades-long agreement that allowed the joint Anglo-American base on one of the islands, Diego Garcia, to veto any transfer, and he did.
The blow to Starmer’s already weak credibility would appear to be fatal, and I doubt he will survive past May.
For months, Starmer insisted there was no alternative. He spoke of inevitability, of international law, of security imperatives that demanded speed. Yet the International Court of Justice opinion he relied upon was non-binding. No court order compelled action. No hostile force threatened Diego Garcia. No deadline loomed. The urgency was political, not strategic. And that fiction has now been exposed.
The fatal flaw was never Mauritius. It was the treaty Starmer treated as an afterthought. The 1966 UK-US Exchange of Letters is clear. The Chagos Islands are to remain under British sovereignty to ensure the operation of the joint base. That agreement was not obscure. It was foundational. Any competent government would have resolved its status before drafting legislation to hand the territory away. Starmer pressed ahead regardless, confident that the United States would fall into line later.
That confidence was misplaced. Trump’s earlier acceptance was casual and conditional. But when the legal consequences sharpened, and the treaty could no longer be waved away as a technicality, the White House pulled the plug. Trump called the plan an act of great stupidity, and suddenly the bill vanished from the Lords’ schedule. The same government that spoke of urgency now cannot proceed.
This exposes the lie at the heart of the deal. If national security were the driver, the treaty would have been the starting point. If legality mattered, Parliament would have been told the full cost and the unresolved risks. Instead, Starmer claimed the handover would cost just £3.4 billion, a figure he falsely linked to the OBR, while his own officials estimated the real bill at more than £35 billion. Parliament was expected to nod it through after the fact, armed with a number that was never true. He hid behind an authority that had not endorsed the figures and rushed a handover that would have placed British sovereignty in legal limbo while tens of billions flowed out of the defence budget.
What we are watching is not diplomacy gone wrong. It is statecraft conducted by assumption. Assumption that international courts must be obeyed. Assumption that allies will acquiesce. Assumption that Parliament will rubber-stamp. Assumption that Britain should give first and argue later. That mindset is managerial, legalistic, and deeply hostile to the idea of national power.
The bill was pulled because the bluff was called. Once the treaty surfaced, the security argument inverted itself. Once Washington objected, Starmer had nowhere to go. A Prime Minister who claimed there was no choice has now discovered that his choice could not stand.
This episode will endure as a warning. Not about Trump’s temperament or transatlantic spats, but about a governing class that treats sovereignty as an inconvenience and treaties as paperwork to be tidied up after the fact. Britain was inches away from giving away territory in breach of a live defence agreement, on the back of a non-binding opinion, financed by a fiscal fiction, all to satisfy an international audience that does not vote here and does not pay the bill.
Starmer did not stumble into this. He built it on sand. And when the tide came in, it washed away the pretence.
“The moment Washington raised the 1966 treaty, the whole structure gave way. A deal sold as urgent, lawful, and essential to security could not survive contact with reality.”
Wretchardthecat posts that the deal was never popular. Of course it wasn’t. The deal was moronic, and as Lord Hannan shows, without any legal justification. So how did Starmer’s scheme, which had progressed so far, finally lose support? Wretchard attributes that to a “preference cascade,” A fancy way of describing how, like the crowd in the Emperor’s New Clothes, people are too polite to say the deal was nuts. “But once some impolite, crude and tactless person [Trump] started to complain, the rest chimed in.”
As the corruption and graft in Minneapolis are now undeniable, Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey are furiously fanning the anti-ICE communists and leftists paid by what are still referred to as “NGOS,” although largely financed by the government. Public sentiment seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of ICE (the last poll I saw said that 72% supported ICE. And even seven New York Democrats in Congress voted with Republicans to fund ICE this week.)
In desperation, the Minnesota leftists are working to tar the agency and its officers as barbaric thugs. The shtick this week is the legacy press’s pimping a phony story that ICE arrested a cute five-year-old in a darling knitted cap and then used him as “bait” to capture other members of his family. An example of the perfervid, dishonest reporting is this one in the Washington Post’s Style section. (This is the ever-thinner paper’s section aimed at women with such critical news reports as “Boob jobs are shrinking.”)
The mawkish account by Philip Kennicott could not be more fact free or obviously designed to prejudice readers by tugging at heartstrings.
The truth is his father ran off and abandoned the kid in freezing temperatures and the ICE officer had no choice but to keep him close until a proper guardian had been found. The boy’s mother’s home was nearby so they went there. She refused to take custody. The twisted media tale is that having the kid go to his mother was using him as “bait.” He awaits a custodial determination in a clean, warm, well-run facility where his father is being held. It makes much of the child’s cap, “a blue knit with white bunny ears and pompoms” and instead of acknowledging that his family refused to take custody of him, states the boy “was a pawn… The photograph stirs empathy and compassion, the same emotions the ICE agents apparently used to entice adults into make themselves vulnerable to capture.”
The author goes on to compare the photo with a painting by Mary Cassatt. Much more apt would be a comparison between a little boy standing without apparent fear alongside an ICE officer in freezing weather to little Elian Gonzales’ capture by an armed agents of the U.S. Border Patrol under President Clinton, where Elian is obviously terrified and clutched in his aunt’s arms.
The author, an arts writer, slathers on the schmaltz:
”It is evidence, forensic data, snatched from the slipstream of human barbarity, probably by a cellphone camera. But its accidental composition accentuates the boy’s helplessness, and by extension, our own compassion for children standing in the bitter cold, torn from the protection of their parents, subject to the brutal treatment of adults. The boy stares at the truck, as we might stare at a wall if brought to the point of complete moral despair, complete loss of faith in too many of our fellow citizens.
This is an image of universal moral urgency.
John Carter, by contrast, shows how the media twists truth to create the “bait boy” to drum up requisite outrage.
According to reports, the father was spotted in public and fled, abandoning the boy. Like [Kamala] Harris, Craig reminded citizens that “this is a time where we should all be outraged. If this doesn’t pierce through your humanity, as a Republican member of Congress, if you can’t speak out about this, then you’ve got no humanity left.”
The key, again, is the requisite outrage. If you are not outraged, you are not human.
It is often said that we are living in a “post-truth” political environment. The term rose to favor due to the 2016 election of President Trump. Oxford Dictionaries specifically cited Trump when it selected the term as word of the year. The irony is that the proof of post-truth politics is often found among those who use it the most on the left, in the media and academia.
The bait boy hoax is particularly disgraceful. It is common to have minor children present during arrests of all kinds. Officers will often try to get family members to take a child rather than put him into child services.
In this case, ICE officers were trying to detain Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, an undocumented Ecuadorian national, when he bolted and left behind his five-year-old child, Liam Conejo Ramos.
Rather than leave the child in the freezing cold on the street, the officers took the child to his home to get his mother to take him in. She refused to open the door despite agents reportedly saying that she would not be detained. They proceeded to take the boy to McDonald’s, play his favorite music, and take care of him. He was never arrested. They also did not send him into detention. According to ICE, his father asked for the boy to be allowed to stay with him at a detention facility, and ICE agreed.
Maybe news accounts ought not to be written by art critics in Style sections or media hacks.
The Iranian protests reveal the “pro-Palestine” lie. Moment 586. Jan 18, 2026 Mark Changizi. YouTube. Dr. Mark Jangzizi, here’s your science moment. They claimed that they were only pro Palestine, not pro- Hamas. They told us over and over again, “We’re not pro Hamas, we’re just pro Palestine.” Now, never mind that the 10/7 war wasn’t about Palestine at all. It was about Gaza. The Palestine Authority wasn’t even part of the broad conflict that had half a dozen Islamic Republic proxies. Never mind that they never spoke out against Hamas, who had been Gaza’s brutal, unelected oppressor for a generation. They started a war with their neighbor via a massive pogram and then fought from civilian centers. Never mind that they romanticized Hamas by wearing their kafia, believing their data, excusing their behavior. Never mind that they kept quiet about the Islamic Republic of Iran’s oppression of Iranians, which was the mastermind behind the 10/7 war. Now, after the Iranian people rose up in an attempt to throw off the same kind of Islamist fascism that oppresses Gaza and wages war on Israel, we see in full light the lie. The pro Palestine forces were never anything more than allies of Islamist terrorists and dictatorships, allies in their hatred of the West, of the US, of Israel, and of Jews. No matter that the Iranian people are none of those things, all that matters is that the boot on the necks of Iranians has adorned itself with a virtue signal of hatred of the targeted out group of their sick cult. And that was your science moment.
Despite pushback by President Donald Trump, woke programming at US colleges continues to infect young minds, scarring generations — and one particularly sickening example is right here in New York, at Brooklyn College.
As The Post’s Ryan King reports, the school’s psychologist program requires students to take a tellingly titled course, “Multicultural Counseling and Consultation,” which features “collective racial healing activities” and “trauma-informed interventions” to fight injustice.
Course materials unearthed by Defending Education teach that whites are privileged and “weaponize” their whiteness.
A mandatory BuzzFeed “privilege” quiz has them cite factors that make them privileged, such as being white or heterosexual or not having been raped.
The class also focuses on “intersectional” identity gripes, such as “nativist, Eurocentric, individualist, heterosexual, patriarchal, cisgender, ableist, and sizeist” influences.
“It should be of major concern” that “future school psychologists are required to pass a class that promotes such deeply divisive and caustic ideologies,” warns Rhyen Staley, Defending Education’s research director.
Additionally, no student . . . should have to endure discrimination based on immutable characteristics. . . This is blatant ideological indoctrination and needs to stop.”
Staley’s right: This kind of skewed, racist brainwashing feeds division and hostility not just on campuses but at corporations, government, the media and other key institutions.
It’s the kind of depraved curricula that fueled the pro-terrorist, antisemitic encampments after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and surely underlies some of the anti-ICE riots today.
It might also explain the radical, uber-left support that paved the way for socialist antisemite Zohran Mamdani and the racists who surround him to rise to power.
Team Trump has made a good start in fighting the scourge — with DEI bans, civil-rights probes and by targeting the accrediting system.
Yet Brooklyn College is hardly alone in clinging to its perverse agenda: K-12 schools as well as numerous colleges around the country continue to offer similarly race-based courses.
Such as the University of Maryland’s “Decolonizing Medicine: Steps to Actionable Change,” per The College Fix.
And the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities’ “Critical Indigenous Theory,” which offers “content such as critical theories, decolonization, Marxism, Queer theory, and Palestine.”
Meanwhile, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2026 free-speech rankings showed some small progress recently among colleges in providing campus environments open to diverse viewpoints.
It’s the kind of depraved curricula that fueled the pro-terrorist, antisemitic encampments after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and surely underlies some of the anti-ICE riots today.
It might also explain the radical, uber-left support that paved the way for socialist antisemite Zohran Mamdani and the racists who surround him to rise to power.
Team Trump has made a good start in fighting the scourge — with DEI bans, civil-rights probes and by targeting the accrediting system.
But of 257 schools surveyed, more than half (166) scored an “F” grade, while only 11 got better than a “D.”
Clearly, Team Trump has more work to do.
The left — in education and elsewhere — can’t be allowed to stand in the way of Americans reaching their own conclusions based on accurate, unbiased facts.
Anyone who cares about the nation’s future should rush to purge wokeness everywhere it has reared its ugly head.
One year into President Donald Trump‘s second term, the political temperature around the country is at an all-time high. This is hardly surprising given our sustained and intense polarization. The Democratic Party is still reeling from its November 2024 loss. But what it offered, a substitute candidate who entered the scene at the eleventh hour, had little appeal. Former Vice President Kamala Harris is far more mentally competent than was the diminished Joe Biden. However, she represented something average Americans reject: extremism.
There is much to say about the wrong behavior that both parties have displayed in recent years. And one action or incident does not excuse another, as much as blind partisans on both sides of the aisle would like that to be true. But when looking at both parties collectively, it’s clear that leftists prize mob behavior far more than those on the Right. We have seen this with the Black Lives Matter riots, Hamas-supporting protests and intimidation on college campuses, celebrating near-assassination attempts, and now, protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Making politics physical is a feature, not a bug, of the leftist playbook. Somehow, clearly pointing this out is akin to excusing what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, and glossing over the bad actors who exist on the Right. But those who are honest about what’s in front of us can call out all the bad, while also admitting the Left has a problem.
China’s top general, second only to Xi Jinping, the nation’s leader, in the military command, has been put under investigation and accused of “grave violations of discipline and the law,” the Ministry of National Defense said on Saturday, the most stunning escalation yet in Mr. Xi’s purge of the People’s Liberation Army elite.
The general, Zhang Youxia, is a vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, the Communist Party body that controls China’s armed forces. Another member of the commission, Gen. Liu Zhenli, who leads the military’s Joint Staff Department, is also under investigation, the Defense Ministry said. Its announcement did not say what either general was alleged to have done wrong.
General Zhang’s downfall — few if any Chinese officials placed publicly under investigation are later declared innocent — is the most drastic step so far in Mr. Xi’s yearslong campaign to root out what he has described as corruption and disloyalty in the military’s senior ranks. It is all the more astonishing because General Zhang seemed to be a confidante of Mr. Xi, who has known him for decades.
“This move is unprecedented in the history of the Chinese military and represents the total annihilation of the high command,” Christopher K. Johnson, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst who follows Chinese elite politics, said of the investigation of General Zhang.
With the two generals effectively out, the Central Military Commission has just two members left: its chairman, Mr. Xi, and General Zhang Shengmin, who has overseen Mr. Xi’s military purges. Mr. Xi has now removed all but one of the six generals he appointed to the commission in 2022.
Mr. Johnson, the president of China Strategies Group, a consulting firm, said Mr. Xi seemed to have concluded that problems in the military ran so deep that he could not trust the top command to cure itself and must look to a new cohort of rising officers.
He appears to have “decided he must cut very deep generationally to find a group not tainted,” Mr. Johnson said. “The purging of even a childhood friend in Zhang Youxia shows there now are no limits to Xi’s anti-graft zeal.”
The speed with which General Zhang’s ouster was announced seemed intended to staunch the potential damage for Mr. Xi, said Su Tzu-yun, an expert on the People’s Liberation Army, or P.L.A., at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research in Taipei, a body funded by Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense.
“This could be a big blow to morale inside the P.L.A.,” Mr. Su said in an interview, referring to the removal of a seemingly invulnerable commander.
General Zhang and General Liu were also the P.L.A.’s two top commanders for practical operational tasks, and their removal will leave a gap in experience, said Shanshan Mei, a political scientist at RAND, a research organization, who studies China’s armed forces.
“There’s no one right now at the highest level who has operational experience or who is in charge of training and exercises,” Ms. Mei said. “This is going to cut very deep, and there’s more to come, possibly.”
General Zhang, 75, had seemed to be cordoned off from Mr. Xi’s widening purges. The two men’s fathers, both veterans of Mao Zedong’s revolutionary wars, were personally acquainted, and Mr. Xi had kept General Zhang in office beyond the customary retirement age of about 70.
But Mr. Xi’s worries about the trustworthiness of his commanders seemed to finally outweigh whatever attachment he felt to the general, Mr. Su said. “I think this reflects Xi Jinping’s personal sense of insecurity, and that’s a major factor in his purges of the military,” he said.
Since 2023, waves of top commanders, officers and executives for arms manufacturers have been removed from office and placed under investigation — or, in some cases, have disappeared from view without explanation.
The first purges in that wave focused on China’s Rocket Force, which operates most of its nuclear missiles and many of its conventional ones. Ensuing investigations took down admirals, regional military commanders and members of the Central Military Commission.
Many of the targeted officers had been promoted by Mr. Xi since he took power in 2012, vowing to cleanse the armed forces of endemic graft. But after a decade in charge, he seemed to have concluded that some of his own handpicked protégés had been infected by the military’s corruption, which historically has often involved taking bribes for contracts or promotions.
The investigations’ toll on the military was visible at a meeting last year of the Communist Party’s Central Committee, a council of top officials. Of the 44 uniformed officers appointed to the committee in 2022, 29 — roughly two-thirds — had been purged or were missing, according to calculations made by Neil Thomas, a researcher on Chinese politics at the Asia Society.
Xi seems to have calculated that in the longer term, his shake-up of the military will make it less corrupt, more loyal and more effective in pursuing his goals, like putting pressure on Taiwan, the island democracy that rejects China’s claims of sovereignty.
But for now, and potentially for years, the disruptions caused by the purges could leave Mr. Xi less confident that his commanders are ready for combat, analysts have said.
“It’s a dilemma,” said Mr. Su, the Taiwan-based analyst. “He wants to first get rid of these so-called corrupt people, but for the P.L.A., if you clear out these high-level officers, that means a whole lot of experience is gone.”
General Zhang was among the few Chinese commanders with extensive experience in battle. The son of a general, he gained prominence as a frontline officer during China’s last war, a border conflict with Vietnam that began in 1979 and lasted for years. He rose to become head of the General Armaments Department, which is in charge of procuring weapons, and Mr. Xi promoted him to the Central Military Commission in 2017.
“For Zhang Youxia, having combat experience — and being one of the only left who has any — has to add to his luster, at least to Xi Jinping,” John Culver, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst specializing in the Chinese military, said in an interview.
But analysts speculated that General Zhang’s time in the General Armaments Department — which, because it controls arms contracts, became known as a honey pot of corruption — may have planted the seeds of his downfall. Other generals who rose through that department have also been purged, including Li Shangfu, a former defense minister.
Mr. Xi may need years or more to nurture a new crop of — presumably — trustworthy officers, and he must also fill the depleted ranks of the Central Military Committee.
“To rebuild these chains of command may take him five years or longer,” Mr. Su said. “The chances of an attack on Taiwan in the short term have been lowered.”
A correction was made on
Jan. 24, 2026
:
An earlier version of this article misstated how many uniformed commanders that Xi Jinping appointed to the Central Military Commission since 2022 have been removed. Five commanders have been removed, not six.
Chris Buckley, the chief China correspondent for The Times, reports on China and Taiwan from Taipei, focused on politics, social change and security and military issues
The uppity rulemakers wanted one-way respect and pretend dialogue; the American president gave them tongue-lashings and promises of future beatings instead.
The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, resembles a pagan ritual in which wealthy, famous, and powerful people come together to worship themselves. It takes place in a secluded ski resort in the eastern Alps, so that “elites” can indulge themselves far away from the planet’s detestable riffraff (that’s you and me). I’ve always thought that if extraterrestrial visitors from another galaxy or dimension were really here and truly interested in making planet Earth a better place, they could start by using their advanced technology to suck up the mountain of globalists in Davos, jettison the whole rock into deep space, and leave the rest of us to rebuild the world without them. That would be one annual meeting I would pay to see!
So far, aliens have yet to rid us of the globalist “elites.” On the other hand, President Trump just gave a speech that did give them a pretty good spanking. Feeling a disturbance in the globalist force and anticipating friction, anxiety, and self-medication among the attendees dreading the return of the American T-Rex to the world scene, WEF’s narrative-engineers chose to convene this year’s me-me-me-fest under the theme, “A Spirit of Dialogue.” That was their subtle way of begging President Trump not to lampoon their naked emperors or roast their globalist master plans. Trump ignored the WEF-lords’ pleas to play nice. He called them idiots and wannabe-tyrants right to their faces. The uppity rulemakers wanted one-way respect and pretend dialogue; the American president gave them tongue-lashings and promises of future beatings instead.
Watching the president take on the world’s worst people is pretty hilarious. He gets off a helicopter, walks into their globalist temple with the swagger of a man ready to brawl, and just starts flipping off everyone in the place.
“The green new scam” is “the greatest hoax in history,” Trump told a packed room of globalist grifters who have been telling the same lies that their parents and grandparents have told for the last half-century — that the planet will be destroyed in the next few years unless the middle class pays more in taxes to the uber-elites who profit by micromanaging humanity and regulating the free market out of existence. The president then accused the United Kingdom of betraying its own citizens by buying expensive windmills from China and forcing everyone to pay more for electricity. “I haven’t seen a single wind farm in China,” Trump noted before pointing out how Chinese communists have outsmarted the U.K.: “They make a fortune selling windmills. Stupid people buy them.” Somewhere in not-so-Great Britain, a gaggle of green-energy-worshiping aristocrats dropped their teacups while making the same how-dare-he? face.
In between descriptions of snatching Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro in his underwear and castrating Iran’s Islamic tyrants with big, beautiful bombs, President Trump explained how silly it is for the Kingdom of Denmark and the unelected feudal lords of the European Commission to pretend that Greenland “belongs” to the Danes and Euro-villains. Reminding the Eurocentric audience that Greenland is part of North America and in the Western Hemisphere, T-Rex roared, “That’s our territory.” Arguing that Denmark had failed to defend Greenland during WWII, failed to defend it for the last eighty years, and done nothing to develop the territory, President Trump offered a refresher course in the Monroe Doctrine: “It has been our policy for hundreds of years to prevent outside interests from entering our hemispheres.”
The American president then reminded members of NATO that the United States armed forces have protected them all for many decades and that Greenland (an island the U.S. already singlehandedly defends) is a small price to pay for that protection. With a tilt of his head and a serious stare, Trump summed up the Greenland issue efficiently: “You can say ‘yes’ and we will be very appreciative, or you can say ‘no’ and we will remember.”
Taking a shot at Canadian prime minister Mark Carney (who recently cuddled up to communist China while promising to militarily defend Greenland from American annexation), the president reminded the globalist central banker running things up north that Canada depends entirely upon American military muscle: “Canada lives because of the United States.” If there are any Vikings left in Denmark or Canada, Trump took their hammers and slapped them silly during his speech.
President Trump went on for about ninety minutes — about twice as long as expected. During that time, he beat up on everybody. While speaking in Switzerland, he lambasted the Swiss for profiting from one-sided trade deals with the United States. He called Federal Reserve chair Jerome “Too Late” Powell a moron. He accused central bankers and the CEOs of multinational corporations of stealing wealth from middle-class families. He made the point that inflation is not economic growth; it’s just a scheme for the wealthy to take from the poor. He made fun of little Mark Carney, self-important Emmanuel Macron, and even the Patrick Bateman-looking Gavin Newsom. He called 2020 a “rigged election.” He talked about blowing up Somali pirates and narcoterrorists at sea and wanting to throw criminal illegal aliens out of the United States. He discussed a bit of his vision for the Board of Peace and threatened to annihilate Hamas if the terrorists choose war. And President Trump forcefully defended Western civilization from the globalists: “The West cannot mass import foreign cultures that have never been successful.”
Trump hit this last point over and over while asking Europe what the hell it was doing by destroying its own culture with mass migration and misguided devotion to a suicidal fantasy that “diversity” somehow constitutes national strength. The president looked as if he wanted to shake the Europeans by their neckties and repeatedly asked them, are you not Westerners? “Multiculturalists” are not capable of defending the shared civilization of Europe and North America, Trump assured them. Only Westerners can defend the West, because those who wish to turn the West into something else cannot be trusted. That, in a nutshell, was a running theme of Trump’s speech.
Amusingly, after brutally mocking the political, cultural, and economic shibboleths that globalist “elites” hold dear, President Trump took the opportunity to thank Secretary of State Marco Rubio for “teaching” him how to be “diplomatic.” It was a funny moment in which the president managed to praise Rubio and poke fun at himself. The American delegation at WEF is working as a well-oiled machine. Trump owned the room. It wouldn’t have been surprising to hear him say that he had plans to buy the ski resort and rename the Swiss luxury hamlet “Trumptown.” He did make sure to end on an exclamatory note: “The United States is back — bigger, stronger, and better than ever before.”
At the end, the WEFers looked as if Trump had stolen their lunch money. Globalism, Inc. just doesn’t work as well when the American president calls the Davos “elites” fools and scam-artists to their faces. In the “spirit of dialogue,” Trump shattered their spirits.
Socialists are fascinating creatures. They produce nothing. They assume no responsibility for anything. They preach a morality of duty and self-sacrifice. Yet they offer to the world no marketable skills. They require government salaries, stipends or subsidies to survive. They demand the end of profit and private property. Yet they simultaneously demand that people — always others, never themselves– produce the loot in the multiple billions to be distributed solely to those whom they, the Socialists, deem deserving. On top of it, they call for censorship of all ideas, books, or forms of entertainment they dislike. They call any and all dissenters unspeakable monsters, horrible “white supremacists,” while demanding and getting everything they want.
Socialists are like the 30 year old son or daughter who won’t move out of the parents’ house, and who lectures the supporting parent on the evil of his or her ways. The great irony? Only capitalism and freedom of speech could have spawned the socialist, because without the luxury and comfort of a free society, the socialist could not survive five minutes. The even greater irony? Socialism will destroy the good life of capitalism and return humans to a state of Nature. The glowering, pedantic, mean-spirited Socialists will be the first to perish. There is justice in nature, even if not in socialism.
Do American colleges still teach students how to think? Or have whole programs been built on fashionable but unexamined assumptions? Increasingly, one wonders whether parts of the curriculum are outright harmful. For years, it has felt as though American higher education were approaching rock bottom. One of the newest degrees on offer suggests we may finally have arrived.
As a religious practice within Buddhism—particularly in its Theravada and Zen traditions—so-called mindfulness meditation aims to cultivate an awareness of the present moment, calm the mind, and help one avoid being carried away by thoughts. The term often overlaps with self-help trends and spa treatments these days, especially on American campuses.
Mindfulness programs on campus have moved well beyond weekend retreats and self-help courses.At Bucknell University, for instance, students are offered a “mindfulness menu” featuring instructions for DIY body scrubs, eye masks, lotions, and similar indulgences. At Yale, students can enroll in a four-week Koru mindfulness course that promises to help them to become “kinder” to themselves (is there anyone else?) or to craft their “very own meditation bracelet with a variety of beautiful beads.”
They have emerged as an academic field that encourages students to calm what ought to be active minds.But mindfulness programs on campus have moved well beyond weekend retreats and self-help courses. They have now embedded themselves within higher education itself, emerging as an academic field that, paradoxically, encourages students to calm what ought to be active minds and to think as little as possible.
Lesley University, for example, offers both an M.A. and a graduate certificate in mindfulness studies, while Atlantic University markets an M.A. in the same subject. At Brown, the School of Public Health houses the Brown Mindfulness Center, which offers not only a master of public health concentration in mindfulness but a certificate track in mindfulness-based stress-reduction teacher training.
This is puzzling, given the fact that Brown is also home to a clinical and affective neuroscience laboratory that has provided extensive research on the adverse effects associated with the mindfulness fad. Its director, Willoughby Britton—who runs a support group for people who have experienced psychological and physical harm from meditation—has described potential side effects in stark terms: “People describe a loss of emotion beyond what they wanted, and loss of motivation or enjoyment of things.”
In one project, Britton and her research team documented accounts of severe adverse outcomes among nearly 40 individuals, noting that many were “fairly out of commission, fairly impaired for between six months [and] more than 20 years.” The research team found participants through established meditation teachers such as Jack Kornfeld—one of the key figures to introduce Buddhist mindfulness to the West—and Joseph Goldstein, who has spoken of “instances during past meditation retreats where students became psychologically incapacitated.”
Another study interviewing 60 meditation teachers and practitioners—an equal number of men and women across the traditions of Zen, Theravada, and Tibetan Buddhism—identified a range of common adverse effects such as hyper-arousal and increases in anxiety, fear, panic, insomnia, trauma flashbacks, and emotional instability. Participants also reported sensory hypersensitivity, including heightened sensitivity to light and sound. Such hypersensitivity might be pleasant at first when colors get brighter, and one might indeed start to notice more. But when that doesn’t stop, sounds may become irritating and distracting. Others might experience a loss of motivation or enjoyment of things—as if campuses weren’t experiencing enough of that already.
Regardless of these downsides, the academic mindfulness trend continues to spread worldwide. In Ireland, the master of science in mindfulness-based wellbeing at University College Cork promises to train graduates to teach mindfulness in schools, workplaces, and everyday life. City College Dublin offers a professional diploma in mindfulness and wellbeing. In Wales, Bangor University maintains an M.A. in mindfulness-based approaches, while Monash University in Australia describes itself as “a world leader in the integration of mindfulness into the workplace and tertiary education.” Scotland has joined in, as well: The University of Aberdeen now awards a master of science in studies in mindfulness, and the University of the West of Scotland advertises a master of science in mindfulness and compassion.
The modern American rebranding of mindfulness as some kind of ancient psychotherapy is mistaken.As absurd as it is to award degrees in compassion (as though it were something universities could certify), compassion is not even something that follows from mindfulness practice—at least not in the sentimental sense in which the term is now understood. Some scholars of Buddhism note that “compassion is generally understood in Buddhism as having a magical power to protect” one from vicious animals, assassins, or the weather. Instead of praying for good weather, you meditate for it. The modern American rebranding of mindfulness as some kind of ancient psychotherapy or wellness treatment is, thus, mistaken. It is more accurate to understand “compassion” in early Buddhist contexts as a form of capital—much like the way we speak today of political capital or moral bankruptcy—rather than as an emotional disposition. It is the dharma, the teachings of the Buddha, that instruct a Buddhist to be an ethical person. Both Buddhism and the academic study of it rest on scripture and doctrine, not on meditation.
The scientific literature identifies a wide range of negative effects associated with mindfulness meditation.It is puzzling that there is so little pushback from scholars of Buddhism against these programs that, at best, offer a thin, romanticized account of Buddhism and often function as an academic veneer for spa treatments. The course “Mindfulness, Meaning, and Resilience” at Harvard, for example, declares, “Mindfulness is a way of attending to the experience of the present moment with full awareness and without judgment or reactivity. […] This introductory course explores the origins of mindfulness in Buddhist philosophy and how it can promote these states.”
The historical record of Buddhist traditions shows something very different. Sources often refer to troubling effects from the practice. As Jared R. Lindahl and colleagues note in a paper, “The term nyams refers to a wide range of ‘meditation experiences’—from bliss and visions to intense body pain, physiological disorders, paranoia, sadness, anger and fear.” Zen lineages have long recognized a related condition, sometimes described as “Zen sickness” or “meditation sickness,” in which practice leads to prolonged psychological or physical distress. There is even a sutta—a canonical discourse attributed to the Buddha—in which a group of monks go insane and commit mass suicide after meditating. A part of the history of the method is also how well it was received by Nazis and terrorists.
The scientific literature identifies a wide range of other negative effects associated with mindfulness meditation. Studies have documented adverse psychological, physical, and spiritual side effects, including depersonalization, psychosis, hallucinations, anxiety, increased seizure risk, disorganized speech, loss of appetite, and insomnia. One study led by Brent M. Wilson at the University of California San Diego found that participants exhibited increased susceptibility to false memories following mindfulness meditation—a result that, on its own, should give universities more than enough reason to question the practice’s place in higher education.
A study by Pablo Briñol and colleagues found that when participants were encouraged to objectify their thoughts, they subsequently relied on those thoughts less in their evaluations and decisionmaking, a result that raises obvious concerns for education, during which deliberation is essential. Mindfulness practice may also foster an avoidance of difficult thinking and tasks. One study found that mindfulness meditation reduced future-oriented focus and lowered arousal levels, which in turn diminished participants’ motivation to undertake challenging activities. In other words, the practice can make students calmer but also less inclined to think hard, plan ahead, or engage in demanding work.
One study found that 62.9 percent of participants experienced negative effects such as anxiety, panic, less motivation in life, depression, a feeling of addiction to meditation, pain, confusion, disorientation, or feeling “spaced out” during and after meditation. Notably, 7.4 percent suffered profoundly adverse effects, regardless of whether they had practiced for 16 months or more than 100 months.
The effect of mindfulness meditation is often a reduction in emotional activity, which can indeed be helpful for students prone to overwhelming reactivity, making them calmer and less susceptible to stressful situations. Yet, for some, this dampening becomes excessive. As Britton puts it, “People in our research complain of not having any emotions, even positive ones, not feeling any kind of love or affection for their families.” These adverse effects are not limited to vulnerable individuals; they have appeared in experienced meditation teachers and in practitioners with no psychiatric history.
One study found that 62.9 percent of participants experienced negative effects such as anxiety, panic, and less motivation in life.Yet, in 2023, Harvard opened the Thich Nhat Hanh Center for Mindfulness in Public Health in the T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In his New York Times bestseller The Art of Power, Thich Nhat Hanh writes, “To be beautiful means to be yourself. You don’t need to be accepted by others. You need to accept yourself.” While these lines might be calming as poetry, they are most obviously destructive as self-help. Who would want to live in a world where everybody—the insane, the fanatical, the rude—simply accepts himself the way he is? One could even argue that such advice runs counter to the very purpose of education. But it must feel good for people at Harvard to hear such a message while they harass Jewish students on their way to class or rise to the university presidency without ever having written a book or an original paper. Just accept yourself!
The spillover effect of mindfulness into other fields is also concerning.The spillover effect of mindfulness into other fields is also concerning. Caroline C. Kaufman, an instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, advocates incorporating meditation practices into psychotherapy with Jewish clients—a position that suggests a troubling lack of awareness of the potential negative side effects. Incorporating religious practices into therapy is also unethical unless they are clearly identified as such by the therapist; otherwise, the healthcare treatment risks becoming missionary in nature.
Moreover, mindfulness meditation is not a component of Judaism, nor does Kaufman’s approach indicate that this is something to be addressed with Jewish clients. Her approach assumes spirituality is universal and standardized rather than culturally specific or personal. In her research at Harvard, she even attempts to empirically measure spirituality. The very idea reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitations of scientific inquiry: It presupposes that a subjective, experiential, and culturally contingent phenomenon can be objectively quantified using standardized tools. For the same reason—the hopelessness of the attempt to quantify subjective inner states—mindfulness studies fails.
Meanwhile, Oxford is more upfront about incorporating a religious practice into healthcare with its master of science in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. Beyond the supposed benefits for clients, the program also trains therapists themselves to be mindful during treatment. One might expect a “mindful” therapist to be especially attentive and capable of caring for clients. Yet one study suggested that “higher levels of therapist mindfulness predicted less reduction in client symptom severity at termination.” Mindfulness therapy, in this sense, seems oxymoronic. At most, one might argue that the practice helps therapists remain present while tracking themes. But that’s just another way of saying, “Therapists, pay attention and don’t drift off.” In which case, it should be a reminder, not a university degree.
Christopher L. Schilling is a lawyer and political scientist and the author of The Japanese Talmud: Antisemitism in East Asia (Hurst) and The Therapized Antisemite: The Myth of Psychology and the Evasion of Responsibility (De Gruyter).
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 