This essay and others are available for syndication.
Contact Us for more information.

Political Culture in America Today

In my college years, I saw America’s university curriculum as a smorgasbord of diverse and delectable ideas. A cornucopia of philosophical, political, and social ideas that were, to me at the time, potentially delicious and also nutritious. I wanted to consume them all.

In contrast, the range of ideas available on social media back then (i.e., radio and TV) was very limited. It was a lonely neighborhood with a cluster of eateries, all of whose menus were comprised of the same half-dozen dishes, all based on the same half-dozen recipes, and all served with only the mildest of spices.

But it was safe and comfortable. Because when it was time to feed yourself, it didn’t matter which restaurant you chose.

When cable TV came along, the menu for new ideas promised a huge expansion as the number of channels went quickly from 13 to nearly 500. Unfortunately, the hoped-for diversity didn’t materialize. The eateries expanded by 4,000%, but the dishes available were all the same.

The internet did indeed expand the diversity of the idea menu exponentially. And for the first 10 to 15 years of this century, there was a flourishing of free ideas, opinions, and sources available to anyone that had access to the World Wide Web.

But then, sometime around 2010, all that rich, intellectual diversity seemed to thin itself out. Online searches for particular social, political, religious, and virtually any other category of collective thinking became more difficult. So difficult that it may as well have been scrubbed from the Web entirely.

Soon after Donald Trump was elected in 2016, another massive change began to take hold that eventually reduced the ideas and opinions available to knowledge seekers to just two: those of the percentage of the population that hated Donald Trump… and those of the Trump lovers.

This final reduction quickly transformed ideas and opinions (and even opinions of facts) into ideational weapons, where they have value only in relationship to whether or not they support one ideology or the other.

And that is where we stand today, with the world defined by ideological tribes that interpret every aspect of human knowledge – from history to psychiatry to medicine to art and literature – in terms of its usefulness in vanquishing (if not eradicating) the enemy.

It’s ugly. It’s also inescapable. For these competing tribal ideologies assert themselves antagonistically. Not just in everything we seek to understand about the world, but in everything we do. From the laws we pass about abortion and discrimination and criminal justice, to what we should do about the Russian occupation of Ukraine and the war between Israel and Hamas.

There is a huge intellectual and emotional advantage to this two-tribe cultural world we now inhabit. Each tribe gets to feel morally superior to the other because, having abandoned believing in the value of ideas, they have the benefit of believing that the ideology they subscribe to is not just absolutely correct, but also absolutely virtuous.

This is extremely dangerous and almost sure to end very badly for both tribes. The emotional mechanism that fuels and informs and preserves ideologies is always and inevitably not just uncharitable and anti-intellectual, it is mindlessly self-destructive.

So, yes, the two-tribe world we Americans now live in was sparked into life by the election of Donald Trump. But something else happened during the Trump presidency. A third group was formed of people that neither hated nor loved him but hated the way the Trump Haters set out to end his presidency by any means necessary. I consider myself one of that group, and I believe there may as many as ten million of us.

We cannot be identified by red hats or black masks or by the color of our skin or by our religion or lack of religion or by the level of our education. If there is something that unites us, it is the value we still hold in ideas, our deep distrust of ideology, and our unwillingness to submit our individuality to any sort of group-think.

And we could be the largest bloc of swing voters. Which would make the outcome of the next election interesting… except that we also are very reluctant to vote.

Continue Reading

Born in Gaza

A documentary filmed shortly after the 2014 Israeli-Hamas war

Directed by Hernan Zin

Originally released Dec. 12, 2014 (Spain)

Available on Netflix

Born in Gaza appeared as a Netflix recommendation shortly after Hamas started the current conflict. In what I think was a brilliant decision, the director, Hernan Zin (and perhaps others), decided to focus on 10 Palestinian children that had survived the war, but not without being witness to the death of friends and family members.

As these children go about their quotidian lives, they recount their recollections of the war and its deadly consequences. Understandably, they present Israel as the aggressor and the villain. But, eerily and importantly, they don’t convey any overt anger or hostility (the way you’d think they might had they been coached). They are clearly affected deeply by their experience, but their thoughts and emotions are not articulated.

As you might expect, there have been lots of recent internet postings about this film that try to label it as pro-Palestinian propaganda. It is unjustified criticism. Born in Gaza did not change my thoughts about Hamas and its role in the current war. What it did do, and very effectively, was leave me with a heightened sense of compassion and despair. The film says: “This is what they mean by war is hell.” But it doesn’t pretend to tell the viewer what to do about it.

You can watch the trailer here.

Continue Reading

US University-Hamas Alignment Continues to Grow

The anti-Israel sentiment that began about two minutes after Hamas invaded Israel and slaughtered innocent civilians continues to rise in Academia. This past week, for example…

* Nearly 2,000 sociologists signed a letter stating that Israel was committing “genocide” and anything Hamas does is justified by the “context.” Click here.

* The University of California Ethnic Studies Faculty Council released a statement condemning anyone that describes what Hamas did as “terrorism.” Click here.

* At Stanford, students are asking the school to pay for round-trip tickets for Muslim students to “visit their family and friends and grieve properly.” Click here.

* Harvard launched a task force to help ensure that the pro-Hamas protesters feel safe. Click here.

* At George Washington University, students projected onto the side of the school library “GLORY TO OUR MARTYRS” and “FREE PALESTINE FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA.” Click here.

* And at Wellesley, a student leader wrote: “We firmly believe that there should be no space, no consideration, and no support for Zionism within the Wellesley College community.” Click here.

 

Continue Reading

Quick Bites: A Primer on Inflation… Three Ways to Lose Money in 2024… A Heated Debate… Mike Tyson’s Profound Wisdom… The Dark History of the Werewolf

* Doug Casey on the Destruction of the Dollar. From a recent posting on his International Man website:

“Inflation occurs when the creation of currency outruns the creation of real wealth it can bid for… It isn’t caused by price increases; rather, it causes price increases.

“Inflation is not caused by the butcher, the baker, or the auto maker, although they usually get blamed. On the contrary, by producing real wealth, they fight the effects of inflation. Inflation is the work of government alone, since government alone controls the creation of currency.

“In a true free-market society, the only way a person or organization can legitimately obtain wealth is through production. ‘Making money’ is no different from ‘creating wealth,’ and money is nothing but a certificate of production.”

Click here to read more.

 

* Three Ways to Lose Money in 2024. Garrett Baldwin, one of Agora’s financial analysts that I follow regularly, published a piece on Oct. 24 that I thought was worth passing on to all of my readers that are active investors. Click here.

 

* David and Goliath: Douglas and Malcolm. I’m a fan of Malcolm Gladwell. And Douglas Murray. They are both smart and articulate. They write well. They speak well. And most importantly, they think well. So, I was excited to come across this debate between them (and two other writers) on whether mainstream journalism has lost its way. Click here.

 

* Mike Tyson’s Profound Wisdom. Mike Tyson was always an obviously intelligent person. Spend a half-hour looking at interviews with him when he was in his 20s and you will see that. But he was also a troubled person whose ideas about himself and his self-importance nearly ruined his life. But then, something amazing happened. Some experience that changed him. He expresses it beautifully and succinctly in this conversation with Joe Rogan. Click here.

 

* An Amusing History of the Werewolf. Click here.

Continue Reading

From CM re my comments on Hamas vs. Israeli killing in the Oct. 24 issue: 

“Nicely done. There is no moral equivalence. Period.

“A friend called me from Israel today. He has a colleague working on identifying bodies at the site of the massacre. Today’s latest horror show update: Hamas raped young girls so hard, they broke their pelvises. And then shot them in the chest.

“My daughter and her family (my three grandchildren) are ‘safe but stressed.’ They live in Modi’in, the place where the Maccabees are from. My grandchildren are sleeping in the safe room and having nightmares from the rocket booms.

“Hamas has unified the country in a way which would’ve seemed impossible on Oct. 6.

Moral is high and Israelis are ready to pay the price for the eradication of Hamas.

“I just listened to this podcast, and it put me in a better mood.

From PC re the Bill Browder piece in the Oct. 27 issue: 

“I had the same feeling you did watching Bill Browder speaking to those college kids: I wish I had more profs like him – profs who knew both the data but also the reality that makes the real world tick!”

Continue Reading


"Were it not for hypocrisy I’d have no advice to give."
"Were it not for sciolism I’d have no ideas to share."
"Were it not for arrogance, I’d have no ambition."
"Were it not for forgetfulness, I would have no new ideas to write about."