RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/in_the_mouth_of_marxist_madness.html

At the beginning of October, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán denounced the European Union’s 1984-inspired manipulation of language: “Brussels is creating an Orwellian world in front of our eyes.  They buy and supply weapons through the European Peace Facility.  They want to control the media through the Media Freedom Act.  We didn’t fight the communists to end up in 1984!”  The “Peace Facility” is responsible for transferring billions of dollars worth of artillery and ammunition to Ukraine.  The “Media Freedom Act” gives European bureaucrats extraordinary powers to censor any speech or ideas they dislike.  

Although Orbán is absolutely correct in his assessment of European madness, there is no sign that his warning will have any corrective effect.  The Eurocrats are so steeped in self-deluding propaganda that it would be not at all surprising to see them pull another page straight out of 1984 by carving on one of their marble government buildings the same three slogans that adorned Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”: “War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.”  Such is the depth of the rabbit hole into which the European hive mind has descended that too many ordinary citizens would miss the depressing irony.

As if recognizing that Europe’s embrace of censorship, surveillance, and social control inconveniently mirrors Orwell’s condemnation of Big Brother and Big Government to perfection, the British “ruling class” attempted this month to “cancel” Orwell by using an article in The Telegraph to accuse the prophetic genius of being “sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic, and sometimes violent” — in other words, someone who should not be “tolerated” and no longer “deserves” to be read.  If “cancelling” the author who warned the world about such forms of slithery government tyranny is not “peak Orwell,” then the crazy train still barreling down the tracks promises to be a doozy.  

Americans, of course, are similarly under siege from an Orwellian deep state that manipulates the public by distorting history and undermining the meaning of words.  In a nation that celebrates George Floyd as a hero, clings to the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie as a sacred “truth,” and blames Hillary’s election loss on Russian bots, propaganda is king.  The U.S. government fights racism by institutionalizing racial preferences.  It supports Black Lives Matter and Antifa domestic terrorists while locking up American patriots as “domestic enemies.”  It replaces impartial justice with “social justice” and equality under the law with “equitable” special privileges.  “Climate change” communism kills property rights.  Meme-makers are imprisoned, but Russia collusion hoaxers are not.  Gene-altering serums are called “vaccines.”  And generations of judges have replaced the U.S. Constitution with their own postmodern revisions.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-periodic-reminder-that-evil-is-real-rage-history-israel-hamas-6b255ebd?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Justice Potter Stewart observed in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) that while hard-core pornography is difficult to define, “I know it when I see it.” The same is true of evil.

A decent conscience, uncontaminated by ideology, knows what it is looking at. The torments that Hamas “militants” inflicted on Oct. 7—mass slaughter, rape, the beheading and incineration of babies—amounted to behavior that the high court of any uncorrupted intelligence in the world would describe as evil.

What other word would be sufficient? Wicked? Gruesome? Atrocious? Naughty? No one with any brains uses the word evil lightly. I tend to capitalize it to give the concept (vile, mysterious, theologically absolute) its metaphysical due. President Biden chose his language carefully when he spoke of the Hamas raids as “pure, unadulterated evil.” Since Oct. 7, the word—from which people used to shy away, regarding it as radioactive, over-the-top—has become commonplace and almost unavoidable.

Some years ago I wrote “Evil: An Investigation.” Preparing the book, I would sometimes ask people if they knew anyone they considered to be truly evil. Most would think for a moment, then shake their heads: “Not really. Hitler, of course. But I didn’t know him.” When I asked William F. Buckley Jr., he replied without hesitation, “Gore Vidal.” I laughed. I thought he was kidding, but he wasn’t.

Many people believe evil doesn’t exist. That view is especially common among the rational and enlightened, who insist that events always have a scientific, clinical or political explanation. They are mistaken. Evil is real, with a spooky, inscrutable life of its own.

Evil resides, a law unto itself, in the penetralia of history and human nature. Anyone who doubts its existence should study, in no particular order: the Cambodians’ mass killings under Pol Pot (1975-79), the Japanese Rape of Nanking (1937-38), the Belgians’ atrocities in the Congo (1885-1908) and of course the Holocaust. You might begin your studies in that last topic by reading “Into That Darkness” by Gitta Sereny. It’s about how Franz Stangl, an ordinary Austrian policeman and family man, morphed into the monster who presided over the Nazi death camp at Treblinka.

https://www.thefp.com/p/qatars-war-for-young-american-minds?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Right now, senior leaders of Hamas, the perpetrators of the worst atrocity against Jews since the Holocaust, are huddled in Qatar. They’ve been there for years. But American foreign policy has turned a blind eye. Why? One reason might be that for the last 25 years, this small, energy-rich state has pumped billions into America to purchase influence and good favor. 

The Qataris have spent their lavish fortune at American law firms, on lobbying contracts with former senior officials, and on junkets and partnerships with big media companies. The biggest recipients of Qatari largesse, though, have been major universities and think tanks. 

The numbers are staggering. According to a 2022 study from the National Association of Scholars, Qatar today is the largest foreign donor to American universities. The study found that between 2001 and 2021, the petrostate donated a whopping $4.7 billion to U.S. colleges. The largest recipients are some of America’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning. These schools have partnered with the regime to build campuses in Doha’s “education city,” a special district of the capital that hosts satellite colleges for American universities: 

Since 1997, Qatar has donated more than $103 million to Virginia Commonwealth University for a fine arts campus. 

Since 2001, Qatar has donated $1.8 billion to Cornell for a medical school. 

Since 2003, Qatar has donated nearly $700 million to Texas A&M for an engineering campus. 

Since 2004, Qatar has donated $740 million to Carnegie Mellon University for a computer science campus. 

Since 2005, Qatar has donated $760 million to Georgetown University for a school of politics. 

Since 2008, Qatar has donated nearly $602 million to Northwestern University for a school of journalism. 

One might expect that scholarly institutions that have benefited from this autocracy’s money would rethink their partnership after Qatar’s foreign minister said that “Israel alone is responsible” for the pogrom perpetrated by Hamas terrorists. Or after Qatar’s prime minister on Friday declined to close the office Hamas maintains in its capital. But these universities have given no indication that they will end their profitable partnership with Qatar. 

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-day-the-delusions-died-konstantin-kisin?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

When Hamas terrorists crossed over the border with Israel and murdered 1,400 innocent people, they destroyed families and entire communities. They also shattered long-held delusions in the West.

A friend of mine joked that she woke up on October 7 as a liberal and went to bed that evening as a 65-year-old conservative. But it wasn’t really a joke and she wasn’t the only one. What changed?

The best way to answer that question is with the help of Thomas Sowell, one of the most brilliant public intellectuals alive today. In 1987, Sowell published A Conflict of Visions. In this now-classic, he offers a simple and powerful explanation of why people disagree about politics. We disagree about politics, Sowell argues, because we disagree about human nature. We see the world through one of two competing visions, each of which tells a radically different story about human nature.

Those with “unconstrained vision” think that humans are malleable and can be perfected. They believe that social ills and evils can be overcome through collective action that encourages humans to behave better. To subscribers of this view, poverty, crime, inequality, and war are not inevitable. Rather, they are puzzles that can be solved. We need only to say the right things, enact the right policies, and spend enough money, and we will suffer these social ills no more. This worldview is the foundation of the progressive mindset.

By contrast, those who see the world through a “constrained vision” lens believe that human nature is a universal constant. No amount of social engineering can change the sober reality of human self-interest, or the fact that human empathy and social resources are necessarily scarce. People who see things this way believe that most political and social problems will never be “solved”; they can only be managed. This approach is the bedrock of the conservative worldview.

Hamas’s barbarism—and the explanations and celebrations throughout the West that followed their orgy of violence—have forced an overnight exodus from the “unconstrained” camp into the “constrained” one. 

The Reality of Woke Ideology

Many people woke up on October 7 sympathetic to parts of woke ideology and went to bed that evening questioning how they had signed on to a worldview that had nothing to say about the mass rape and murder of innocent people by terrorists.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/10/23/gag-order-against-trump-is-the-real-threat-to-democracy/

The reason you have not heard of a gag order on par with the one imposed on former President Trump is that it is highly unusual. Normally, in a criminal proceeding, there are no gag orders. To the extent they exist, they typically only bind the lawyers, who are admonished to adhere to the rules of professional conduct. Rarely—as in almost never—are criminal defendants forced into a gag order on such spurious grounds as they might “vilify and implicitly encourage violence against public servants who are simply doing their jobs.”

In fact, precedent almost uniformly emphasizes familiar First Amendment principles, which limit the court’s authority, including disfavor towards “prior restraints” and “content-based restrictions” on speech.

In a case involving the prosecution of a congressman, the Sixth Circuit federal court of appeals noted that “such broadly based restrictions on speech in connection with litigation are seldom, if ever, justified. Trial judges, the government, the lawyers and the public must tolerate robust and at times acrimonious or even silly public debate about litigation.”

The Sixth Circuit emphasized that criminal defendants are already very much disadvantaged vis a vis the government, and that any court restrictions must accommodate this asymmetry. “A criminal defendant awaiting trial in a controversial case has the full power of the government arrayed against him and the full spotlight of media attention focused upon him. The defendant’s interest in replying to the charges and to the associated adverse publicity, thus, is at a peak. So is the public’s interest in the proper functioning of the judicial machinery.”

Other circuits follow a less restrictive rule, but even those emphasize the need for any such orders to be narrowly tailored to accomplish a substantial government interest.

Courts typically have broad powers to enforce discipline in their courtrooms and over lawyers, but preemptively stifling a defendant from “making statements targeting prosecutors, possible witnesses and court staff” has a very broad reach. After all, isn’t every member of Congress, every January 6 defendant, and every single person Trump spoke to about the 2020 election a potential witness?