theamericanconservative--2020-10-12--Saving Christopher Columbus From the Cultural Arsonists

The movement to deface and destroy our heritage and heroes must be fought by conservatives at every turn .
Last year , in my annual commemoration of Columbus Day for The American Conservative , I described the holiday ’ s detractors as “ cultural arsonists ” who seek the erasure of the historic American nation ’ s history and symbols .
This past summer , those societal dregs embraced the destruction they ’ d yearned for all along .
Since George Floyd ’ s death in May , the most pernicious among us have exploited an opportunity to take to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Their targets have included monuments , especially ones to Christopher Columbus , as well as businesses , homes , and livelihoods .
A Columbus statue in Boston was decapitated—for the second time since it was erected in 1979—and then removed by the city .
In 1927 , the first statue of Columbus in the southern United States was erected in Richmond , Virginia , despite opposition from the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan ; 90 years later , channeling similar hatreds , vandals tore down the statue , set it on fire , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was joined by a Columbus statue in Baltimore ’ s Little Italy , which was tossed into the inner harbor .
To add insult to injury , the Baltimore City Council is looking to rededicate the city ’ s Columbus Obelisk—erected in 1792 , the United States ’ oldest monument to Columbus—as the “ Victims of Police Violence Monument.
” To promote greater tolerance , understanding , and opportunity for Italian immigrants , sculptor Carlo Brioschi contributed statues of Christopher Columbus to beautify American cities , one in his adopted home of St. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and another in Chicago in 1933 .
The former was pulled down by Native Americans ( as state troopers apathetically watched ) and the latter was removed by orders of Mayor Lori Lightfoot .
In less than six months , over 36 statues of Christopher Columbus have been removed from the public square by either the mob ’ s chain or mayor ’ s edict .
It ’ s not unlike the Reign of Terror , where statues of saints were guillotined to obliterate any memory of pre-revolutionary France .
These curs have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that repudiates anything that doesn ’ t adhere to the twisted ethics of the progressive left .
That includes the 1893 Chicago World ’ s Fair , where our nation had the sense of mind ( and identity ) to venerate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus ’ voyage .
The Chicago World ’ s Fair—also known as the Columbian Exposition—was one of the most significant cultural events in U.S. history , with profound effects on architecture , entertainment , and the adoption of new technology .
One of the most popular exhibits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three ships—the Nina , the Pinta , and the Santa Maria—which were constructed in Spain before they sailed to Chicago , where they performed a theatrical rendition of the European arrival .
Past generations of Americans understood greatness and why it ’ s commendable , unlike the thankless iconoclasts of today .
Paying homage to the men and women of the past is about recognizing and appreciating extraordinary feats .
The grandeur of Columbus is succinctly encapsulated by 1970s comedian and television host Flip Wilson .
“ As a kid , my idol—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the great American heroes , my idol is Christopher Columbus , ” Wilson jovially told a comedy club audience .
“ What a great thing that was , discovering America .
I wouldn ’ t have found it .
I don ’ t know where you people would have been , I wouldn ’ t have found it.
” The sledgehammer reckoning isn ’ t only destined for navigators either .
“ Our Taliban have moved on , past Columbus and the Confederate generals , to dislodge and dishonor the Founding Fathers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazine ’ s co-founder Pat Buchanan .
Weak-willed conservatives who for decades have been too cowardly to defend Columbus or the Confederate soldier are receiving their earned punishment .
These cultural arsonists now seek to expunge the Founding Fathers from the American consciousness .
“ Slave owners should not be honored with monuments in public spaces .
We have museums for that , which also provide better context , ” writes columnist Charles Blow in The New York Times .
That would include 10 of the first dozen U.S. presidents , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the father of the Constitution , and the namesake of the nation ’ s capital .
According to Blow , human history is nothing more than a “ horrible truth , ” undeserving of remembrance or admiration .
Blow himself is motivated by a moral absolutism that he is either unable or unwilling to separate from the past .
While Blow is correct that morality is both universal and undeniable , his preference to live a desolate , ahistorical existence is nothing short of ghoulish .
Blow ’ s cohort is composed of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the phony academics , the diversity consultants and race hustlers—who malign Christopher Columbus and his kin because achievement is intolerable to their insecurities .
This caste is represented politically by people like Senator Tammy Duckworth , who supports “ having a national dialogue ” on whether or not monuments of George Washington should be smashed since “ we should listen to the argument there.
” How can one reconcile Duckworth ’ s service in the U.S. Army with her clear antipathy for the American nation and its founders ?
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military empire—not a living nation—who wears her approximation of American identity like second-hand clothes .
In his Fourth of July message , Democratic nominee Joe Biden promised he ’ d “ rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country.
” Biden ’ s auxiliaries have been clear that racism in the United States goes as deep as its soul .
European colonization was genocide , and Christopher Columbus its primary architect .
The existence of the historic American nation is a disgrace that must be blotted out , along with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember that this November .
Your ancestors will be on the ballot .
Hunter DeRensis is assistant editor at the Libertarian Institute and a regular contributor to The American Conservative .
You can follow him on Twitter @ HunterDeRensis .

Last year, in my annual commemoration of Columbus Day for The American Conservative, I described the holiday’s detractors as “cultural arsonists” who seek the erasure of the historic American nation’s history and symbols. This past summer, those societal dregs embraced the destruction they’d yearned for all along.
Since George Floyd’s death in May, the most pernicious among us have exploited an opportunity to take to the streets and destroy with impunity. Their targets have included monuments, especially ones to Christopher Columbus, as well as businesses, homes, and livelihoods.
A Columbus statue in Boston was decapitated—for the second time since it was erected in 1979—and then removed by the city. In 1927, the first statue of Columbus in the southern United States was erected in Richmond, Virginia, despite opposition from the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan; 90 years later, channeling similar hatreds, vandals tore down the statue, set it on fire, and threw it into a lake. It was joined by a Columbus statue in Baltimore’s Little Italy, which was tossed into the inner harbor. To add insult to injury, the Baltimore City Council is looking to rededicate the city’s Columbus Obelisk—erected in 1792, the United States’ oldest monument to Columbus—as the “Victims of Police Violence Monument.”
To promote greater tolerance, understanding, and opportunity for Italian immigrants, sculptor Carlo Brioschi contributed statues of Christopher Columbus to beautify American cities, one in his adopted home of St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1931, and another in Chicago in 1933. The former was pulled down by Native Americans (as state troopers apathetically watched) and the latter was removed by orders of Mayor Lori Lightfoot.
In less than six months, over 36 statues of Christopher Columbus have been removed from the public square by either the mob’s chain or mayor’s edict. It’s not unlike the Reign of Terror, where statues of saints were guillotined to obliterate any memory of pre-revolutionary France.
These curs have a new revolution in mind, one that repudiates anything that doesn’t adhere to the twisted ethics of the progressive left. That includes the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, where our nation had the sense of mind (and identity) to venerate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ voyage. The Chicago World’s Fair—also known as the Columbian Exposition—was one of the most significant cultural events in U.S. history, with profound effects on architecture, entertainment, and the adoption of new technology. One of the most popular exhibits was the life-size replicas of Columbus’ three ships—the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria—which were constructed in Spain before they sailed to Chicago, where they performed a theatrical rendition of the European arrival.
Past generations of Americans understood greatness and why it’s commendable, unlike the thankless iconoclasts of today. Paying homage to the men and women of the past is about recognizing and appreciating extraordinary feats. The grandeur of Columbus is succinctly encapsulated by 1970s comedian and television host Flip Wilson. “As a kid, my idol—and he’s still my idol—of all the great American heroes, my idol is Christopher Columbus,” Wilson jovially told a comedy club audience. “What a great thing that was, discovering America. I wouldn’t have found it. I don’t know where you people would have been, I wouldn’t have found it.”
The sledgehammer reckoning isn’t only destined for navigators either. “Our Taliban have moved on, past Columbus and the Confederate generals, to dislodge and dishonor the Founding Fathers and their patriot sons,” wrote this magazine’s co-founder Pat Buchanan. Weak-willed conservatives who for decades have been too cowardly to defend Columbus or the Confederate soldier are receiving their earned punishment. These cultural arsonists now seek to expunge the Founding Fathers from the American consciousness.
“Slave owners should not be honored with monuments in public spaces. We have museums for that, which also provide better context,” writes columnist Charles Blow in The New York Times. That would include 10 of the first dozen U.S. presidents, including the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution, and the namesake of the nation’s capital.
According to Blow, human history is nothing more than a “horrible truth,” undeserving of remembrance or admiration. Blow himself is motivated by a moral absolutism that he is either unable or unwilling to separate from the past. While Blow is correct that morality is both universal and undeniable, his preference to live a desolate, ahistorical existence is nothing short of ghoulish.
Blow’s cohort is composed of our society’s mediocrities—the corporate press, the phony academics, the diversity consultants and race hustlers—who malign Christopher Columbus and his kin because achievement is intolerable to their insecurities.
This caste is represented politically by people like Senator Tammy Duckworth, who supports “having a national dialogue” on whether or not monuments of George Washington should be smashed since “we should listen to the argument there.” How can one reconcile Duckworth’s service in the U.S. Army with her clear antipathy for the American nation and its founders? It’s because Tammy Duckworth is a soldier for military empire—not a living nation—who wears her approximation of American identity like second-hand clothes.
In his Fourth of July message, Democratic nominee Joe Biden promised he’d “rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country.” Biden’s auxiliaries have been clear that racism in the United States goes as deep as its soul. European colonization was genocide, and Christopher Columbus its primary architect. The existence of the historic American nation is a disgrace that must be blotted out, along with its heritage, traditions, and heroes.
Remember that this November. Your ancestors will be on the ballot.
Happy Columbus Day.
Hunter DeRensis is assistant editor at the Libertarian Institute and a regular contributor to The American Conservative. You can follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-14--BLM: An Epidemic of Ideas

BLM: An Epidemic of Ideas

Judge Learned Hand referred to America ’ s vulnerability to ‘ epidemics of ideas ’ which sweep the land when sufficient people find a cause to profit by .
Black Lives Matter is one such idea .
It could have been instigated at any time in the last century and was , in 1968 , with few constructive results .
It fastens on a handful of cases per year in which African Americans have been fatally victimized by police brutality , a number steadily dropping as the ranks of black mayors , police commissioners and policemen increase .
But ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seed of the church.
’ The spectacle of a smothered victim captured on a cell phone is too good for some people to let go .
As long as there are 20 million black men and a million policemen in the United States , there will be more such cases , the fulminations of judges , newspaper editors and street demonstrators notwithstanding .
No one has found a perfect antidote to stupidity , or to emotional reactions to violence and fear .
The popular remedies are ‘ consent decrees ’ and ‘ defunding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimidated they are , the fewer their collisions with the population .
The question that has not been asked is cui bono—who profits from this particular epidemic of ideas ?
In Baltimore , since the Freddy Gray episode the number of arrests has dropped by more than half .
Many prior arrests were for possession of marijuana or of small dealers in it , who State ’ s Attorney Mosby has said she will no longer prosecute .
A draconian ‘ consent decree ’ systematically nullifies the techniques used to spectacularly reduce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ stop and question ’ policing and enforcement of great swaths of the criminal code .
Our police commissioner and editors congratulate themselves that there have been no recent violent demonstrations here , but that is because the drug gangs have gotten all they want .
Yet there is a correlation , like it or not , between the reduction in police proactivity and the massive increase in private homicides .
Herbert Asbury , in his famous study of New York ’ s turn-of-century gangs , concluded that their downfall in the John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of nightsticks , which previously could be used only in defense of life .
The proliferation of Baltimore ’ s ‘ epidemic of ideas ’ —and some say its instigation—came from drug gangs , which efficiently looted the city ’ s pharmacies in the wake of the Freddy Gray affair .
Under the consent decree , they effectively rule inner-city street corners , uninterrupted by arrests and frisks for the weapons used to enforce their contracts .
The well-intentioned efforts of State ’ s Attorney Mosby and Judge Bredar have made life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Non-prosecution and decriminalization do not alter business as usual in an enormous illegal industry which , as George Shultz and Paul Volcker repeatedly pointed out , must enforce its contracts at the point of a gun .
The gangsterism of the Prohibition era was in no way mitigated by the little-known fact that the 18th Amendment and Volstead Act never prohibited the individual use and possession of alcohol .
Reducing individual penalties does not mitigate the competitive struggle among illegal distributors ; only legalization and licensing can do that .
Maryland is politically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part to many federal workers and large black and immigrant populations .
Yet the politicians of inner-city Baltimore , whether out of fear or economic interest , have not been in the vanguard of those seeking recreational marijuana legalization .
As with medical marijuana , its progress has been delayed for years by efforts to guarantee minority participation in new legal markets .
In the long run , the industry will concentrate , largely foredooming these efforts .
But the brutal fact is that inner-city Baltimore and its politicians appear hooked on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employments and incomes are found for its young men on the model of the New Deal youth jobs programs , that condition will persist , together with the resulting carnage .
George Liebmann , a Baltimore lawyer , is the author of various works on law and history , most recently America ’ s Political Inventors ( Bloomsbury 2019 ) , and the editor of Prohibition in Maryland : A Collection of Documents ( Calvert Institute , 2017 ) .

Judge Learned Hand referred to America’s vulnerability to ‘epidemics of ideas’ which sweep the land when sufficient people find a cause to profit by. Black Lives Matter is one such idea. It could have been instigated at any time in the last century and was, in 1968, with few constructive results. It fastens on a handful of cases per year in which African Americans have been fatally victimized by police brutality, a number steadily dropping as the ranks of black mayors, police commissioners and policemen increase.
But ‘the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.’ The spectacle of a smothered victim captured on a cell phone is too good for some people to let go. As long as there are 20 million black men and a million policemen in the United States, there will be more such cases, the fulminations of judges, newspaper editors and street demonstrators notwithstanding. No one has found a perfect antidote to stupidity, or to emotional reactions to violence and fear.
The popular remedies are ‘consent decrees’ and ‘defunding the police.’ The fewer and more intimidated they are, the fewer their collisions with the population.
The question that has not been asked is cui bono—who profits from this particular epidemic of ideas? In Baltimore, since the Freddy Gray episode the number of arrests has dropped by more than half. Many prior arrests were for possession of marijuana or of small dealers in it, who State’s Attorney Mosby has said she will no longer prosecute. A draconian ‘consent decree’ systematically nullifies the techniques used to spectacularly reduce the homicide rate in New York, encumbering ‘stop and question’ policing and enforcement of great swaths of the criminal code.
Our police commissioner and editors congratulate themselves that there have been no recent violent demonstrations here, but that is because the drug gangs have gotten all they want. Yet there is a correlation, like it or not, between the reduction in police proactivity and the massive increase in private homicides. Herbert Asbury, in his famous study of New York’s turn-of-century gangs, concluded that their downfall in the John Purroy Mitchel administration came from the revived use of nightsticks, which previously could be used only in defense of life.
The proliferation of Baltimore’s ‘epidemic of ideas’—and some say its instigation—came from drug gangs, which efficiently looted the city’s pharmacies in the wake of the Freddy Gray affair. Under the consent decree, they effectively rule inner-city street corners, uninterrupted by arrests and frisks for the weapons used to enforce their contracts. The well-intentioned efforts of State’s Attorney Mosby and Judge Bredar have made life easier and more profitable for distributors. Non-prosecution and decriminalization do not alter business as usual in an enormous illegal industry which, as George Shultz and Paul Volcker repeatedly pointed out, must enforce its contracts at the point of a gun.
The gangsterism of the Prohibition era was in no way mitigated by the little-known fact that the 18th Amendment and Volstead Act never prohibited the individual use and possession of alcohol. Reducing individual penalties does not mitigate the competitive struggle among illegal distributors; only legalization and licensing can do that.
Maryland is politically a deep blue state, due in part to many federal workers and large black and immigrant populations. Yet the politicians of inner-city Baltimore, whether out of fear or economic interest, have not been in the vanguard of those seeking recreational marijuana legalization. As with medical marijuana, its progress has been delayed for years by efforts to guarantee minority participation in new legal markets. In the long run, the industry will concentrate, largely foredooming these efforts. But the brutal fact is that inner-city Baltimore and its politicians appear hooked on the illegal drug trade, and until alternative employments and incomes are found for its young men on the model of the New Deal youth jobs programs, that condition will persist, together with the resulting carnage.
George Liebmann, a Baltimore lawyer, is the author of various works on law and history, most recently America’s Political Inventors (Bloomsbury 2019), and the editor of Prohibition in Maryland: A Collection of Documents (Calvert Institute, 2017).


theamericanconservative--2020-10-14--Conservatives Shouldn’t Give Up on Academia

Rather than walk away from universities , they should challenge stereotypes about right-of-center ideas and try to change minds .
Academia continues its leftward shift at a rapid clip , as more schools move to remote learning .
A professor at Marshall University was placed on leave after being recorded in a virtual class hoping that Trump supporters get COVID-19 and “ die.
” A few days ago , a student at San Anselm College , a Catholic university in New Hampshire , claimed that she ’ d failed an assignment after using “ gendered ” language directly from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that conservative professors are disappearing .
Right-leaning academics report more hostility during the hiring process in higher education , while conservative students are more reluctant to share their views in the classroom than their fellow peers .
It ’ s a grim picture , but the solution is not for conservatives to abandon academia .
Instead they should embrace it .
I don ’ t make this suggestion lightly .
Clearly , the hostility conservatives face in academia is no joke .
In fact , it can affect their ability to succeed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-leaning speakers who are disinvited or protested on campus every year .
The vitriol is often frightening .
Even so , conservative students and professors shouldn ’ t head for the hills .
Academia is a powerful institution—one of the most influential in our nation .
Americans with college degrees report higher earnings and lower rates of unemployment , and , as a recent study found , those with college degrees rebounded from the Great Recession of 2008 faster than those without college degrees .
As we cast our eyes toward a post-pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe we can do just fine without higher learning .
The reasons aren ’ t just financial either .
College graduates are more civically engaged and more likely to participate in volunteer work .
They even have longer life expectancies .
Conservatives , then , ought to embrace higher education with an aim of changing it and thereby our culture at large .
If we really want to have an impact , we must be a part of that culture .
When I returned to graduate school in 2018 , I realized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students understand conservative thought .
That ’ s not to say I had anything but a wonderful time in graduate school .
I ’ m grateful for each and every one of my professors , all of whom took time to mentor me and make sure I was successful .
Nevertheless , I was struck by the profound lack of understanding about the political right .
This explains why most of my fellow graduate students had few , if any , close friends who were outspoken conservatives .
After all , when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stereotypes .
My peers often assumed President Trump represented the right as a whole , rather than a faction within a complex political spectrum .
They saw conservatives as more callous and less empathetic than independents and liberals .
Others assumed conservatives supported lower taxes only because they favored the interests of the wealthy .
My peers had an understanding of conservatism that was reliant upon media reports , second-hand rumors from friends , and a host of assumptions .
The ivory tower ’ s ideological silo only reinforced these stereotypes .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no matter how positive their intentions .
I understand why some conservative students may feel defensive when stepping onto a college campus .
We hear so much about “ the threat of liberal professors ” that we fear indoctrination lies around every corner .
It makes us defensive .
Yet to borrow a phrase from Wordsworth , conservatives must be “ happy warriors.
” If we pass through the schoolhouse doors defensively and stubborn in our own assumptions , we ’ ll hardly be positive examples of conservatism for our classmates and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-leaning peers thought of conservatives , they wouldn ’ t think of some cliché they saw on TV .
They would think of me , their friend and hopefully a positive example of a conservative student .
And I think it worked .
I know that some minds were changed .
Academia can only benefit from welcoming more conservatives , although the growing pains will not always be easy on either side .
In this period of terrifying division , we have to find a way to bridge the gap .
Conservatives must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas—and those of our political opposites—by actively engaging with them in liberal environments like academia .
More importantly , we can help our liberal peers do the same .
When we rely less on stereotypes and more on humbly making conversation with those who hate our ideas , it ’ s a net good .
This is a massive undertaking and I ’ m certainly not naïve about the inevitable growing pains that come with close-contact ideological debate .
But it ’ s still worth it .
I went to left-leaning schools for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am better for it .
You could be too .
Amy Lutz is a historian and Young Voices contributor based in Missouri .
She holds a master ’ s degree in History from the University of Missouri , St. Louis .
Follow her on Twitter @ amylutz4 .

Academia continues its leftward shift at a rapid clip, as more schools move to remote learning. A professor at Marshall University was placed on leave after being recorded in a virtual class hoping that Trump supporters get COVID-19 and “die.” A few days ago, a student at San Anselm College, a Catholic university in New Hampshire, claimed that she’d failed an assignment after using “gendered” language directly from the Bible.
It’s no surprise that conservative professors are disappearing. Right-leaning academics report more hostility during the hiring process in higher education, while conservative students are more reluctant to share their views in the classroom than their fellow peers. It’s a grim picture, but the solution is not for conservatives to abandon academia. Instead they should embrace it.
I don’t make this suggestion lightly. Clearly, the hostility conservatives face in academia is no joke. In fact, it can affect their ability to succeed in the academy. Consider the number of right-leaning speakers who are disinvited or protested on campus every year. The vitriol is often frightening.
Even so, conservative students and professors shouldn’t head for the hills. Academia is a powerful institution—one of the most influential in our nation. Americans with college degrees report higher earnings and lower rates of unemployment, and, as a recent study found, those with college degrees rebounded from the Great Recession of 2008 faster than those without college degrees. As we cast our eyes toward a post-pandemic future, we’d be remiss to believe we can do just fine without higher learning.
The reasons aren’t just financial either. College graduates are more civically engaged and more likely to participate in volunteer work. They even have longer life expectancies.
Conservatives, then, ought to embrace higher education with an aim of changing it and thereby our culture at large. If we really want to have an impact, we must be a part of that culture. When I returned to graduate school in 2018, I realized just how little most left-leaning academics and students understand conservative thought. That’s not to say I had anything but a wonderful time in graduate school. I’m grateful for each and every one of my professors, all of whom took time to mentor me and make sure I was successful.
Nevertheless, I was struck by the profound lack of understanding about the political right.
This explains why most of my fellow graduate students had few, if any, close friends who were outspoken conservatives. After all, when we lack knowledge, we fall back on stereotypes. My peers often assumed President Trump represented the right as a whole, rather than a faction within a complex political spectrum. They saw conservatives as more callous and less empathetic than independents and liberals. Others assumed conservatives supported lower taxes only because they favored the interests of the wealthy.
My peers had an understanding of conservatism that was reliant upon media reports, second-hand rumors from friends, and a host of assumptions. The ivory tower’s ideological silo only reinforced these stereotypes. The same held true for many faculty members, no matter how positive their intentions.
I understand why some conservative students may feel defensive when stepping onto a college campus. We hear so much about “the threat of liberal professors” that we fear indoctrination lies around every corner. It makes us defensive. Yet to borrow a phrase from Wordsworth, conservatives must be “happy warriors.” If we pass through the schoolhouse doors defensively and stubborn in our own assumptions, we’ll hardly be positive examples of conservatism for our classmates and professors. My hope was this—when my left-leaning peers thought of conservatives, they wouldn’t think of some cliché they saw on TV. They would think of me, their friend and hopefully a positive example of a conservative student. And I think it worked. I know that some minds were changed.
Academia can only benefit from welcoming more conservatives, although the growing pains will not always be easy on either side. In this period of terrifying division, we have to find a way to bridge the gap. Conservatives must continue to familiarize ourselves with our own ideas—and those of our political opposites—by actively engaging with them in liberal environments like academia. More importantly, we can help our liberal peers do the same. When we rely less on stereotypes and more on humbly making conversation with those who hate our ideas, it’s a net good.
This is a massive undertaking and I’m certainly not naïve about the inevitable growing pains that come with close-contact ideological debate. But it’s still worth it. I went to left-leaning schools for my undergraduate and graduate education and I am better for it. You could be too.
Amy Lutz is a historian and Young Voices contributor based in Missouri. She holds a master’s degree in History from the University of Missouri, St. Louis. Follow her on Twitter @amylutz4.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-15--A Russiagate Film Full of False Assumptions

With the U.S. presidential election only several weeks away , the specter of Russian election interference has again become a mainstay media topic .
Four years removed from the 2016 election , researchers and politicians are still trying to make sense of what happened : what exactly did the Russians do , and what lessons are we to draw from it ?
Filmmaker Alex Gibney—who is enjoying a rising profile with his hotly anticipated COVID-19 documentary Totally Under Control—has applied himself to these questions with a freshly released deepdive into Russian election meddling .
Agents of Chaos is an epic-length @ @ @ @ @ @ @ episodes , released last month on HBO .
The first episode opens with a prelude of sorts .
To explain the roots of Russian information warfare , Gibney walks us through the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine , Russia ’ s subsequent annexation of Crimea , and the outbreak of the ongoing Donbass War .
The Ukrainian conflict , claims Gibney , was the stomping ground for a nascent industry of Russian internet trolls looking to smear the new government in Kiev as ‘ fascists ’ and ‘ neo-nazis.
’ The Ukraine tie-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its execution .
For one , the strategic circumstances are not at all the same .
The film is anchored around the idea that Russia wants to sow chaos , but the Kremlin ’ s approach to Ukraine was guided by concrete policy goals that involved supporting specific politicians and parties .
It is also comically shortsighted to claim that Russian internet trolls sought to “ drive a wedge ” between eastern and western Ukraine , when the country ’ s two halves are already separated by centuries of Imperial history and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To the extent that Russian trolls were “ targeting ” eastern Ukrainians , they were already speaking to an overwhelmingly pro-Russian and anti-Maidan audience .
None of this bears any resemblance to the trolls ’ activities in America .
Without so much as an attempt to square these circles , the Ukraine analogy feels contrived .
Drawing on the help of cybersecurity researcher Camille François and several Russians with first-hand knowledge , Gibney proceeds to outline the Russian internet trolling operation .
Almost all of the work was done from the Internet Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office on the outskirts of St. Petersburg .
The film tells us little that we don ’ t already know from the Mueller investigation and Senate intelligence committee report : there was a concerted effort by certain Russian nationals to impersonate American activists , political groups , and media outlets for the purpose of undermining “ Americans ’ trust in democratic institutions.
” The goal was not necessarily to elect Donald Trump , but to strain the American political system by facilitating conflict between polarized factions .
But how much did the Kremlin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did they endorse , the IRA ’ s activities ?
Agents of Chaos provides no substantive answers .
The film ’ s only evidence of a link between the IRA and the Kremlin is that the former received funding from Yevgeny Prigozhin , a major Russian businessman with ties to Vladimir Putin .
Not only is there no proof that the IRA coordinated directly with any Russian government agency , but it ’ s not even clear to what extent Prigozhin himself oversaw the IRA ’ s agenda .
Gibney admits as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a plausible deniability ploy : Putin shields himself by delegating unsavory , extra-legal tasks to private cronies who technically don ’ t work for him .
This is probably true in a general sense , but it doesn ’ t get us any closer to understanding the level on which specific decisions to interfere in U.S. politics were made .
A similar problem emerges in Gibney ’ s discussion of Fancy Bear , a Russian cyber espionage group .
Gibney proceeds on the assumption that Fancy Bear is the hacking arm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which itself has not been conclusively established with publicly verifiable information .
Gibney posits that Fancy Bear ’ s American activities were conducted with blessing from the Kremlin , an even more flimsy assumption .
A responsible analysis of Russian election interference has to grapple with countless nuances : were the actual hacks conducted by GRU personnel , or contractors ?
Was there an order to target the DNC , or did an overeager operator make a unilateral decision ?
If the former , on what level was the order given ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and how closely did they stick to said agenda ?
Was the Kremlin truly interested in destroying American institutions , or was it perhaps driven by the more pragmatic goal of signaling its cyber capabilities to Washington as a deterrent against future American meddling in Russian politics ?
To truly understand what the Russians did , we have to understand how and by whom the orders were given , how they trickled down the chain of command , and how closely they were followed by field operators .
You have to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the GRU and SVR that could lead the former to take unsanctioned risks .
You also have to consider that , as with any Caesarist system , Putin ’ s many subordinates sometimes take the initiative in doing things to please him that he himself would never have approved of .
Gibney jettisons all these complexities , instead resigning himself to a convenient abstraction : the “ Russians ” did it .
And who are the “ Russians ?
” Well , it all boils down to the guy in charge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply not a realistic view of how any political system , let alone Putin ’ s Russia , operates , but it is all too often used by journalists and politicians as a substitute for serious Russia analysis .
The rest of the film is a fairly linear exploration of the major milestones in the Russian meddling saga : the Assange-DNC imbroglio , the FBI counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign , and a précis of Trump ’ s questionable contacts with Russians .
It is here that the film ’ s editorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration and U.S. intelligence community are portrayed as patriots doing their best to foil a foreign plot on American soil—their only mistake is not going far enough in prosecuting the Trump campaign ( and , in Comey ’ s case , having the gall to announce an investigation into Hillary ’ s use of private email servers ) .
Trump and the Trump campaign , meanwhile , are de facto—if not de de jure—traitors who colluded with a foreign government to win the election .
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objections to the FBI ’ s behavior , especially concerning the FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page .
McCabe was not asked to comment on FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith , who pleaded guilty to submitting falsified documents to renew a surveillance warrant against Page .
Page , meanwhile , was maligned as an eccentric stooge too “ unsophisticated ” to realize that he was being used by his “ Russian spy handlers ” to establish a backchannel with the Trump campaign .
The film offers an uncritical platform to some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even the mainstream news networks were reluctant to publish , including the notion that the Kremlin wanted to use Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort as an intermediary to secure a deal with a potential Trump administration for the partition of Ukraine .
Gibney proceeds to recount all the stations of the cross of the Russiagate narrative ; these include the Trump Tower meeting , Trump ’ s infamous request for Russians to hack Hillary Clinton , alleged Russian efforts to suppress the black vote , and alleged coordination between wikileaks and the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels less like a critical-minded documentary and more like a heartfelt homage to the old ‘ stab in the back ’ theory of the 2016 election—namely , the idea that Clinton never really lost , but was instead betrayed by fellow Americans who conspired against her with a hostile foreign power .
Agents of Chaos was branded as a fresh look at Russian election interference , cutting past the fog surrounding intelligence work to uncover the truth of what really happened in 2016 .
What we got instead was a summa of Russiagate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presented with all the slick polish that can be expected from an award-winning filmmaker .
“ National security , ” concludes Gibney in his closing narration , “ isn ’ t just about our enemies .
It ’ s also about us .
National security starts at home , with our own resilience , our own politics , and the honor of our leaders.
” I commend these words without reserve .
Nevertheless , there is room for a nuanced discussion about Russian interference in 2016 and what can be done to deter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not Agents of Chaos adds anything of value to that discussion is a rather different matter .
If the film offers any unique strain of thinking , it lies in Gibney ’ s poignant observation that Russian interference only worked to the extent that it did because we are needlessly vulnerable to such incursions .
Any foreign agent working to destabilize American society would find no shortage of socio-political faultlines to exploit , of bitter resentments to manipulate .
The Russians didn ’ t do that—we did that to ourselves .
Mending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this sense , one of the foremost national security challenges of our time .
Mark Episkopos writes on defense and international relations issues .
He is also a PhD student in History at American University .

With the U.S. presidential election only several weeks away, the specter of Russian election interference has again become a mainstay media topic. Four years removed from the 2016 election, researchers and politicians are still trying to make sense of what happened: what exactly did the Russians do, and what lessons are we to draw from it? Filmmaker Alex Gibney—who is enjoying a rising profile with his hotly anticipated COVID-19 documentary Totally Under Control—has applied himself to these questions with a freshly released deepdive into Russian election meddling.
Agents of Chaos is an epic-length documentary, spanning four hours across two episodes, released last month on HBO. The first episode opens with a prelude of sorts. To explain the roots of Russian information warfare, Gibney walks us through the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine, Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea, and the outbreak of the ongoing Donbass War. The Ukrainian conflict, claims Gibney, was the stomping ground for a nascent industry of Russian internet trolls looking to smear the new government in Kiev as ‘fascists’ and ‘neo-nazis.’
The Ukraine tie-in is thought-provoking, but altogether unsatisfying in its execution. For one, the strategic circumstances are not at all the same. The film is anchored around the idea that Russia wants to sow chaos, but the Kremlin’s approach to Ukraine was guided by concrete policy goals that involved supporting specific politicians and parties. It is also comically shortsighted to claim that Russian internet trolls sought to “drive a wedge” between eastern and western Ukraine, when the country’s two halves are already separated by centuries of Imperial history and the bitter legacy of two world wars. To the extent that Russian trolls were “targeting” eastern Ukrainians, they were already speaking to an overwhelmingly pro-Russian and anti-Maidan audience. None of this bears any resemblance to the trolls’ activities in America. Without so much as an attempt to square these circles, the Ukraine analogy feels contrived.
Drawing on the help of cybersecurity researcher Camille François and several Russians with first-hand knowledge, Gibney proceeds to outline the Russian internet trolling operation. Almost all of the work was done from the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a chaste office on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. The film tells us little that we don’t already know from the Mueller investigation and Senate intelligence committee report: there was a concerted effort by certain Russian nationals to impersonate American activists, political groups, and media outlets for the purpose of undermining “Americans’ trust in democratic institutions.” The goal was not necessarily to elect Donald Trump, but to strain the American political system by facilitating conflict between polarized factions.
But how much did the Kremlin know of, and to what extent did they endorse, the IRA’s activities? Agents of Chaos provides no substantive answers. The film’s only evidence of a link between the IRA and the Kremlin is that the former received funding from Yevgeny Prigozhin, a major Russian businessman with ties to Vladimir Putin. Not only is there no proof that the IRA coordinated directly with any Russian government agency, but it’s not even clear to what extent Prigozhin himself oversaw the IRA’s agenda. Gibney admits as much, but claims it’s all part of a plausible deniability ploy: Putin shields himself by delegating unsavory, extra-legal tasks to private cronies who technically don’t work for him. This is probably true in a general sense, but it doesn’t get us any closer to understanding the level on which specific decisions to interfere in U.S. politics were made.
A similar problem emerges in Gibney’s discussion of Fancy Bear, a Russian cyber espionage group. Gibney proceeds on the assumption that Fancy Bear is the hacking arm of Russian military intelligence (GRU), which itself has not been conclusively established with publicly verifiable information. Gibney posits that Fancy Bear’s American activities were conducted with blessing from the Kremlin, an even more flimsy assumption. A responsible analysis of Russian election interference has to grapple with countless nuances: were the actual hacks conducted by GRU personnel, or contractors? Was there an order to target the DNC, or did an overeager operator make a unilateral decision? If the former, on what level was the order given? Who set Fancy Bear’s agenda, and how closely did they stick to said agenda? Was the Kremlin truly interested in destroying American institutions, or was it perhaps driven by the more pragmatic goal of signaling its cyber capabilities to Washington as a deterrent against future American meddling in Russian politics?
To truly understand what the Russians did, we have to understand how and by whom the orders were given, how they trickled down the chain of command, and how closely they were followed by field operators. You have to understand institutional forces, like the longstanding rivalry between the GRU and SVR that could lead the former to take unsanctioned risks. You also have to consider that, as with any Caesarist system, Putin’s many subordinates sometimes take the initiative in doing things to please him that he himself would never have approved of.
Gibney jettisons all these complexities, instead resigning himself to a convenient abstraction: the “Russians” did it. And who are the “Russians?” Well, it all boils down to the guy in charge. This conceit of an omnipresent leader is simply not a realistic view of how any political system, let alone Putin’s Russia, operates, but it is all too often used by journalists and politicians as a substitute for serious Russia analysis.
The rest of the film is a fairly linear exploration of the major milestones in the Russian meddling saga: the Assange-DNC imbroglio, the FBI counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, and a précis of Trump’s questionable contacts with Russians. It is here that the film’s editorial stance is fully laid bare: the Obama administration and U.S. intelligence community are portrayed as patriots doing their best to foil a foreign plot on American soil—their only mistake is not going far enough in prosecuting the Trump campaign (and, in Comey’s case, having the gall to announce an investigation into Hillary’s use of private email servers).
Trump and the Trump campaign, meanwhile, are de facto—if not de de jure—traitors who colluded with a foreign government to win the election. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was given a sympathetic platform to dismiss serious objections to the FBI’s behavior, especially concerning the FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page. McCabe was not asked to comment on FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to submitting falsified documents to renew a surveillance warrant against Page. Page, meanwhile, was maligned as an eccentric stooge too “unsophisticated” to realize that he was being used by his “Russian spy handlers” to establish a backchannel with the Trump campaign.
The film offers an uncritical platform to some of the more outrageous Trump-Russia conspiracies that even the mainstream news networks were reluctant to publish, including the notion that the Kremlin wanted to use Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort as an intermediary to secure a deal with a potential Trump administration for the partition of Ukraine.
Gibney proceeds to recount all the stations of the cross of the Russiagate narrative; these include the Trump Tower meeting, Trump’s infamous request for Russians to hack Hillary Clinton, alleged Russian efforts to suppress the black vote, and alleged coordination between wikileaks and the Trump campaign. That part of the film feels less like a critical-minded documentary and more like a heartfelt homage to the old ‘stab in the back’ theory of the 2016 election—namely, the idea that Clinton never really lost, but was instead betrayed by fellow Americans who conspired against her with a hostile foreign power.
Agents of Chaos was branded as a fresh look at Russian election interference, cutting past the fog surrounding intelligence work to uncover the truth of what really happened in 2016. What we got instead was a summa of Russiagate’s greatest hits, packaged and presented with all the slick polish that can be expected from an award-winning filmmaker.
“National security,” concludes Gibney in his closing narration, “isn’t just about our enemies. It’s also about us. National security starts at home, with our own resilience, our own politics, and the honor of our leaders.” I commend these words without reserve. Nevertheless, there is room for a nuanced discussion about Russian interference in 2016 and what can be done to deter foreign meddling in the future. Whether or not Agents of Chaos adds anything of value to that discussion is a rather different matter.
If the film offers any unique strain of thinking, it lies in Gibney’s poignant observation that Russian interference only worked to the extent that it did because we are needlessly vulnerable to such incursions. Any foreign agent working to destabilize American society would find no shortage of socio-political faultlines to exploit, of bitter resentments to manipulate. The Russians didn’t do that—we did that to ourselves. Mending our torn social fabric is, in this sense, one of the foremost national security challenges of our time.
Mark Episkopos writes on defense and international relations issues. He is also a PhD student in History at American University.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-17--Stepping Back from the Brink

Stepping Back from the Brink

As the elections fall upon us , most people are focused on who wins , Republicans or Democrats .
That is an important question , since a Democratic victory would bring a serious assault on freedom of thought and expression .
What you see on campuses is what the cultural Marxists want to force on society as a whole .
“ Cancel ” is the new synonym for “ liquidate.
” There is nonetheless a more portentous question facing our country : do politics stay within the banks of the political system or do they overflow those banks and inundate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question may lead to another : do we remain the United States or will the astonishing disintegration of the Soviet Union be followed by the even more astonishing disintegration of our own country ?
Why are we faced with these questions ?
Because all around the world the state is in decline .
The decline is steeper in some places than in others , but it is occurring almost everywhere .
Why ?
Because many of the elites that run states have disconnected themselves from the rest of the country .
Their culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their non-elite countrymen .
They suck money and power out of the rest of the country and use them solely for their own benefit .
And they care about only one thing : remaining the elite .
These behaviors generate a growing crisis of legitimacy for the state the elite controls .
People come to see the state as a racket .
When people give up on the state , politics flow out of the system and into the streets .
We have seen that this summer , coming from the Left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the state ’ s response has been supine .
Monuments to people ’ s ancestors and heroes are torn down .
Everything “ politically incorrect ” is renamed .
The Right watches angrily as business and political “ leaders ” grovel in the dirt before cultural Marxism .
Their legitimacy becomes as thin as their courage .
At what point does the Right give up on the state ?
That is likely to depend on what happens to the economy .
Will it recover quickly in a V-shaped or “ swoosh ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second Great Depression ?
The elite is doing its best to create the latter by keeping people so terrified of the coronavirus that even though businesses re-open , no customers come .
The elite ’ s goal is to defeat President Trump , and they calculate their usual grasp on the levers of power and money will save them amidst a general economic collapse .
That may be optimistic .
If the Left continues to move politics into the streets , the Right will at some point do the same .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right is unemployed .
A second term for President Trump will to some extent act as a safety valve for the Right .
But it will also push the alt-left to become more violent .
With the police in major cities neutered by the politicians , the Right will counter , if only to defend itself and its symbols .
At that point , ol ’ man river overflows his banks and everyone is caught up in the flood .
The flood may take the shape of Fourth Generation war , war fought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose primary loyalty is to something other than the state .
Race would be one such loyalty , religion another , region or local state ( e.g.
, Ohio or Alabama ) a third .
Ideology would motivate many , and lots of young men would fight for lack of anything better to do .
Places such as Libya and Syria would be re-created on American soil .
It is bizarre that we even have to think about this scenario .
But the Left ’ s violence and the state ’ s weak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is conceivable .
The state arose to establish and maintain order , safety of persons and property .
A state that fails to do so will fall .
If its people are fortunate , a new state that can do the job will arise quickly , although it may be an authoritarian state .
As the Chinese say , with millennia of bitter experience , better 100 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy .
No conservative can want disorder , much less state failure .
The Left , if it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know it will lose a war with the Right and lose it quickly .
Its strength is in cities , and cities can not feed themselves .
As Mao said , take the countryside and the cities will fall .
It is not too late for Left and Right to accept the need to live with each other and work out ways to do so .
A renewed federalism is the most promising , with some states politically and culturally left , others right .
Anyone who did not like it where he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , let me offer a morsel of advice to the Left : it is time to stop baby from playing with matches and dynamite .
William S. Lind is the author , with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele , of the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook .

As the elections fall upon us, most people are focused on who wins, Republicans or Democrats. That is an important question, since a Democratic victory would bring a serious assault on freedom of thought and expression. What you see on campuses is what the cultural Marxists want to force on society as a whole. “Cancel” is the new synonym for “liquidate.”
There is nonetheless a more portentous question facing our country: do politics stay within the banks of the political system or do they overflow those banks and inundate daily life? The answer to that question may lead to another: do we remain the United States or will the astonishing disintegration of the Soviet Union be followed by the even more astonishing disintegration of our own country?
Why are we faced with these questions? Because all around the world the state is in decline. The decline is steeper in some places than in others, but it is occurring almost everywhere. Why? Because many of the elites that run states have disconnected themselves from the rest of the country. Their culture and values are hostile to the beliefs of their non-elite countrymen. They suck money and power out of the rest of the country and use them solely for their own benefit. And they care about only one thing: remaining the elite. These behaviors generate a growing crisis of legitimacy for the state the elite controls. People come to see the state as a racket.
When people give up on the state, politics flow out of the system and into the streets. We have seen that this summer, coming from the Left. Even with Mr. Trump as President, the state’s response has been supine. Monuments to people’s ancestors and heroes are torn down. Everything “politically incorrect” is renamed. The Right watches angrily as business and political “leaders” grovel in the dirt before cultural Marxism. Their legitimacy becomes as thin as their courage.
At what point does the Right give up on the state? That is likely to depend on what happens to the economy. Will it recover quickly in a V-shaped or “swoosh” fashion or will we find ourselves in a second Great Depression? The elite is doing its best to create the latter by keeping people so terrified of the coronavirus that even though businesses re-open, no customers come. The elite’s goal is to defeat President Trump, and they calculate their usual grasp on the levers of power and money will save them amidst a general economic collapse. That may be optimistic.
If the Left continues to move politics into the streets, the Right will at some point do the same. That will come sooner if much of the Right is unemployed. A second term for President Trump will to some extent act as a safety valve for the Right. But it will also push the alt-left to become more violent. With the police in major cities neutered by the politicians, the Right will counter, if only to defend itself and its symbols. At that point, ol’ man river overflows his banks and everyone is caught up in the flood.
The flood may take the shape of Fourth Generation war, war fought by people who are not soldiers and whose primary loyalty is to something other than the state. Race would be one such loyalty, religion another, region or local state (e.g., Ohio or Alabama) a third. Ideology would motivate many, and lots of young men would fight for lack of anything better to do. Places such as Libya and Syria would be re-created on American soil.
It is bizarre that we even have to think about this scenario. But the Left’s violence and the state’s weak response to it means such a disaster is conceivable. The state arose to establish and maintain order, safety of persons and property. A state that fails to do so will fall. If its people are fortunate, a new state that can do the job will arise quickly, although it may be an authoritarian state.
As the Chinese say, with millennia of bitter experience, better 100 years of tyranny than one day of anarchy. No conservative can want disorder, much less state failure. The Left, if it has any remaining grasp on reality, should know it will lose a war with the Right and lose it quickly. Its strength is in cities, and cities cannot feed themselves. As Mao said, take the countryside and the cities will fall.
It is not too late for Left and Right to accept the need to live with each other and work out ways to do so. A renewed federalism is the most promising, with some states politically and culturally left, others right. Anyone who did not like it where he was could move.
In the meantime, let me offer a morsel of advice to the Left: it is time to stop baby from playing with matches and dynamite.
William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook.


Revisiting Hydroxychloroquine

There is substantial evidence to suggest that the drug is effective in treating Covid-19 .
Why are we not trying it ?
More than six months have passed since the president first tweeted about hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for Covid-19 .
Since then , some studies have claimed that it works , and others not .
But one thing we have learned unequivocally about hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 is that CNN , TheNew York Times , TheWashington Post , Dr. Anthony Fauci , and the editor of TheLancet don ’ t want you to take it .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about it .
The less you know about it , the better .
And they have felt this way consistently since the start of the pandemic , when there were hardly any studies to parse .
To even call this situation a “ debate ” is a stretch , because the forces opposed to the drug ’ s use for Covid-19 haven ’ t debated , but rather have tried to shut down any journalist , doctor , or researcher armed with different data .
Hydroxychloroquine , a 70-year-old malaria drug that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rheumatoid arthritis , is inexpensive and has an excellent safety profile .
It has been used to treat over two billion people .
Before the pandemic , the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) recommended that adults and children of any age could take it safely , including pregnant women and nursing mothers .
In March , the strongest evidence in favor of its use and efficacy for Covid-19 came from Marseille , from a small observational study conducted by the French epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult .
In this and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has claimed success in treating Covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine , when used in combination with antibiotics .
Based on this information , pharmaceutical companies donated millions of doses to the government , and the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) issued an emergency use authorization , making the donated drugs available to hospitalized Covid-19 patients .
At the end of June and in early July , larger studies were published by the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit , both of which demonstrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate for Covid-19 sufferers in half .
In particular , the Henry Ford paper argued that the drug should be administered early in the disease progression in order to be effective .
The press reaction to these studies has ranged from the dismissive to the outright hostile .
In May , The New York Times Magazine ran a nearly 8,000-word feature attacking Dr. Raoult personally .
Neither CNN , nor TheNew York Times , nor TheWashington Post has even mentioned the Mount Sinai trial .
With respect to the Henry Ford study , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a month after they published , the hospital system issued an open letter announcing that they would no longer comment publically on their own research .
As the Henry Ford doctors explained , “ the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible.
” But this is only half of the picture .
In April , the editor of the British medical journal The Lancettweeted that it was the duty of “ every scientist , every healthcare worker , every citizen ” to “ resist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 22 , The Lancet published a massive study of some 96,000 Covid-19 patients , claiming that hydroxychloroquine not only didn ’ t help them , but that it actually caused harm .
Namely , it argued that the drug “ was associated with an increase in the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and a greater hazard for in-hospital death with COVID-19.
” The press went into overtime disseminating these findings .
One physician told The Washington Post , “ If there was ever hope for this drug , this is the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared on CNN , “ the scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.
” The science appeared to be settled .
Then , only two weeks after TheLancet paper was published , the authors retracted it .
The source data turned out to be fake .
TheLancet ‘ s editor described the paper to The New York Times as “ a monumental fraud , ” but the damage was already done .
A week after the Lancet retraction—while claiming to have been uninfluenced by it—the FDA revoked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for hydroxychloroquine .
By contrast , when doctors from the Henry Ford Health System published their trial results , they submitted a request to the FDA for a new emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine .
Their letter emphasized , “ It is essential that studies evaluating HCQ for pre , post and early treatment , ( including early hospital treatment ) of HCQ be supported without the need for [ investigational new drug ] requirement limiting potential for studies to be initiated.
” Pushing back against the widely reported Lancet claims , they noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality data demonstrated no major cardiac arrhythmias.
” The Henry Ford physicians further suggested “ that of the more than 100,000 Americans who have lost their lives to the SARS-CoV-2 virus , tens of thousands of them might have survived with an early treatment regime of hydroxychloroquine.
” The FDA denied Henry Ford ’ s request .
In a short letter of explanation , the director of the Office of New Drugs wrote that “ based on the totality of the scientific information available , it is unlikely that hydroxychloroquine sulfate may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early COVID-19 infections.
” Furthermore , he referenced “ ongoing reports of serious cardiac adverse events ” as justification for their decision without citing any actual “ ongoing reports.
” But as the Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch contended in May , “ fatal arrhythmia outcomes ” from hydroxychloroquine use “ are so rare that they are of much lesser clinical significance than the hospitalization and mortality that the drugs prevent.
” This all invites the question : what is the FDA doing ?
The career physicians at the FDA clearly never wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug to begin with .
A whistleblower complaint for a fired FDA doctor—written by the same lawyer who represented Justice Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey-Ford—dubs hydroxychloroquine a “ potentially toxic chemical ” and states explicitly that the FDA ’ s original emergency use authorization was intended to confine the drug to use in hospitals .
By revoking that authorization , and rejecting Henry Ford ’ s appeal for a new one , the FDA has effectively made further study of this drug for Covid-19 treatment in America impossible .
As the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nearly everyone survives.
” But for those at risk—the elderly , and especially those who have other underlying health problems—an effective treatment is still very much needed .
While monoclonal antibody treatments will be limited in availability , there is no shortage of hydroxychloroquine .
There are numerous recent studies—underreported in the American media—that could add to the debate .
Instead of covering these studies , the media keeps repeating that there is no supporting evidence .
It is time to find out , with some reasonable certainty , whether or not this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served as White House counsel under President George H.W .
Bush and as U.S. ambassador to the European Union under President George W. Bush .
His firm , C. Boyden Gray & Associates , has represented the energy industry , among other clients .
He served as chairman of the Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section of the ABA from 2000 to 2002 .

More than six months have passed since the president first tweeted about hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for Covid-19. Since then, some studies have claimed that it works, and others not. But one thing we have learned unequivocally about hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 is that CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and the editor of The Lancet don’t want you to take it.
In fact, they would prefer that you not even talk about it. The less you know about it, the better. And they have felt this way consistently since the start of the pandemic, when there were hardly any studies to parse. To even call this situation a “debate” is a stretch, because the forces opposed to the drug’s use for Covid-19 haven’t debated, but rather have tried to shut down any journalist, doctor, or researcher armed with different data.
Hydroxychloroquine, a 70-year-old malaria drug that is also regularly used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, is inexpensive and has an excellent safety profile. It has been used to treat over two billion people. Before the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended that adults and children of any age could take it safely, including pregnant women and nursing mothers.
In March, the strongest evidence in favor of its use and efficacy for Covid-19 came from Marseille, from a small observational study conducted by the French epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult. In this and his own larger follow-up trials, Dr. Raoult has claimed success in treating Covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, when used in combination with antibiotics.
Based on this information, pharmaceutical companies donated millions of doses to the government, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization, making the donated drugs available to hospitalized Covid-19 patients.
At the end of June and in early July, larger studies were published by the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, both of which demonstrated that the anti-malarial drug cut the mortality rate for Covid-19 sufferers in half. In particular, the Henry Ford paper argued that the drug should be administered early in the disease progression in order to be effective.
The press reaction to these studies has ranged from the dismissive to the outright hostile. In May, The New York Times Magazine ran a nearly 8,000-word feature attacking Dr. Raoult personally. Neither CNN, nor The New York Times, nor The Washington Post has even mentioned the Mount Sinai trial.
With respect to the Henry Ford study, the vitriol has been so great that, a month after they published, the hospital system issued an open letter announcing that they would no longer comment publically on their own research. As the Henry Ford doctors explained, “the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible.”
But this is only half of the picture. In April, the editor of the British medical journal The Lancet tweeted that it was the duty of “every scientist, every healthcare worker, every citizen” to “resist and rebel” against Trump. Then, on May 22, The Lancet published a massive study of some 96,000 Covid-19 patients, claiming that hydroxychloroquine not only didn’t help them, but that it actually caused harm. Namely, it argued that the drug “was associated with an increase in the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and a greater hazard for in-hospital death with COVID-19.”
The press went into overtime disseminating these findings. One physician told The Washington Post, “If there was ever hope for this drug, this is the death of it,” and Dr. Fauci declared on CNN, “the scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.” The science appeared to be settled.
Then, only two weeks after The Lancet paper was published, the authors retracted it. The source data turned out to be fake. The Lancet‘s editor described the paper to The New York Times as “a monumental fraud,” but the damage was already done. A week after the Lancet retraction—while claiming to have been uninfluenced by it—the FDA revoked the emergency use authorization it had previously issued for hydroxychloroquine.
By contrast, when doctors from the Henry Ford Health System published their trial results, they submitted a request to the FDA for a new emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine. Their letter emphasized, “It is essential that studies evaluating HCQ for pre, post and early treatment, (including early hospital treatment) of HCQ be supported without the need for [investigational new drug] requirement limiting potential for studies to be initiated.” Pushing back against the widely reported Lancet claims, they noted, “A review of our COVID-19 mortality data demonstrated no major cardiac arrhythmias.” The Henry Ford physicians further suggested “that of the more than 100,000 Americans who have lost their lives to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, tens of thousands of them might have survived with an early treatment regime of hydroxychloroquine.”
The FDA denied Henry Ford’s request. In a short letter of explanation, the director of the Office of New Drugs wrote that “based on the totality of the scientific information available, it is unlikely that hydroxychloroquine sulfate may be effective in disease prevention or treatment of early COVID-19 infections.” Furthermore, he referenced “ongoing reports of serious cardiac adverse events” as justification for their decision without citing any actual “ongoing reports.” But as the Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch contended in May, “fatal arrhythmia outcomes” from hydroxychloroquine use “are so rare that they are of much lesser clinical significance than the hospitalization and mortality that the drugs prevent.”
This all invites the question: what is the FDA doing? The career physicians at the FDA clearly never wanted to give Americans emergency access to the drug to begin with. A whistleblower complaint for a fired FDA doctor—written by the same lawyer who represented Justice Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey-Ford—dubs hydroxychloroquine a “potentially toxic chemical” and states explicitly that the FDA’s original emergency use authorization was intended to confine the drug to use in hospitals. By revoking that authorization, and rejecting Henry Ford’s appeal for a new one, the FDA has effectively made further study of this drug for Covid-19 treatment in America impossible.
As the New York Times Magazine piece on Raoult noted, “Nearly everyone survives.” But for those at risk—the elderly, and especially those who have other underlying health problems—an effective treatment is still very much needed. While monoclonal antibody treatments will be limited in availability, there is no shortage of hydroxychloroquine.
There are numerous recent studies—underreported in the American media—that could add to the debate. Instead of covering these studies, the media keeps repeating that there is no supporting evidence. It is time to find out, with some reasonable certainty, whether or not this is really true.
C. Boyden Gray served as White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush and as U.S. ambassador to the European Union under President George W. Bush. His firm, C. Boyden Gray & Associates, has represented the energy industry, among other clients. He served as chairman of the Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section of the ABA from 2000 to 2002.


theamericanconservative--2020-10-19--The Voting Rights Mirage

The Voting Rights Mirage

The most dangerous political illusion is that votes limit politicians ’ power .
Americans have been endlessly hectored in recent months to cast their votes in the presidential election .
But trusting ballots to leash either Donald Trump or Joe Biden would be the ultimate triumph of hope over experience .
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the most venerated federal law of the last 60 years .
When he signed the law , President Lyndon Johnson declared , “ This right to vote is the basic right without which all others are meaningless .
It gives people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own destinies.
” Johnson and generations of subsequent politicians assured Americans that possessing a vote was practically the only protection they needed against oppression .
But the Voting Rights Act has failed to prevent politicians from ravaging voters of every race , creed , and color .
Early in 1965 , before the Voting Rights Act passed Congress , Johnson declared in a phone call to Martin Luther King Jr. , “ I just don ’ t see how anybody can say that a man can fight in Vietnam but he can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did nothing to nullify Johnson ’ s dictatorial power over draftees .
Tens of thousands of conscripts died in an unpopular war that mushroomed because the president dispatched them to a pointless foreign conflict .
Regardless of how many lies Johnson told about Vietnam , young Americans were still compelled to follow his orders to the death in the jungles and rice paddies .
Johnson also proclaimed that the Voting Rights Act grants “ every American Negro his freedom to enter the mainstream of American life ” but the FBI never got that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five years of King ’ s life , he was “ the target of an intensive campaign by the FBI to ‘ neutralize ’ him as an effective civil rights leader , ” according to a 1976 Senate report .
King ’ s home , office , and hotel rooms were frequently , illegally wiretapped by the FBI , seeking information to discredit King .
The FBI even set up its own Klan organization that savagely attacked civil-rights protesters .
In San Diego , the FBI instigated violence between black groups that helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same time the federal government became far more oppressive .
More blacks voting after 1965 did not prevent Congress from declaring a war on drugs and enacting laws that locked away legions of people for possessing politically incorrect substances .
Thanks in part to crackdowns on narcotics , the incarceration rate of black high-school dropouts increased almost sevenfold between 1960 and 2000 , according to a 2009 study by Harvard professor George Borjas and colleagues .
Selma , Alabama Mayor George Evans told National Public Radio in 2015 : “ Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through voting rights and Bloody Sunday , we ’ ve stepped backwards when it comes to crime and drugs and the jail system—things like that.
” America ’ s sad trajectory was captured 20 years ago by country singer Merle Haggard : “ In 1960 , when I came out of prison as an ex-convict , I had more freedom under parolee supervision than there ’ s available to an average citizen in America right now … God almighty , what have we done to each other ?
” Democratic presidential candidate Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle for the soul for America has many fronts ; the right to vote is the most fundamental.
” But when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , Biden co-wrote the 1994 crime bill which TheNew York Timesnoted last year “ contributed to the explosion of the prison population.
” Biden had no sympathy for anyone who violated any law Congress decreed : “ Lock the S.O.B.s up !
” Biden boasted in 1994 that “ every major crime bill since 1976 that ’ s come out of this Congress… has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the State of Delaware : Joe Biden.
” But Biden ’ s role in the arrest and jailing of hundreds of thousands of Americans has vanished into the Memory Hole during this campaign season .
The violent anti-police protests that proliferated nationwide after the killing of George Floyd is another testament to the failure of the Voting Rights Act .
The fact that far more African Americans were enabled to vote did not prevent police unions from capturing the right to accost , abuse , and shoot who they pleased .
Politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups and then refused to repeal laws that entitle government agents to kill with impunity .
Having a vote does nothing to prevent a person from being molested by the Transportation Security Agency , spied on by the National Security Agency , or harassed by the Internal Revenue Service .
Casting votes has not prevented the federal government from creating trillions of pages of new secrets every year .
At the state level , possessing the right to vote failed to stop governors from padlocking churches , bankrupting businesses , blighting education , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under house arrest on the flimsiest epidemiological pretexts during the Covid-19 pandemic .
Politicians talk as if voting magically protects the rights of everyone within a 50-mile radius of the polling booth .
Tell that fable to the Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because he promised a more “ humble ” foreign policy , to Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because he promised to restore civil liberties , and to Americans who voted for Trump because he promised to “ drain the swamp ” in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights ” occurs when election winners capture unlimited power to abuse voters .
Ballots failed to prevent every recent American commander-in-chief from expanding and exploiting the dictatorial potential of the presidency .
Decades of court decisions have confirmed the de facto legal immunity of the nation ’ s highest elected official .
The term “ Pandora ’ s Box ” is apparently not part of the playbook provided to federal judges .
Rather than safeguarding rights , elections nowadays usually merely designate who gets to trample them .
Regardless of their rhetoric on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a snowball ’ s chance in hell that either Trump or Biden will “ make America constitutional again.
” But presidents and members of Congress can not violate their oath to uphold the Constitution without making a mockery of any election that they won .
Voting rights controversies are attractive to media outlets that seek to portray this election as a battle between good and evil .
But the media almost completely ignores the perennial failure of voting to restrain government power .
As long as it remains infinitely easier for politicians to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians , voting rights will continue to be mostly a dangerous mirage .
Voting can still be one way to make a statement of one ’ s principles and preferences .
But don ’ t expect the political ruling class to pretend to pay attention after Election Day .
Washington will remain a deadly peril to our rights and liberties regardless of the final vote counts .
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @

The most dangerous political illusion is that votes limit politicians’ power. Americans have been endlessly hectored in recent months to cast their votes in the presidential election. But trusting ballots to leash either Donald Trump or Joe Biden would be the ultimate triumph of hope over experience.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the most venerated federal law of the last 60 years. When he signed the law, President Lyndon Johnson declared, “This right to vote is the basic right without which all others are meaningless. It gives people, people as individuals, control over their own destinies.” Johnson and generations of subsequent politicians assured Americans that possessing a vote was practically the only protection they needed against oppression. But the Voting Rights Act has failed to prevent politicians from ravaging voters of every race, creed, and color.
Early in 1965, before the Voting Rights Act passed Congress, Johnson declared in a phone call to Martin Luther King Jr., “I just don’t see how anybody can say that a man can fight in Vietnam but he can’t vote.” But expanding voting rights did nothing to nullify Johnson’s dictatorial power over draftees. Tens of thousands of conscripts died in an unpopular war that mushroomed because the president dispatched them to a pointless foreign conflict. Regardless of how many lies Johnson told about Vietnam, young Americans were still compelled to follow his orders to the death in the jungles and rice paddies.
Johnson also proclaimed that the Voting Rights Act grants “every American Negro his freedom to enter the mainstream of American life” but the FBI never got that memo. For most of the last five years of King’s life, he was “the target of an intensive campaign by the FBI to ‘neutralize’ him as an effective civil rights leader,” according to a 1976 Senate report. King’s home, office, and hotel rooms were frequently, illegally wiretapped by the FBI, seeking information to discredit King. The FBI even set up its own Klan organization that savagely attacked civil-rights protesters. In San Diego, the FBI instigated violence between black groups that helped spur several killings.
Voting rights expanded at the same time the federal government became far more oppressive. More blacks voting after 1965 did not prevent Congress from declaring a war on drugs and enacting laws that locked away legions of people for possessing politically incorrect substances. Thanks in part to crackdowns on narcotics, the incarceration rate of black high-school dropouts increased almost sevenfold between 1960 and 2000, according to a 2009 study by Harvard professor George Borjas and colleagues. Selma, Alabama Mayor George Evans told National Public Radio in 2015: “Even though we’ve gained so much through voting rights and Bloody Sunday, we’ve stepped backwards when it comes to crime and drugs and the jail system—things like that.” America’s sad trajectory was captured 20 years ago by country singer Merle Haggard: “In 1960, when I came out of prison as an ex-convict, I had more freedom under parolee supervision than there’s available to an average citizen in America right now … God almighty, what have we done to each other?”
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared in August, “The battle for the soul for America has many fronts; the right to vote is the most fundamental.” But when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden co-wrote the 1994 crime bill which The New York Times noted last year “contributed to the explosion of the prison population.” Biden had no sympathy for anyone who violated any law Congress decreed: “Lock the S.O.B.s up!” Biden boasted in 1994 that “every major crime bill since 1976 that’s come out of this Congress… has had the name of the Democratic senator from the State of Delaware: Joe Biden.” But Biden’s role in the arrest and jailing of hundreds of thousands of Americans has vanished into the Memory Hole during this campaign season.
The violent anti-police protests that proliferated nationwide after the killing of George Floyd is another testament to the failure of the Voting Rights Act. The fact that far more African Americans were enabled to vote did not prevent police unions from capturing the right to accost, abuse, and shoot who they pleased. Politicians prattled about their concern for oppressed minority groups and then refused to repeal laws that entitle government agents to kill with impunity.
Having a vote does nothing to prevent a person from being molested by the Transportation Security Agency, spied on by the National Security Agency, or harassed by the Internal Revenue Service. Casting votes has not prevented the federal government from creating trillions of pages of new secrets every year. At the state level, possessing the right to vote failed to stop governors from padlocking churches, bankrupting businesses, blighting education, and placing scores of millions of Americans under house arrest on the flimsiest epidemiological pretexts during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Politicians talk as if voting magically protects the rights of everyone within a 50-mile radius of the polling booth. Tell that fable to the Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 because he promised a more “humble” foreign policy, to Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because he promised to restore civil liberties, and to Americans who voted for Trump because he promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington.
The worst violation of “voting rights” occurs when election winners capture unlimited power to abuse voters. Ballots failed to prevent every recent American commander-in-chief from expanding and exploiting the dictatorial potential of the presidency. Decades of court decisions have confirmed the de facto legal immunity of the nation’s highest elected official. The term “Pandora’s Box” is apparently not part of the playbook provided to federal judges.
Rather than safeguarding rights, elections nowadays usually merely designate who gets to trample them. Regardless of their rhetoric on the campaign trail, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that either Trump or Biden will “make America constitutional again.” But presidents and members of Congress cannot violate their oath to uphold the Constitution without making a mockery of any election that they won.
Voting rights controversies are attractive to media outlets that seek to portray this election as a battle between good and evil. But the media almost completely ignores the perennial failure of voting to restrain government power. As long as it remains infinitely easier for politicians to bind citizens than for citizens to bind politicians, voting rights will continue to be mostly a dangerous mirage.
Voting can still be one way to make a statement of one’s principles and preferences. But don’t expect the political ruling class to pretend to pay attention after Election Day. Washington will remain a deadly peril to our rights and liberties regardless of the final vote counts.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.