Category: Dennis Prager

The Denial of Evil: The Case of Communism

One of the most highly regarded books of the 20th century was Ernest Becker’s “The Denial of Death.” Winner of the 1974 Pulitzer Prize, the book is regarded as a classic for its analysis of how human beings deny their mortal.
But there is something people deny more than mortality: evil. Someone should write a book on the denial of evil; that would be much more important because while we cannot prevent death, we can prevent evil.
The most glaring example of the denial of evil is communism, an ideology that, within a period of only 60 years, created modern totalitarianism and deprived of human rights, tortured, starved and killed more people than any other ideology in history.
Why people ignore, or even deny, communist evil is the subject of a previous column as well as a Prager University video, “Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?” I will, therefore, not address that question here.
I will simply lay out the facts.
But before I do, I need to address another question: Why is it important that everyone know what communism did?
Here are three reasons:
First, we have a moral obligation to the victims not to forget them. Just as Americans have a moral obligation to remember the victims of American slavery, we have the same obligation to the billion victims of communism, especially the 100 million who were murdered.
Second, the best way to prevent an evil from reoccurring is to confront it in all its horror. The fact that many people today, especially young people, believe communism is a viable — even morally superior — option for modern societies proves they know nothing about communism’s moral record. Therefore, they do not properly fear communism — which means this evil could happen again.
And why could it happen again?
That brings us to reason number three. The leaders of communist regimes and the vast number of people who helped those leaders torture, enslave and murder — plus the many more people who reported on their neighbors for saying something objectionable to the communists — were nearly all normal people. Of course, some were psychopaths, but most were not. Which proves that any society — including free ones — can devolve into communism or some analogous evil.
Now some facts:
According to the authoritative “The Black Book of Communism,” written by six French scholars and published in the United States by Harvard University Press, the numbers of people murdered — not people killed in combat; ordinary civilians trying to live their lives — by communist regimes were:
Latin America: 150,000.
Vietnam: 1 million.
Eastern Europe: 1 million.
Ethiopia: 1.5 million.
North Korea: 2 million.
Cambodia: 2 million.
The Soviet Union: 20 million (many scholars believe the number was considerably higher).
China: 65 million.
These numbers are quite conservative. For example, in Ukraine alone, the Soviet regime and its Ukrainian Communist Party helpers starved 5 to 6 million to death within a two-year period. It is almost inconceivable that only 14 to 15 million other Soviet citizens were murdered.
And, of course, these numbers do not describe the suffering endured by hundreds of millions of people who were not murdered: the systematic stripping people of their right to speak freely, to worship, to start a business or even to travel without party permission; no noncommunist judiciary or media; the near-poverty of nearly all communist countries; the imprisonment and torture of vast numbers of people; and, of course, the trauma suffered by the hundreds of millions of friends and relatives of the murdered and imprisoned.
These numbers don’t tell you about the many starving Ukrainians who ate the flesh of people, often children, sometimes including their own; or the Romanian Christians whose communist prison guards forced them to eat feces to compel them to renounce their faith; or the frozen millions in the vast Soviet Siberian prison camp system known as the Gulag Archipelago; or the Vietnamese communists’ routine practice of burying peasants alive to terrorize people into supporting the communists; or Mao Zedong’s regular use of torture to punish opponents and intimidate peasants, like leading men through the streets with rusty wires through their testicles and burning the vaginas of wives of opponents with flaming wicks — Mao’s techniques to terrorize peasants into supporting the Chinese Communist Party in its early days.

Ukraine: Anne Applebaum, “Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine.”

Romania: Eugen Magirescu, “The Devil’s Mill: Memories of Pitesti Prison.” (Cited in Paul Kengor’s “The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long March of Death, Deception, and Infiltration.”)
Vietnam: Max Hastings, “Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945-1975.”
China: Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, “Mao: The Unknown Story.”
I return to the theme of the denial of evil.
People associate evil with darkness. But that is not accurate: It is easy to look into the dark; it is very hard to stare into bright light. One should therefore associate evil with extreme brightness, given that people rarely look at real evil. And those who do not confront real evil often make up evils (such as “systemic racism,” “toxic masculinity” and “heteronormativity” in 21st-century America) that are much easier to confront.
The Book of Psalms states, “Those of you who love God — you are to hate evil.”
In other words, you can’t love God if you don’t hate evil.
And if you don’t believe in God, here’s another way of putting it: “Those of you who love people — you are to hate evil.”
If you don’t hate communism, you don’t care about, much less love, people.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Given How Flawed Human Nature Is, America Has Been a Remarkable Moral Achievement

Given how flawed human nature is, America has been a remarkable moral achievement.
This is the truism that separates the wise man from the fool.
This is the truism that separates the left from the anti-left.
Those who acknowledge how flawed human nature is compare America to reality. Those who do not, compare America to some utopian image: a country free of inequality, prejudices, intolerance, sexual misbehavior, greed, etc. This divide helps explain why those who hold a biblical worldview — usually religious Jews and Christians — are more likely to appreciate America than those who do not. It is fundamental to Judaism and Christianity that “the will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
I offer a partial list of bad traits inherent to human nature. When perusing it, one can only marvel at how good a country America became.
No. 1: A yearning for power over others.
This yearning is what has animated nearly every political leader in history. There are people who do not have a personal craving for power and seek positions of power solely because of a calling. But these people are rare.
The American Founders understood this. They created a unique political system to minimize power and to maximize checks on power. That is the reason for the division of power among three coequal branches of government and the reason states were given so much power. Thus, America was established to be a republic, not a pure democracy. In addition, the Founders did not trust the majority with great power, which is the reason for two nondemocratic institutions: the Electoral College and the Senate. And that is why the left, which is rooted in a desire for power — and therefore a desire for evermore powerful government — loathes the Electoral College and the Senate.
No. 2: A yearning for fame and recognition.
This, along with the yearning for power, is what drives and has driven nearly all politicians in world history, but it is hardly isolated to politicians. For example, it is largely what animates Hollywood actors. That is one reason no other profession gives itself as many awards as does Hollywood. Increasingly, however, being a star is also what animates journalists and, to the extent possible, academics and other intellectuals.
No. 3: A yearning to feel and be considered important and morally superior.
This is nearly universal. People — historically men, but increasingly women — ache to believe they are important. There is nothing inherently wrong with this yearning. However, it can lead people to engage in irresponsible, even evil, behavior — solely because it makes them feel important. This explains why the left fights largely nonexistent evils such as “systemic racism,” “white supremacy,” “white privilege” and “capitalism.” Fighting evil, even make-believe evils, makes one feel important and morally superior to those who do not fight these evils.
No. 4: The sex drive.
Consider how many men have lost everything — their money, reputation, livelihood, even their family — in order to gratify their sex drive. The reason there has been so much irresponsible and sometimes evil sexual behavior is not because of “sexism” or “patriarchy,” but because of this drive. The wonder is not how much sexual impropriety exists in America; the wonder is how little there is compared to the past, compared to virtually every society in history and compared to many societies today.
This has largely been the result of the influence of Judeo-Christian ethics. Prior to the baby boomer generation, most American men were raised to believe that manhood was defined by marriage and by taking care of a family. With the left’s assault on Judeo-Christian religions, more and more young men feel free to revert to their animallike sexual nature, which is not monogamous and not naturally inclined to getting married and making a family.
No. 5. Greed.
The desire for more money and material possessions is built into the human condition. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make more money and have a nicer home. In fact, it is usually a good thing; it is what animates people to work hard and invent things. Greed, however, is the word we use to describe a yearning for material wealth so great that it overpowers moral considerations — which it has throughout history. It is the reason for corruption, an evil that constitutes the single greatest reason countries do not develop. Like every other country, America has always had its share of greedy individuals, but there has generally been far less corruption in America than elsewhere — a major reason for America’s unique prosperity.
This, too, is rapidly changing. Like the other negative impulses of human nature, greed was held at least somewhat in check by religion. Every Bible-based religion taught its followers self-control. With the demise of religion, the only thing left to control people is the state. But when the state becomes a substitute for religion in attempting to control human nature, one ends up with a police state, which may well happen here.
No. 6: Ingratitude.
Gratitude is not built into human nature. That’s why good parents tell their children thousands of times, “Say ‘thank you.’” Gratitude needs to be cultivated. And throughout American history, it was. The great majority of Americans and new immigrants to America were profoundly grateful to be American. Of course, many Blacks had legitimate reasons not to be grateful to be American. But, over time, that has changed. However, the left has told every group other than white males that they should have no gratitude for being American. One could say that most college and graduate school degrees today are degrees in ingratitude. The left knows it can only win elections when the majority of Americans are ungrateful.
Given human nature, America has been an extraordinary accomplishment. However, given the left’s largely successful elimination of Judeo-Christian and middle-class values — and the consequent unleashing of human nature — that accomplishment may not survive.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

How Many Americans Has the American Medical Establishment Killed?

I should state at the outset that were it not for doctors, I would either be paralyzed or dead. I owe my mobility and probably my life to wonderful physicians.
However, I will now state with equal certitude that the American medical profession as a whole and many individual doctors are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans — very possibly, more than that.Along with the media — from The New York Times to Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter — Americans have been denied both life-saving information and life-saving drugs.
I am specifically referring to hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. These drugs (along with zinc), which are as safe as any medicines humanity has taken in the last half-century, should have been almost universally used to treat COVID-19 patients as soon as those patients showed symptoms or tested positive — and even as a prophylactic to prevent or minimize the effects of the illness in the first place. If they had been, it is likely that tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of those who died of the virus would have lived.
For the record, I put my medicines where my mouth is. I have been taking hydroxychloroquine and zinc (as well as vitamin D and selenium) on a regular basis for half a year, and ivermectin for the past three months. More for the record: During this time, I have hugged hundreds of strangers at various events around the country, maskless. In addition, at home, I live with four people: my wife, two stepsons and the fiancée of one of the sons. That couple, both in their mid-20s, developed symptoms and then tested positive for COVID-19 a month ago. They were the only two members of the family not to be on hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. And while they were ill, my wife and I practiced no social distancing, wore no masks in the house and tested negative twice (as responsible citizens, we quarantined at home for 14 days).
The son and his fiancée immediately began a course of treatment of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, ivermectin, vitamin D and selenium, and within half a day, they were feeling better. A few days later, all their symptoms had vanished.
Of course, the medical establishment, the media and others committed to irrationality, fear, making fortunes from pharmaceutical companies and keeping Americans from a normal life will dismiss all this as just anecdotes. But I would ask: How many anecdotes about the effectiveness of these safe drugs does it take to persuade people? I would ask a more damning question: Given how safe hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are, what could we have possibly lost by allowing millions of people to take these medicines?
Or, to put it another way, if doctors who advocate for the use of these safe drugs are wrong, what price would we have paid? Essentially none. But what if Dr. Anthony Fauci, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, The New York Times, CNN, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the poor souls who trust them are wrong? The price we have paid is hundreds of thousands of dead Americans, and quite possibly more than that.
We paid another horrific price for listening to the medical establishment, the colluding media, Democratic governors and others on the left. We have killed much of our economy; robbed tens of millions of Americans of their livelihoods; quite possibly put the dollar on the road to near-worthlessness; perhaps ensured future inflation that will further destroy the well-being of the American people; and sent innumerable Americans spiraling into depression, drug and alcohol use, spousal and child abuse, and suicide.
I offer an example of NIH dishonesty bordering on malpractice. On Nov. 9, 2020, the NIH issued a report titled “Hydroxychloroquine Does Not Benefit Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19.” This was dishonest for two reasons: First, zinc wasn’t used. While hydroxychloroquine alone can help fight COVID-19, every physician who prescribes hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 patients insists it be accompanied by zinc. Hydroxychloroquine without zinc is like a gun without a bullet. Second, everyone who advocates the use of hydroxychloroquine and zinc to fight COVID-19 insists it be given as early as possible, i.e., before hospitalization.
So, the NIH test was useless. Why those who conducted it did not give patients zinc and waited until they were hospitalized are such obvious questions that either those doctors were ignorant of hydroxychloroquine protocols or they set the test up to fail. Either explanation constitutes a moral and medical scandal.
It is extremely important to note that the report concluded that hydroxychloroquine was “found not to cause harm.”
This is from the CDC on Sept. 4, 2020: “Current data indicate that the potential benefits of these drugs (hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine) do not outweigh their risks.” Given that there are almost no risks, the CDC statement is egregious.
Now to ivermectin.
The NIH, on Aug. 27, 2020, announced: “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial.”
However, three months later, on Nov. 28, 2020, the NIH published this finding regarding ivermectin: “Countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemotherapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19.”
Consequently, on Jan. 14, 2021, the NIH withdrew its opposition to ivermectin — but, incredibly, still refused to endorse it: “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”
How many Americans died from COVID-19 between Aug. 27, 2020, and Jan. 14, 2021, because of NIH waffling?
That report contained a truly deceitful statement concerning hydroxychloroquine: that it carries “considerable risk of sometimes fatal complications and interactions.”
On Dec. 16, 2020, the FDA declared that ivermectin “is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”
Meanwhile, YouTube took down a U.S. Senate hearing featuring doctors and epidemiologists who spoke in favor of ivermectin.
When we get to the other side of the COVID-19 crisis and all the damage is tallied — the unnecessary deaths and the ruined lives — the medical establishment, the media and many politicians are going to have a lot to answer for.
At a great price, we have learned that “follow the science” and “follow the scientists” are not the same thing. We have followed the latter off a cliff.

Read More

The ‘Good American’

Watching America accept the rationally and morally indefensible physical and economic lockdown of the country, I concluded: “Apathy in the face of tyranny turns out not to be a German or Russian characteristic. I just never thought it could happen in America.”In one week, it has gotten worse. Now we are faced with a lockdown on speech the likes of which have never been seen in America. And the parallels with Germany are even more stark. The left-wing party (the Democrats) and the left-wing media (the “mainstream media”) are using the mob invasion of the Capitol exactly the way the Nazis used the Reichstag fire.On Feb. 27, 1933, exactly one month after the Nazis came to power, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze. The Nazis blamed the fire on their archenemy, the communists, and used the fire to essentially extinguish the Communist Party and its ability to publish, speak or otherwise spread its message. Using the Reichstag fire as an excuse, the Nazis passed the Enabling Act, a law that gave the Nazi chancellor, Adolf Hitler, the power to pass laws by decree — without the Reichstag.Now to America 2021.On Jan. 6, 2021, a right-wing mob of a few hundred people broke away from a peaceful right-wing protest involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of American conservatives and forced its way into the U.S. Capitol. One Capitol policeman was killed after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, and one of the right-wing Capitol invaders was shot by a Capitol police officer. (A handful of others who died in the vicinity of the Capitol did so of nonviolent causes.) Aside from smashed windows, the mob seems to have done little damage to the Capitol. Their intent is still not clear. It seems to have been largely catharsis. They hurt no legislators, and if they intended to overthrow the government, they were delusional.
Beginning the next day, the American left used the Capitol mob just as the Nazis used the Reichstag: as an excuse to subjugate its conservative enemies and further squelch civil liberties in America — specifically, freedom of speech.Twitter not only permanently banned the account of President of the United States but permanently banned him from Twitter. Any Twitter account found tweeting Donald Trump was permanently banned.
The left was able to do all this not only by using the Capitol mob incident but also by engaging in a series of lies.
The first was blaming the attack on President Donald Trump. Over and over, in every left-wing medium and stated repeatedly by Democrats, Trump is blamed for “inciting” the riot in his speech just before it took place. Almost never is a Trump quote cited. Because there is none. On the contrary, he did say, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” (italics added).
Another lie was the immediate labeling of the mob attack on the Capitol as “insurrection.” All left-wing media and Democrats now refer to the event as an “insurrection,” a term defined by almost every dictionary as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” As morally repulsive as the actions of the mob were, they did not constitute a revolt against civil authority or an established government. Disrupting the work of legislators for a few hours — as wrong as that was — does not constitute a “revolt.”
But what proves the left’s “insurrection” label is a lie is that Democrats and their media never once labeled the left-wing riots of 2020 — which involved the destruction by fire and/or occupation and vandalizing of police stations, and the establishment of “autonomous zones,” which, by definition, revolted against “established governments” — as an “insurrection.” The enormous number of businesses burned down, looted or otherwise destroyed was barely covered by the mainstream media, and their violent perpetrators were almost never prosecuted, let alone condemned, as engaging in an insurrection. Dozens of people were killed in these riots, yet there was more outcry and condemnation against the hourslong occupation of the U.S. Capitol than against six months of left-wing violent riots.
Then, like the Nazi regime after the Reichstag fire, the left immediately moved to further curtail civil liberties, specifically conservatives’ ability to promote their ideas. Twitter and Amazon made it impossible for the alternative to Twitter, Parler, to exist, all in the name of preventing another right-wing “insurrection.”
In the name of the Capitol “insurrection,” the Democrats announced they would impeach the president of the United States, though he had only 14 days left in office.
In the name of the Capitol “insurrection,” the editor of Forbes, Randall Lane, announced that Forbes media was “holding those who lied for Trump accountable” in what he called “a truth reckoning”: “Hire any of Trump’s (press secretaries),” Lane warned, “and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie.”
In the name of the Capitol mob attack, 159 law professors at Chapman University have called for the firing of John Eastman, a tenured fellow law professor and holder of an endowed chair at Chapman — because “his actions Wednesday (that) helped incite a riot.” Eastman had spoken at the Trump rally.
The professors ended their Los Angeles Times letter: “He does not belong on our campus.”
Words well chosen.
What the left is doing is announcing — and enforcing — that conservatives “do not belong” in our society. The parallels to 1933 are precise. And most good Americans are keeping silent, just as did most Germans. Though they do not risk being beaten up, are Americans in 2021 as afraid of the American left as Germans in 1933 were of the German fascists? We’re about to find out.

Read More

I Now Better Understand the ‘Good German’

As my listeners and readers can hopefully attest, I have been on a lifelong quest to understand human nature and human behavior. I am sad to report that I have learned more in the last few years, particularly in 2020, than in any equivalent period of time.
One of the biggest revelations concerns a question that has always plagued me: How does one explain the “good German,” the term used to describe the average, presumably decent German, who did nothing to hurt Jews but also did nothing to help them and did nothing to undermine the Nazi regime? The same question could be asked about the average Frenchman during the Vichy era, the average Russian under Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev and their successors, and the millions of others who did nothing to help their fellow citizens under oppressive dictatorships.
These past few years have taught me not to so quickly judge the quiet German, Russian, etc. Of course, I still judge Germans who helped the Nazis and Germans who in any way hurt Jews. But the Germans who did nothing? Not so fast.
What has changed my thinking has been watching what is happening in America (and Canada and Australia and elsewhere, for that matter).
The ease with which tens of millions of Americans have accepted irrational, unconstitutional and unprecedented police state-type restrictions on their freedoms, including even the freedom to make a living, has been, to understate the case, sobering.
The same holds true for the acceptance by most Americans of the rampant censorship on Twitter and all other major social media platforms. Even physicians and other scientists are deprived of freedom of speech if, for example, they offer scientific support for hydroxychloroquine along with zinc to treat COVID-19 in the early stages. Board-certified physician Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has saved hundreds of COVID-19 patients from suffering and/or death, has been banned from Twitter for publicizing his lifesaving hydroxychloroquine and zinc protocol.
Half of America, the non-left half, is afraid to speak their minds at virtually every university, movie studio and large corporation — indeed, at virtually every place of work. Professors who say anything that offends the left fear being ostracized if they have tenure and being fired if they do not. People are socially ostracized, publicly shamed and/or fired for differing with Black Lives Matter, as America-hating and white-hating a group as has ever existed. And few Americans speak up. On the contrary, when BLM protestors demand that diners outside of restaurants raise their fists to show their support of BLM, nearly every diner does.
So, then, who are we to condemn the average German who faced the Gestapo if he didn’t salute Hitler or the average Russian who faced the NKVD (the secret police and intelligence agency that preceded the KGB) if he didn’t demonstrate sufficient enthusiasm for Stalin? Americans face the left’s cancel culture, but not left-wing secret police or reeducation camps. (At least not yet — I have little doubt the left would send outspoken conservatives to reeducation camps if they could.)
I have come to understand the average German living under Nazism and the average Russian living under communism for another reason: the power of the media to brainwash.
As a student of totalitarianism since my graduate studies at the Russian Institute of Columbia University’s School of International Affairs (as it was then known), I have always believed that only in a dictatorship could a society be brainwashed. I was wrong. I now understand that mass brainwashing can take place in a nominally free society. The incessant left-wing drumbeat of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and almost every other major newspaper, plus The Atlantic, The New Yorker, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, all of Hollywood and almost every school from kindergarten through graduate school, has brainwashed at least half of America every bit as effectively as the German, Soviet and Chinese communist press did (and in the latter case, still does). That thousands of schools will teach the lie that is the New York Times’ “1619 Project” is one of countless examples.
Prior to the lockdowns, I flew almost every week of the year, so I was approached by people who recognized me on a regular basis. Increasingly, I noticed that people would look around to see if anyone was within earshot and then tell me in almost a whisper: “I support Trump” or, “I’m a conservative.” The last time people looked around and whispered things to me was when I used to visit the Soviet Union.
In Quebec this past weekend, as one can see on a viral video, a family was fined and members arrested because six — yes, six — people gathered to celebrate the new year. A neighbor snitched on them, and the celebrants were duly arrested. The Quebec government lauded the snitches and asked for more public “collaboration.”
Snitches are likewise lauded and encouraged in some Democrat-run states and cities in America (Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti in March: “Snitches get rewards”) and by left-wing governments in Australia. Plenty of Americans, Canadians and Australians are only too happy to snitch on people who refuse to lock down their lives.
All this is taking place without concentration camps, without a Gestapo, without a KGB and without Maoist reeducation camps.
That’s why I no longer judge the average German as easily as I used to. Apathy in the face of tyranny turns out not to be a German or Russian characteristic. I just never thought it could happen in America.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Thoughts in a Dark Time

As there is too much to say in the space of one column, I will simply offer some thoughts on the state of the country a week after the 2020 elections.
No. 1: While I am not certain the reported election results are dishonest, I suspect they are. Worse, about half this country believes this, too.
This is unprecedented in American history.
One might counter that this is not unprecedented, that this was precisely what half the American electorate felt in 2000, when many Democrats rejected the 2000 Supreme Court decision regarding Florida’s ballot counting. But that was entirely different. No one alleged widespread Republican fraud in the election of George W. Bush. The issue in that extremely close election involved a faulty voting system that resulted in hand recounts using differing ballot-counting standards from one jurisdiction to the next. Liberal justices joined the 7-2 vote in ruling for Bush that the recounts could not constitutionally go forward.
Therefore, the fact that nearly half the country is far from certain that Joe Biden was honestly elected is unprecedented.
Half this country believes, with good reason, that if Democratic Party officials believe they can get away with cheating, they will do so. Aside from the Democrats having a history of ballot-manipulation, there is an even more compelling reason to believe Democrats would cheat. For four years, they have been telling the nation and telling one another that President Donald Trump is a dictator, a fascist and a white supremacist. Therefore, if a leftist considers himself a moral individual and works in tabulating election results, and he can help prevent the reelection of a white supremacist fascist dictator, wouldn’t he do so? Wouldn’t he be morally obligated to do so?
No. 2: For four years, the mainstream print and electronic media waged daily, indeed hourly, vicious attacks on Trump as a human being. Rarely did they attack his policies, since they were so beneficial to America (some of the greatest economic figures in memory and the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded) and to the world (a major weakening of Iran and a major strengthening of Israel and Israel-Arab peace). Worse, the media and the Democratic Party immersed the country in a three-year lie about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Yet, 70 million Americans still voted for Trump. The Democrats lost seats in the House and will probably not gain control of the Senate, despite the larger number of Republican incumbents who were up for reelection.
Americans watched Democratic governors and mayors do nothing as left-wing thugs burned their cities. And then they watched Democratic mayors and city councils defund their police departments. That is one reason Democrats fared so badly.
No. 3: The mainstream media is now perceived as fraudulent by half of America. This has never been the case. But from The New York Times’ mendacious claim that America’s true founding was in 1619 and was founded in order to preserve slavery — for which the equally dishonest Pulitzer Prize committee awarded the paper a Pulitzer Prize — to the entire mainstream press’s ignoring of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, only left-wing Americans now believe the mainstream media.
No. 4: That is one reason the tech companies shut down conservative voices. The more people hear non-left ideas, the more they gravitate away from the left. As a result, for the first time in American history, free speech is seriously threatened– not by government, but by private companies. Free speech is the most important freedom of all. If we lose it, it is the end of our country. What may happen then is the division of America, either formally or informally, into two nations, each with its own media and its own schools.
No. 5: Despite four years of being accused of racism and xenophobia, Trump increased both his black and Latino vote. If Trump lost honestly, it was due to his loss of the white male vote — from +31 in 2016 to +23 in 2020.
No. 6: The Democratic Party was once liberal. It is now leftist. And the left, everywhere in the world, suppresses dissent wherever it takes over — from Lenin to the modern American university to Twitter and the rest of Big Tech.
No. 7: Liberals loved America. The left loathes it. Therefore, since the left governs American education, America-hatred dominates the education system from kindergarten to graduate school. You are risking the poisoning of your children’s minds, souls and consciences by sending them to most American schools and nearly all American colleges. Don’t. Home-school, or find a school that teaches rather than indoctrinates.
No. 8: Hydroxychloroquine, one of the safest and oldest medications known to man, when given with zinc to almost anyone as soon as the individual develops symptoms or tests positive with COVID-19, prevents death and even hospitalization in the overwhelming majority of cases. History will likely note that the politicians and scientists who opposed Hydroxychloroquine have a lot of blood on their hands.
No. 9: Those who can work from home are far more likely to support lockdowns than those who cannot work from home. As a rule, the former are more likely to be Democrats and more likely to be wealthier than the latter.
No. 10: All over the country, stores in big cities were boarded up solely to protect themselves from left-wing rioters should Trump have won. When Biden was declared the winner, the boards came down. Because everyone knows that conservatives don’t riot.
No. 11: If Biden wins, more and more non-left Americans will lose their reputations, their businesses and their freedom to speak.
All of which plausibly renders the Georgia runoffs for U.S. senator the most important elections in American history.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

What Will Happen If the Democrats Pack the Supreme Court?

Exponential growth. It’s why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful.
It’s also why the Democrats’ flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and, with it, America as we know it.
The following is a reasonable scenario:
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage (or 5-4, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote).
Then, in January, having retained the Democrat-majority House, a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage. Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members. Biden appoints six new liberal justices, handing the left a 9-6 majority — a 60% advantage.
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60% conservative advantage? As a bit of algebra shows, to reverse the Democrats’ 9-6 advantage, they’d have to expand the Court by 7.5 members. Of course, they can’t nominate half a justice, so they’d probably round up to eight. Regardless, the Republicans, to gain a 60% advantage, must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did — by eight, as opposed to six.
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60% advantage, meaning that, with each switch in power, they’d have to expand the Court’s size by 50%. The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but by a constant percentage This is what would cause exponential growth. If, for example, one side insisted on a 65% advantage and the other followed suit, they’d have to expand the Court by 86% at each switch in power.
How often would such switches in power occur? One occurred in 1992, when Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency. Others occurred in 2000, 2008 and 2016. And if the polls are right, another will occur in 2020. Such power switches occur about every eight years, perhaps slightly more frequently.
Let’s err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years. Let’s similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60% advantage.
Under these minimal parameters, the Court would expand by 50% every 10 years. In 100 years, the Court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 (1.5 raised to the power of 10), and instead of nine justices, the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices.
Surely, one would be tempted to think, voters and the two parties would see these problems, and accordingly, such growth wouldn’t continue. But why not? Imagine the following scenario: In the year 2120, the Court comprises 522 justices (313 conservatives and 209 liberals). That November, the Democrats retake the House, Senate and presidency. Following precedent, they decide to regain their advantage and expand the Court to 783 justices (470 liberals and 313 conservatives).
Some voters might say, “Enough is enough.” However, Democrats could reasonably counter that (1) “It’s what the Republicans did last time. It’s our turn now”; (2) “Is 783 really that much larger than 522?”; (3) “Only by expanding the Court can we do things such as guarantee a woman’s right to choose and ensure racial and social justice. Do we really want to sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size?”
Further, in such a scenario, no voter would be able to remember when the Court was smaller than 40 justices, much less just nine. Would they really care if it were expanded a little more?
Of course, the scenario would continue to repeat.
In other words, if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do (including Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Pete Buttigieg), as The Atlantic urges them to do, as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is “absolutely open to,” and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates, we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch. We will essentially have two legislatures (at least when Democratic appointees — justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution — hold the majority of seats).
It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it, the end of the balance of power among the three branches of government and, therefore, the end of America as we know it.
Would the Democrats do it? Given the left’s record of destroying whatever it touches — most obviously, the universities, high schools and journalism, and most recently, sports and the sciences — if you are a betting person, you should bet on it.
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

What Will Happen If the Democrats Pack the Supreme Court?

Exponential growth. It’s why plagues are so dangerous and compound interest is so wonderful.
It’s also why the Democrats’ flirting with court packing could destroy the Supreme Court and, with it, America as we know it.
The following is a reasonable scenario:
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, which gives conservatives a 6-3 advantage (or 5-4, given that Chief Justice John Roberts has essentially become a swing vote).
Then, in January, having retained the Democrat-majority House, a President Joe Biden and a newly Democrat-controlled Senate decide to undo the advantage. Congress passes and Biden signs a new law expanding the Court to 15 members. Biden appoints six new liberal justices, handing the left a 9-6 majority — a 60% advantage.
What happens when the Republicans regain power and they want a 60% conservative advantage? As a bit of algebra shows, to reverse the Democrats’ 9-6 advantage, they’d have to expand the Court by 7.5 members. Of course, they can’t nominate half a justice, so they’d probably round up to eight. Regardless, the Republicans, to gain a 60% advantage, must expand the Court by more than the Democrats did — by eight, as opposed to six.
The parties would surely continue to insist upon a 60% advantage, meaning that, with each switch in power, they’d have to expand the Court’s size by 50%. The key thing to note is that they would have to expand the court not by a constant number but by a constant percentage This is what would cause exponential growth. If, for example, one side insisted on a 65% advantage and the other followed suit, they’d have to expand the Court by 86% at each switch in power.
How often would such switches in power occur? One occurred in 1992, when Democrats won the House, Senate and presidency. Others occurred in 2000, 2008 and 2016. And if the polls are right, another will occur in 2020. Such power switches occur about every eight years, perhaps slightly more frequently.
Let’s err on the side of being less alarmist and assume that the switch would only occur every 10 years. Let’s similarly assume that the parties would only insist upon a 60% advantage.
Under these minimal parameters, the Court would expand by 50% every 10 years. In 100 years, the Court would grow by a factor of approximately 58 (1.5 raised to the power of 10), and instead of nine justices, the Supreme Court would consist of 522 justices.
Surely, one would be tempted to think, voters and the two parties would see these problems, and accordingly, such growth wouldn’t continue. But why not? Imagine the following scenario: In the year 2120, the Court comprises 522 justices (313 conservatives and 209 liberals). That November, the Democrats retake the House, Senate and presidency. Following precedent, they decide to regain their advantage and expand the Court to 783 justices (470 liberals and 313 conservatives).
Some voters might say, “Enough is enough.” However, Democrats could reasonably counter that (1) “It’s what the Republicans did last time. It’s our turn now”; (2) “Is 783 really that much larger than 522?”; (3) “Only by expanding the Court can we do things such as guarantee a woman’s right to choose and ensure racial and social justice. Do we really want to sacrifice those goals just to keep the Court a smaller size?”
Further, in such a scenario, no voter would be able to remember when the Court was smaller than 40 justices, much less just nine. Would they really care if it were expanded a little more?
Of course, the scenario would continue to repeat.
In other words, if the Democrats do as many of their leading members want them to do (including Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Pete Buttigieg), as The Atlantic urges them to do, as vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris told The New York Times she is “absolutely open to,” and as at least one New York Times columnist advocates, we will no longer have a legislature and a supreme judicial branch. We will essentially have two legislatures (at least when Democratic appointees — justices willing to read left-wing political and social goals into the Constitution — hold the majority of seats).
It will be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it, the end of the balance of power among the three branches of government and, therefore, the end of America as we know it.
Would the Democrats do it? Given the left’s record of destroying whatever it touches — most obviously, the universities, high schools and journalism, and most recently, sports and the sciences — if you are a betting person, you should bet on it.
This is yet another reason everything is at stake in this election.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

To All Those Who ‘Vote For the Man, Not the Party’

“I vote for the man (or woman), not the party” is what millions of Americans say and what, in fact, many do. It is intended as a noble sentiment: “I am not one of those Americans who votes blindly by party; I measure each candidate and then decide which one to vote for.”
If there were ever a time when this was a noble sentiment, it would have been when Republicans and Democrats shared basic moral and American values and differed only on what policies would lead to the two parties’ shared goals.
For example, though they never ran against each other, one might argue that the differences between the Democrat John Kennedy and his Republican predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, were not particularly great. But that was very rare. The fact is that, since the inception of the Republican Party, which was founded to counter the Democratic Party’s defense of slavery, there has almost never been a time when the philosophical differences between the parties were not great.
And since slavery, there has never been a time when the two major parties differed as much as they do today. Therefore, the notion that one should vote “for the individual, not the party” has never made less sense. It would be as if someone in the mid-1800s had said, “I strongly oppose slavery, but the Democratic candidate is a much finer and more likeable individual than the Republican candidate.”
Fine Democrats who defended slavery did as much harm to blacks and to America as disreputable Democrats. And elected officials vote with their party more often than in principled opposition to it, however fine they may be as individuals.
Nevertheless, a great number of Americans still vote for “the individual.”
The most obvious examples are Republican “Never Trumpers.” They say that they would vote for any Republican except Donald Trump because they find his character so objectionable.
My friend, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, is one prominent example. He believes in a strong American defense, supported Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from Barack Obama’s agreement with Iran, credits Trump with the Israeli peace agreements with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, saluted Trump’s moving of the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and presumably supports other Trump policies, such as the president’s extraordinary success with regard to the American economy prior to the lockdowns that crushed the economy.
Yet, he so loathes the president that he will vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
He and many other Americans (we will soon know how many) who support the president’s Republican policies will vote for the party that stands for almost everything they oppose because they will “vote for the man, not the party.”
I find nothing admirable in this position — morally or rationally. At this time in American history, to care more about an individual candidate than the party is to support the unraveling of America. It is so irrational as to be incredible.
Voting for any Democrat — whether for mayor, district attorney, state legislature, state governor, the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate or president — is to vote for someone who will enable the left to destroy America as we know it. (That is their wording, not only mine.) The Democratic Party was once largely liberal. But today, it is left, and the left readily acknowledges it wishes to “transform” America, which means to destroy America as we have known it.
To vote for any Democrat is to vote for the party that believes America is “systemically racist,” that it is rotten to the core, vile from its inception (in 1619, they claim, not 1776).
To vote for any Democrat is to vote for the party that will renew the Obama agreement with one of America’s and the civilized world’s greatest enemies, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It is to vote for undoing every economic policy that led America to its greatest economic boom in memory.
It is to vote for Kamala Harris, the most left-wing member of the U.S. Senate, for vice president (and, given Biden’s age and health, perhaps soon president).
It is to vote for the party that wants to allow millions more illegal immigrants into America and grant them benefits heretofore reserved for Americans. Democrats don’t use the words “open borders,” but they support this country-wrecking policy.
It is to vote for the party that supports the Green New Deal, or something very close to it, which will further ruin an economy already in ruins from Democrat-supported lockdowns.
It is to vote for the party that seeks to nationalize American health care (“Medicare for All”).
It is to vote for the party whose mayors, governors and district attorneys allow violent riots and seek to “defund” police, a policy even most blacks oppose.
It is to vote for the party that supports the unprecedented suppression of free speech by Big Tech and universities.
It is to vote for the party that insists that men menstruate and that biological men must be allowed to compete against biological women in sports, no matter how often the biological men defeat them.
It is to vote for the party with the only anti-Semites, not to mention Israel-haters, in Congress.
It is to vote for the party that, for the first time in American history, openly identifies with socialism more than with capitalism.
It is to vote for the party that Big Pharma, big corporations and radical teachers unions support.
All because many Americans like their Democratic candidate for a Senate seat (as in Arizona) or the Democratic candidate for president more than the Republican candidate. They do not appreciate a likeable Democrat will do as much harm to our country as any other Democrat.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Why Are They Capitalizing ‘Black’?

A few months ago, I noticed that my published column spelled “black” “Black.” As I had submitted the column with “black” spelled with a lower case “b,” I contacted my editor to find out why what I had written was changed. She responded that the syndicate was following the Associated Press’ rules of style, a common practice in journalism and book writing.
On July 20, 2020, the AP published “Explaining AP style on Black and white,” in which it explained:
“AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person. AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses.”
The AP explanation is drivel.
There is no “shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.”
Only left-wingers believe such nonsense. Not only is there no shared culture or sense of identity that unites blacks outside and inside Africa, but there is also no shared culture among blacks in Africa and none among blacks outside of Africa (“the African diaspora”). The only thing all blacks have in common is geographic origin (but since it is said that we all emanate from Africa, that means little) and color.
Historically, the only identity Africans shared with other Africans was a tribal identity. That is why (black) Hutus could perpetrate the most concentrated mass murder since the Holocaust against (black) Tutsis. That is why black Africans were indispensable to the transatlantic slave trade. Those who rounded up other Africans to sell to Europeans felt no moral obligation, let alone a “shared identity,” with the Africans they sold.
What does a black raised in the Bronx have in common with a black raised in Cameroon? The answer is: nothing. They have as little in common as a white from the Bronx and a black from Cameroon.
What does a Brazilian black have in common with a black from Chicago or a black from Uganda? Nothing.
Does Sen. Kamala Harris, the California daughter of a black and an (Asian) Indian, have more in common with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or with a tribal chief in Togo? Or, for that matter, more in common with white Pelosi or black Candace Owens or black Larry Elder?
The AP decision, adopted by The New York Times and followed by the rest of the media herd, is based on lies. And, like the rest of the left’s race-based lies, it is pure pandering. It is another attempt to depict blacks as inherently different from nonblack human beings. That’s why the AP offered this explanation for why “white” should not be capitalized:
“After a review and period of consultation, we found, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. … capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.”
The reason the AP offers for not capitalizing “white” is also based on a lie: “White people generally do not share the same history and culture.”
As it happens, white people “generally” share far more history and culture than do blacks. Whites come from Europe, and the vast majority of them have shared the Christian religion and the Bible. There is nothing analogous among the vast majority of blacks. Moreover, even today, in a post-Christian Europe, a Croatian and an Irishman have more in common than a Kenyan and a Congolese, let alone a black from the Bronx.
As for giving succor to white supremacists if “white” were capitalized, given that white supremacists agree with The New York Times and the rest of the left that there is something inherently different about blacks, why doesn’t capitalizing “black” also risk “conveying legitimacy” to white supremacist beliefs?
Yes, there is such a thing as African American culture and shared experience. There is such a thing as African Brazilian culture and shared experience. But there is no such thing as a shared black culture.
So, if you want to tell the world how woke you are, how you follow the herd and how little truth matters to you, capitalize “black.” But if you respect blacks, respect the truth and respect yourself, don’t.
Black is a color, not a culture.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

The Left’s Moral Compass Isn’t Broken …

All of my life, I have said that the left’s moral compass is broken.
And all of my life, I was wrong.
Why I was wrong explains both the left and the moral crisis we are in better than almost any other explanation.
I was wrong because in order to have a broken moral compass, you need to have a moral compass to begin with. But the left doesn’t have one.
This is not meant as an attack. It is a description of reality. The left regularly acknowledges that it doesn’t think in terms of good and evil. Most of us are so used to thinking in those terms — what we call “Judeo-Christian” — that it is very difficult for us to divide the world in any other way.
But since Karl Marx, the left (not liberalism; the two are different) has always divided the world, and, therefore, human actions, in ways other than good and evil. The left, in Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous words, has always operated “beyond good and evil.”
It all began with Marx, who divided the world by economic class — worker and owner or exploited and exploiter. To Marx and to Marxism, there is no such thing as a good or an evil that transcends class. Good is defined as what is good for the working class; evil is what is bad for the working class.
Therefore, to Marxists, there is no such thing as a universal good or a universal evil. Those of us still in thrall to Judeo-Christian morality believe that good and evil are universal. In other words, whether an act is good or evil has nothing to do with who committed the act — rich or poor, male or female, religious or secular, member of one’s nation or of another nation. Stealing and murder are morally wrong, no matter who stole or who murdered.
That is not the case for Marx and the left. In Marx’s words in “Capital” (“Das Kapital”):
“Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development thereby determined. We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law.”
Fifty-three years later, Marx’s foremost disciple, Vladimir Lenin, architect of the Russian Revolution, proclaimed:
“We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. … We do not believe in an eternal morality. … We repudiate all morality derived from non-human (i.e., God) and non-class concepts” (Address to the Third Congress of the Russian Young Communist League, Oct. 2, 1920).
As professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith, director of Harvard University’s Center for the Study of World Religions, wrote in 1957: “For Marxism there is no reason (literally no reason: our universe, the movement posits, is the kind of universe where there cannot conceivably be any reason) for not killing or torturing or exploiting a human person if his liquidation or torture or slave labor will advance the historical process.”
This is how Marx’s ideological heirs, today’s leftists, view the world — with one important difference: Morality is not determined only by class, but by race, power and sex as well.
RACE
It is left-wing dogma that a black person cannot be a racist. Only whites can be racist. And, indeed, all whites are racist.
It is increasingly a left-wing position that when blacks loot, they are only taking what they deserve, or, as the looters often put it, looted goods are “reparations.” A Black Lives Matter organizer in Chicago, Ariel Atkins, recently put it this way:
“I don’t care if somebody decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store because that makes sure that person eats. That makes sure that person has clothes. That is reparations. Anything they want to take, take it because these businesses have insurance” (Chicago Tribune, Aug. 17, 2020).
POWER
Another nonmoral left-wing compass concerns power. Just as right and wrong are determined by class (worker and owner/rich and poor) and race (white and people of color), good and evil are also determined by power (the strong and the weak).
That explains much of the left’s hatred for two countries in particular — America and Israel. America is wrong when it does almost anything in the world that involves weaker countries — assassinates the most important Iranian terrorist, builds a wall between itself and Mexico, opposes unlimited immigration. It is wrong because it is much stronger than those other countries.
The left’s antipathy to Israel derives from both the power compass and the race compass. Because Israel is so much stronger than the Palestinians and because Israelis are classified as white (despite the fact that more than half of all Israelis are not white), the left deems Israel wrong. So, when Israel justifiably attacks Gaza for raining rockets over Israel, the world’s left vehemently attacks Israel — because it is so much stronger than the people of Gaza and because whites have attacked people of color.
SEX
When a woman accuses a man of sexually harassing or raping her, the left’s reaction is not, “Let us try to determine the truth as best we can.” It is, “Believe women.” One must automatically “believe women” because, on the left, it is not only morality that doesn’t transcend race, power, class or sex; truth doesn’t either. That’s why leftists protest and riot whenever a confrontation between a police officer and a black person ends with the death of an unarmed black person. The police officer is automatically racist, and the death is automatically deemed murder. On the left, the concept of objective truth is increasingly deemed a form of white supremacy.
So, then, it turns out I was mistaken all my life. The left’s moral compass is not broken. The left simply rejects such a compass.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More

Anti-Americanism: The New Anti-Semitism

What are the two most hated countries in the world?
America and Israel.
Who hates both America and Israel?
The left (and Islamists).
And why is that? Why does the left (not liberals, the left hate America and Israel?
In “Why the Jews; The Reason for Antisemitism,” a book I co-authored with Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in 1983 (the latest edition was published in 2016), we compared hatred of America with hatred of Jews.
This is what we wrote. It precisely explains what is happening in America today.
“Perhaps the best way to understand the admiration and resentment elicited by the quality of Jewish life is to compare the reactions of the world to America’s quality of life. No other country has so many people seeking to move there. At the same time, no country, with the exception of Israel, is the target of so many hateful and false attacks.
“The United States, because of its success and its ideals, challenges many people throughout the world. How did America, a nation composed largely of those rejected by other societies (‘The wretched refuse of your teeming shore’ declare the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty), become the most affluent, freest, most powerful, and most influential society in the world? Americans generally attribute this success to the values of America’s founding generations (such as individual liberty, religious tolerance, Judeo-Christian morality, and secular government), to a work ethic, and to the subsequent waves of immigrants who embraced these values. Enemies of America attribute it to the country’s natural resources, just as many people attribute Jewish success to their natural resource, alleged greater innate intelligence. Others claim that through capitalist exploitation, America cheated poorer countries, paralleling charges that Jewish success has been attained through econ!omic ‘bloodsucking.’ Still others develop an imperialist version of America’s past and present, similar to the anti-Jewish charge of a world Jewish conspiracy.
“But the United States is hardly the only society with great natural resources, and it has been the least imperialistic of the world’s powers. America’s values, not unfair resource distribution or world exploitation, have made the United States better, just as Judaism and its values, not genetic advantage or economic conspiracies, account for the quality of life led by Jews. The two people’s quality of life has provoked similar reactions — many admire them, and many resent them.”
Just like the Jews, America is hated because it is successful. For over a century, it has been the most successful country in the world — in virtually every way. If having had slavery was a real issue in the left’s anti-Americanism, the left would hate the Arab world and Latin American countries such as Brazil more than it hates the United States. While The New York Times and other left-wing institutions are preoccupied with slavery in America, they ignore — out of ideological nonconcern or out of sheer ignorance — the vastly larger number of Africans enslaved by Muslim and South American nations.
Of the more than 12 million African slaves shipped to the Western Hemisphere, only about 3% — between 306,000 and 380,000 — were sent to the United States. The other 97% were sent to the Caribbean and Brazil. And the slaves in the U.S. South lived longer and made larger families than the slaves of Latin America. Yet, the U.S. is singled out for hatred. Why? Because the left doesn’t resent Brazil. Brazil is not an object of envy.
Likewise, there is no left-wing hatred of the Arab world, which enslaved far more blacks than the North and South Americas combined did. The internationally recognized expert on African history, Senegalese anthropologist Tidiane N’Diaye, wrote: “Most people still have the so-called Transatlantic (slave) trade by Europeans into the New World in mind. But in reality the Arab-Muslim slavery was much greater. … The Arab Muslims were the most murderous of all those involved in the slave trade.” Part of that murderous treatment of African slaves involved castrating the males so they could not reproduce. And the women and girls were traded as sex slaves.
Where is the leftist anger at the Arab and Muslim world? There is, of course, none. On the contrary, the left protects the Muslim and Arab world against moral criticism.
The left hates America for its success and influence on the world, just as anti-Semites hated Jews for their success and influence on the world.
The left doesn’t hate America because it is bad. It hates America because it is good. If the left hated evil, it would love America and hate its enemies.

This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Read More
Loading

Subscribe to Clarion News

Treat yourself to current Conservative News and Commentary conveniently delivered all in one site, right to your computer doorstep.