Some of history’s greatest empires have devolved into genocidal lunacy—often with shocking compliance from their own people. What methods can create this madness?

In Manufacturing Delusion, acclaimed conservative commentator and former CIA officer Buck Sexton offers answers. Drawing on his intelligence experience, expertise in crowd psychology, knowledge of propaganda, and research into some of history’s darkest totalitarian chapters, he equips you to identify mind control tactics used to form compliant citizens. He explores the eight tactics of mass delusion through examining:

— How Stalin used Pavlovian mind games to establish absolute control
— How Chinese thought reform transformed opposition into terrorized pawns
— How Jihadist preachers replace shared humanity with weaponized fear

Using these examples and others, Sexton walks you through a history of controlling regimes and the methods they used to create passive citizens. More importantly, he shows you how some of the early stages of mass delusion have already occurred right here in the United States of America, on issues of public health, gender, and racial justice.

I heard about the book through this interview with the author. Although the book’s title only mentions the left, he says in the interview that he also sees it on the right (or the former right, or the pretend right – aka Carlson and Owens). However, that is still a fringe group on the right, whereas it’s a widespread and mainstreamed tool of the left.

Here’s the interview:

In the interview, Sexton also mentions a much older book, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing by Joost A. M. Meerloo. It was first published in 1956 and this is from Amazon’s description:

In 1933 Meerloo began to study the methods by which systematic mental pressure brings people to abject submission, and by which totalitarians imprint their subjective “truth” on their victims’ minds. In “The Rape of the Mind” he goes far beyond the direct military implications of mental torture to describing how our own culture unobtrusively shows symptoms of pressurizing people’s minds. He presents a systematic analysis of the methods of brainwashing and mental torture and coercion, and shows how totalitarian strategy, with its use of mass psychology, leads to systematized “rape of the mind.” He describes the new age of cold war with its mental terror, verbocracy, and semantic fog, the use of fear as a tool of mass submission and the problem of treason and loyalty, so loaded with dangerous confusion. The “Rape of the Mind” is written for the interested layman, not only for experts and scientists. Contents: Part One: The Techniques of Individual Submission. 1. You Too Would Confess. 2. Pavlov’s Students as Circus Tamers. 3. Medication into Submission. 4. Why Do They Yield? The Psychodynamics of False Confession. Part Two: The Techniques of Mass Submission. 5. The Cold War against the Mind. 6. Totalitaria and its Dictatorship. 7. The Intrusion by Totalitarian Thinking. 8. Trial by Trial. 9. Fear as a Tool of Terror. Part Three: Unobtrusive Coercion. 10. The Child is Father to the Man. 11. Mental Contagion and Mass Delusion. 12. Technology Invades Our Minds. 13. Intrusion by the Administrative Mind. 14. The Turncoat in Each of Us. Part Four: In Search of Defenses. 15. Training Against Mental Torture. 16. Education for Discipline or Higher Morale. 17. From Old to New Courage. 18. Freedom — Our Mental Backbone

I think “our mental backbone” has gone rather squishy lately.

The reason I have highlighted the Meerloo book, though, is that – strangely enough – I read it when I was about ten years old. Did I understand it? Certainly not deeply. But the topic already interested me so much that I plowed through it.

How did it fall into my hands? My family had received a free and unsolicited catalogue in the mail from Marboro Books, which was (according to Google AI) “a notable discount book retailer and publisher founded in 1947, famous for selling remainders and overstock books at steep discounts through retail stores and mail-order catalogs, the chain was acquired by Barnes & Noble in 1979.” When the catalogue came, I pored over it, fascinated. It was the first time it occurred to me that I could order an adult book – and by “adult” I certainly don’t mean anything to do with sex.

My childhood interests were a portent of things to come as a blogger, because not only did I order that Meerloo book with my allowance, but I also ordered Charles MacKay’s classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds. That one was first published in 1841:

The subjects of Mackay’s debunking include alchemy, crusades, duels, economic bubbles, fortune-telling, haunted houses, the Drummer of Tedworth, the influence of politics and religion on the shapes of beards and hair, magnetisers (influence of imagination in curing disease), murder through poisoning, prophecies, popular admiration of great thieves, popular follies of great cities, and relics.

I think I’m going to order the Sexton book. I seem to have lost the others along the way, although I had them for a long long time.

The post Writing the book on mass indoctrination appeared first on The New Neo.

Last Tuesday was not the first time socialists have won elections in the US, but until recently most of those elections occurred close to a hundred years ago (see this). And for the most part the candidates ran as Socialists, not Democrats, and fit the mold of more conventional socialism as well.

More recently, Bernie Sanders ran as an Independent, beginning in the 1970s (first for mayor of Burlington, then for US Congress, than as US senator from Vermont), even though he is “self-described democratic socialist.”

The most recent pattern goes even further, because as far as I can tell all the DSA candidates who won last Tuesday (and Mamdani before them), and those of a few years ago (such as AOC), ran not as Socialists or Independents but as Democrats. They are also even more radical than the ones who came before. The approach is to choose a low-turnout primary election in a deep blue city and field an extremely radical candidate who will run as a Democrat and who is often chosen for physical attractiveness and youth. Often, although not always, the candidates themselves and/or their parents have apparent 3-world immigrant roots. The idea is to challenge the old guard and win, often with a tiny percentage of the voters, the win being possible because the turnout is so low.

I watched a video after the New York primaries the other day, and although I no longer can find that video it featured interviews with people in the districts where the DSA radicals won. They were flabbergasted and distressed, but all but one of them said they hadn’t voted. Unfortunately, the interviewer didn’t ask them why they had failed to vote, and so we can only speculate. But it was clear that they hadn’t quite realized what was going on until it was too late. They were all Democrats, by the way, and even moderately leftist. But they did not like these candidates.

Another thing that wasn’t asked of them was whether they would be willing to vote for these candidates’ Republican opponents in the general election. But I bet their answer would be “no” if they were to be honest.

As best I can recall, this sort of approach to fielding very radical candidates began with the Soros-backed DAs in blue areas. They slipped in somewhat under the radar in a similar way. Soros (and others; I doubt he was alone in this) had the rather brilliant idea of targeting low-turnout primaries for DA in places where the Democrat nominee invariably wins, and so the key to a victory was gaming the primary vote. As best I can tell, this tactic began in 2015 (the linked article was written in August 2016):

While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system.

The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.

His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.

Prior to that, as far as I know, most DA candidates were at least somewhat tough on crime, or campaigned that way. It was part of the concept of a DA: these were head prosecutors, after all. Voters weren’t especially energized and probably had no idea that this time was very very different. In fact, one difference was that – according to the article – prior to the 2015 push, 85% of DA candidates ran unopposed. Some of these Soros prosecutors ended being booted and some are still in place, but I wager that all of them have harmed their communities.

This Soros push was very well-researched and well-orchestrated. The people running the show are not at all dumb:

Prosecutorial discretion gives district attorneys a huge say in the charges and sentences that defendants face. But reform efforts have not traditionally focused on harnessing that power.

“They are often a very invisible part of the criminal justice system and the political system,” said Brenda Carter, director of the Reflective Democracy Campaign, an arm of the progressive Women Donors Network. “Many people can’t name their district attorney. It’s not an office people think about a lot.

Ripe for the picking, obviously.

More:

… “I think people are waking up to the untapped potential for intervention in these seats to really change the day-to-day realities of criminal justice,” Carter said. “It’s been really gratifying for us to see the research taken up and run with by different groups around the country.”

Armed with that knowledge, progressive groups including Color of Change began researching potentially interesting district attorney races around the country, multiple sources said. (The organization declined to comment.)

“It’s hard to find this information!” exclaimed Steele, the Emerge America president. “You can’t just Google ‘hot DA races.’ So part of the issue is identifying what potential races there are.”

They certainly succeeded in doing so.

That same approach was used in 2018 for one of the very first carefully-chosen DSA candidates for a federal position: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Young (29 at the time), energetic, and telegenic, she managed a primary victory in New York’s 14th Congressional district that was shocking, defeating Joe Crowley, a powerful (10-term) US House member who was the Democratic Caucus chair. This set the template for subsequent victories over Democratic establishment figures, one that expanded and which we see occurring today, especially in New York.

AOC was not alone, either. She was part of the “Squad,” who all entered Congress that year, the others being Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. All women, all relatively young and energetic as well. The group has since expanded. Not all were or had been DSA-sponsored (Omar and Pressley were not), but they almost undoubtedly are supporters of the same or similar principles, and:

At least three Squad members provided fundraising and volunteer assistance during the other members’ campaigns.

It was AOC who gave the group the moniker “the Squad,” which has stuck.

I believe that it was with AOC that I first became aware of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) designation and realized that it had become a force with which Democrats would need to contend. It’s no accident some of this is happening in New York, either – as have the recent DSA victories of even more radical candidates. New York is the DSA’s headquarters.

And the earlier history of the DSA is the subject of a planned Part II.

The post Recent socialist wins in US elections – how it began: Part I appeared first on The New Neo.

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 60–75 million deaths were caused by the conflict … This represents about 3% of the estimated global population of 2.3 billion in 1940. Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million. Military deaths from all causes totaled 21–25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.

Those are estimates, of course. But we won’t quibble here; the point is that a lot of people died and a great many were civilians. Many civilians died from bombing that deliberately targeted civilians, or from killing fields and camps that performed mass murder of the premeditated kind. The US was spared those civilian deaths, but certainly saw the suffering that resulted from them abroad.

Atomic weapons targeting civilians ended the war with Japan. It is a paradox that the enormous number of civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably spared the deaths of many more by hastening the Japanese surrender (see my posts here).

By the time of the Vietnam War, our opponents had learned a thing or two. This was a guerilla war and a war of propaganda. The enemy read the US very well, and realized we didn’t have the stomach to go on and on and on. Also, it was as a result of the Vietnam War that the US draft ended and our military became all- volunteer, which removed most citizens from much knowledge of the calculations involved in fighting a war.

Later, instruments of war became more accurate. Our bombs are now relatively “smart,” certainly compared to in WWII or Vietnam. That doesn’t mean there is no collateral damage in which civilians die. But we don’t target civilians, and we have very little tolerance for the death of civilians even when it occurs by accident. These are not bad things; I think it’s a good thing to have compassion for civilians in war and even to try not to have many military casualties in war, if possible. But the unintended consequence is that it becomes more and more difficult, despite our technology, to definitively end a war against a foe who’s determined to resist and to use against us our reluctance to inflict massive harm on civilians or to put our own boots on the ground.

Terrorists and terrorist regimes have no such reluctance. Au contraire; they target civilians. Not only do they target civilians in terrorist attacks, but they also willingly put their own civilians in harms’ way, the better to accuse us of barbarity when we inevitably kill some of them.

[NOTE: See also this previous post of mine on clean hands in war, as well as this one.]

The post The dilemma of modern warfare appeared first on The New Neo.

Today is the eighty-second anniversary of D-Day, the Normandy landings in WWII that led to Western Europe’s liberation.

I wonder how many people under forty, either here or in Europe, now know or care what happened there. The dog barks and the caravan moves on.

The world we now live in seems so vastly different, including the relationship between the US and western Europe. But make no mistake about it; if threatened in a way that finally gets their attention, Europeans would be counting on us again. And although until a while ago I still thought that we would probably be up to the task, I now have my doubts. It would depend on the administration in charge. And we pretty much know our press would fail us.

About forty-eight years ago I visited Omaha Beach, site of the worst of the carnage. A quieter place than that beach and those huge cemeteries, with their lines of crosses set down as though with a ruler, you never did see.

But the scene was quite different back in 1944. The D-day invasion marked the beginning of the end for the Germans.

The weather was a huge factor, and the Allied commanders had to make the decision knowing that the forecast for the day was iffy and the window of opportunity small. For reasons of visibility and navigation (maximum amount of moonlight and deepest water), the invasion needed to occur during a time of full moon and spring tides, and all the invasion forces had already been assembled and were at the ready. To postpone would have been hugely expensive and frustrating, but to go ahead in bad weather would have been suicidal.

This is how bad the weather looked, how difficult the decision was, and how much we owe to the meteorologists, who:

…were challenged to accurately predict a highly unstable and severe weather pattern. As [Eisenhower] indicated in the message to Marshall, “The weather yesterday which was [the] original date selected was impossible all along the target coast.” Eisenhower therefore was forced to make his decision to proceed with a June 6 invasion in the predawn blackness of June 5, while horizontal sheets of rain and gale force winds shuddered through the tent camp.

The initially bad weather ended up being an advantage in other ways, because the Germans were not expecting the invasion to occur yet for that reason:

Some [German] troops stood down, and many senior officers were away for the weekend. General Erwin Rommel, for example, took a few days’ leave to celebrate his wife’s birthday, while dozens of division, regimental, and battalion commanders were away from their posts at war games.

In addition, there was Hitler’s personality and his reluctance to give autonomy to his military commanders:

Hitler reserved to himself the authority to move the divisions in OKW Reserve, or commit them to action. On 6 June, many Panzer division commanders were unable to move because Hitler had not given the necessary authorization, and his staff refused to wake him upon news of the invasion.

.

This didn’t mean that the beaches were not heavily fortified and manned, especially Omaha:

[The Germans] had large bunkers, sometimes intricate concrete ones containing machine guns and high caliber weapons. Their defense also integrated the cliffs and hills overlooking the beach. The defenses were all built and honed over a four year period.

The number of Allied casualties was enormous. Reading about it today makes one appreciate anew what these men faced, and how courageously they pressed on despite enormous difficulties. This is just a small sampler of what occurred on Omaha Beach at the outset; there was much more to come:

Despite these preparations, very little went according to plan. Ten landing craft were lost before they even reached the beach, swamped by the rough seas. Several other craft stayed afloat only because their passengers quickly bailed water with their helmets. Seasickness was also prevalent among the troops waiting offshore. On the 16th RCT front, the landing boats found themselves passing struggling men in life preservers, and on rafts, survivors of the DD tanks which had sunk. Navigation of the assault craft was made more difficult by the smoke and mist obscuring the landmarks they were to use in guiding themselves in, while a heavy current pushed them continually eastward.

As the boats approached within a few hundred yards of the shore, they came under increasingly heavy fire from automatic weapons and artillery. The force discovered only then the ineffectiveness of the pre-landing bombardment. Delayed by the weather, and attempting to avoid the landing craft as they ran in, the bombers had laid their ordnance too far inland, having no real effect on the coastal defenses.

These obstacles and unforeseen circumstances were extraordinarily costly in terms of the human sacrifice that occurred that day. Note that I use the word “obstacles and unforeseen circumstances” rather than “mistakes.” Today, if the same things had occurred (at least, while under the aegis of a Republican administration), they would be labeled unforgivable errors rather than the inevitable difficulties inherent in waging war, in which no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

Another historical footnote is the following passage from Eisenhower’s message to the Allied Expeditionary Forces: You are about to embark upon the great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. It’s another sign of how times have changed; the word “crusade” has become verboten.

In his pocket, Eisenhower also kept another statement, one to activate in case the invasion failed. It read:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

The note was written in pencil on a simple piece of paper, and is housed in a special vault at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library & Museum in Abilene, Kansas, a bit of thought-provoking fodder for an alternate history that never occurred.

[NOTE: I’ve read that there’s a new movie out about Eisenhower and D-Day, entitled Pressure. Has anyone seen it?]

The post D-Day: 82 years after appeared first on The New Neo.

The story:

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani won’t be attending the city’s annual Israel Day Parade on Sunday, a break from decades-long tradition, despite attending other events celebrating the city’s diverse cultural landscape.

Since 1964, every mayor in the city has attended the Jewish celebration, which comes amid record levels of antisemitism …

Which his election has aided and abetted.

More:

Mamdani indicated that he would not attend as a matter of political principle. …

Despite his stance against Israel, the mayor has participated in other celebrations, including this year’s St. Patrick’s Day celebration, during which he compared the historic plight of the Irish to the “genocide” in Palestine amid Israel’s war with Hamas.

That’s a very popular stance in Ireland itself – the Orwellian confusion/inversion about who’s really seeking genocide, and about who really is the “colonizer.” It’s classic stuff which has caught on tremendously in recent years, as decades of propaganda launched by the USSR (see this), decades of academic indoctrination, recent increases in Muslim immigration to Western countries, constant lies in the MSM, and post-10/7 internet anti-Semitic smears have all combined to create a perfect storm. This has allowed someone like Mamdani to be elected the mayor of New York in the first place.

Israel-haters claim they’re not anti-Semitic, only anti-Israel. “Can’t we even criticize Israel?” they ask disingenuously, because of course they can. Israelis criticize Israel. But when “criticism” is over-the-top Orwellian lies and reversals of the truth, and when similar logic is applied to no other nation on earth – then anti-Israel sentiment is actually Jew-hatred. Mamdani normalizes it, but why would that be surprising, because it originated on the left in Soviet Russia.

In this 2024 post I quoted this article, and that quote bears repeating now:

The claim that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians is among the longest-running lies told about Israel. “Genocide Israeli style”; “Zionist-engineered genocide”; “the ‘final solution’ of the Palestinian question”—these may look like snippets from some recent campus proclamation, but they are not. They appeared in a Soviet pamphlet titled “Zionists Count on Terror.” Published in 1984 by Novosti, a Soviet foreign propaganda arm masquerading as a news agency, this pocket-sized brochure was meant to promote the Soviet view of Israel and Zionism to English-language audiences.

You can read more of the history in this post. Suffice to say the lessons the Soviets taught have been well-learned, and are now rampant among younger Americans and even with some who supposedly used to be on the right (Tucker, I’m talking about you).

Meanwhile, from yesterday:

Jewish New Yorkers, beware.

The same rabid anti-Israel activists who have harassed Jews at synagogues in recent weeks in violent protests, flown the flag of Hamas and Hezbollah and stomped on the Israeli flag are returning to the streets tonight at Time Square in midtown Manhattan to rage-bait Israelis and Jews attending a “Jerusalem Real Estate Expo” at Times Square.

The protest underscores how anti-Israel activist groups are continuing to escalate their pressure campaigns against pro-Israel and Jewish events across the city, despite mounting criticisms of antisemitism. Earlier this week, Jewish and Muslim leaders led a protest at Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s residence at Gracie Mansion, asking that he address the growing antisemitism in the city.

Note that at least some Muslims are against the anti-Jewish anti-Israel harassment. I assume those Muslims will be targeted as well.

More:

Community leaders say these protests put more pressure on Mamdani who joined anti-Israel protests many times before he ran for the mayor’s office. In college, he was a founding member of his school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which also seeks “the return” of Palestinians to modern-day Israel and a one-state solution that claims modern-day Israel for Palestinians, essentially destroying the state of Israel.

Exactly.

And in Brooklyn, there’s trouble in yuppie enclave Park Slope [emphasis mine]:

Israeli-made products were ripped from the shelves of the lefty Park Slope Food Coop just hours after being banned in a historic vote — prompting scores of Jewish shoppers to threaten to quit the member-run market in revolt.

Tuesday’s boycott vote — which drew over 7,000 members and passed with an overwhelming 67% in favor — went into effect immediately, with the Israeli products vanishing from the shelves by Wednesday morning. …

The nasty food fight — over about 10 goods like hummus, herbs, matzo and peanut puffs — drew condemnation from even the most liberal residents in the leafy Brooklyn enclave. …

Coop member Ramon Maislen told The Post that an informal survey prior to the vote suggested up to 1,000 members would leave if the ban passed. The market has about 15,000 members total. …

The controversy has been brewing at the Union Street coop for years, with BDS supporters claiming Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and demanding all products from the country be barred.

Sound familiar? It should.

And this ploy should feel familiar, too [emphasis mine]:

And Tuesday’s vote meeting only compounded the controversy, as it was immediately preceded by a successful vote to lower the threshold required to ban coop products from 75% in favor to 51%.

Without that threshold vote, the ban would not have passed — leaving Jewish members feeling cheated, a feeling which was also reinforced by the alleged lack of public discussion ahead of the final vote.

You may think this is a tempest in a teapot. But it’s not. It’s part of the death of a thousand cuts, proceeding apace in many countries.

The post Mamdani won’t deign to attend the Israel parade in New York: the origin and spread of the “genocide” charge appeared first on The New Neo.

The attacking Ottoman Army, significantly outnumbered Constantinople’s defenders …

The fall of Constantinople and of the Byzantine Empire was a watershed moment of the Late Middle Ages, marking the effective end of the Roman Empire, a state which began in roughly 27 BC and had lasted nearly 1,500 years. For many modern historians, the fall of Constantinople marks the end of the medieval period and the beginning of the early modern period. The city’s fall also stood as a turning point in military history. Since ancient times, cities and castles had depended upon ramparts and walls to repel invaders. The walls of Constantinople, especially the Theodosian walls, protected Constantinople from attack for 800 years and were noted as some of the most advanced defensive systems in the world at the time. However, these fortifications were overcome by Ottoman infantry with the support of gunpowder, specifically from cannons and bombards, heralding a change in siege warfare.

But I first learned about this as a child through a rather silly song, popular in 1953. I was exceedingly young, but popular music nevertheless still seeped down to me, and the song was very catchy:

“Istanbul (Not Constantinople)” is a 1953 novelty song, with lyrics by Jimmy Kennedy and music by Nat Simon. It was written on the 500th anniversary of the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans. The lyrics humorously refer to the official renaming of the city of Constantinople to Istanbul. The song’s original release, performed by The Four Lads, was certified as a gold record.

The lyrics can be found here, and they treat the whole thing like a light joke. Back in 1953 it must have seemed that way to most of the Western world. But who’s laughing now? An excerpt:

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it’s Turkish delight on a moonlit night
(Oh) every gal in Constantinople
(Oh) lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
(Oh) so if you’ve a date in Constantinople
(Oh) she’ll be waiting in Istanbul …

So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can’t go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks’

Actually, it’s everybody’s business these days – and by “it” we’re not talking about Constantinople/Istanbul per se. We’re talking about the Muslim world versus the Christian world (and the Jews, of course). We’re talking about various kinds of conquest and not just the military kind – perhaps not even primarily the military kind. The siege involves the human mind, and it’s been going on far longer than two months. The main fronts are academia, the press, and politics.

NOTE: Here’s the original song:

The post “You can’t go back” – the fall of Constantinopole appeared first on The New Neo.

The story “The Man Without a Country” used to be standard reading matter for seventh graders. In fact, it was the first “real” book – as opposed to those tedious Dick and Jane readers – that I was assigned in school.

It was exciting compared to Dick and Jane and the rest, since it dealt with an actual story with some actual drama to it. It struck me as terribly sad – and unfair, too – that Philip Nolan was forced to wander the world, exiled, for one moment of cursing the United States. “The Man Without a Country” was the sort of paean to patriotism that I would guess is rarely or never assigned nowadays to students – au contraire.

Patriotism has gotten a very bad name during the last few decades.

I think this feeling gathered more adherents (at least in this country) during the Vietnam era, and certainly the same is true lately. But patriotism and nationalism seem to have been rejected by a large segment of Europeans even earlier, as a result of the devastation both sentiments were thought to have wrought on that continent during WWI and WWII. Of course, WWII in Europe was a result mainly of German nationalism run amok, coupled with a lot more than nationalism itself. But the experience seemed to have given nationalism as a whole a very bad name.

Here’s author Thomas Mann on the subject, writing in 1947 in the introduction to the American edition of Herman Hesse’s Demian:

If today, when national individualism lies dying, when no single problem can any longer be solved from a purely national point of view, when everything connected with the “fatherland” has become stifling provincialism and no spirit that does not represent the European tradition as a whole any longer merits consideration…

A strong statement of the post-WWII idea of nationalism as a dangerous force, mercifully dead or dying, to be replaced (hopefully) by a pan-national (or, rather, anational) Europeanism. Mann was a German exile from his own country who had learned to his bitter regret the excesses to which a particular type of amoral nationalism can lead. His was an understandable and common response at the time, one that many decades later helped lead to the formation of the EU. The waning but still relatively strong nationalism of the US (as shown by the election of Donald Trump, for example) has been seen by those who agree with Mann as a relic of those dangerous days of nationalism gone mad without any curb of morality or consideration for others.

But the US is not Nazi Germany or anything like it, however much the far left may try to make that analogy. There’s a place for nationalism, and for love of country. Not a nationalism that ignores or tramples on human rights (like that of the Nazis), but one that embraces and strives for and tries to preserve them here and abroad, keeping in mind that – human nature being what it is – no nation on earth can be perfect or anywhere near perfect. The US is far from perfect, but has been a good country nevertheless, always working to be better, with a nationalism that traditionally recognizes that sometimes liberty must be fought for, and that the struggle involves some sacrifice.

So, I’ll echo the verse that figured so prominently in “The Man Without a Country,” and say (corny, but true): …this is my own, my native land. And I’ll also echo Francis Scott Key and add: …the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave. Those lines from the anthem express a hope that has been fading. But even though things had been looking dim for both liberty and courage in recent years, it is not over.

When I looked back at my original, longer version of this post, I saw that it was written on Memorial Day in 2005, not that long after I began blogging. Seems longer ago than that. This is another portion of what I wrote then, and although I was describing my post-9/11 thoughts, I think it’s especially appropriate now [updates in brackets]:

I’d known the words to [our national anthem] for [over sixty years], and even had to learn about Francis Scott Key and the circumstances under which he wrote them. But I never really thought much about those words. It was just a song that was difficult to sing, and not as pretty as America the Beautiful or God Bless America (the latter, in those very un-PC days of my youth, we used to sing as we marched out of assembly).

The whole first stanza of the national anthem is a protracted version of a question: does the American flag still wave over the fort? Has the US been successful in the battle? As a child, the answer seemed to me to have been a foregone conclusion – of course it waved, of course the US prevailed in the battle; how could it be otherwise? America rah-rah. America always was the winner. Even our withdrawal from Vietnam, so many years later, seemed to me to be an act of choice. Our very existence as a nation had never for a moment felt threatened.

The only threat I’d ever faced to this country was the nightmarish threat of nuclear war. But that seemed more a threat to the entire planet, to humankind itself, rather than to this country specifically. And so I never really heard or felt the vulnerability and fear expressed in Key’s question, which he asked during the War of 1812, so shortly after the birth of the country itself: does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

But now I heard his doubt, and I felt it, too. I saw quite suddenly that there was no “given” in the existence of this country – its continuance, and its preciousness, began to seem to me to be as important and as precarious as they must have seemed to Key during that night in 1814.

And then other memorized writings came to me as well–the Gettysburg Address, whose words those crabby old teachers of mine had made us memorize in their entirety: and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Here it was again, the sense of the nation as an experiment in democracy and freedom, and inherently special but vulnerable to destruction, an idea I had never until that moment grasped. But now I did, on a visceral level.

The post For Memorial Day: on nationalism and patriotism appeared first on The New Neo.

Katy Tur: What about this passage from Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government? They come from you, our creator and heavenly father. Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?

McKay Coppins: I actually think that that idea is not wholly uncommon. I mean, the idea that we have certain inalienable rights that come from god can be read in a fairly benign way, which is basically that we have innate human rights, that our constitution and our government, our democratic government are meant to codify. Right. That idea is not totally abnormal.

Good to know it’s not “totally abnormal” (Coppins is a staff writer at The Atlantic). Tur is 42 years old and Coppins is 39. Do they know anything about the text of the Declaration of Independence? Back in the ancient times of my own youthful education, we were required to memorize a couple of paragraphs, including the relevant passage “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

It reminds me that it was often Obama;s habit to leave out the “Creator” part (from 2010):

At a Democratic fundraiser on Monday night, President Obama once again misquoted the Declaration of Independence’s most famous sentence and once again omitted its reference to our “Creator.” According to the text of his remarks published on the official White House website, he said: “[W]hat makes this place [America] special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”

The first time that something happens and is met with publicity and criticism, it could well be an accident or part of the learning curve — like the first time one bows down to foreign royalty when other U.S. presidents haven’t; or the first time one issues a public apology abroad for past (real or imagined) American sins in a way that other presidents haven’t. But the second time, the assumption must be that it’s probably deliberate — and that makes it all the more appalling. Other presidents didn’t deliberately misquote the Declaration, and they didn’t leave out (or rewrite) the words about our rights being endowed by our Creator.

NOTE Some of what is going on with Tur et al. is that she suffers from a lack of cultural literacy (see this).

NOTE II: I know I’ve already written a lot about the abominable Kristof article, but here’s a link to a good essay about it, by Judge Roy K. Altman.

The post Our brilliant and knowledgeable journalists appeared first on The New Neo.

Neanderthals used stone drills to treat cavities almost 60,000 years ago in what is the earliest known evidence of dental treatment.

The single molar, which was unearthed in a cave in southern Siberia, features a deep hole that appears to have been created using a sharp, thin stone tool during the lifetime of the tooth’s owner.

While the prospect of stone age root canal treatment may be excruciating to even contemplate, archaeologists say the discovery provides remarkable insights into Neanderthals’ advanced behaviours – and possibly their gritty disposition.

Dr Kseniya Kolobova, an archaeologist at the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Novosibirsk, said: “This discovery powerfully reinforces the now well-supported view that Neanderthals were not the brutish, inferior cousins of outdated stereotypes but a sophisticated human population with complex cognitive and cultural capacities. [It] adds an entirely new dimension – invasive medical treatment – to the growing list of advanced Neanderthal behaviours.”

The dentist was pretty good, too:

A dental professor, who reviewed images of the tooth but was not part of the research, rated the Neanderthal’s work as “a decent job”.

“If I was marking this for a dental student, I wouldn’t give it an A, but given the circumstances it’s pretty impressive,” said Justin Durham, a professor of orofacial pain at Newcastle University and the British Dental Association’s chief scientific adviser.

The smoothed edges of the drilled cavity, and wear patterns inside it, suggested the individual survived and continued to chew with the tooth for some time after the procedure.

The tooth, which has been dated to be 59,000 years old, was found in Chagyrskaya, where the remains of Neanderthals and thousands of stone tools have been excavated. The lower molar features a deep hole in the centre of the tooth extending into the pulp cavity. Microscopic X-ray imaging revealed changes in mineralisation that indicated severe tooth decay.

The researchers conducted experiments on three modern human teeth to demonstrate that a hole of the same shape and same patterns of microscopic grooves could be created by manually rotating a narrow, elongated tool made from local jasper, between two fingers.

That was in the Old Stone Age, the Paleolithic. The surgical technique thought till now to be oldest is trepanning – drilling holes in skulls – from the New Stone Age (Neolithic). It apparently was quite widespread:

Trepanation is a worldwide practice that was extremely common during the Neolithic era. The main pieces of archaeological evidence are in the forms of human remains. At one burial site in France dated to 6500 BCE, 40 out of 120 prehistoric skulls found had trepanation holes. At the time only around 40% of people survived the procedure.[13] A skull of a child in an Harappan burial at Lothal dated to 2200 BCE shows signs of trepanation.

More than 1,500 trephined skulls from the Neolithic period (representing 5–10% of all cranial remains from that era) have been uncovered throughout the world – from Europe, Siberia, China and the Americas. Most of the trephined crania belong to adult males, but women and children are also represented.

More and more of the findings these days about ancient humans indicate that they were more sophisticated than previously thought. And perhaps even more stoic.

The post Stone Age dentists appeared first on The New Neo.

I’ve seen it for years and years and years online: the idea that the Boomer generation has screwed the younger ones. It’s often advanced by 40-somethings or younger, who feel insufficiently flush with cash and that the world hasn’t rewarded them in the manner they think they deserve. The idea that previous generations struggled and that many still struggle (I have friends my age with little savings, for example) is brushed aside. And the opinions of older people are shrugged off with the dismissive, “Okay, Boomer.”

It’s not unusual to wish that the Boomers would die already. Just shuffle off this mortal coil so that the young can get the spoils. And this is usually said with no sense of shame whatsoever.

I’ve seen most of this in the comments sections of blogs and MSM articles, as well as on social media of many kinds. It’s said not with humorous tolerance but powerful hatred and envy. But envy has now become perfectly okay, a kind of badge of virtue with “microlooters” and the like.

But based on the comments thread to that post, I realized I wanted to expand on something, and I’m highlighting it here. My point is not so much about the economic envy I already discussed in that post; it’s about blame for the cultural changes that began during the 1960s that jettisoned many traditions.

First of all, we need a definition of “Boomer”: it is the generation born between 1946 and 1964. By that definition, Bill Clinton (1946) and Donald Trump (also 1946) just make it into the beginning of the Boomer generation, and Obama is close to the end (1961) but still a Boomer. Biden, on the other hand, is not even a Boomer; born in 1942, he’s a member of the Silent Generation.

But the cultural changes of the 1960s which tore down many of the older standards, plus the Vietnam War opposition, featured people born in the early portion of the Boomers generation as followers rather than leaders. The Boomers are often blamed, but the movement actually was driven and led by people from the previous generation, the so-called Silent Generation.

Just to take a few examples:

Tom Hayden, antiwar activist, born 1939
Jane Fonda, antiwar activist, born 1937
Jerry Rubin, “Yippie” activist, born 1938
Abbie Hoffman, “Yippie” activist, born 1936
Timothy Leary, drug promoter, born 1920 (he was of the Greatest Generation)
Huey Newton, black activist, born 1942
Malcolm X, black activist, born 1925 (Greatest Generation)
Bernardine Dohrn, Weather Underground, born 1942
Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, born 1944

I could go on and on. The Beatles, all born prior to the Boomer Generation (early 1940s). Rolling Stones, same, except for Ronnie Wood (1947). Eldridge Cleaver (1935), Bob Dylan (1941), Janis Joplin (1943), Ken Kesey (1935), Frank Zappa (1940), Ram Dass (1931).

Then there were the professors – all of older generations – who gave in to the younger generation when it was the professors and college administrators who should have known better.

I could continue with this, but the gist of it is that the Boomers were too young to be the movers and shakers of this particular revolution. You do see quite a few carrying it on, though, in terms of anti-Trump demonstrations and the like.

The post Don’t blame the boomers appeared first on The New Neo.