But I wonder whether this has any meaning, or is just some form of theater (I actually think that way about a great many of the statements on both sides):

Iranian ultra-hardliners have launched a fierce campaign against a newly announced framework agreement with the United States, labeling it a humiliating capitulation that betrays the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The strongest backlash has come from the Paydari Front, also known as the Endurance or Steadfastness Front, which is a small but vocal faction of ideological purists. The group positions itself as the guardian of the revolution’s anti-Western principles.

Either they mean it – which is somewhat encouraging, because it might indicate that the “deal” isn’t a total capitulation on our part – or they don’t. If they don’t, they’re laughing at us behind the scenes and celebrating.

The post Iranian hardliners appeared first on The New Neo.

McWhorter made this statement that Kate posted in her comment:

Young Black men need to be told not to fall for the idea that being dissed justifies physical violence.

Well, yes, as far as it goes. But “physical violence” covers quite a range. A fistfight – are those out of style? – used to be the way it was commonly done. A stab through the heart was not the norm, nor is it today. After all, it’s not as though most young black men are murdering people, although the murder rate is certainly higher in that population. Most young black men manage to learn that being dissed doesn’t merit stabbing anyone in the heart.

Plus, who was dissing (disrespecting) whom? McWhorter doesn’t highlight the fact that it was Anthony who was disrespecting the other team. Although McWhorter describes it he doesn’t characterize it that way. It was Anthony who crossed a boundary by coming to the other team’s tent, and who would not leave when asked many times. He defiantly stayed and even insulted (dissed) people there.

McWhorter writes about it this way:

Anthony sat down under a team’s tent. Anthony was neither on the team nor a student at its school, and an unwritten but widely known rule is that only team members are permitted under a team tent. Multiple student witnesses – and not just “whitenesses,” as several were Black — testified about what happened next. Anthony was told several times to leave the tent but refused, including a profane epithet, culminating in warning “Touch me and see what happens.” Team member Austin Metcalf shoved Anthony, who pulled a knife out of his bag, stabbed him in the chest, threw the knife into the stands and ran away. Caught by the police, he immediately admitted to the stabbing, reportedly saying “He put his hands on me. I stabbed him.” Metcalf died in his twin brother’s arms.

Anthony was the provocateur. He also came prepared with a knife, which was prohibited by the schools involved. Since he never took the stand, we’ve never heard his excuse for having a knife there, nor have I heard anyone else explain it. The venue was not the inner city, either; it was a relatively prosperous and peaceful area of Texas with a lower-than-average crime rate.

McWhorter goes on:

There is no reason to think Anthony was trying to kill Metcalf. He was trying to hurt him severely, putting him in the hospital, for shoving him, as he indicated in at first saying “He’s not gonna die.”

What on earth? That’s absurd, and McWhorter is dreaming there. No one stabs someone in the chest, with force, without trying to kill them. And “hurting someone severely” always carries the risk of death anyway. Anthony was not a child, nor was he dumb or insane. Perhaps he lived in a video-game or cartoon world, in which people stab people in the chest and the victims spring up again perfectly fine. But I very much doubt it. And “he’s not gonna die” is probably just a hope at that point, since Anthony realized he himself would be in big big trouble if Metcalf died.

McWhorter adds this:

Also, claims such as prosecutor Bill Wirskye’s that Anthony meant “Touch me and see what happens” as a provocation are based on a misreading of Black English. “Touch me and see what happens” is not a command to touch. It means “If you touch me, you will find out.”

McWhorter is a professor of linguistics at Columbia, and one of his specialties is black English. I’ve seen him in many podcasts and sometimes agree with him and sometimes disagree, but here he’s not making any sort of sense that I can see. The two statements – “Touch me and see what happens” and “If you touch me, you will find out” – seem very much the same and both are indeed provocations or dares.

McWhorter is by no means the worst commentator on Karmelo Anthony’s crime, but I find him quite annoying because he knows better.

[NOTE: Much of McWhorter’s “X” essay has to do with explaining Anthony’s behavior in terms of Sowell’s book in which he traces some of the violence in black culture back to the influence of certain strains in the southern whites among whom black people lived early on in the US. That entire topic interests me little at this point, because the historical roots no longer matter; it’s the current behavior that matters all these centuries later.]

The post John McWhorter on Karmelo Anthony 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.

From the article:

… [T]he authors of a new study have reconstructed the fetal bone growth pattern of an unborn Neanderthal that died with a gestational age of about 8 months.

Discovered at the Sesselfelsgrotte Cave in Germany, the specimen is estimated to be between 50,000 and 60,000 years old and is known as Sesselfelsgrotte 1. A total of 12 bone fragments belonging to this prenatal Neanderthal have been unearthed, yet until now it was unclear how these compared with the bones of Homo sapiens fetuses and newborns.

The researchers used microcomputed tomography to analyze how the bones had formed in Sesselfelsgrotte 1 and compared it with two baby Neanderthal skeletons found at La Ferrassie and Le Moustier in France, as well as modern humans. Overall, they found that Sesselfelsgrotte 1 was most similar to Romano-British pre-term babies aged 30 to 36 weeks, recovered from archaeological sites under 2,000 years old.

“The micro-CT scans of bone microanatomy of fragments of the femur, humerus, ulna, fibula, three ribs, mandible, vertebra and frontal bone of Sesselfelsgrotte 1 revealed skeletal tissue structure partly consistent with late third trimester gestation in H. sapiens,” write the study authors. “All bones showed broad microanatomical patterns consistent with modern human fetal growth in the final trimester of pregnancy approaching eight–nine months,” they add.

It’s not so much the findings that are amazing as the entire process itself. Then again, it makes perfect sense – although I never thought about it before – that if a Neanderthal woman dies in late pregnancy and some of her bones are preserved, that some of her fetus’ bones will be preserved as well.

The findings themselves – that is, the similarity to the fetal development of later humans – are part of the growing trend of seeing Neanderthals as quite advanced and not so very different from later humans, as opposed to the earlier concept of Neanderthals as dim bulbs.

The post Wondrous science: analyzing a Neanderthal fetus appeared first on The New Neo.

The post Open thread 6/19/2026 appeared first on The New Neo.

The European Parliament on Wednesday approved more stringent migration measures that grant member states wider-ranging powers to deport failed asylum-seekers.

EU lawmakers approved the changes to EU policy with 418 in favor to 218 against and 30 abstentions.

That’s not a close vote.

More:

Under the new system member states will be allowed to establish so-called “return hubs” in non-EU countries.

A non-EU national found to be staying illegally within a member state will be obliged to leave the EU country “immediately or within a given time,” the European Parliament said.

A migrant or asylum seeker in such a situation could find themselves in “return hubs” in other countries that have an agreement with EU member states.

These agreements “may only be concluded with third countries that uphold human rights, international law and the principle of non-refoulement.”

Under the legislation, the person may be detained, should they fail to cooperate with local authorities or if they’re found to pose a security risk.

Seems like it will only deal with a small percentage of illegal aliens, the ones who get into the most trouble with authorities. And where will they go? Where are these countries that protect human rights and yet want to accept the deportees?

Here’s a hint:

[Cyprus’ Migration Minister] Ioannides said the “general idea” is to set up return hubs “maybe in Africa or Asia” but “not close to European borders.”

I’m still trying to figure out where these hubs might be. And so are they:

Spain’s Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska, who is opposed to the returns deal, said at last week’s meeting that he was worried return hubs would be built “without safeguards” for people’s rights, “to the point that a family with children could be returned to countries with which they have no ties.”

Luxembourg’s Minister of Home Affairs Léon Gloden said his country would object to sending women and children to return hubs, despite backing the centers being set up.

Maybe the idea is to motivate illegal aliens to self-deport back to their host countries, or not to come to EU countries in the first place, if there’s no guarantee of being allowed to stay.

NOTE: Makes me think a bit of the way Australia was settled (at least in part), as a way of clearing out Britain’s overcrowded prisons.

The post The EU turns slightly to the right on immigration appeared first on The New Neo.

The post VDH on how you can tell when “anti-Zionism” is Jew-hatred appeared first on The New Neo.

It’s not as though Mangione’s lawyers have a lot of options. There’s little doubt that he murdered United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in cold blood, shooting him in the back. What can they plead? That Thompson deserved it, which is the basic argument of the left and of Mangione’s fangirls (who seem to be themselves suffering from “emotional disturbance,” but they’re not on trial)? Certainly not.

“Extreme emotional disturbance” wouldn’t get Mangione off entirely, nor would it get him a stint in a mental hospital. It would, however, reduce his sentence, if the jury found it was present:

Luigi Mangione plans to assert a psychiatric defense at his state murder trial, claiming he was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance when he gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a judge said Wednesday. It wouldn’t absolve him of the Dec. 4, 2024, killing, but could free him from prison sooner.

If a jury accepts that defense, the panel would convict Mangione of manslaughter and he would face up to 25 years in prison. Alternatively, the jury could reject the extreme emotional disturbance defense and convict him of murder, which carries a potential life sentence. That defense isn’t available in his federal case.

His state case is due to begin September 8 and his federal case October 13. Each state has its own murder laws, and Mangione is being tried in New York. “Extreme emotional distress” as a defense is not common in states in the US; this site claims it’s only available in NY (how convenient for Mangione), although I’ve read it also exists in Arkansas. Basically, it’s somewhat similar to the old “heat of passion” defense although it’s not exactly the same, and it reduces the crime to manslaughter.

In New York:

To establish the defense of Extreme Emotional Disturbance, the defense must prove:

(1) The defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing, and

(2) There was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as they believed them to be.

Unlike the insanity defense, EED does not require proof of mental illness, though psychiatric evidence is often used to support the claim. It is a partial defense focused on emotional volatility and human response to extreme stress, provocation, or trauma.

I sincerely hope it requires more than the statement “I’m a hothead, and I got upset and killed him.” It is probably requirement #2, the “reasonable explanation or excuse” part, that raises the bar and makes it more difficult to prove than that. Traditionally, I believe it functions when there is major and personal trauma that directly involves the murderer and the victim, not some sort of generalized trauma like being upset about a divorce and then killing some random person on the street. Nor does it involve something like losing your job – which is upsetting but which most people seem to survive without killing anyone – and murdering your boss.

Here are examples of how it works in New York:

The courts look for cases where the defendent:

– Was provoked by a triggering event that created overwhelming emotional stress
– Reacted immediately or after a short period during which the emotional disturbance remained active
– Had no reasonable opportunity to regain self-control before committing the act
– Was under the influence of emotional trauma that a reasonable person in their situation might have experienced similarly

Examples include:

– A person killing a spouse after discovering infidelity in a shocking and unexpected way
– A parent reacting violently after prolonged abuse or threats against their child
– A victim of long-term domestic violence lashing out in a moment of uncontrollable fear or despair

You can see what I mean about the direct connection between the killer and victim.

I suppose everything depends on the jury composition, and it’s possible – because this is New York – that the jury will at least be deadlocked or hung. But I don’t think all the jurors would accept a defense like this for Mangione, even in New York. The crime was heinous, there was a relative long period of planning, and the previous connection between Mangione and Thompson was basically nil as far as we know.

What on earth will the defense claim to be the cause of his emotional disturbance? I’ve read Mangione had some back pain and a spinal fusion surgery – that apparently was successful, and that his insurance company was not United Healthcare. So, what would the distress have been? That he was upset by a news story about the health insurance business? It seems preposterous to me, but perhaps his lawyers will get creative. I don’t think they’ll win, but you never know with juries and New York is a funny place.

The federal charges don’t allow that sort of defense, and so I think Mangione will be going to prison for a long long time one way or the other.

The post Luigi Mangione intends to plead “extreme emotional disturbance” in his defense appeared first on The New Neo.

The post Open thread 6/18/2026 appeared first on The New Neo.

I’ve also been working on the “too many requests” problem, as well as other issues that have plagued the blog for while. Basic cleanup. I’ve changed certain things and it seems to have helped, but time will tell. Let me know if you’ve been having problems.

The post Update on tech stuff here appeared first on The New Neo.