If you’ve ever rolled your eyes at someone using “literally” to mean “figuratively,” you’re not alone. Every generation has its linguistic hills to die on. Words that, to some ears, have drifted too far from their “real” meaning.But here’s the thing: words have been evolving for as long as there have been humans to speak them. Language moves the way people move, shifting through time, place, and culture. And along the way, it reinvents itself in some pretty fascinating ways.Think about how “awful” once meant “awe-inspiring,” how “nice” used to mean “foolish,” or how “girl” once referred to any young person, not just a female one. The English we speak today is like a living history book, rewritten every time we open our mouths.Here are a few more terrific examples (and by that we mean in the modern sense of “excellent,” not “terrifying”) that show just how dramatically English has changed. And how, in the end, everything turns out just fine.ArtificialThis one still mostly means what it has always meant, in that it refers to something not naturally made. However, it originally implied some kind of artfully or skillfully made object. Now when we say something is artificial, we are almost certainly not praising it. Awful & Awesome“Awe” comes from either the old Norse word “agi” or the old Middle English word “ege.” Both meant terror or fear. Therefore, both “awesome” and “awful” once meant more or less the same thing: something that inspires a fearful reverence. Dread mixed with deep admiration, that kind of thing. Something awe-SOME had a little less oomph than some aw-FUL, but otherwise they carried the same meaning. In that sense, today’s version of “awful,” i.e. something that utterly dreadful, is truer to its original iteration than “awesome,” usually denoting something generally positive. Awesome gif media1.giphy.com BemusedIts old meaning was "to confuse, or to stupefy,” as if you hit someone with some kind of magic spell. Merriam-Webster still defines “bemuse” this way, but colloquially we use it to convey amused pondering. And you know what? Considering there are plenty of synonyms for "confused, we can afford to let this one go.BullyCrazy to think that a word originally meaning “sweetheart” now takes on a nearly opposite meaning…unless your sweetheart likes to throw you in lockers and give you swirlies. One theory is that it became associated with “ruffian” because a bully may have been a “protector of a prostitute.” Still, those that still say “bully for you!” know that it can still take on a positive context. CondescendingIn the 18th century, it was seen as a kind, generous, humble gesture when an upper class person was kind enough to talk to a lower class person instead of ignoring them or treating them like a servant (what a concept!). By the 19th century, however, the word had already developed the negative connotation we use today.EgregiousEgregious comes from the Latin ex grege, meaning "rising above the flock." Therefore, it meant exceptional or distinguished. You could argue that today egregious still means something exceptional…just exceptionally bad. FactoidFactoids used to be public statements that seemed like facts, but weren’t necessarily. Fact-adjacent, if you will. Or better yet, they were bits of fake news. Now we liken factoids to fairly unimportant bits of trivia. But they’re at least accurate! FathomIt can be hard to fathom how this verb went from meaning “to encircle with one’s arms” to meaning understanding something complex, until you know that outstretched arms could be used to measure a fathom, which is equal to about six feet (usually in term of depth of water). Once you had a grasp on what a fathom of water was, you could better measure the depth of the sea. We might not be as seafaring as our ancestors, but we are still trying to get a better idea of the world around us. FizzleThe verb fizzle once referred to the act of producing quiet flatulence. In the mid-1800s, scientists began using "fizzle" to describe the sound of air or gas escaping from a narrow opening, which led to its application for a weak or sputtering noise. From there, American college students took it on to convey something that came to a sudden failure or stop after a good start, usually an answer to a professor’s question. And now, we use it to describe things that lose their gusto gradually before ending entirely. Quite a journey, for a fart word. Smiling dog media0.giphy.com GirlOnce upon a time, “girl”, aka “gyrle” was just a gender-neutral term for a child. As for how it came to mean young woman specifically: In his book An Analytic Dictionary of the English Etymology, Anatoly Liberman noted that German words starting with “g” or “k” and ending in “r” tended to refer to living creatures “considered immature, worthless, or past their prime.” Cool, cool, cool. GuyThis word, or eponym, rather, “Guy Fawkes,” is the fella who was part of a failed attempt to blow up British Parliament in 1605 who folks used to burn in effigy. Before “guy” just meant any ol’dude, it referred to a grotesque or scary person.Hussy: Interestingly enough, hussy was once just a shortened version of “housewife.” It certainly makes more sense when you look at "husewif," the Middle English spelling. Over time, the shortened version became an insult to unmarried women as though any unmarried woman, and therefore not a housewife, weren’t a full woman. MatrixLong before Neo took the red pill, the word “matrix,” coming from the Latin word mater (mother), meant "womb,” uterus,” or even “breeding animal.” It makes that fetus pod he breaks out of all the more disturbing. Meat In Old English, “meat” was just a general term for “solid food.” In the Middle Ages, the meaning began to narrow, and the term "flesh-meat" was used to specify the animal flesh used for food (which is pretty metal). So technically, you can enjoy “meat and drink” even with you vegan friends. meat media1.giphy.com Moot PointOriginally, a moot was a formal gathering where leaders could all sit down and confer with each other, particularly over legal matters. So anything “mooted” was deemed an issue important enough to be tabled for group discussion, or even could mean “undecided and open for debate.” By the early 20th century, we see it transform to mean something not worth debating at all. NaughtyThe original “naughty” meant you were poor and had nothing, or “naught” in the way of riches. Thankfully today we use it to denote indulgent, sinfully enjoyable things. Because that’s way more fun. NiceThis word arrived in the English language by way of Old French, where it meant foolish or weak (which makes you wonder why there’s a city in France named Nice…). During the middle ages it evolved to mean shy, reserved, or fastidious. Interestingly, it wasn’t until the mid- to late 1700s—those qualities respectable were beginning to be seen as respectable by society—that the word started to take on more pleasant meanings. Of course, we now sometimes use nice to describe someone who is pleasant enough, but a bit milquetoasty…which is kind of a full circle moment. NimrodWe have Bugs Bunny to thank for this one. Nimrod was the name of a skilled hunter and powerful king in the Bible. However, when Bugs sarcastically referred to Elmer Fudd as a “nimrod” in Looney Tunes, people that didn’t understand the reference thought it meant “dumb” so it changed how the word was used. At least, that’s how the most popular theory goes. Bigs Bunny. media0.giphy.com NonplussedIn the 16th century, to be nonplussed was to be surprised or confused. As a North American I had to reread the sentence because it didn’t make sense for the person to be unperturbed. Somehow, today we take this to mean someone that is not only not confused, but unperturbed entirely. Peruse If you were to peruse something in the 15th century, you’d be examining it very carefully, which is quite different from the casual, nonchalant scanning we understand it to be nowadays. QuellQuelling something or someone used to mean killing it, rather just subduing it. Please don’t quell anything the old-fashioned way. SillyIn Middle English, the word seely meant happy. Blissful even. But by the time it became silly, it had come to mean someone helpless, and therefore pitiable. From there it came to mean naive, and has since arrived at its modern meaning of ignorant or foolish. Fun fact: In 1861, during the months of August and September, journalists would compensate for a lack of hard news by filling up newspapers with trivial stories. This period would become known as the “silly season.”TerrificIt’s easy to see how in the 1660s, terrific meant something that filled you with terror. What’s really confounding is how it morphed into meaning something magnificent, but here we are. WenchSimilar to girl, the Old English word wenchel referred to children of either sex. When shortened to wench, it denoted a “female child” specifically. However, its root word is likely related to the Old English wancol, meaning "unsteady" or "weak.” From here you can see how it came to mean an unsteady, and therefore lewd or wanton woman. Wench meaning media0.giphy.com So the next time someone “literally dies laughing” or calls something “terrific,” maybe give them a pass. Words change, and that’s part of their magic. Who knows? A century from now, people might think “vibe check” referred to some kind of medieval ritual.

A pivotal publication... The post ‘The Vulture’: The forgotten novel that saved Gil-Scott Heron first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

You may have missed it among the recent wild headlines of Democrats wishing death on Republicans, but the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to cement the closed primary system that keeps outsiders from voting in party primaries, with huge ramifications for our republic’s future. Although the 11th Circuit Court correctly dismissed Polelle v. Byrd, the justices announced on Oct. 14 that they declined to hear the case’s challenge to the closed primary’s constitutionality. If the court had taken it up, they could’ve solidified this important aspect of American democracy, which filters quality candidates into general elections. The case centered on whether 3.4 million registered independent voters were robbed of their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by being barred from casting a ballot in Florida’s closed primary elections. The closed primary system actually strengthens the republic because it motivates informed and passionate voters to turn out during the general election. Petitioner Michael Polelle, a retired attorney, sued the Florida Secretary of State under the argument that they were. He was joined by former Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s Forward Party, the Independent Voter Project, and Open Primaries, all of which filed supporting amicus briefs arguing that closed primaries treat non-affiliated or third-party voters as second-class citizens. (RELATED: Five Quick Things: The Party of Vote Fraud) From a constitutional standpoint, this is ridiculous. Anyone can register with whichever political party they choose and vote in that party’s closed primaries. The petitioners made the argument that people shouldn’t be forced to join private clubs to vote in primary elections. If successful, this would have diluted the very reason for having partisan primaries in the first place. Political Parties Exist for a Reason Closed primaries aren’t just constitutional. They’re the gold standard for picking candidates who can withstand the general election. They discriminate — by design — against the ideologically uncommitted, and that’s precisely why they work. Political parties exist to advance ideas, not host auditions for “Most Likeable Candidate.” The First Amendment protects freedom of association, which means they don’t have to let outsiders crash the party. We see — and accept — this in every other part of our lives. PETA doesn’t let barbecue pitmasters pick its leadership team, the Yankees don’t let the Red Sox make their draft picks, and churches don’t let non-Christians become members. Why would party primaries be any different? Most “independents” aren’t actually independent, anyway. A 2007 Washington Post study found that just 18 percent of independents were “quintessential swing voters.” Fast forward to 2025, and a CNN poll last month found that this group no longer exists. (RELATED: Ensuring Greater Trust in Mail-in Voting) America’s “independents” are usually straight-ticket partisans who flatter themselves as being “independent-minded.” Many are self-styled centrists who just want the stock market to hum. Others have checked out of politics altogether. Forcing parties to let these folks vote in their primaries isn’t democratic; it’s an invitation to electoral sabotage. Before the 1970s, when parties chose nominees in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, nominees were typically chosen by their party’s most politically active members. Although undemocratic by modern standards, these 19th and 20th-century conventions produced great statesmen like Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower. We don’t typically nominate presidents that way anymore (although the Virginia GOP did nominate Governor Glenn Youngkin through its 2021 convention). Yet the closed primary we use in its place is like an extra-large convention in which every Republican can participate. Unlike the conventions of old, however, the closed primary gives insurgent candidates — think Donald Trump — a shot at shaking up a sleepy establishment without being drowned out by the nonaligned who treat politics like a popularity contest. Or worse, sabotaged by Democratic voters crossing over to meddle in the GOP primary. Closed Primaries Produce Better Candidates Diversity of thought and healthy division strengthen democracy. Andrew Yang’s bland form of technocratic consensus has stagnated it. America has never been a nation of political junkies — and that’s fine. Whether turnout is high or low in any given election has little bearing on the health of our democracy, and we should reject the Left’s calls for sweeping policy reforms when things don’t break their way. Is the primary system that’s worked for generations, in some places for a century, suddenly undemocratic? What about the convention system before it that worked for 150 years? (RELATED: The DOJ’s Lawsuit Against Maine and Oregon: A Win for Election Security) The closed primary system actually strengthens the republic because it motivates informed and passionate voters to turn out during the general election. Committed partisans understand that the slightest scandal can sink their party in the general election and so balance ideological purity with electability. Although there are exceptions, this intense scrutiny by active party voters tends to reward sharper candidates who represent the majority of their party. Many Americans who don’t register with either party are non-partisan-in-name-only, non-ideological, or disillusioned. Allowing these spoilers, centrists, and cranks to sabotage partisan primaries would produce bland nominees who could move to the final round with a plurality of their party’s voters rather than a majority. This would discourage the most informed and committed citizens from turning out in the general election. The Polelle case offered the Supreme Court the ability to declare once and for all the constitutionality of the closed primary. It’s unfortunate they declined the opportunity. From a policy standpoint, weakening the partisan nature of partisan primaries would result in far more incompetent, corrupt, and unpopular candidates winning elections. Closed primaries are the first line of defense against mob rule by allowing committed partisans and ideologues to provide much-needed quality control in general elections. And we may even see higher election turnout with real choices on the ballot to boot. READ MORE from Jacob Grandstaff: It’s Time to End Universities’ Foreign Tuition Dependence Don’t Underestimate Mamdani’s Ability to Woo Trump Voters With a Populist-Left Agenda Republicans, Go on Offense Against the National Popular Vote — Now! Jacob Grandstaff is an investigative researcher for Restoration News.

Ashley Tellis was recently arrested and charged with the unlawful retention of national defense information and with making unauthorized visits to government officials of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Born in India, he served in the George W. Bush administration in the National Security Council and in the Southwest Asia Strategic Planning Office. If convicted, Tellis is subject to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment and up to a $250,000 fine. (RELATED: How Deep Is China in America’s Ballot Box?) This is just the latest in several high-profile Chinese espionage cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice (DOJ). This is just the latest in several high-profile Chinese espionage cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice (DOJ). So far this year, the DOJ has achieved several guilty pleas, convictions, and sentencings: This September, Michael Schena, a State Department employee, was sentenced to four years in prison for conspiring to collect and transmit national defense information to individuals working for the PRC. He met people online who he knew were working on behalf of the PRC, and provided them with sensitive U.S. government information in exchange for money. Schena met an individual at a hotel in Peru who provided him with $10,000 and a cellphone that was intended to be used to transmit information. (RELATED: How China Is Quietly Outsmarting the West) In another instance, while at work, Schena used the cellphone he received in Peru to photograph and transmit at least four classified documents that contained national defense information and which were classified at the SECRET level. Surveillance video captured Schena again using the cellphone to photograph seven documents marked as SECRET that contained national defense information. FBI agents seized the cellphone before Schena could transmit photographs of these classified documents to his handlers and arrested Schena. Also, this September, Yuanjun Tang, a naturalized citizen of the United States and a former citizen of the PRC, pled guilty to conspiring to act in the United States as an unregistered agent of the PRC. Tang had reported to the PRC’s principal civilian intelligence agency information about individuals participating in pro-democracy activities in the U.S., which included contact information, names, photographs, videos, and recordings. He even travelled at least three times to Macau and mainland China to meet with PRC intelligence officials. (RELATED: Digital Landmines: Beijing’s Quiet Invasion) Tang pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to act as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the attorney general, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 29, 2026. This August, a federal jury convicted Jinchao Wei, also known as Patrick Wei, of espionage and export violations. Wei was an active-duty U.S. Navy sailor stationed at Naval Base San Diego. While serving as a machinist’s mate for the amphibious assault ship USS Essex, Wei sent extensive information about the Essex, including photographs, videos, and information about its weapons, to a PRC intelligence officer. He also sent detailed information about other U.S. Navy ships that he took from restricted U.S. Navy computer systems. In exchange for this information, the intelligence officer paid Wei more than $12,000 over 18 months. Wei was convicted of six counts, including conspiracy to commit espionage, espionage, and unlawful export of, and conspiracy to export, technical data related to defense articles in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Wei is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 1. This July, Cadence Design Systems Inc. (Cadence), a multinational electronic design automation (EDA) technology company headquartered in California, agreed to plead guilty and pay over $140 million in total criminal and civil penalties to resolve charges that Cadence committed criminal violations of export controls by selling EDA hardware, software, and semiconductor design intellectual property (IP) technology to the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT), a PRC military-led university. Also, this July, Chenguang Gong, a dual U.S./PRC citizen and a former engineer at a Southern California company, pled guilty to stealing trade secret technologies developed for use by the U.S. government to detect nuclear missile launches, track ballistic and hypersonic missiles, and to allow U.S. fighter planes to detect and evade heat-seeking missiles. Gong transferred more than 3,600 files from a Los Angeles-area research and development company where he worked to personal storage devices. The files Gong transferred included blueprints for sophisticated infrared sensors designed for use in space-based systems to detect nuclear missile launches and track ballistic and hypersonic missiles, as well as blueprints for sensors designed to enable U.S. military aircraft to detect incoming heat-seeking missiles and take countermeasures, including by jamming the missiles’ infrared tracking ability. Law enforcement also discovered that while employed at several major technology companies in the United States, Gong submitted numerous applications to “Talent Programs” administered by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC established these talent programs as a means to identify individuals with expert skills and knowledge of advanced sciences and technologies to transform the PRC’s economy, including its military capabilities. In these applications, Gong pitched ideas to produce technologies in China that were similar to those produced by his employers. In June, Joseph Daniel Schmidt, a former U.S. Army Sergeant whose last duty post was Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) in western Washington, pled guilty to two federal felonies: attempt to deliver national defense information and retention of national defense information. Both of Schmidt’s charges are punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Schmidt served in the 109th Military Intelligence Battalion at JBLM, where he had access to SECRET and TOP SECRET information. After his separation from the military, Schmidt reached out to the Chinese consulate in Turkey and Chinese security services via email, offering national defense information. Schmidt traveled to Hong Kong and provided Chinese intelligence with classified information he obtained from his military service. In April, Korbein Schultz, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst, was sentenced to 84 months in prison for conspiring to collect and transmit national defense information, including sensitive, non-public U.S. military information, to an individual he believed was affiliated with the Chinese government. Schultz pled guilty in August 2024. Schultz engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to provide dozens of sensitive U.S. military documents directly to a foreign national residing in the PRC. In exchange for approximately $42,000, Schultz provided documents and data related to U.S. military capabilities, including: His Army unit’s operational order before it was deployed to Eastern Europe in support of NATO operations; Lessons learned by the U.S. Army from the Ukraine/Russia conflict applicable to Taiwan’s defense; Technical manuals for the HH-60 helicopter, F-22A fighter aircraft, and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile systems; Information on Chinese military tactics and the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force; Details on U.S. military exercises in the Republic of Korea and the Philippines; Documents concerning U.S. military satellites and missile defense systems like the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD); and Tactics for countering unmanned aerial systems in large-scale combat operations. This February, David C. Bohmerwald, 63, the owner of a Raleigh-based electronics resale business called Components Cooper Inc., pled guilty to attempting to export accelerometer technology with military applications to China without a license, in violation of the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA). He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Bohmerwald purchased 100 accelerometers from a U.S.-based electronics company and then attempted to export the devices to a company in China. When used for military applications, accelerometers are crucial to structural testing, monitoring, flight control, and navigation systems. The technology can help missiles fly better and measure the precise effect munitions have on structures. A license is required to export the accelerometers to China. In addition to the above, the DOJ made a series of arrests this year, including of: 1) two Chinese nationals on allegations they illegally shipped sensitive microchips used in AI applications to China; 2) two Chinese nationals on allegations they were overseeing and carrying out various clandestine intelligence tasks on behalf of the PRC’s intelligence services; and 3) two active duty and one former U.S. Army soldiers on allegations they were involved in a theft of government property and bribery scheme, with one soldier charged with conspiring to transmit national defense information to individuals located in China. Tellis’s high-profile arrest is just the latest in a DOJ dragnet targeting Chinese espionage. Hopefully, there will be more arrests and sentencing this year and throughout the remainder of President Trump’s term in office. READ MORE from Steve Postal: Surprise! Hamas Has Already Doomed Peace To Bring Hostages Home, Israel Pays Very Steep Price Will Hamas Blow Up Gaza Deal With Explosive Demands?

Projection. The dictionary defines “projection” as “the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself.” A better description of the so-called “No Kings” movement would be hard to come by. If ever there were a case of projection in today’s politics, it would be with the self-described “No Kings” movement — a movement that drips with the signs of authoritarianism as it pretends to support democracy. Over there at Wikipedia is the following definition of authoritarianism: “Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.” For starters, the “No Kings” movement is the very embodiment of “the rejection of political plurality.”  There is not a dissenting pro-Trump soul to be found in the “No Kings” movement. (RELATED: The Ridiculous No Kings Protest) Recall that there was a move by the Left before the 2024 election to keep candidate Trump off the ballot in various states. That would be the very epitome of “the rejection of political plurality” that “No Kings” showcases. Which is to say, no dissent allowed in the “No Kings” movement. (RELATED: No Kings?  Well … Not Your King!) Then there’s the business of “the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo…”  Strong central power is exactly what “No Kings” craves — for themselves. Over here at an Oregon site is this: What began as a nationwide protest dubbed “No Kings Day” quickly devolved into outright violence outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in South Portland. By nightfall, police declared a full-blown riot. Protesters hurled fireworks, smoke grenades, and rocks at officers. A mob shattered glass, breached the building’s entrance, and injured four federal agents. Which is to say, what happened in Portland is the classic method of operation of authoritarianism — showcased in this instance by “No Kings.” Authoritarianism is about “the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo…” The use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo is exactly what “No Kings” is about. The far left — the decidedly authoritarian political status quo — is all about allowing, aiding, and abetting masses of illegal immigrants to override the legal immigration system to flood the country with illegal immigrants. (RELATED: Cameras and Cash Fuel ‘No Kings’ Protests Against Trump) In a country that is 100 percent filled with the descendants of legal immigrants or current legal immigrants who followed the rules, filled out the required paperwork, and waited in line to become legal immigrants and legal American immigrants, “No Kings” is about overriding the legal immigration system to flood the country with illegals, specifically designed to corrupt the political system for their own ends. Authoritarianism is about “reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.” That is exactly the “No Kings” agenda. They object to the democracy that features Americans deciding issues at the ballot box in free and fair elections. Instead, they want what they are all about right now — using force and violence to get their objectives accomplished. The “No Kings” love of using violence to overthrow democracy in the style of authoritarians everywhere has been on vivid display in American cities like Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois. Here’s but one headline from Newsweek: “‘No Kings’ Protests See Major Crowds, Violence in Some States.” The bottom line here is that “No Kings” is decidedly not what it pretends to be. It is rigidly authoritarian. At a recent weekend rally on the steps of the State Capitol building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania — which I attended — there was not a single sign of intellectual diversity to be heard. No discussion of issues was to be had. But there were Antifa signs to be seen. (RELATED: DOJ Files Charges Against Antifa) Not to mention that the reality that in a decidedly free election in 2024, Pennsylvania voters voted for Republican Donald Trump with 50.37 percent to 48.66 percent for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrat. Wikipedia notes: This was the largest margin of victory for a Republican candidate since 1988, as well as the first time since that election that a Republican won over 50 percent of the state vote. ….Trump’s victory is seen to have contributed to down-ballot victories for Republicans who won the races for the U.S. Senate, Attorney General, Treasurer and Auditor General. Except for the Senate race, all 2024 Pennsylvania Republican statewide candidates won over 50 percent of the vote. Trump received more than 3.5 million votes, the most cast for any candidate in Pennsylvania history. Which is to say, what is described above is what’s known as democracy. So let’s cut to the chase. What the “No Kings” movement really objects to is democracy and free elections that they do not win. Which is exactly, among a variety of issues, what Trump’s Make America Great Again movement is all about — democracy and free elections. To let the American voters decide. The “No Kings” movement objects to both democracy in general and free elections specifically. Which tells Americans what the “No Kings” phonies are really all about: That would be making themselves King. Whether Americans like it — or vote for it — or not. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: If Mamdani Arrests Netanyahu, Should Feds Arrest Mamdani? Trump’s History-Making Triumph Trump Deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

For decades, commentators dismissive of conservatism have found much to criticize in our movement’s seeming inability to define itself past a reactionary — some would say regressive — attitude. (Here, Corey Robin’s critically titled book The Reactionary Mind comes to mind). Luminaries from Edmund Burke to G.K. Chesterton to Russell Kirk have devoted much time and detail to showing that a conservative is more than just a man who dislikes present innovations and novelties. Or, at least as Chesterton in particular envisioned, to coherently situate such an attitude within a palatable philosophical framework. In spite of its myriad flaws, our present monetary system still has something that no cryptocurrency can ever replace: Tangibility. This observation isn’t intended to necessarily propose the existence of a fallacy within the thought of these beloved thinkers, or to suggest a privation within the “conservative mind,” however liminally such an ethos might be defined. Rather, it is intended to argue that in the context of a particular topic — cryptocurrency and its implications — this caricature-esque conservative attitude is more valuable precisely because of its mystifying qualities. Detractors abhor the temperamental obstinacy of conservatives, and their refusal to abandon cherished ways in the face of self-proclaimed new and improved methods. But today, this reactionary attitude is precisely what we need to cultivate. When the idea of cryptocurrency is discussed, it’s often within utilitarian parameters. Is Bitcoin, for example, more fungible than gold? Does crypto solve the portability problem inherent to precious-metals-based currency? Is Bitcoin’s decentralized nature superior to that of traditional fiat currencies at mitigating inflationary devaluation? Questions of this caliber are probably blasé to most crypto-enthusiasts, and, like the Nakamoto Institute’s Daniel Krawisz, many proponents would likely answer them in the affirmative, based on pure practicality. (RELATED: What Does the Great Gold Spike Signify for the World Economy?) This default mode of inquiry and discussion was supplemented a few months ago with the publication of a book by Crisis Magazine’s editor-in-chief, Eric Sammons. The work, titled Moral Money: The Case for Bitcoin, isn’t the first examination of Bitcoin from a religious/ethical standpoint. That honor is given to the 2024 documentary God Bless Bitcoin. But Mr. Sammons’s contribution is uniquely important in that it (quite cogently, I might add), attempts to situate Bitcoin within the moral tradition of the Natural Law, arguing that it is, accordingly, the “most moral monetary system ever conceived.” When Mr. Sammons’s book was first released earlier this year, I covered it for the New Oxford Review, in a piece they published last month. My intent isn’t to duplicate any observations I made previously; rather, it’s to clarify some intricacies that were beyond the scope of my initial analysis — considerations which I believe are of grave importance to us as conservatives in both temperament and in reasoning. See, the reactionary impulse common to so many conservatives is really, at its core, a bias toward the present (and the past). It’s an attitude premised implicitly on the observation that once we relinquish a belief, practice, or even physical item which helps bind us as a culture — as we’ve discovered time and again — it becomes nearly impossible to regain it. Mr. Sammons directs a proportionate amount of rightful indignation at the injustice and immorality of the modern fiat-currency system, which has settled like a black cloud of financial malaise upon much of the West. He’s right to argue that there is nothing much to conserve within the hollow shell of modern financial exchange. But what he misses (or, perhaps, fails to address with full candor), is the cultural and essentially human component that remains a functioning relic of our current system. In spite of its myriad flaws, our present monetary system still has something that no cryptocurrency can ever replace: Tangibility. By virtue of its very nature, Mr. Sammons’s beloved Bitcoin has nothing that can satisfy the human desire to receive something created in exchange for another created material thing. The Dominican father Gerald Vann cautioned, nearly a century ago, against precisely such an idea — what he cautioned against regarding an excessive division of labor can only be applied more fully with regard to labor’s physical store: currency. As he wrote, The Thomistic idea is founded on the principle of operatio sequitur esse, [which states] that labor should be the exteriorization of the personality, [and] that labor of any description should be art.… The division of labor has made vast economic progress possible, but excessive division of labor must lead to a lack of interest, to loss of responsibility, to the robot. The result has been that the idea of creation is ceasing to exist. Will not cryptocurrency further deaden the ideal of creation? If currency values, stores, and measures labor’s creative output, then to remove its incarnational component is to remove, in some sense, its essentially human foundation. Local communities, incarnational transactions — the type of exchanges Patrick Deneen praises as essential to building culture, and which foster the most primary form of community within Aristo-Thomistic political economy — are what stand to be lost if the notion of value is abstracted any further from its already denatured physical form. This doesn’t mean that our modern fiat system is perfect, or even that it is just. But it does mean that it has something cryptocurrency lacks — and will conceivably lack forever — a tangible, irreplaceably human, transactional power. Is the proper function of the reactionary impulse to stymie all manner of innovation through every conceivable avenue? Not exactly. Instead, reactionaries get it right when they refuse to relinquish those things they have received until being convinced that what is good and noble about the status quo will be preserved or enhanced by any new paradigm. If novelty cannot maintain what is fundamentally good about the present, it must be rejected, even at the cost of efficiency and perceived utility. This realization is the primary fruit of the reactionary impulse, and it indicates the proper and courageous role its disciples ought play — confronting artificial intelligence, analyzing emergent biotechnology, and yes, even critiquing the way we organize our transactions and exchange. READ MORE: The AI Employment Apocalypse Is Only a Few Years Away The Blood of the Martyrs: Charlie Kirk’s Witness and Movement A Chat With Daniel J. Flynn, Author of ‘The Man Who Invented Conservatism’ Frederick Woodward is a research fellow in political economy, Hillsdale College. He is also director of research and investigations for Politylitics, a legal analyst with the Michigan Fair Elections Institute, and an editor at the Hillsdale Forum.  

With just a year left in her term and two years until the Democratic primary debates, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is stepping up her preparations for a presidential bid. Whitmer believes herself to be well-positioned to assist in these states given her own reputation for turning Michigan’s state government entirely blue. This weekend, she hit the trail for a campaign-style tour, stopping in Florida, Wisconsin, and New Jersey, with the theme of helping Democrats to regain traction in places where the party has struggled in recent years. Florida has turned bright red, Wisconsin backed Donald Trump in the last election, and traditionally blue New Jersey has become surprisingly competitive. Whitmer believes herself to be well-positioned to assist in these states given her own reputation for turning Michigan’s state government entirely blue. That success is likely to serve her well in a Democratic primary given the party’s search for a winning message after its 2024 shellacking. (RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s Presidential Campaign Unofficially Begins) Whitmer portrayed her four-day, three-state tour as an effort to support fellow Democrats in the upcoming gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey and to promote her book, but she did not shy away from signaling the presidential ambitions underlying her trip. “After the last election, I heard some people say, ‘We’re not ready for a woman president.’ To that, I say, ‘BS!’” Whitmer said at a book event in Miami. During her stop in Wisconsin, Whitmer hosted a training event for local Democratic operatives, campaign staff, and future candidates. The idea was for her to relate the tactics that helped her shift Michigan leftward with a state that shares many political similarities. In Wisconsin, she emphasized a strategy of building consensus on kitchen-table issues that appeal across party lines. She urged Democrats to use this economic pragmatism to connect with voters, especially those in the rural areas of the state that are trending to the right. She said, “We need people to focus on the things that matter to the majority, right: affordable housing, a career and a really good job where you can provide for your family, helping people get ahead and keep more money in their pockets.” In Florida, she added optimism to her public persona. “I love what I do,” she said. “Even on the hardest day, I know what I do makes a difference, and there is so much joy in that.” She even went on about the benefits she reaps from writing in her “gratitude journal.” Whitmer also campaigned for Democratic New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill, whose race against Republican Jack Ciattarelli is close. A Fox News poll released last week showed Sherrill up by 5 points. A Trafalgar poll released last week put the difference at only 1 point in Sherrill’s favor, which has made many Democrats nervous, especially given how long they have viewed the state as safe. In New Jersey, Whitmer utilized the “fight like hell” mentality she has made part of her political brand and the name of her super PAC. (RELATED: Poll: New Jersey Governor’s Race Too Close to Call) “I may not be from here, but let me tell you, New Jerseyans are a lot like Michiganders,” she said. “We work hard, we’re tough, we want the best for each other. You’re loud, you’re proud, and you don’t off around.” “This is a clear choice: We got a guy who’s going to get bossed around by D.C., versus a woman who can get s**t done,” Whitmer continued. “We got a bad actor who’s willing to sell you out, or a badass Navy pilot who will take on any woman who messes with New Jersey.” Surely, this is just the start of many campaign stops for Gretchen Whitmer. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Oberlin Students Revive Criminal Anti-Israel Protests, Police Respond ‘Dr. Maggie,’ Notorious Abortionist Is This John James’s Moment?

I am married to the finest human being on the planet. Her name is Alexandra Denman. I met her in 1966 at a black-tie party at the State Department celebrating Independence Day. We have been together for the balance of our lives, with a few years off to gather our wits. The first time I met her at her family’s home in Virginia, I also met her father, Colonel Dale Denman Jr., U.S. Army, just back from vicious warfare in Vietnam. He was the handsomest man I had ever met. He was from Prescott, Arkansas. He attended West Point, graduated from there on June 6, 1944, D-Day. He was shipped to Europe almost immediately after a few days off to marry my wife’s mother, Norma Jean Warmack, a staggeringly beautiful woman from Idabel, Oklahoma, and then training in Artillery, his specialty. In the Spring of 1945, his unit, the 71st Infantry, was fighting its way through Austria, encountering Bitter-Ender Nazis, who fought like madmen even though the Germans had clearly lost the war. One of Col. Denman’s battles involved his platoon getting pinned down by a Nazi machine gun detachment. He ran through deadly MG-42 fire, so close it knocked the heels off of both of his boots. He got to an abandoned farmhouse, climbed up to its attic, and with a primitive radio, called in artillery fire to silence the machine gun. He saved his men and, for that, was awarded the Silver Star, the second-highest medal for combat gallantry, just behind the Medal of Honor. Not long after, fighting his way through a dense forest in Upper Austria to a small town called Gunskirchen, he and his men came upon a horror. It was the Gunskirchen Lager death camp, a subcamp of the much more well-known death camp, a supreme horror called Mauthausen. Most of the SS guards had already fled Gunskirchen, but there were still enough to fight with Nazi vengeance against Col. Denman. He fought back and was among the first through the gates of hell. Inside, he and his fellows found about 16,000 emaciated, dying, diseased prisoners. There were also about 6,000 gruesome corpses in the camp and more in the dense forest surrounding the camp so closely that it was almost invisible from the town and any nearby roads. When Col. Denman told me about the horrors he saw that week, and about how many prisoners were so starved that they died from eating the K-rations that the Americans brought them, he sobbed. (It was at that first meeting with my soon-to-be father-in-law that I asked him how he felt about the war in Vietnam, which at the time — summer 1966 — was still going hot and heavy and was the focus of endless anti-war demonstrations that Alex and I were in. “Do you favor the war?” I asked him. “It seems as if General Westmoreland is the only man in favor of it. I don’t want to march against it if you are for it.” “We in the Army hate war,” he said. “We’re the ones who get killed. Keep demonstrating. It’s a meat grinder that we’ll never win.”) I have been thinking about Gunskirchen Lager and the Nazis and Col. Denman a great deal since. I have been obsessed with it since my dear friend, Judah Friedman, a historian, a journalist, and the producer of a small podcast called “The World According to Ben Stein,” has been keeping me current about the recent explosion of antisemitic, anti-American rhetoric in the USA. Just recently, on the Internet, I have seen ultra-leftist “commentators” waving immense Nazi swastika flags at pro-Israel, pro-USA people, shouting praise of Hitler. IT IS A NAUSEATING SIGHT AND SOUND. How did we ever get to this disgusting state? How can we come back? God bless Col. Denman and his men. READ MORE from Ben Stein: What Happened to America? No Sense Quarreling John Coyne, RIP

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 749, the “Youth Sports for All Act,” which creates a “sports equity commission” to promote “the needs of diverse youth” and ensure “equity and inclusion.” Californians have cause to wonder about the need for this new government body. If Californians believed the commission would support men competing against women, it would be hard to blame them. No Californian of any age, race, ethnicity, or national origin is barred from participation in sports, and the federal Title IX ensures equal opportunity for women. Female athletes and their parents might check out the sponsor of AB-749, the Play Equity Fund, “the only nonprofit focused solely on Play Equity as a social justice issue.” The Play Equity Fund website shows a photo of Blaire Fleming, a biological male on the women’s volleyball team at San Jose State University. Several schools have forfeited games with SJSU, prompting an investigation into Title IX violations at the California campus. Newsom is on record on this issue. On the “This is Gavin Newsom” podcast in March, the governor told conservative activist Charlie Kirk that it was “deeply unfair” for so-called “transgender athletes” to participate in girls’ sports. “I think it’s an issue of fairness,” Newsom told Kirk. “I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair. I’m not wrestling with the fairness issue. I totally agree with you.” Agreeing in principle is NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines. (RELATED: Science Has Finally Come For Transgenderism) The 5-foot-7 athlete was forced to compete against the 6-foot-4 “Lia” Thomas, formerly Will Thomas, on the men’s swim team at the University of Pennsylvania. A mediocre performer against his fellow men, Thomas took hormones and competed against women. Last year, Gaines came to San Francisco State University to make the case that men competing against women was unfair. The University of Kentucky swimmer was unaware that California universities are no longer a forum for civil debate. (RELATED: Prepare to Say Goodbye to the Transgender Moment) A mob of “men dressed as women, women dressed as men — and everything in between” assaulted Gaines and held her hostage for four hours, demanding money for her release. Under California law, battery is “willfully touch[ing] someone with force, even if it does not injure the victim.” Assault is the “unlawful attempt … to cause a violent injury to another person.” Kidnapping involves holding “someone through force or fear” and without consent. No charges were filed, and no arrests made. Newsom, a former mayor of San Francisco, issued no official statement on the violence against Riley Gaines at SFSU. The governor is now on record that men competing against women is unfair, so the “sports equity commission” is most likely an act of penance. If Californians believed the commission would support men competing against women, it would be hard to blame them. As the people should know, the president of the Play Equity Fund, sponsor of AB-749, is Renata Simril. As Katy Grimes of the California Globe notes, the Fund pays Simril an annual salary of $506,405. The Equity Fund boss also boasts friends in high places. In 2021, Newsom appointed Simril to the Advisory Council on Physical Fitness and Mental Well-Being. In 2023, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass appointed Simril president of the city’s Department of Recreation and Parks Board of Commissioners. Simril was also senior vice president of external affairs for the Los Angeles Dodgers, which raises an issue. Even with a dose of female hormones, Dodgers’ star Shohei Ohtani could doubtless lead a women’s team to a championship and set records for home runs. This scenario differs only in degree from the actions of Fleming and Thomas. Gender is a matter of biological science. Trans ideology derives from reality dysphoria, a dynamic that should have no place in government. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Frank Meyer, Elsie Meyer and the Quest for School Choice California’s ‘Pillage’ People Lose Equity Theft Battle California’s Real Safe Districts Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.