A mere five days before Hitler’s suicide, the United Nations conference convened in San Francisco. “United Nations” had been the term that Franklin Roosevelt had borrowed from Byron’s Childe Harold to describe the Allies in World War II. As the Allies withstood the onslaught of the Axis and Japan, turned the tide, and finally closed in on victory, Churchill and Roosevelt began talking of what both at first called the World Organization, how those United Nations would hold the world together in peace the way they had come together to defeat their opponents in war. With the victory all but assured, at least in Europe, the Allies joined together in California to forge a charter for an organization they hoped would prove more capable of settling issues between nations than the League of Nations, which could not save the world from a second great war. On the conference’s opening day, President Harry Truman addressed the delegates via a live cable hook-up. Truman, who had succeeded to his high office only two weeks previously, was at his best: plain-spoken, direct, going straight to the central point. Here is a crucial section of his address: All will concede that in order to have good neighbors, we must also be good neighbors. That applies in every field of human endeavor. For lasting security, men of good-will must unite and organize. Moreover, if our friendly policies should ever be considered by belligerent leaders as merely evidence of weakness, the organization we establish must be adequately prepared to meet any challenge. Differences between men, and between nations, will always remain. In fact, if held within reasonable limits, such disagreements are actually wholesome. All progress begins with differences of opinion and moves onward as the differences are adjusted through reason and mutual understanding. In recent years, our enemies have clearly demonstrated the disaster which follows when freedom of thought is no longer tolerated. Honest minds cannot long be regimented without protest. Truman saw that the success of peace and of this organization dedicated to preserving was dependent on its ability to embrace freed and unregimented thought. No doubt he was right. As Winston Churchill put it, “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.” (Biographer Martin Gilbert asserted that this is what he actually said, not the often-heard “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.”) [T]his subordination of truth to power is not confined to the Left, though … they have been its locomotive since after World War II. Despite his own hate of Communism, Churchill had taken the lead in creating an effective, cooperative alliance with Stalin, and between the two of them, turned the tide at El Alamein and then at Stalingrad. Churchill had high hopes for the World Organization based on the success of the wartime alliance in saving the world from Nazism. He hoped that Stalin would be won over by the demonstrated value of their own relationship — even powerful people with profound differences of thought could work together harmoniously and achieve a great shared aim. Only two months before the San Francisco conference, Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt had met at Yalta to hash out the shape of the postwar world. It was clear by then that Stalin would have complete control over the lands of eastern Europe. Even so, it seemed at Yalta that the Big Three were still working in close cooperation. Indeed, they reached an agreement that Poland would soon freely determine its government, friendly to Moscow, as it had not been before the war, but independent. But as the Red Army consolidated its control, it became clear that Stalin was dishonoring the Yalta agreement. Non-Communist Polish political figures were being swiftly eliminated. Churchill protested to Stalin, invoking their cooperation and the good faith of their wartime alliance. FDR, deathly ill, also managed a protest of Stalin’s high-handed behavior. Churchill grasped the implications of Stalin’s perfidy and telegraphed FDR about its implications at the end of March 1945: As we have both understood them, the … proposals, which will form the basis of discussion at San Francisco, are based on the conception of Great Power unity. If no such unity exists on Poland, which is after all a major problem of the postwar settlement — to say nothing of the other matters just mentioned — what, it will legitimately be asked, are the prospects of success of the new World Organisation? And is it not indeed evident that, in the circumstances, we shall be building the whole structure of future world peace on foundations of sand? And so it was to prove. Though the hope was long dying, and though there were moments, such as the UN fighting against Communist aggression in Korea, the UN has disappointed on every level. As Churchill surmised, if there is no convergence among the leading powers, no organization they constitute will be capable of establishing international peace. Instead, the organization itself become a victim of the conflict. Why is that such a problem? Freedom of thought always allows conflicts to surface. But the constitutional structure of civilization allows for conflict itself to become civilized. Constitutional boundaries allow maximal participation in an organized, life-enhancing conflict of ideas. Thus, Truman’s insistence on freedom of thought, for that is just what totalitarianism always tries to destroy. And clearly, Stalin and his successors would not embrace that freedom. They are what Ben Shapiro calls scavengers. They prey on civilization, taking advantage of how its adherents bind themselves to rules, rules the scavengers observe only until they find the best moment to pounce. And so the UN has failed, built on the sand of the illusion that it could work despite the contempt of Stalin and his successors for freedom of thought and good faith. Nowhere is the failure of the UN more evident than in the case of Israel. In its hopeful early days, the UN ruled for a partition of the old British mandate into a Jewish and an Arab state. But when the Jewish areas were attacked even before their independence took effect, the UN could not and did not even try to enforce the two-state solution that only the Jewish government-in-waiting had accepted. Neither could the UN enforce the armistice that ended the War of Independence, nor stop the terror raids from Egyptian-run Gaza during the early Fifties. When Israel defeated Egypt in 1956, the UN brokered a peace by guaranteeing Israel’s right to use the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran and by placing peacekeepers on the Egyptian border. Looked promising, but the moment Egypt’s Nasser decided to scavenge, he closed the seas and demanded the UN peacekeepers depart. And the UN folded immediately and withdrew. Israel had to fight for its life by itself. All the while, the UN’s commission to deal only with the Arab refugees from the 1948 war became a force actively hostile to Israel, in particular funding and helping to guide and implement an educational system that inculcated violent hatred of Jews and Israel. (The UN never bothered itself about the equal number of Jews driven then from their homes across the Middle East where they had lived for centuries.) By 1967, the Soviet Union armed and argued for the anti-Israel front. Its long legacy of denying freedom of thought suited the various kinds of strongmen who dominated the new nations of the Middle East. Nor was there a fertile cultural ground for civilized debate on the issues of political life in a land ruled by Ottoman potentates for centuries. The Soviet version of “truth” began to take hold at the UN, reaching a peak in the appearance of pistol-packing Yassir Arafat at the podium and the adoption of a resolution identifying Zionism as racism. Israel was to be identified with South Africa and its viciously discriminatory apartheid laws. That line has been introduced into the minds of generations of American students by academics fashionably contemptuous of the idea of any truth beyond the struggle for power. The UN continues with it apace, just this week proposing in a committee that Israel is guilty not just of apartheid but of genocide. In the absence of freedom of thought, such cancerous ideas flow along to their intended aim — violent repression of any dissent. It follows internationally that any government that protects freedom of thought must be overthrown or destroyed. Even further — if a people cling to their liberty to think freely even about the deepest of things, then those people must be eliminated. Thus, we reach the point Churchill feared: there was in the end very little difference between Stalin and the Nazi and Fascist dictators that the Allies destroyed. There could be no true peace, only a cold war, which has morphed now into an open war against the freedom of thought being fought throughout the West. And only now are the lovers of the liberties for which World War II was fought realizing how deadly the threat is to the civilization we cherish. When the freedom to think is attacked, one cannot even be safe in espousing the simplest truths. Scientists observe how sexual differences mold the behavior of even the most primordial living things. But this fundament of consciousness is denied, leading to the mutilation and sterilization of children, rendering them infertile, and being consigned to a lifetime of dependence on high-powered pharmaceuticals and reparative surgeries for the rest of their lives, as well as psychological trauma. If one is not even free to object to that, then it is not surprising that — even though Jordan, the PA, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, and Kuwait have no Jews living there — even though the Christian population in those and most every other place in the Middle East has plummeted — and even though in Israel the Muslim and Christian minorities have all civil rights and are thriving — nonetheless Israel is called racist and apartheid by the ignorant credentialed class of the postmodern West. These powerful and highly educated fools ask you not to believe your lying eyes, which see: Hamas always deliberately targeting every and any Jew for murder, rape, and kidnapping; Israel sacrificing its own soldiers’ lives instead of using surprise bombing so that civilian Gazans can escape; Israel supplying food in gigantic quantity to a city still holding Israel’s citizens hostage and still carrying on war against it; Hamas locking its own citizens out of a tunnel system that could have saved lives the way the Underground did in the Blitz in London; Hamas deliberately using hospitals, schools, and mosques for military purposes to draw an Israeli response and then claim to an uncritical world that Israel is the war criminal; etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Sadly, as Senator Ted Cruz pointed out this week, this subordination of truth to power is not confined to the Left, though, following Stalin’s lead, they have been its locomotive since after World War II. On the right, we have brilliant and formerly highly esteemed commentators chin-deep in evidence-free conspiracy theories and nodding gravely to a pseudo-historian proposing that Hitler was really a pretty fine guy and that Churchill was the real villain in World War II, and that everything can be explained by a giant conspiracy run by the — wink wink, nod nod. Right revisionist history has returned like a zombie from the morgue to walk the earth another day. Bill Buckley, may your memory inspire us to drive them out again. In the face of the onslaught against truth, we have a weapon. It is our own ability to think the truth and honor it with our courageous commitment. We may only be able to silently resist the poison gas of lies; if so, that is silent resistance is still a blow for the cause. We may be able to speak, though, and then we must. We may be able to act, and then we must — a great tsunami of voters who register, research their candidates, discern which ones stand for truth, and to come out and vote for them. The great hopes for the United Nations have died. Its ship struck the rock of Stalinism and its fear of freedom of thought and the dedication to truth that it allows. It’s up to us not to despair and to continue to stand up for truth and freedom in each action we take. We can and will triumph over the subversion of language and thought by those who fear your freedom to think and the truth they cannot control. Realizing that, we already have them on the run. Persevere and that hidden truth will shine like the morning star and all the lies, naked and exposed, will shrivel away. READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Kirk Was Loathed by Those Who Hate Independent Thought The Religious Roots of Separation of Church and State Choosing Survival Over Politics

Anniversaries recall pivotal times. They are society’s way to dust off selective memories and polish them with partisan varnish, while romanticizing about collective harmony.  The year 2025 has witnessed its share of such anniversaries that include the 80th observance of the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs. The 60th birthday of the Voting Rights Act. The 50-year remembrance of the first summer blockbuster movie that transformed Hollywood: Jaws. The 45th anniversary of the U.S. hockey team’s Olympic upset over the Soviets and the 30th anniversary of Windows 95, which redefined computing. One anniversary that got less recognition than all of them put together was the 1700-year observance of the Council of Nicaea and its resulting Nicene Creed that not only advanced Christianity but also cultivated the foundation of Western Civilization. In the 4th century, Arius led a movement that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. To denounce the heresy, the Church convened a council of nearly 300 bishops from across the Roman Empire, with Emperor Constantine playing a pivotal role in organizing and supporting the proceedings at Nicaea in 325 (present-day Iznik, Turkey).  For a 4th-century declaration, the Nicene Creed anchors Christian doctrine across denominations. The Nicene Creed was the fruit of that council, having been born of scripture and tradition and forged in the fires of dogmatic debate; it is central to Christian doctrine. The Council Fathers codified Christian dogma, declaring that Jesus embodies full divinity and full humanity.  “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” These opening words of the Nicene Creed are among the most important and oldest statements of Christian belief outside the Bible. In the Gospel of John, the first sentence clarifies that the Son is the agent of creation and the eternal God Himself. C. S. Lewis describes this as the central event of human history when the Son took on humanity, a mortal body from the Virgin Mary, and a soul untainted by Adam’s sin. Jesus is the fulfillment of the ancient promise, “My dwelling place will be with them. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” For a 4th century declaration, the Nicene Creed anchors Christian doctrine across denominations. Creeds endure because human nature desires clarity, cohesion, and continuity. Whether religious, philosophical, or political, creeds distill complex ideas into concise statements as formal declarations of shared values and truths. Creeds are short enough to memorize and deep enough to mold and unify. From the early Christians through to today, the Nicene Creed is the means through which believers are recognized amidst an army of pagans and heretics, while demonstrating unity with Christians around the world and down through the centuries. In a disposable, consumerist culture, the creed preserves ancient tradition, and reciting it is countercultural. In a world that encourages novelty, we repeat words spoken through the ages. In a society that avoids commitment, the creed binds people together in covenant with God and each other. In an age that denies absolutes, we claim truths so important that they must be repeated. When we profess the Nicene Creed, we are part of that countless multitude throughout the centuries stretching back to the Upper Room in Jerusalem. This includes courageous martyrs, valiant theologians, heroic saints, and selfless missionaries — all of whom share the tradition given to us by the Apostles and handed down in the Church. In November, Pope Leo XIV and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Eastern Orthodox Church will journey to Iznik, Turkey, to commemorate the council. While Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christians still disagree on certain doctrines, this anniversary should serve as a reminder of the bedrock truths that bind all Christians together. To believe is to belong.  A long time ago, a young Marine was informed by a Navy Chaplain that the Rifleman’s Creed will save your groove thing, while the Nicene Creed will save your soul.  Western Civilization has systematically divorced itself from the Nicene Creed. Among the pagan West, provided the Nicene Creed were put up for a vote, it wouldn’t pass. Anything less than a relationship with God will not sustain a soul or a civilization. The truths embedded in the Nicene Creed have the power to save the West, provided we believe and proclaim it. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: Redemption’s Playbook Figures Flip the Field Faith Under Fire: Persecution of the Church — At Home and Abroad

Spiritual warfare is real, undeniably real, and the Western world is currently in the throes of it. Some years ago, it may have been easy (or at least easier than it is now) to brush off the wearisome warning of Christians who saw Satan’s hand in everything from blatant evils like abortion to sly innuendo in children’s movies. But the present state of the Western world leaves no doubt that powers and principalities are doing battle here and now, and the prizes being fought for are our souls. In response to the murder of the Turning Point USA founder, leftists posted celebration videos and sickening messages of mockery and hate. Evidence of this spiritual warfare abounds. The assassination of devout Christian and loving husband and father Charlie Kirk on September 10 is one example. In a recent interview with Diane Montagna, Catholic theologian and former chief of the Vatican’s doctrine office Cardinal Gerhard Müller posited, “Charlie Kirk was the victim of an atheistic ideology, whose followers erupted in satanic celebration over the heinous murder of an exemplary husband and family man. The devil always takes possession of those who hate life and truth.” Citing Scripture, he added, “For, according to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, the devil is a ‘murderer from the beginning’ and the ‘father of lies’ (John 8:44). And only those who hear the words of God are of God (cf. John 8:47).” Kirk’s assassin was a leftist living with his boyfriend, who is reportedly in the process of a “gender transition.” The murderer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was also heavily addicted to pornography and reportedly frequented “furry” pornographic video game websites. (For those who are blessedly unaware, “furries” are folks with a sexual fetish for dressing up as animals.) According to the New York Post, Robinson was also interested in pornographic illustrations of pedophilia. When he murdered the 31-year-old husband and father who made a living debating college kids and sharing the Gospel on campuses across the country, Robinson engraved leftist slogans on his bullets, including sexual transgender-themed messages about a “bulge.” In response to the murder of the Turning Point USA founder, leftists posted celebration videos and sickening messages of mockery and hate. Numerous posts suggested that Kirk deserved to be killed because he opposed abortion even in cases of rape, while some even called for Kirk’s wife and daughter, who were present when he was assassinated, to be killed next. Two weeks before Robinson shot Charlie Kirk in the throat, transgender-identified Robin Westman shot and killed two Catholic schoolchildren praying at Mass in Minneapolis, injuring 18 other Catholic schoolchildren. Like Robinson later would, Westman put messages on his bullets, but he also left behind a coded manifesto. At least one page of that manifesto needs no codebreaking: Westman drew an image of himself, with a gun over his shoulder, staring in a mirror; according to the illustration, the 23-year-old killer did not see his own reflection, but a demon. Above the image is written the question, “Who am I?” Last year, President Trump narrowly survived at least two assassination attempts, the first of which killed Corey Comperatore, who bravely gave his life shielding his wife and daughters from the bullets fired. Prior to that, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was targeted for assassination due to his voting to overturn Roe v. Wade. According to reporter Margaret Mary Olohan, the attempted assassin in that case also identified as transgender. This rash of violence is not merely political, but bears a clear spiritual facet. It is a terminal symptom of the spiritual disease plaguing our nation. Mass murderers identifying as demons, assassins obsessed with the most hellishly depraved pornography, and transgender-identifying men willing to kill public servants in order to keep killing unborn babies — all of this indicates a spiritual sickness, not merely an absence of the love of God but a hatred of God, a desire to get rid of Him and replace Him. It’s the oldest sin of all, introduced into Eden by the Serpent: “You shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Catholics Are Being Killed, and US Bishops Form Another Anti-Racism Committee Charlie Kirk: The Last Debater The End of Catholic Europe?

A long, long time ago the governor of Alabama showed up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This was back when I was young and the South was pretty rock-solid Democratic and years before Claudette Bateau and Sony Gay left Haiti for the U.S. and met and had their only child, a daughter. We’re speaking of George Wallace. He’d been a B-29 crewman in the Good War, World War Two, a Golden Gloves boxer, and run and won as a Democrat on a platform of justice for the little man and segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. Running for president again in 1972 he’d be shot by a white loner and paralyzed below the waist like FDR before the Salk and Sabin vaccines. Once elected he’d stood at the entrance of the University of Alabama defying President John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Navy and Marine Corps Medal, Purple Heart, Harvard class of ’40, trying to stop one young Negro man and one young Negro woman — they were called Negroes then, including by themselves, including by Martin Luther King, Jr. — from registering. Kennedy had ordered the 2nd Infantry Division to be ready to enforce the Supreme Court-ordered integration of the school. “The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” the governor’s unsuccessful but name-making  show was known as. Having put it on he announced early in the fall of 1963 that he’d be swinging through the northeast to make his views on important issues known and look into support for him as a candidate in the next year’s presidential elections. The Harvard-Radcliffe Young Democrats quickly extended an invitation, with the understanding that rather than making a speech he’d debate with a Harvard professor. No, the governor wouldn’t do that, said his press secretary, because there was nobody on the faculty “of his stature.” This led Mark DeWolfe Howe, class of ’28, professor of law and Wallace’s prospective opponent in a televised debate, to say that since the governor was “unwilling to be answered” the invitation should be withdrawn. “If he won’t appear and answer questions,” said Howe, “then he becomes simply a display — a dancing bear. It would be irresponsible for students to have him come just to watch the bear stand and scratch himself…. I think we owe something to the Negroes of the country and particularly of the South who see this man as a collaborator in killings.” Howe was referring to the Ku Klux Klan bombing a month before of the 16th Street Baptist church in Birmingham. Four little Negro girls had been murdered. Jefferson Frazier, class of ’64, president of the Young Democrats, agreed: “It would not be appropriate for Wallace to speak alone.” A 6-5 majority of the club’s executive committee thought so too. But the minority led by second vice-president Burt L. Ross, class of ’65, wasn’t convinced, and after two new members were elected to the committee it overrode Frazier and renewed the invitation on the governor’s terms — except that he’d also be fielding questions. Ross & Company’s motives were impugned by Allen T. Rozelle and Gordon M. Wheeler, both class of ’66, in a letter to the Crimson, the student newspaper. They gave the free speech argument short shrift, declaring the club should be more concerned with civil rights than with giving Wallace a soapbox, especially as his opinions were already well known. Rather, they claimed, the capitulation was because the club’s treasury stood to profit handsomely from the governor’s one-night stand. Academic, for by now he was in town. The event was held in November in Sanders Theater under the same roof as Memorial Hall. Let’s consult Wikipedia, back then an unimaginable resource: Memorial Hall, immediately north of Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is an imposing High Victorian Gothic building honoring Harvard men’s sacrifices in defense of the Union during the American Civil War‍ —‌ a symbol of Boston’s commitment to the Unionist cause and the abolitionist movement in America. Built on a former playing field known as the Delta, it was described by Henry James as consisting of “three main divisions: one of them a theater, for academic ceremonies; another a vast refectory, covered with a timbered roof, hung about with portraits and lighted by stained windows, like the halls of the colleges of Oxford; and the third, the most interesting, a chamber high, dim and severe, consecrated to the sons of the university who fell in the long Civil War. “The Memorial Transept consists of a 60-foot-high gothic vault above a marble floor, with black walnut paneling and stencilled walls, a large stained glass window over each of two exterior doors, and‍—‌commemorating the 136 Harvard men who died fighting for the Union‍—‌twenty-eight white tablets to one after another of the many who thus died‍—‌a thrilling list. One sees such old New England names as Peabody, Wadsworth, and Bowditch; one sees the name of Fletcher Webster; one sees that an Edward Revere died at Antietam and a Paul Revere at Gettysburg. “Confederate deaths are not represented.” The night of the speech and the questions and answers you had protestors outside, mainly white, singing civil rights songs and toting signs, one reading “Mr. Wallace, the Civil War is over. You lost.” Sanders — the biggest lecture hall on campus, acoustically marvelous, where Churchill had orated — was SRO. Precious few Negroes at Harvard then from the South, from the North, from anywhere. Just two I knew to say hello to, both foreigners: Chris Ohiri, class of ’64, an ever-cheerful Nigerian, make that an ever-cheerful Igbo soccer phenomenon, and Ayi Kwei Armah, class of ’63, a preppie, a Grottie like Franklin Delano Roosevelt class of ’03. Groton the WASPiest of all WASP prep schools. Armah, a Ghanaian, later a novelist, had graduated Harvard in June and returned to Africa. Ohiri, a senior like me, was still around smashing Ivy League scoring records but I don’t remember seeing him in Sanders. Onto the stage came Wallace, law professor Arthur Sutherland and Burt Ross ’65, vice-president of the Young Democrats. Sutherland, the moderator, said he was happy Wallace was there and Harvard had offered him the chance to present his views, unpopular as these might be. The professor recited a short biography, turning from the governor to the audience and back again with maybe just a trace of irony in his voice. Wallace smiled, fingering his speech, once or twice smoothing his pompadour. If anyone was expecting nonstop fire-eating he was in for a disappointment. America’s best-known defender of states rights was cajoling, homey, quick, pugnacious, disarming. True, he said in the North as in the South integration meant nothing but trouble. And true, he had no use for the 1954 Supreme Court school integration decision — Brown v. Board of Education. He blasted the judges, blasted the NAACP, claimed the amicus brief of the Negro sociologist Kenneth Clark was at odds with Clark’s findings on the emotional state of Negro children in segregated and integrated schools. “Never in our history,” he said, “has it happened that the court lacks a single man distinguished as a lawyer before his calling to the bench.” Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous, so Justice Hugo Black from Alabama’s dirt poor Clay County, an ex-member of the Ku Klux Klan, had to be one of these second-raters. Never mind. Allowing for that plus language such as “usurpation of power by judges,”  “judicial oligarchy along totalitarian lines,”  “deceit in the rawest form,” the governor, a county judge once, didn’t simply play the racist as Mississippi governor Ross Barnett, another Democrat who’d visited, had in February. Actually when he interrupted himself he liberated many from their sense of reality. WALLACE:   (looking up from drinking a glass of water): It’s just water. AUDIENCE: (Scattered chuckles). WALLACE:   You know, there’s some folks here from Alabama, and I know they like to be told what                                             I’m drinking while I’m up here making a speech. AUDIENCE: (Appreciative roar). WALLACE, SUTHERLAND, ROSS: (Broad smiles). By question time he’d so captivated a bunch of liberals seeing and hearing Willie Stark of All the King’s Men by Robert Penn Warren in the flesh that it took an effort to remember that mass arrests, troop call-ups, riots, and bombings revolved around him. As each questioner came to a microphone to pose a killer, and walked away deflated, it became clear that Wallace was invulnerable. To a Negro identifying himself as Gordon O. DuBois II, grandson of the belated nationalist, he drawled: “Between you and me both, we might kick out that crowd down in Washington. Maybe we should run on the same ticket.” A student from Malaysia: “Why do you keep embarrassing your diplomats this way when America holds itself out as a champion of freedom?” The governor: “We are for freedom and we’ve expended lives and money fighting for freedom all over the world. Instead of worrying about what they think of us they should worry about what we think of them.” Some booing, some hissing — Wallace didn’t have everybody eating out of his hand. Yet at the end applause filled Sanders. Even the vandals outside were mannerly — instead of slashing the tires of his limousine they just let out the air. Professor Sutherland a few days later, having given Wallace not even a gentleman’s C on his view of Brown v. Board of Education and Clark’s amicus brief, praised the audience’s conduct as a “great credit to the University. This was a fine example of civilized people listening to arguments with which they disagree.” And Burt Ross summed up: “The overwhelming support of the governor’s right to talk is a glowing testimony to Harvard and to the fact that our motto — Veritas — lives on.” Mere weeks later Kennedy visited Dallas. He was murdered, his brains were blown out, by a white Marine Corps veteran, who in turn was murdered, live on TV, by a white Jewish strip club owner and small time gangster. A lot has changed and happened in the 62 years since that November. From a Crimson item published in 1966: Three services will be held this week in remembrance of Christian L. Ohiri ’64, who died of lung cancer at his home in Owerri, Nigeria, last Monday. Ohiri, called “the greatest soccer player ever at Harvard” by Coach Bruce Monro, was 28. Today there will be a service in Memorial Church at 2 p.m. Requiem masses will be held at St. Mary’s Church, Melrose, tomorrow at 7:30 a.m., and at St. Paul’s Church, Cambridge, Thursday, at 5 p.m. Ohiri sang in the choir at St. Paul’s. The first sign of lung cancer came this summer, when Ohiri collapsed while playing tennis at the Harvard Business School. While attending Harvard under the Afro-American Scholarship program, Ohiri set every scoring record in the Harvard soccer book: game (five goals), season (17 goals), career (47 goals) —‌ even though he missed much of his sophomore and junior seasons because of leg injuries. As a freshman, he scored 36 goals in nine games. Ohiri also holds the Harvard and IC4A track records for the triple jump and the Briggs Cage record for the broad jump. Unmentioned would be the fact that when Ohiri went home to die the Igbos, his tribe, mainly Christian, were seceding from the rest of Nigeria, mainly Moslem, and trying to set up their own nation-state, Biafra. The number of Igbos who died of starvation in the Black-on-Black genocide following was between half a million and two million. A current entry in Wikipedia: The Biafra Zionist Front (BZF), formerly known as the Biafra Zionist Movement, is a group agitating for the restoration of Biafra and its independence from Nigeria. It is led by Benjamin Onwuka. The movement’s purpose is the actualization of the sovereign state of Biafra along precolonial lines. The group claims to be supported by Israel and the United States, and Zionism is the official ideology of the organization.” As for Wallace, two years after his Cambridge evening he ordered the Alabama state police to keep voting rights marchers from crossing a bridge in Selma. The result was Bloody Sunday complete with dogs, horses, beatings, and cattle prods. And in 1968, running for president, he carried Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia. But that wouldn’t be all. Running for president again in 1972 he’d be shot by a white loner and paralyzed below the waist like FDR before the Salk and Sabin vaccines. It wouldn’t keep him from being reelected governor. But in time he came to Jesus, sincerely came to Jesus, embracing justice for the little man and little woman regardless of color, apologizing to his Negro, make that African American, make that black, make that Black fellow Alabamians, getting, in his last and winning run for the state house more than nine of 10 of their votes. George Wallace died in 1998 — the same year Claudine Gay received a Ph.D. from Harvard. READ MORE from Edward Grossman: Better Late Than Never Of All People: How Joe Biden Channeled Winston Churchill Escape to Alcatraz

President Trump has received a lot of pushback for his use of the military to suppress crime in deep blue cities such as Los Angeles and Washington. Despite the fact that Trump’s efforts have had an impact, the pushback from extreme progressive politicians such as Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has been portrayed as a “resistance” to the “Fascist” Trump; what they are advocating is nothing less than insurrection. I have said that in The American Spectator before. Insurrection is an act of war; to suppress it, Trump needs to take a page from the great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, who defined winning in war as imposing your will on your opponent. Merely sending National Guard troops or even Marines to patrol the streets is like applying a gauze bandage to a sucking chest wound. That may staunch the bleeding, but it will take surgery to solve the real problem. (RELATED: Sanctuary Cities Are in Insurrection) Before Trump takes on a huge problem like Chicago or New Orleans, he should try to operate on a more manageable problem, such as Rochester, New York. It is a much smaller city, but one with similar challenges. Rochester is perhaps more in a state of insurrection than even Chicago. Let’s examine the situation in the last few weeks. If what follows does not constitute insurrection — an act or instance of revolting against a civil authority or an established government — I don’t know what does: The city council doubled down on its federally illegal, decades-old sanctuary city status to include LGBQT+ individuals. This is despite the fact that the Feds are not going after these folks, except for pedophiles in their midst. A recent ICE raid to detain illegal aliens was broken up by a mob of protesters, and a federal vehicle had its tires slashed. Local police could not assist the Feds for fear of losing their jobs. This, despite the fact that several of the city’s most heinous crimes were committed by illegals. Two postmen were recently robbed in broad daylight due to a lack of police presence in the city’s most crime-infested neighborhoods. Despite the mayor’s declaration of a state of emergency, the murder rate still exceeds the national average. The on-paper crime statistics have gone down because people have stopped reporting car thefts and vandalism. Even when they are solved, most perpetrators are let loose without bail. Most of the crimes are committed by juveniles who are coddled in a catch-and-release cycle that would not be tolerated in any well-run community If the Trump administration wants to get control of Rochester’s crime rate, it should declare the city to be in a state of insurrection and impose martial law. The city council — including the mayor — would be placed in federal custody until they agree not to interfere with the enforcement of federal law. New York’s ridiculously lenient bail laws should be suspended, with federal prosecutors and judges brought in to restore the rule of law. Lessons learned there could be applied in larger places such as Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. (RELATED: Trump’s National Guard Deployment and the Art of the 80-20 Issue) With the police department under federal control, I believe that the local police would be more than happy to enforce the law properly. I have said in this publication that I don’t believe military power would be needed to enforce the federal takeover in Rochester. With the police department under federal control, I believe that the local police would be more than happy to enforce the law properly. I keep in touch with a number of retired and active duty cops, and they are appalled at what has happened to a once proud city. (RELATED: Sedition in Rochester, New York) The National Guard and the military should only be used in the case of rioting. I don’t think that will happen. Seeing what passes for the city fathers in orange jump suits will likely convince the worst of the city’s thugs — some of whom hold city office — that inciting civil disturbances would be a mistake. What is the end goal here? Martial Law would be lifted if the city council members agree to drop the sanctuary city status and allow local cops and prosecutors to enforce all laws, not just the ones they agree with. That is the imposition of will on the part of the federal government. The lessons learned from Rochester could then be applied to cities like Chicago. Hopefully, the word would get around. Brandon Johnson and JB Pritzker would be much less inclined to actively resist the rule of law. The Constitution gives state and local government a lot of power, but people like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee found out that open defiance of constitutional federal authority goes too far. Trump has made a good start, but much tougher measures are needed. There are blue-run cities with worse crime and problems with illegals, but Rochester’s civic leaders are more blatantly defiant in their opposition to law and order than most. They would make a good example for the rest.  READ MORE from Gary Anderson: Is It Too Early to Engage With the Taliban? The Case Against the Marine Corps Commandant It Is Time to Give Putin a ‘B-2 Moment’

As a former high school teacher and adjunct political science instructor with over two decades in the trenches of American education, as well as a former candidate for my local school board, I have witnessed the erosion of education in our schools. McMahon’s holistic approach recognizes that discipline is the foundation upon which all else builds. From lower math, English, and history scores, to the rise of policies that prioritize feelings over accountability, the state of public education has often felt like a free-for-all. That’s why Americans should applaud U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s recent bold initiatives. For starters, this week she announced the “American 250 Civics Education Coalition Initiative” aimed at renewing patriotism and strengthening civic knowledge in schools nationwide. This is in direct response to students’ poor performance on history and government exams. The coalition partners with over forty organizations, including the America First Policy Institute and Turning Point USA, are set to address the civic education crisis and prepare our youth for the nation’s 250th anniversary next year. Their activities include a 50-state tour, American history competitions for students, K-12 teacher summits, and college lectures by local leaders and members of Congress to educate and mobilize young Americans toward informed citizenship. In addition, McMahon is poised to distribute “toolkits” to school districts nationwide, addressing critical challenges such as reading proficiency and the implementation of effective classroom discipline. Despite the prevalent belief that the U.S. Department of Education will be imminently shutting down, the White House has clarified that the intention is to make the Department “much smaller” to continue its functions related to student loans and Pell grants. McMahon is also leveraging the agency to disseminate best practices across the country through these types of toolkits, which serve as recommendations rather than mandates. These guidelines will urge schools to prioritize phonics-based reading instruction and crack down on the lax disciplinary practices that have turned too many classrooms into battlegrounds. McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), advocates for a zero-tolerance policy regarding violent behavior, enabling teachers to quickly remove disruptive students and implement consequences that discourage future infractions. This toolkit represents a significant shift in federal education focus, prioritizing behavior-based accountability over ideology-driven leniency. Its purpose is to equip teachers and principals with recommendations to effectively manage and reduce disruptive behavior within the classroom. In my years teaching U.S. history and government, I know how the absence of firm boundaries undermines everything. A student hurling insults or starting fights isn’t just a distraction; it derails lessons for everyone. Yet, under the guise of “equity,” progressives pushed restorative justice policies that turned schools into therapy sessions rather than places of learning. Restorative justice, with its endless circles of dialogue and minimal punishments, is a political farce masquerading as compassion. Championed by left-wing ideologues and Democratic-led districts, it assumes that talking it out with bullies will magically foster harmony. In reality, it emboldens bad actors, leaving victims — often the quiet, rule-following kids — feeling unsafe and unheard. McMahon, drawing from her WWE days where structure and spectacle coexist under strict rules gets it instinctively. Her recommendations call for federal incentives to states that adopt clear disciplinary codes, including suspensions for repeat offenders and support for alternative education programs. This isn’t about being punitive; it’s about fairness. Diligent students deserve an environment where they can thrive, and teachers shouldn’t have to play referee with no backup. McMahon’s holistic approach recognizes that discipline is the foundation upon which all else builds. Critics on the left will cry foul, accusing her of being “authoritarian” or insensitive to “trauma-informed” needs. But as someone who lectures on political theory from Locke to Madison, I know true authority protects the many from the tyranny of the few. Secretary McMahon’s initiatives are a breath of fresh air for educators and parents who are weary of failed experiments. From my vantage point after 25-plus years in education, this is the leadership we’ve been waiting for — one that puts students first by ensuring classrooms are places of learning. If implemented by local school boards, these recommendations could reverse the decline in American education, producing not just smarter kids, but more disciplined and patriotic citizens. READ MORE from Bob Capano: Mamdani’s Radical Platform Shakes Up Midterm Stakes NYC GOP Must Reject Eric Adams for Mayor Professors Cancel Class After Republican Victory Bob Capano has been an adjunct political science professor for over two decades and has worked in senior-level positions for Democrat and Republican elected officials in New York. Follow him on X: @bobcapano 

The Albanian prime minister wanted to shock, and he did. Edi Rama recently unveiled the world’s first AI-generated minister, Diella, Albanian for sunshine. A more fitting name might have been Terr, meaning darkness. The nation that once fought communism with steel and secrecy now attempts to fight corruption with ChatGPT on steroids. When injustice is automated, who do you protest? When decisions are digital, who do you hold to account? Rama presented her (yes, female) as a breakthrough — an incorruptible minister to oversee contracts without bribes, cronies, or kickbacks. A digital doll in traditional dress, a smiling face programmed to pacify. But behind the feel-good headlines is something more sinister: a government post handed to code. Bureaucracy without breath, rule without reason, power without a pulse. It reads like satire, a sketch from a political comedy show. An AI minister in folkloric dress presiding over public tenders. But it’s no joke. This artificial abomination has been tasked with managing contracts, evaluating bids, even hiring staff. No ballot. No accountability. No human judgment. Only an algorithm empowered to oversee billions in public funds. The pitch is predictably utopian. Rama promises corruption will vanish, procurement will be pure, and everything perfectly transparent. But corruption is never erased, only repackaged. An AI minister doesn’t end graft; it buries it in the shadows of programming, contracts, and systems no citizen can scrutinize. And one wonders how many other leaders are already watching, weighing, and waiting for the day they, too, can outsource power to something that cannot be questioned, challenged, or voted out. The irony is suffocating. A country synonymous with bribes, backroom deals, and the long shadow of dictatorship, now claims salvation will come from a digital priestess. The same nation that could not rid its streets of organized crime now tells its citizens that an animated avatar will save the day. History tells a rather different story. Technology has never purified politics; it has only magnified whatever system is already in place. Stalin turned statistics into a weapon. East Germany built tyranny on typewriters and tape recorders. Albania itself perfected surveillance with files, folders, and informants long before the internet arrived. Every so-called tool of progress became another tool of tyranny. AI will be no different. A system trained on tainted data will reproduce those flaws at scale. A model fed by bias will output bias, dressed up as objectivity. And unlike a human, it cannot be shamed, prosecuted, or removed from office. It does not plead the Fifth. It does not resign. It just keeps calculating, long after the public has lost any say in the outcome. Moreover, an AI minister can be presented as spotless while still being shaped by the same political hands it supposedly replaces. The manipulation will simply be hidden behind a digital halo. The Albanian people may be told Diella is pure, while the strings are still being pulled off-screen. The future this foreshadows is truly terrifying. If Albania can unleash an AI minister in 2025, then by 2035, some European state could plausibly elect an AI prime minister. A leader with no life, no death, no soul, no conscience. Citizens appealing not to people but to pixels. The dream of technocrats realized, the nightmare of democracy extinguished. By 2050, it is not hard to imagine a parliament filled with digital leaders, their speeches streamed, their signatures binding, their decisions enforced without debate. Algorithms in Armani ruling entire nations while flesh-and-blood politicians linger on as mascots, waving politely for the cameras, pretending they still matter. One needn’t feel pity for politicians — many are morally bankrupt monsters — but replacing them with machines is not a step forward. It is a million steps backward, into a void where the voices sound human but belong to one at all. This is dangerous territory because it normalizes what was once confined to dystopian novels. When injustice is automated, who do you protest? When decisions are digital, who do you hold to account? Europe will applaud. Brussels bureaucrats adore Albania’s “innovation.” They will hail it as a neat experiment, a laboratory for the EU’s own future. A place to test whether citizens will tolerate digital overlords. But Albanians should be most alarmed. The nation has already been nudged toward a cashless society. Now its procurement is in the hands of an avatar. Step by step, sovereignty is being erased, traded for Big Tech’s black boxes. First money is digitized, then leadership is digitized. And finally, the people discover that the levers of self-government no longer belong to them at all. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: The Age of Spiritual Warfare Is Here. Will You Rise or Fall? The Shameless Exploitation of Charlie Kirk’s Murder The Godfather of Global Disorder

It was in the early months of 2019 that the English conservative commentator Peter Hitchens found himself waging a one-man campaign against the British Broadcasting Corporation, after registering a complaint with its Executive Complaints Unit alleging a breach of its Charter and Agreement duty of impartiality. Recent episodes of the long-running period drama television series Call the Midwife had, according to Hitchens, made “no effort to observe due impartiality on a major and contentious issue,” namely that of abortion. Since we cannot place much faith in the entertainment industry … the solution must be, as ever, to read old books. Even the fortnightly satirical magazine Private Eye, no bastion of right-wing opinion, had observed around that time that Call the Midwife had become “a series of liberal editorials on medical and social issues,” prompting Hitchens to argue that the series’ failure “to portray any likeable or important character as opposing abortion at that time (especially the nuns who are such important parts of the drama) is as absurd as having a character use an iPhone.” What was once an “engaging historical drama” had devolved into a “relentless politically correct propaganda vehicle,” leaving the Mail on Sunday columnist to suggest a name change that might better reflect its increasingly monomaniacal focus: Call the Abortionist. The BBC’s position, which ultimately prevailed, was that Where the BBC’s editorial guidelines refer to “due impartiality,” the term “due” refers to requirement for impartiality “adequate and appropriate” to the output in question. This means that for drama the bar is set lower than for, say, a documentary. It is true that a certain amount of artistic license is to be expected in historical fiction. We would not read a Sir Walter Scott’s novel for a veracious blow-by-blow account of the Jacobite risings, or  an Alexandre Dumas romance for a scrupulously accurate portrayal of Catherine de Médicis’s character and actions, anymore than we would watch, say, HBO’s Rome or Deadwood for history lessons on civil strife in the late Roman Republic or the events of the Black Hills Gold Rush, though we would expect such works to capture something of the characters, incidents, general atmosphere, and lasting relevance of those eras, and to remain generally faithful to the spirit of the times under consideration. In any event, we can readily admit that “too scrupulous an accuracy,” as Count Harry von Kessler once said, “can but end by impeding the freedom of imagination,” at least when it comes to the world of drama. Hitchens astutely noted in his complaint, however, that the past is often viewed through the prism of popular entertainment: Who would claim, in studying the development of thought in the modern world, that Shakespeare or Dickens were not at least as influential as their overtly political contemporaries? In fact, who remembers the political thinkers of the same era half as well as they remember the authors of fiction and drama? Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin is still recalled as a denunciation of slavery, when a thousand eloquent abolitionist books and pamphlets are wholly forgotten. Call the Midwife has, over the course of its run, pulled in ratings of between six and 10 million viewers per episode in the United Kingdom alone, before we take into account worldwide streaming on PBS, ABC (Australia), and so on, numbers which dwarf more sober printed accounts of the era and subject matter. There is surely a point at which insufficiently scrupulous an accuracy to historical fact will begin to color and eventually distort our collective memory of an event or era. The situation has only become worse since Hitchens’ quixotic effort to convince the BBC to impose a modicum of due impartiality on its writers and producers. It is one thing to prefer dramatic potential to rigorous historical accuracy, but it is another thing altogether to abandon any pretense of verisimilitude. Consider the illuminating case of the recently-aired BBC epic historical drama series King & Conqueror, which ostensibly depicts the run-up to the Norman Conquest of England. Aside from the inept acting, poor production values (particularly the sound mixing, which one usually takes for granted), and lazy reliance on the infamous desaturated gray and brown “Hollywood medieval palette” —  an assault on the eyes completely at odds with the colorful reality of medieval daily life — viewers were subjected to scenes which, in a cack-handed attempt to imitate the unpredictable and blood-soaked dynastic mayhem of Game of Thrones, make an absolute mockery of the historic record. In the fourth episode of the series, “So Be It,” we encounter King Edward the Confessor, played by the character actor Eddie Marsan in the manner of a quivering milksop, as he confronts his mother, the imperious Emma of Normandy about some funds paid to Norway’s King Harald III Sigurdsson: Interior. A dimly-lit palace at night. Emma: We need a real king. Someone who can take charge of this mess and wipe out the Godwins for good. Edward: You had no right! I am king! (He petulantly stamps his foot, like a toddler.) Emma: King? You’re barely a man! Tricked and beaten by the savages who murdered your brother! Edward: I was chosen! I was chosen by God! Emma: Chosen by God? You think God would choose you? Do you think that the All-Knowing would pick someone so deficient, so weak. Do you think you have God’s ear? Edward: Stop it, mother, stop it. Emma: God’s laughing at you! God’s laughing at you! Edward: Please stop it, stop it. Emma: It shouldn’t have been you! (Edward then beats his mother to death with his golden crown, accompanied by lots of squelching sounds, like the foley artist is punching a side of beef. Edward: It is a godly calm. The scene ends with the blood-flecked king praying alongside his wife Gunhild, and the viewer’s eyes rolling back in the head as a sort of protective reflex. Not very good, is it? And perhaps it bears mentioning that Emma met no such end. Edward the Confessor was in fact canonized for his piety and spiritual kingship, Edward’s wife was Edith of Wessex, not Gunhild, and, what is more, the last king of the House of Wessex probably did not speak with Eddie Marsan’s trademark Estuary English accent. The Critic’s Sebastian Milbank, rightly appalled by this ahistorical nonsense, put it very well indeed: What is truly egregious is not the fictionalisation of details, but the outright misrepresentation of the morals, manners, and minds of medieval man. If the past really was a foreign country, then the BBC would be rightly besieged by those outraged at the bigoted, hate-filled and slanderous portrayal of that alien nation in this drama … Quite apart from a script that resembles something from Eastenders, the most startling element is the utter lack of ceremony and ritual….Two of the most important elements of early medieval society of the time — the importance of aristocratic rank and the centrality of Christian faith — are essentially missing. No characters offer prayers or blessings to departing guests, nor is any reference made to the regular cycle of days of fasting and feasting which would have defined not only the daily life of courts, but also determined whether battle could be joined. The elaborate world of oaths, gifts and marriages, of honour and piety, dignity and disgrace, is flattened into a dull procedural punch up over political power. “The tragedy of bad historical drama,” Milbank concluded, “is that it renders our shared past as both forgettable and contemptible, spreading complacency and ignorance.” A society that depicts Edward the Confessor as he appears in, for example, those majestic Victorian stained glasses by Augustus Pugin and Edward Burne-Jones, has precious little in common with a society that depicts him as some sort of morally-warped, cringing, matricidal Cockney git. The comparison certainly does not redound to our credit. Nicolás Gómez Dávila proposed that “Historia es lo que reconstruye una imaginación capaz de pensar conciencias ajenas (History is what is reconstructed by an imagination capable of reflecting on the consciousness of others.”) It would seem that we are gradually losing our ability to do so. Presentism leaves us unmoored, incapable of understanding pre-modern values or recognizing the merits of our heritage. What a blinkered existence life becomes when we lose all curiosity about the past, when we have no theory of mind for anyone whose existence precedes our own, when we view history as something to forget or condemn, or as something on which to project our present values or biases. King & Conqueror has proven such an abject failure, critically and in terms of viewership, that we can hope that the tide is beginning to turn. Normally, one would worry that a popular television series would overshadow the contributions of historians like Frank Barlow, Peter Rex, or Harriet O’Brien, among others, who have treated these medieval events with sensitivity and objectivity, but the ratings and reviews have been so terrible that we hardly need worry about King & Conqueror’s lasting impact. Still, there are plenty of other offenders. Viewers of Netflix’s The Empress will learn almost nothing about the life of Empress Elisabeth (Sisi) of Austria, or even about the fashion of the time (the bloggers at Frock Flicks have mercilessly dissected the ludicrous “Vera-Wang-for-Kohl’s wardrobe” and “AliExpress specials” used in the show). Entire subplots of The Crown have been described by various royal biographers and historians as “shockingly malicious” and “monstrously wrong,” including the libelous implication that Prince Philip was responsible for the death of his older sister, vilifications that have presumably been accepted by the more credulous among the audience. Even far more competent series, like the lush and wonderfully-acted Netflix adaptation of Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s incomparable novel The Leopard, have fallen victim to the need to modernize the source material, as when (spoiler alert, I suppose) the final episode concludes not with Concetta Corbera di Salina as an old maid, disposing of the taxidermied remains of the beloved Great Dane Bendico, as in the source material, but with a spunky young Concetta taking over the Salina estate and courageously matching wits with the local parvenues and arrivistes, thereby basically inverting Lampedusa’s entire narrative. Since we cannot place much faith in the entertainment industry — a shocking revelation, I know — the solution must be, as ever, to read old books. The thirteenth-century Japanese writer and Buddhist monk Yoshida Kenkō understood that “the pleasantest of all diversions is to sit alone under the lamp, a book spread out before you, and to make friends with people of a distant past you have never known,” while the poet Petrarch gratefully acknowledged those “friends whose society is extremely agreeable to me: they are the ones who are dead and yet speak to me.” Through the works (and deeds) of those who are dead, yet still reach out to us, we are able to gain unfiltered access to pre-modern mindsets, undiminished by the biases of (almost invariably leftist) writers, producers, and directors who view the past with contempt, and whose goal is to spread complacency, ignorance, and destructive ideologies. “Every age has its own outlook,” wrote C.S. Lewis in his essay “On the Reading of Old Books,” a point of view which is “good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes…. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.” What we need now, more than ever, is that “clean sea breeze of the centuries” to blow through our minds, clear away the cultural cobwebs, and thereby enable us to connect with the past while recognizing the not infrequent errors of our ways. The past need not be a foreign country, an alien civilization, an object of calumny. It can be an ally, a helpmeet, an object lesson, or even a deterrent example, but it should never be treated with the sort of casual contempt that the writers of King & Conqueror have exhibited. Networks and streaming platforms are unlikely to realize this any time soon, invested as they are in their ruinous, iconoclastic agenda, and having already done their utmost to lower the bar of due impartiality and historical accuracy. It will instead be left up to us, or at least those of us still capable of reflecting on the consciousness of others, past and present, to correct the ahistorical excesses of this faltering culture. The epic historical drama television series and complete botch job King & Conqueror is currently available on BBC iPlayer, and will be available to stream in the United States on Amazon Prime at an unknown future date (unless Amazon can somehow manage to renege on its content distribution deal before then). READ MORE from Matthew Omolesky: ‘All Under Heaven’: The CCP’s Distortion of Chinese Philosophy Altars of Fire, Oceans of Milk: Mytho-History and the Thai-Cambodian Border Conflict Down With the Bastille (Opéra)

A man straps two children to his chest, draws a knife, and charges toward you screaming death threats. Your own child cowers behind you. You have seconds to decide: allow this attacker to murder you and your child, or defend yourself by shooting him. If you choose to defend yourself, you face another split-second choice. A headshot might spare his children but gives you only a 50 percent chance of survival. A body shot ensures your safety at 99 percent certainty but kills the innocent children strapped to the attacker’s chest. What would any reasonable person do? The Ethics of Self-Defense The moral answer is clear. You must defend yourself and your child. Neither ethics nor law demands that innocent people sacrifice their lives to aggressors. You would aim for the body shot because you have no obligation to gamble with your family’s survival for marginally better odds of sparing the aggressor’s children. Hamas bears complete responsibility for every civilian casualty that occurs when they deliberately embed military operations in schools, hospitals, and residential buildings. But who bears moral responsibility when those innocent children die? The attacker created this nightmare scenario. He weaponized his own children, turning them into unwilling human shields while attempting murder. Had he not launched his deadly assault, his children would be alive. Every tragic consequence flows directly from his decision to use them as protective cover for his violence. To blame the defender ignores the fundamental principle of moral causation. The person who initiates deadly force while deliberately endangering innocents bears full responsibility for all resulting harm. Gaza Through the Moral Lens This scenario precisely mirrors the conflict in Gaza, where Hamas has systematically embedded its military operations within civilian infrastructure. Israeli forces discovered extensive command facilities beneath Al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest medical center, complete with tunnels and weapons storage. UN officials have documented rockets and ammunition stored in schools run by UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. Hamas routinely launches attacks from residential neighborhoods, mosques, and schools, deliberately positioning civilians between themselves and Israeli forces. When Israel responds to rocket attacks and terrorist operations, civilian casualties sometimes occur. The international community, most certainly including Israel, rightfully mourns every child’s death. But moral clarity demands we identify who created these deadly circumstances. The Legal Precedent Consider how we assign responsibility in criminal law. When Timothy McVeigh was executed for bombing the Oklahoma City federal building, his surviving family members suffered profound consequences. His relatives faced social stigma, financial hardship, and lasting psychological trauma. Yet no reasonable person blamed the justice system for these secondary effects. The courts held McVeigh, and only him, fully responsible for all consequences flowing from his terrorist act, including harm to his own family. This principle of criminal accountability has governed civilized societies for centuries: those who choose to commit violent crimes bear complete responsibility for the resulting chain of suffering. Hamas’s Calculated Strategy Hamas could immediately end civilian suffering by releasing Israeli hostages and ceasing terrorist operations. Instead, the organization has repeatedly rejected ceasefire proposals that would have saved Palestinian lives while securing humanitarian aid and hostage releases. Hamas leaders have publicly stated that civilian casualties serve their political objectives. Senior official Ghazi Hamad declared that Hamas welcomes civilian deaths because they generate international sympathy and pressure on Israel. This represents a level of calculated cruelty that treats Palestinian children as expendable propaganda tools. The Moral Reality Israel bears no responsibility for civilian deaths that result from defending its population against terrorist attacks launched from civilian areas. Hamas bears complete responsibility for every civilian casualty that occurs when they deliberately embed military operations in schools, hospitals, and residential buildings. Those who argue otherwise, however well-intentioned, have lost sight of basic moral principles that distinguish between aggressor and defender. They mistake tragic outcomes for moral equivalence, ignoring the fundamental difference between those who target civilians and those who reluctantly but necessarily harm them while protecting their own people from terrorist attacks. The man who straps children to his chest while attempting murder is solely responsible when those children die during his victim’s act of self-defense. Hamas, which uses Palestinian civilians as human shields while conducting terrorism, bears sole responsibility for civilian casualties that result from Israel’s defensive actions. Until the international community acknowledges this moral truth, the suffering will continue. Hamas will keep sacrificing Palestinian lives for propaganda victories, secure in the knowledge that much of the world will blame their victims instead of them. READ MORE from Walter E. Block: It’s Not Fair! Disproportionate Deaths in the Middle East When Seeing Race is Helpful Donald Trump Should Enter Retirement