This Is Actually Starting To Look Like A Governing Paradigm

I've been saying for the past few days that the US-born Israeli Orthodox rabbi Pesach Wolicki has some of the best insights into the issues surrounding the Iran war. Here's what he had to say yesterday about the off-again on-again negotiations in Pakistan: At 19:50:

They're trying to create uncertainty, to slow down the US decisionmaking. . . . Donald Trump is driving them nuts because of how fast he moves. He gives an ultimatum, and it's just like 48 hours or a couple days, or, you know, a short ceasefire, two weeks, negotiate, come to the table, you don't come to the table, boom. Open the Straits of hormuz. Oh, you didn't open them? Boom, blockade. . . . It completely counteracts their usual strategy, Westerners are usually so easy for them to deal with.

They just drag things out, and they have another summit meeting and another negotiation in a different European city, and the American diplomats love that, getting on planes and being negotiators. And that's what we've always seen in previous administrations. And the speed at which they're doing things is not to their liking. So they're trying to slow down US decisionmaking by creating uncertainty under which they'll negotiate in the hopes that the Americans might say, "Well, OK, you know, we do want a deal, and we can get them to the table if we do X, Y, and Z."

That's what they're hoping for. . . . And it all comes back to what I was saying from the beginning of the war, from before the war. . . . The regime's number one fear . . . what they're ultimately concerned with, is will they be in power when Trump is finished with whatever he's doing. Cuz even if they're badly battered, even if the people and the infrastructrure is destroyed, they know that the Chinese money will be there, . . . even if it takes a decade, or two decades, they will rebuild, they will suppress their people, and they will remain in power. They want to survive.

. . . The number one threat to the regime is not American and Israeli military action. The number one threat to the regime is the Iranian people. . . . We also have to remember we're talking about Twelver Shiite Muslims who believe that the adversity they undergo and the defeats that they undergo are, you know, obstacles that are put in their way, and they need to persevere. This all goes back to the origin story of Shiite Islam, so they're not deterred by all of the destruction. . . . Trump keeps waiting for them to cry uncle. Because, come on, how much damage can you handle? The answer is a lot.

. . . They're still at the point where they believe that giving in to American demands and projecting weakness and submission to American demands, if they project that to their people, that's a greater threat to the regime . . . than the American attacks themselves. And therefore, I don't believe that they are going to come to the negotiating table.

This analysis, especially the part about the Muslim strategy of rope-a-doping negotiations, matches what's been at the back of my head for some time. But Rabbi Wolicki is tying it to the basic need of the Islamist regime to control its people. Then it dawned on me that the Western Left is actually finding this appealing. They're starting openly to root for Iran:

Year of our Lord 2026: Democrat US Senator openly rooting for Iran to defeat the US in battle. Every Dem on the Hill ought to be hounded today by every reporter to answer for this lunatic. pic.twitter.com/8ixSVsGFRo

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) April 21, 2026

Put this in the context of Barack Obama warming up to Zohran Mamdani, who seems to be at minimum a closet Islamist, not just a socialist:

Barack Obama met with Zohran Mamdani for the first time on Saturday at a childcare center where the former Democratic US president and mayor of New York City read to preschoolers and led a sing-along.

. . . Obama and Mamdani did not take questions after reading the book Alone and Together to the children – and leading a sing-along of The Wheels on the Bus.

Obama, a standard-bearer for the Democratic party, has offered to be a sounding board for Mamdani, 34. Mamdani’s star power, youth and progressive agenda has made him stand out in Democratic politics.

In fact, "right-thinking people" appear to be moving in this overall direction. Alan Dershowitz notes this morning:

The Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times editorial writer, Tom Friedman, says he is “torn” between his wish to have Iran defeated and his unwillingness to see Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, who he regards as “awful human beings,” “strengthened.” He worries that a victory over the nation he correctly describes as being “a terrible regime” would benefit the leaders of the two democracies that the mullahs regard as “Satans”.

. . . All criticism of countries should be comparative in our imperfect world, and a single standard is essential to all moral and legal judgments. Being torn between the victory or defeat of wildly non-comparable countries and their leaders is dangerous and wrong. Comparing Israel and the U.S., on the one hand, with Iran, on the other and being “torn” about who should win is like comparing Churchill to Hitler and being torn about who should have won World War II. Churchill was a deeply flawed colonialist, but Hitler was the worst butcher in history. Even if Netanyahu and Trump were both “engaged in anti-Democratic projects” (as Churchill had been) that would not justify being torn about defeating the most dangerous, anti-Democratic and anti-semitic tyranny since Nazi Germany.

By putting them in the same category and being “torn” over who should prevail, Friedman makes Iran seem like just another imperfect nation whose victory – which would entail its acquisition of a nuclear arsenal – would not pose an existential threat to Israel and a growing danger to the United States and its other allies.

The reason Friedman and those who think like him are "torn" is that they're looking at Iran and actually starting to like what they see. I'm not sure if Dershowitz, or even Wolicki. quite recognizes this. The cause is that the Marxist-Leninist model, based on the idea of a proletarian world revolution, was never workable and demonstrably failed, especially as a means of state control. The main intellectual counterstrategy, as I've been noting here, was Fabian socialism, but with the failure of the proletarian revolution model, Fabian socialism became a solution without a problem.

So the intellectual left has been casting about for a new governing paradigm, one that will succeed in keeping the working and lower middle classes under control, when Fabian socialism failed to do this. It's looking at the mullahs, who, love 'em or hate 'em, so far seem to be effectively controlling their people in the face of overwhelming American and Israeli force. They're starting to like what they see.

In My Lifetime, Avant-Garde Jews Have Done A 180

From Alan Dershowitz in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

I am a lifelong Democrat. I started campaigning for the party’s local candidates as a teenager in Brooklyn, N.Y., have been a registered Democrat for 67 years, made speeches for John F. Kennedy as a college student, and can count on one hand the number of Republicans I’ve ever supported for any office.

I still disagree strongly with the GOP on abortion, the separation of church and state, immigration, healthcare and taxes, among other things. Yet I’ve decided to bite the bullet and register as a Republican.

. . . I intend to work hard to prevent the Democrats from gaining control of the House and Senate, and I urge those who share my concerns about the increasing influence of radicalism in the Democratic Party to vote, campaign and contribute for continued Republican control of Congress. I will contribute money to Republican candidates, campaign for them, make speeches at Republican events, and urge pro-Israel Americans to change party affiliation or at least vote against Democrats. Until something changes, I will vote Republican for representative, senator and president.

I wish I could designate myself as a “foreign-policy Republican,” but there’s no such option, so I have to go whole hog. By registering as a Republican rather than an independent, maybe I can have some influence on moving some Republican policies toward the center. I have given up on trying to change the Democratic Party. My main goal is to send a message that many traditional Democratic voters can’t accept what it is becoming—a replica of left-wing European parties that are hurting their countries.

This is the Alan Dershowitz who served as an appellate advisor in the 1969-70 Chicago Seven trial and helped the defendants develop a legal strategy of "political theater", disrupting the courtroom to turn the trial into a condemnation of the Vietnam War and the US government. This is the Alan Dershowitz who secured a 1976 reversal of adult film star Harry Reems's obscenity conviction.

Between my sophomore and junior years in high school, my family moved from a white-bread Republican New Jersey suburb to Bethesda, which in contrast was very, very upscale Jewish. My first day in the new high school, two young Jewish ladies took me under their wing as a sort of project, insisting I was a "monolith" and needed a thorough re-education.

They introduced me to subjects like Bob Dylan, Paul Krassner, and Jules Feiffer, and things went on from there. It continued in college, an Ivy, where there were far more Jewish students than there are now. I'd studied German, and I got pretty good at Yiddish.

In other words, I got to know avant-garde Jewish culture of the 1960s pretty well. I lost touch with my high school mentors long ago, but thinking of them now, I wonder what they would say about what the Jewish avant-garde seems to be in the process of becoming.

Let's take another contrast, between the avant-garde Jewish comic Lenny Bruce (no relation) and the current comic Ben Bankas, who makes it plain that he's half-Jewish on his father's side but frequently identifies as Jewish in his monologues. The avant-garde Lenny Bruce of the 1950s and 1960s

eventually appeared on television on the Steve Allen Show and other programs. Yet as his fame grew, so did the edge to his comedy and social commentary, which led to his legal troubles.

Bruce was arrested at the Jazz Workshop in San Francisco in 1961 for using sexually explicit language. Although he was acquitted, law enforcement agencies put him under greater scrutiny, resulting in drug arrests in Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

In a December 4, 1962, performance at the Gates of Horn club in Chicago, Bruce was arrested for and eventually convicted of violating a state obscenity statute. On appeal, he was defended by distinguished First Amendment scholar and law professor Harry Kalven Jr.

. . . Undercover police detectives attended his two 1964 appearances at Cafe Au Go Go in Greenwich Village, and they arrested him on obscenity charges after each show. His trial attracted media attention, and artists including Woody Allen and Norman Mailer testified on his behalf. A three-judge panel convicted him of obscenity and sentenced him to serve four months.

After Bruce’s conviction, nightclubs across the country blacklisted him for fear they would face obscenity charges.

It's worth pointing out that at the time, Bruce was defended for in effect being "art", as opposed to his characterization by police as essentially a pornographer. In other words, Bruce wasn't a low class smut merchant, he was a bourgeois artist whose work was intended to appeal, and did appeal, to the bourgeoisie -- nothing low-class about him. Following his death of a drug overdose in 1966, he's nevertheless been celebrated as a martyr for all the right bourgeois reasons, freedom of expression, freedom from religion, civil rights, blah blah blah:

What is certain is that no comedian has proved more culturally significant without moving into TV and films - the means by which the likes of Woody Allen and Adam Sandler achieved wider fame.

The 1974 biopic Lenny, in which Bruce was portrayed by Dustin Hoffman, was nominated for six Academy Awards.

There was a further Oscar nomination for the 1998 documentary Lenny Bruce: Swear to Tell the Truth, narrated by Robert De Niro.

Bruce has inspired or been name-checked in songs by numerous artists including Bob Dylan, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Nico, REM, Steve Earle, Simon and Garfunkel and Genesis.

He is also one of the celebrities immortalised on the cover of the Beatles's Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, in the distinguished company of Marilyn Monroe, Karl Marx, Oscar Wilde, Albert Einstein and Gandhi.

But let's turn to a similar avant-garde comic of our time, Ben Bankas, one of whose routines is embedded above (language warning). A native of Canada, not long ago, he moved to Austin, TX, but especially when he returns to Canada, great efforts are made to have his venues cancel the engagements. (Of one such organizer, he quipped, "He got my show canceled. I guess he's finished his bucket list. Now he can apply for MAID.")

Bruce's supporters in particular argued that his shows effectively represented bourgeois liberal values; Bruce himself doesn't appear to have represented any particular class identity in his on-stage persona, other than perhaps a timeless gadfly.

Ben Bankas is a very different matter: he represents himself as working class: he wears jeans, with a wrinkled shirt over a prominent belly and a scruffy beard. In his routines, he often holds and sips from a beer can. In effect, he's the non-collegiate worker championed by Mike Rowe, blurting out uncomfortable truths not too different from Lenny Bruce's, but in effect saying Bruce's bourgeois supporters are themselves as hyopcritical as they were in Bruce's time.

But of course, Ben Bankas's audiences are bourgeois themselves. I asked Chrome AI mode, "How much do Ben Bankas tickets cost?" It replied,

Ben Bankas tickets typically start as low as $24.00, with an average price of around $44.29. However, prices vary significantly depending on the city, venue, and seat location. For example, some shows in major markets like New York City can start much higher, between $116 and $169.

That leaves aside parking and drinks at the clubs, not a cheap date by any means. Now that I think of it, I wonder what my avant-garde Jewish-girl mentors would say now about Ben Bankas.

I actually think I'd have a pretty hard time convincing them he's in the same league as Bob Dylan, Paul Krassner, and Jules Feiffer, but I think the case can be made.

The Missing "Scientists"

Via the New York Post (which also carried the diagram above):

The deaths or disappearances of 11 top US scientists and researchers is a matter of urgent national importance, a member of the House Oversight Committee insisted Friday.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) said his office had already been eyeing some of the “too coincidental” disappearances a year before President Trump told reporters Thursday that he had ordered an investigation.

The lawmaker argued the fate of the scientists is almost “certainly” linked to the access some had to classified aerospace, defense and UFO information — and may involve bad actors from China, Russia or Iran.

Why stop there? I'd be looking at the Men in Black. According to Chrome AI Mode:

The Men in Black urban myth has existed for nearly 80 years, tracing its roots back to the "Summer of the Saucers" in 1947.

The legend evolved through several key stages:

First Appearance (1947): The myth began with the Maury Island incident on June 21, 1947. Witness Harold Dahl claimed that the morning after he saw six doughnut-shaped aircraft over Puget Sound, a man in a dark suit met him at a local diner and warned him not to speak of the event.

And on through the Men in Black film franchise:

Mainstream Media (1990s–Present): The myth was reimagined as a heroic secret organization in the 1990 comic book series by Lowell Cunningham, which later inspired the 1997 Men in Black film starring Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.

The current fascination with this subject seems to have begun with the disappearance of retired General William N McCasland, whose overall career is covered here. However, he retired in 2013, at age 55, so at minimum, he would be 13 years out of the loop. Leaving everything else aside, why would any bad actor, Chinese, Russian, Iranian, man in black, or space alien, see the need to eliminate some guy who was 13 years out of the loop?

Now, I'll grant that a competent thriller writer could cook up some sort of explanation -- he'd stumbled on some big deal secret, the men in black told him he'd better retire, but his conscience kept bothering him, and he was about to reveal it 13 years later -- but outside fiction, you've got to apply a reasonability check to any such explanation. It's too complicated, when any number of simpler explanations would work.

While we don't know why someone on such a high-level career path would have taken early retirement, one explanation could be health issues. In addition, 68 is by no means too young for Alzheimer's, and one symptom of Alzheimer's is wandering off:

Alzheimer’s disease causes people to lose their ability to recognize familiar places and faces. It’s common for a person living with dementia to wander or become lost or confused about their location, and it can happen at any stage of the disease. Six in 10 people living with dementia will wander at least once; many do so repeatedly. Although common, wandering can be dangerous — even life-threatening — and the stress of this risk weighs heavily on caregivers and family.

I'm not claiming this is definitely the explanation, but it's one factor that needs to be ruled out before we bring in any sort of bad actors. While Rep Burlison says Gen McCasland tried to contact him twice about UAPs (or something like that) the Post link says

Investigators claimed McCasland had experienced “mental fog” before disappearing from his home in Albuquerque, NM.

Another issue is that these cases involve 11 people out of 2.1 million civilian and military aerospace workers. We're talking about a very small number of these, in highly diverse roles at scattered locations, some deceased, some missing, over a two-year period. And the actual connections between some on the chart above are tenuous: For instance, Monica Jacinto-Reza disappeared in Southern California while hiking on June 22, 2025, while apparently employed by a contractor for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

However, she is said to be connected with Gen McCasland because from 2011 to 2013, he was Commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB. But Jacinto-Reza was working forJPL in Pasadena, not Wright-Patterson, and she disappeared in 2025, long after McCasland retired in 2013. In addition,

Reza was hiking [with] "male and female companion[s] from her yoga group," which blends "physical yoga practice with spiritual and philosophical elements, including astrology and traditional Vedic teachings from ancient India." According to LA Mag, "Reza and her male companion oddly began running on the terrain, which is uncommon given how steep and uneven it is."

The man "confirmed Reza was behind him, reportedly running, when he eventually called out to her and received no response," LA Mag added.

No Russians, Chinese, Iranians, men in black, or space aliens appear to be involved, but if I were a homicide detective, I'd sure be talking to her male companion on that hike.

Actually, in my tech career, I was in and out of that industry, especially working for contractors in data security. I know some of the agencies mentioned, like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and people who've phased in and out of there. I would say on the whole that the level of work done at such places, and the caliber of people employed, either directly or via contractors, are both highly overrated in the public mind. On one hand, the level of waste, fraud, and abuse is pretty much what you'd expect among government-funded entities.

On the other, the 80-20 rule applies as much as it does anywhere else: 20% of the people do 80% of the work, and among the 80%, you'll find folks engrossed in stuff like yoga, astrology, and traditional vedic teachings. Just sayin'. Even if these people disappeared or passed away under mysterious circumstances, this doesn't mean that any of them was involved in doing important work, and several have titles like "researcher' and "administrative assistant".

So this is just one side issue in the whole UFO-UAP boondoggle -- and a boondoggle it all is.

What's The Current State Of Play In Iran?

There really hasn't been much insightful commentary on the current state of play in Iran, at least in the US, since Vice President Vance walked out of the negotiations a week ago. On the other hand, some foreign observers seem to have a better handle on what's really going on, in particular the US-born Israeli commentator Pesach Wolicki. He talks like the Northeastern suburban Jews I grew up with, whch may be one reason I like him, but his discussion also reflects the respect the Israelis have for his negotiation skills, which US observers generally lack. At about 7:15 in the video embedded above [it may have since been made private], he begins:

I'll remind you that a week into the war, we saw this: "Trump demands 'unconditional surrender' from Iran", OK? and he put out a Truh Social post, "There will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender. After that, and tbe selection of an acceptable leader, we'll make wonderful and brave allies that will make Iran great again." OK, but he said there's no acceptable outcome to the war, there's no acceptable end to the war other than unconditional surrender. OK, Iranians are . . . begging for a ceasefire. Ttrump says, if you open up the straits, we'll have a ceasefire.

Now, think about unconditional surrender. What does unconditional surrender look like? It doesn't mean you kill every last member of the IRGC, end the siege, and there's no more regime. What is unconditional surrender, what was it in Germany, whar was it in Japan? It means that one side says "uncle", capitulates, and surrenders to all of the demands of the other side. Obviously that happens in a negotiating room where they surrender. There's a meeting, and they surrender, right, and the guns go silent.

And that's what Trump was trying to accomplish. He was saying, "OK, we're pummelng you, you closed the Straits of Hormuz, open up the Straits, and come talk to us", and he wanted to get an unconditional surrender. So they all get into the room, and what does Trump say about those negotiations, just to hammer home this point? . . . Well, this is actually right after the negotiations fell apart. . . we all know what happened, the Americans laid out their demands. . . everyone went home, because the Iranians weren't willing to agree to the American demands.

What did Trump then say? Listen to this. [Trump recording] "Think of it. They're allowed to say, 'Death to America! Death to this, death to -- I just make one statement, they say, 'Oh, such a big deal!' Let me tell you, that statement got them to the bargaining table, and they haven't left. They haven't left the bargaining table. I predict they come back, and they give us everything we want. And I told my people. I want everyhing. I don't want 90%, I don't want 95%, I told them: I want everything. . ."

. . . So let's underatand what just happened here. Trump saw the ceasefire as an opportunity to put the guns down, bring them to the table, and have them surrender. . . unconditional surrender. . . . This isn't really a negotiation. It's for the Iranians to capitulate and agree to the American demands.

Wolicki makes a pointed reference to "unconditional surrender" as it applied to Germany and Japan. Let's recognize that after the German military surrender on May 7/8, the Allies found it convenient to leave the Flensburg Nazi government under Admiral Dönitz in place for several weeks, simply because some sort of civil authority was needed to clean up all the loose ends prior to a complete Allied takeover. In particular, the police powers of the Dönitz government could be used to help round up war criminals. Once that government had served its purpose, Dönitz himself and those around him were arrested.

In Japan, negotiations were conducted via Switzerland and Sweden to determine just what conditions would constitute "unconditional" surrender, in particular, whether the Emperor could retain some sort of constitutional position. However, even when a satisfactory resolution for the Emperor was secured, there was a last-minute attempted coup that failed only when the insurgents were unable to locate and seize the pre-recorded copies of the Emperor's surrender announcement scheduled for broadcast.

In other words, "unconditional surrender" is something for which the conditions are negotiated, and it takes place within a more extended window of time following the practical military defeat. As best anyone can determine, what's going on in Iran now is similar to the uncertainties in Japan even after Hirohito broke the tie in his war cabinet in favor of surrender. This is outlined in he video embedded below:

It begins,

Massive crowds have taken to the street in Tehran. But these aren't protesters against the regime. These are regime supporters. Now they're losing their minds, because they can't believe that Iran just surrendered. That's why they're protesting against the people in power, people who are negotiating with the United States, and they're calling on the Supreme Leader to finally make a statement. It's been more than a month since the Supreme Leader has been elected, and the Iranian public still hasn't heard from him or seen him. And now it seems like the regime has fallen into a full-on civil war.

Apparently in response, those surrounding the Supreme Leader issued a written statement:

In a statement carried by Iranian state media, he said the military had resisted what he described as America’s “sinister schemes.”

He went on: "With its strong divine and popular support and in dense, fortified ranks, it [the army] stands shoulder to shoulder with other mujahideen of the armed forces against the two armies at the forefront of the front of kufr (disbelief) and arrogance, clashing with them hand-to-hand and exposing their weakness and humiliation to the eyes of the world; just as its drones strike like lightning against the American and Zionist criminals, its brave navy is ready to make the enemies taste the bitterness of new defeats."

The final sentence, boasting about how the Iranian navy is ready to unleash "new defeats", comes after Iran this morning said it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again.

However, the remarks are entirely pro forma, and they aren't accompanied by any proof that he's alive or not comatose. All they establish is that the hard-liners are able to issue statements on his behalf, while they're apparently also in a position to force Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf to confirm that the IRGC has closed the Strait of Hormuz again. In return, Trump reiterated

If negotiations with Iran fail and Trump gives the green light, the U.S. military in the U.S. Central Command region is prepared to conduct strikes against the regime’s military targets, a source familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal military planning, told The Hill on Saturday morning.

It's hard to avoid thinking we're in a situation comparable to Japan in the unstable period after the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaski.

The UK Is Poorer Than Mississippi

As we say in Mississippi,
“Bless Your Heart.”

Or as you say in the UK,
“As-Salamu Alaykum.” https://t.co/oCajoT8LQ7

— Governor Tate Reeves (@tatereeves) April 16, 2026

There's been yet another set of stories over the past few days saying that if the UK were the 51st state, it would be the poorest, below even Mississippi:

When Brits are asked how wealthy the United Kingdom is compared with the United States, most believe the country still ranks near the top. In reality, the U.K. is poorer than every single U.S. state—something that comes as a shock to many when they learn the truth.

That disconnect is laid bare in a new report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), which finds that Britons significantly overestimate the U.K.’s economic standing both globally and relative to the United States.

But this headline is actually evergreen. A quick web search brings up:

Mar 31, 2025 Britain—Like France and Spain—Is Poorer than Mississippi
Aug 10, 2023 Is Britain Really as Poor as Mississippi?
Mar 7, 2016 It Is Still True That Even Mississippi Is Richer Than Britain
Aug 25, 2014 Britain Is Poorer Than Any US State: Yes, Even Mississippi

This shouldn't be a surprise. Last month, I looked at the origins of the UK's open-borders immigration policy, and I found that it can be traced to a post-World War II "labor shortage", whereby immigration from the UK's Caribbean territories was encouraged to fill jobs, or viewed a little differently, to keep wages down. But UK attitudes date back farther than that:

A general strike took place in the United Kingdom from 4 to 12 May 1926. It was called by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in an unsuccessful attempt to force the British government to act to prevent wage reductions and worsening conditions for 1.2 million locked-out coal miners. Some 1.7 million workers went out, especially in transport and heavy industry.

. . . In 1924, the Dawes Plan was implemented. It allowed Germany to re-enter the international coal market by exporting "free coal" to France and Italy, as part of their reparations for the war. This extra supply reduced coal prices. In 1925, Winston Churchill, the chancellor of the Exchequer, reintroduced the gold standard. This made the British pound too strong for effective exporting to take place from Britain. Furthermore, because of the economic processes involved in maintaining a strong currency, interest rates were raised, which hurt some businesses.

Mine owners wanted to maintain profits even during times of economic instability, which often took the form of wage reductions for miners in their employment. Miners' weekly pay had been lowered from £6 to £3 18s. over seven years. Coupled with the prospect of longer working hours for miners, the industry was thrown into disarray.

The Dawes Plan, named for US banker and vice president during Coolidge's second term Charles G Dawes, was developed as a way to resolve the economic and political problems resulting from the reparations payments imposed on Germany in the Versailles Treaty, itself a consequence of UK policy miscalculation. In turn, however, the UK economy depended on continued reparations payments, which were intended to repay the loans the UK owed for financing its role in World War I -- but the return to the gold standard put new stresses on the economy.

In tbhe US, the Federal Reserve acted to support the UK's return to the gold standard. This led to

the Fed's decision to raise interest rates in 1928 and 1929. The Fed did this in an attempt to limit speculation in securities markets. This action slowed economic activity in the United States. Because the international gold standard linked interest rates and monetary policies among participating nations, the Fed's actions triggered recessions in nations around the globe. The Fed repeated this mistake when responding to the international financial crisis in the fall of 1931.

This was a result of yet another UK policy miscalculation that primarily hurt the working class. The 1926 General Strike appears to have solidified bourgeois attitudes against the workers:

[A]s with most strikes, the general public' hostility to being inconvenienced outweighed much of the sympathy they might have felt for the miners' plight. Most people tended to fear rather than applaud the sympathetic relationship among the labour unions, for a general strike (by the end of the stoppage, labour leaders were also using this term), carried to its logical extreme was and is a workers' revolution.

. . . Upper and upper-middleclass university students, society women, titled people, and young businessmen drove trains and buses, ran canteens, printed and delivered emergency newspapers, worked in the docks, and had a great time "carrying on".

. . . The very condensation of the volunteers' role into an upper-class masculine image was what has enabled it to be so easily invoked as a symbol of eccentric Britishness, of good humour in a crisis, of the gentleman amateur par excellence. That image represented the continuity of a nineteenth-century paradigm that categorized life as a sporting competition not to be taken too seriously and English lads of a certain class as the ones capable of winning it - and showing others how to play the game.

The brevity of the actual strike also contributed to its success as a social paradigm. Chrome AI notes,

Many volunteers lacked the technical skills for the jobs they replaced. For example, rail services were shambolic and often operated at only 1% of normal capacity, leading to months of equipment repairs afterward.

But this was lost in the general celebratory air of bourgeois self-congratulation. In other words, the UK seems to be a special case, in which 19th-century paradigms of the working class vis-a-vis the bourgeoisie have persisted into the 21st, allowing long-entrenched policy miscalculations to persist and keeping the country poor.

What Nobody's Mentioned About "Just War" Doctrine

A sort of sub-debate over "just war" doctrine has emerged between Vice President Vance and Bishop James Massa, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine. This past Tuesday (April 14), Vance gave an ex tempore response to Pope Leo's criticisms of the war at a Turning Point USA event in Athens, GA. His full remarks are in the video embedded above. I'll start, though, with Bishop Massa's response, posted on the USCCB site:

“For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war. A constant tenet of that thousand-year tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword ‘in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2308). That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: ‘He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.’

“When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ. The consistent teaching of the Church is insistent that all people of good will must pray and work toward lasting peace while avoiding the evils and injustices that accompany all wars.”

The first thing I notice is that Bp Massa commits a logical error called "hypostatization" or "reification" in the first paragraph. This error treats an abstraction, "just war" doctrine, as something specific and concrete. On one hand, the bishop calls it a "long tradition" that has been variously expressed since ancient times -- but there's the rub. One version of "just war" doctrine is enumerated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2309, which the bishop oddly doesn't reference.

CCC 2309 lists four specific conditions for a "just war", which I'll summarize for brevity:

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be major
2. all other potential solutions must have been exhausted
3. there must be a serious chance of winning
4. the damage done in the war must not be worse than the problem the war is meant to solve.

It concludes this list by saying, "These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine." Unfortunmately, this list isn't exclusive, and other parts of the "tradition" say things very differently. For instance, St Thomas Aquinas lists these conditions in Summa Theologiae question 40 (again, summarized for brevity):

1. A just war cannot be declared by private individuals. It must be initiated by a legitimate sovereign authority
2. the party being attacked must deserve it due to some fault or injustice on their part
3. the motive must be the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil.

As we see, Aquinas lists three basic conditions, not four, and they're very different from those in the Catechism, which has nothing to say about lawful authority, while Aquinas says nothing about the chances of winning. Other conditions, if somewhat similar in intent, are expressed very differently. Thus "just war" doctrine is in fact a highly diverse set of conditions. In fact, you can make very general statements about, say, the law on drunk driving, but the law in individual states, much less countries, establishes very different conditions.

When Bp Massa implies "just war" theory is a "long tradition" that's somehow consistent and unified, he's incorrect. Let's take a similar potential generalization about "drunk driving law". In the US, the blood alcohol limit for drunk driving is 0.08% BAC, although this is only because it has been standardized across state laws. In Germany, the limit is 0.05% BAC. I could be convicted for 0.07% BAC in Germany, but get off with a talking-to in the US. By the same token, I don't see where Aquinas's conditions for "just war" would be violated in the current US war with Iran, while the conditions in CCC 2309 are at least subject to debate.

To claim there's a single "just war" tradition that makes Trump an evil tyrant is misleading, and the bishop should have learned this in freshman comp, which I taught back in the day. But let's move to the remarks by Vice President Vance that have drawn controversy, as reported at this NBC link:

“Now we can, of course, have disagreements about whether this or that conflict is just, but I think in the way that it’s important for the vice president of the United States to be careful when I talk about matters of public policy, I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology,” Vance said.

“But I think one of the issues here is that if you’re going to opine on matters of theology, you’ve got to be careful. You’ve got to make sure it’s anchored in the truth, and that’s one of the things that I try to do, and it’s certainly something I would expect from the clergy, whether they’re Catholic or Protestant,” he added.

I think Vance actually left a key argument on the table and didn't use it here. CCC 2309, after saying of the four contitions it lists, "These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine", says immediately afterward, "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." In other words, the people who are tasked with making this evaluation are, at least in Western democracies, the elected officials, typically the head of government and the cabinet. Period. Neither the pope, nor the USCCB, nor the Berrigan brothers are mentioned.

But let's look at the words "prudential judgment". Edward Feser, a neo-Thomist philosopher and vocal opponent of the Iran war, has had a great deal to say about prudential judgment, so much that I asked Chrome AI mode to provide a summary of his views. I recognize that AI can get things wrong, and if Prof Feser sees this, I'll be happy to post any corrections or clarifications he may provide here. Nevertheless, in response to my question, "How does Edwared Feser define prudential judgment?" it replied (footnote references omitted),

Edward Feser defines prudential judgment as the application of fixed doctrinal or moral principles to concrete, contingent circumstances. Drawing from the Thomistic tradition, he views it as an exercise of "right reason" that determines how a general rule should be enacted in a specific, often complex, situation where multiple courses of action might be legitimate.

According to Feser's writings and his defense of traditional Scholastic philosophy, prudential judgment has several defining features:

Application of Principle: It is not a "free pass" to ignore moral law; rather, it is the process of identifying which moral laws apply to a specific case and how to fulfill them.

Contingency and Error: Because it deals with complex, real-world variables—such as political conditions or military strategy—it is subject to human error. Even high-ranking Church authorities can make mistaken prudential judgments because they may lack the specialized expertise needed to assess those specific circumstances. [emphasis mine]

Legitimate Disagreement: Unlike "intrinsically evil" acts (like murder or abortion), where no disagreement is possible for a faithful Catholic, prudential judgments allow for a "legitimate diversity of opinion" among people of good will.

So Feser himself, at least in areas like capital punishment, gives civil authorities latitude in identifying which moral laws apply to a specific case. Even high-ranking Church authorities can make mistaken prudential judgments. Prudential judgments allow for a legitimate diversity of opinion among people of good will.

What Vance said in Athens, GA is that there's room for a legitimate diversity of opinion between the Trump administration and Pope Leo. In fact, although he doesn't cite CCC 2309, he strongly implies that he agrees with the Church's teaching that it's up to US elected officials to determine the morality of Iran policy using prudential judgment, a situation in which there's room for disagreement.

Bp Massa, in the name of the USCCB, incorrectly implies, first, that there is a single, unified "just war" doctrine that the Church teaches, when Church authorities , for instance St Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism, in fact differ on conditions, but second, he implies -- though his remarks are by no means clear on this point -- that the pope is speaking from some sort of special authority when he is "preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ". But Leo did not claim his remarks on the Iran war are infallible, for a start. But according to Wikipedia,

A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. A well-known example of a personal opinion on a matter of faith and morals that was taught by a pope but rejected by the church is the view that Pope John XXII expressed on when the dead can reach the beatific vision. The limitation on the pope's infallibility "on other matters" is frequently illustrated by Cardinal James Gibbons's recounting how the pope mistakenly called him "Jibbons".

Whatever Bp Massa may think, the pope's implication in various recent statements on whether the Almighty blesses any conflict and so forth are nothing but his opinion, and Trump and Vance are well within the bounds of legitimate disagreement -- but Vance's exhortation to the pope to "be careful" even when discussing matters of theology should also carry particular weight. Pope Leo in recent remarks has gotten a fair amount of scripture just plain wrong.

"Oooooh, He Shouldn't Have Said That!"

The brouhaha over Trump's Truth Social post criticizing Pope Leo seems to be settling into a pattern that's established itself since Trump entered presidential politics: Trump says something blunt and on the face of it wildly out of line. Several days of hysteria follow, until other voices provide a reluctant acknowledgement that however clumsily he may have expressed it, Trump has a point. For instance. in July 2019, he told far-left members of congress in "the squad" to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came," which led the House of Representatives to formally censure him for "racist comments".

Nevertheless, this led to an overall reassessment of their role, and two of them, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, lost their seats in the 2024 primary cycle. In January 2018, he trolled North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, saying his own "Nuclear Button" was "much bigger & more powerful" and that it actually "works!". Despite initial rage from North Korea, the two appear to have developed a good interpersonal relationship at a summit that June. In 2021, The New York Times published The Complete List of Trump's Twitter Insults (2015-2021), apparently on the assumption that having left office and now banned by Twitter, Trump woold issue no more of them.

Instead, as we've seen over just the past couple of weeks, Trump the international troll is back as strong as ever, and trolling continues to be an important part of his toolkit. And true to the pattern, calmer voices are predictably saying, "I wish he hadn't put it just that way, but he does have a point. . ." A good example is the Prayerful Posse podcast embedded above that's hosted by Raymond Arroyo, a Catholic commentator and Fox contributor and host of the EWTN news program The World Over. At 4:36, he says,

I want to frame this for the audience, because the media is depicting this as a war of words between the president and the pope. But there's another player here that has been ignored. The inciting incident was really CBS's 60 Minutes, which Trump was watching on April 12th. Norah O'Donnell, the correspondent there, featured three influential cardinals, that's how they were billed, Cupich, Tobin, and McElroy, all of whom were appointed by Pope Francis, and clearly men of the political left.

These three cardinals were paired with comments from the pope to create a kind of 15-minute critique of Trump policies. As I've said elsewhere, you've heard of rope-a-doping? Well, O'Donnell was pope-a-doping Trump, and it worked. They were trying to get Trump to overreact, and he did. But I want you to listen to a bit of what these cardinals said. . .

He cuts to Cardinal Tobin saying that ICE agents "hide their identities to terrify people". Arroyo then turns to guest Robert Royal:

ARROYO: Bob, Tobin is not the USCCB president, neither are the other cardinals who were featured in this piece, Cupich and McElroy, but they seem to have taken it upon themselves to represent the US Church. Is this appropriate?

ROYAL: Well, it's either that, or CBS wanted to use them as kind of stalking horses in their attack on the president. And you're right to say, I mean, the three of them are billed as so-called influential, but none of then hold offices in the US Bishops' Conference and have never been elected to it. They're kind of outliers. I mean, with all due respect to them, they're sort of like the Squad is in our secular politics, they're a very definite and pretty left-wing group of just three. . .

ARROYO: Father [Gerald Murray], a number of bishops I spoke to were not happy that these three cardinals were speaking for all of them, because as Bob said, they weren't elected to anything, and they felt, and I spoke to about five different bishops, they felt that this was not reflective of the body of bishops or where they are at this moment.

MURRAY: Yes. Well, CBS isn't, you know, they're the ones that picked these men to be part of their panel, how that came about, you know, we don't know, but they picked three cardinals who are on the political left, obviouslly. . .

When Fr Murray says, "how that came about, you know, we don't know", this is a significant we-don't-know -- what he doesn't mention is Pope Leo's audience with David Axelrod just the Thursday before the 60 Minutes segment. On Tuesday, I linked to a piece by Monica Showalter, Hand of Axelrod? 60 Minutes gives a platform for the Catholic Church's most leftist cardinals that ties the cardinals' appearance directly to the Axelrod audience. Arroyo and his panelists, we must assume, are too circumspect to address this issue directly -- but that's not Donald Trump.

In his Sunday night post on Truth Social, made at 6:00 PM before the 60 Minutes broadcast, although he was almost certainly aware of what its content would be, Trump raised an intriguing question:

Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise. He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.

We can read this in two ways. One way, that a great many people will do, is to see this as just another narcissistic blurt from an unbalanced mind who wants to believe he's the center of everything, including the last papal conclave. Another way, which I lean toward, is that unbalanced narcissists don't escape multiple state and federal indictments and go on to win reelection to the US presidency. There isn't just method, but exceptional stability, insight, and strength of character, to this madness, like the guy or not. (He's also lucky.) I can't think of too many similar historical figures, but Winston Churchill and Andrew Jackson come to mind for me lately.

But if this is the case, he knows a hawk from a handsaw, and as a US president, we must assume he has access to highly privileged intelligence, even that surrounding a papal conclave. According to AI, "Every person involved -- including the cardinal electors and all support staff (such as doctors, cooks, drivers, and cleaning personnel) -- must take a formal oath to maintain 'absolute and perpetual secrecy' regarding everything that concerns the election process."

Somehow, something reached his ear from the conclave, and one thing he's doing here, if my read is correct, is signaling to Leo and others in the Vatican that he's got this information. And we're hearing disconcerting speculation now from other quarters, for instance:

The Vatican announced this week that Pope Leo XIV will convene his second extraordinary consistory of cardinals on June 26-27, but are these meetings being organized with genuine openness, or are they structured to steer toward a predetermined outcome?

. . . Traditionally, they follow a structured format centered on a single theme. Typically, they open with a substantive presentation by a distinguished theologian or canonist, providing the basis for an extensive general debate among the cardinals, with the pope presiding. Tailored to the purpose of a consistory, this classical format let the pope hear the cardinals—and the cardinals hear one another—directly and unfiltered.

. . . What is not widely known is that Pope Leo XIV’s first extraordinary consistory was initially planned to follow the classical format. But it was later reconfigured under somewhat mysterious circumstances, with no official explanation as to why the format changed, who was involved in the decision, or who ultimately organized the meeting.

. . . The timeline suggests that the shift occurred sometime between December 19 and January 5—over the Christmas holidays. Vatican sources point to the possibility, or even likelihood, that one or more Cardinals met with Pope Leo XIV during that period, proposing a format more in line with the “synodal Church” envisioned by Pope Francis.

. . . Given the nature of an extraordinary consistory as articulated in the Code of Canon Law, its format ought to enable the Pope to listen to the Cardinals unfiltered.

Whether that principle will, in fact, be borne out in practice remains to be seen.

Elsewhere,

Pope Leo XIV's recent visit to the Mosque of Algiers--where he removed his shoes, stood in silent reflection before the mihrab, and expressed gratitude for being in "a place that represents the space proper to God"--is not a harmless gesture of goodwill. It is a deeply consequential moment that raises serious questions about how the highest office in the Catholic Church is choosing to represent Christian truth in the public square.

. . . Standing in silent reflection in a mosque, directly before the mihrab--the directional focal point of Islamic worship--is not a neutral act. It is not the same as visiting a historical site or engaging in dialogue in a conference room. It is entering a space defined by a specific act of worship to God as understood in Islamic theology, and participating in its atmosphere of devotion without any accompanying doctrinal clarification.

When the Pope then describes the mosque as "a space proper to God," the problem intensifies. Proper to which understanding of God? Christianity and Islam do not simply differ in language; they differ in the most foundational claims about who God is, how He is known, and how He has revealed Himself. To speak in generic terms of shared divine space is not bridge-building--it is theological flattening.

. . . The danger in the Pope's actions is not that he visited a mosque. It is how he did it, what was said, and what was left unsaid. In a world already drowning in relativism, religious leaders do not have the luxury of ambiguity. Their words and gestures define how millions understand God.

And when those gestures begin to suggest that Christianity is simply one language among many ways of reaching the divine, the result is not harmony--it is the erosion of Christian identity itself.

When Trump blurts things out, other things inevitably happen, although not right away, and not necessarily the things we would expect -- but they happen. It's odd how Pope Leo expressed things on Monday:

"I have no fear of neither [sic] the Trump administration nor of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel. And that’s what I believe I am called to do and what the Church is called to do."

At the same time, he clearly misrepresented scripture over the past several days, and it's not clear if, as in Algeria, he's speaking the Gospel as clearly as he might.

UPDATE:

Exactly.

By raising the issue, it makes people look at what Pope Leo is saying and what Pope Leo is saying is leftist nonsense. https://t.co/1ZB9qbwOCc

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) April 16, 2026