Insurgency Or White Saviors?

Andy Ngo writes in The New York Post, The anti-ICE activists are an insurgency, not a protest movement:

On Saturday, the Democratic Socialists of America celebrated hitting 100,000 members. Almost on cue, their footprint in organizing anti-ICE so-called “protests” continues to grow.

But these are not protests. They are coordinated obstruction campaigns modeled on the playbook of revolutionary insurgency inspired by violent revolutions.

That much is clear from the latest reporting in The California Post, documenting how militant far-left activists from the Golden State are advising radicals in New York on the latest tactics for sabotaging federal immigration operations.

But also yesterday,

Immigrant groups have a message for their mostly White allies: Quit blowing the whistle on ICE.

Fox News Digital has reviewed days of messages inside Signal chat rooms that reveal that a new internal feud has erupted inside the anti-ICE protest industry, pitting immigrant-led organizations against predominately White "rapid response" networks that have made whistle-blowing a dramatic part of anti-ICE protests.

. . . Groups from Seattle to Montgomery County, Md., are telling mostly White "rapid responders" to back off a dynamic described by activists as "White Savior," reminding them they are not cameo actors in an "action movie" against ICE.

Montgomery County, MD, includes Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and Potomac. The illegals there are likely to be nannies, gardeners, and domestic servants in upscale households; none of their employers is an insurgent, whether or not they go to anti-ICE protests. Possibly their enititled children at least do.

But I think we need to look at this question through the lens of an earlier generation, Edmund Wilson in To the Finland Station (1940) and Whittaker Chambers in Witness (1952). Both discuss what may be history's most successful insurgency, the Soviet Union, from different but equally illuminating perspectives. To the Finland Station is an idealized intellectual history of European socialism that culminates in Lenin's arrival at Moscow's Finland Station to begin the final stage of founding the Soviet government.

Wilson appears to have had a comfortable bourgeois life. He attended a private secondary school and then went to Princeton. After service in World War I, he returned amost immediately to pursue a privileged literary career. According to Wikipedia,

Wilson was the managing editor of Vanity Fair in 1920 and 1921, and later served as associate editor of The New Republic and as a book reviewer for The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books.

. . . In 1932, Wilson pledged his support to the Communist Party USA's candidate for president, William Z. Foster, signing a manifesto in support of CPUSA policies; however, Wilson did not identify personally as a communist.

Wilson strikes me as a member of the "white savior" faction of the American left, especially insofar as Princeton did not admit Negroes until the eve of World War II; Wilson may not even have been aware of this. His loyalties are literary and performative. He admires Lenin as a man of action, a theorist who finally has the determination to wield absolute power on behalf of the revolutionary working class, of which Edmund Wilson was never a member.

Whittaker Chambers is a very different figure. In the 1920s, he followed a literary career not much different than Wilson's; he was an editor and writer for The Daily Worker and New Masses. But in 1932, when Wilson publicly endorsed William Z Foster, Chambers went underground and became a Soviet spy. In fact, Chambers also went to an Ivy, Columbia, where like Wilson, he was a member of the influential literary set. But unlike Wilson, he dropped out and seems to have felt that other experiences, like traveling to Germany during the postwar devastation, were much more formative.

But Chambers's involvement in socialism was more like a pig's involvement in breakfast: a chicken is involved by laying eggs, which would be Edmund Wilson's position, while a pig is involved by becoming bacon. Wilson was a public intellectual, while Chambers became a clandestine spy. Among other things, he recruited Alger Hiss. But as Andre Maulreux wrote to Chambers after reading Witness, "You are one of those who did not return from hell with empty hands." I don't think anyone could say the same of Wilson, who spent his later years collecting the usual medals, prizes, and awards.

So let's return to the problem of the white saviors. Ngo writes,

One familiar tactic is the strategic placement of women at the front of confrontations. When these activists block agents on foot or with vehicles, cameras start recording. Clips of screaming women being arrested are quickly circulated with false narratives claiming innocent women are being “snatched” off the streets arbitrarily.

I witnessed this tactic in 2020 in Portland, when the “Wall of Moms” stood at the front of the mob seeking to burn down a federal courthouse in downtown during the George Floyd riots. Behind the “moms”? Masked Antifa militants in black bloc outfits, hurling rocks, frozen water bottles and explosive devices.

. . . The plan was explicit: confront federal agents and ensure cameras are ready.

For these extremists, the potential cost in human life is worth it, because of the potential political payoff.

These tactics have already fueled online threats and real-world violence against federal officials. They helped spark deadly unrest in Minneapolis and drove an international media frenzy built on lies.

But the basic problem, as I think Whittaker Chambers would recognize, and possibly Wilson as well, is that the moms are all bourgeois romantics. They aren't the sort of insurgents who will work undercover, as Chambers did, at the real tasks of the working-class revolution. Renee Good, uniformly characterized as a mom, tried to run down a CBP agent in a $50,000 SUV. Alex Pretti was less successfully characterized as a nurse, a bicyclist, and an outdoorsman, but the media had to retouch the sketchiness out of his hippie persona to do this.

I've been saying all along that the current leftist alliance is between the upper bourgeoisie and Marx's Lumpenproletariat. It's a creature of the faculty lounge; the true working class isn't involved. Even the Montgmery County, MD Immigrant Rights Collective seems to understand the issues here. At the second link,

"START WITH REALITY (NOT HEROICS)," they wrote, with the soundtrack of a popular protest song, "Que me devuelvan la tierra," which means "Give me back my land."

They wrote, "This is not an action movie. You are not in a one-on-one fight with ICE."

Adding bold emphasis, they noted, "And you are not the center of this situation."

On one hand, Renee Good and Alex Pretti were bourgeois useful idiots. On the other, the people who might actually be clandestine actors like Whittaker Chambers, who might actually further an insurgency, seem to be AWOL. Ngo says,

Earlier this week, a Minneapolis Antifa activist named Kyle Wagner was charged by federal authorities after posting multiple social media videos urging his comrades to acquire firearms to kill federal agents.

But Fox News adds context:

In a video obtained by Fox News Digital, Kyle Wagner, 37, of Minneapolis was arrested in the early morning hours wearing a sweatshirt that said, "I'M ANTIFA," a reference to the far-left organization that the Trump administration has deemed a domestic terrorist group.

Wagner’s bald head and numerous tattoos, including "RESISTANCE" across his chest and a "three arrows" anti-fascist symbol on his neck, have made him a recognizable figure on anti-ICE social media feeds.

Wagner operated an Instagram account under the handle @kaos.follows, where he had amassed tens of thousands of followers before the account was deleted. In his bio, he reportedly used the hashtag #IronFront and described himself as an "entrepreneur."

This is a bourgeois romantic, not an insurgent, no matter how loudly he may claim that's what he is. "This is not an action movie. You are not in a one-on-one fight with ICE." These people will not make a revolution, even Edmund Wilson understood this.

Does Anyone Else Think The Nancy Guthrie Kidnapping Case Is Hinky?

Kidnapping for ransom went out of style with the Lindbergh Baby, but even that case was hinky.

[T]he famous father took personal charge of many aspects of the investigation. He isolated household staff who may have had knowledge of his son’s medical condition from questioning by authorities including J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Also, following a cursory autopsy, he ordered the body cremated and the ashes scattered.

And of course, it was a media sensation. Fast forward to the JonBenét Ramsey case, which involved a hinky ransom note, even though the child was later found strangled in the family home. It was also a media sensation, especially due to JonBenét's participation in child beauty pageants. But there are very few parallels in the real world. YouTuber crminal lawyer Bruce Rivers says on his channel, "I've been practicing law for almost thirty years. I've never once seen a kidnapping-ransom case." In other words, all the cases we see seem to be made up by media figures chasing another 15 mionutes of fame, not criminal masterminds.

Add to that trash media TMZ taking an active role in the story, transmitting one of the putative ransom notes:

Harvey Levin on Hannity: "The letter begins by saying she is safe but scared, and they go on to say she knows exactly what the demand is. They are, through us, telling the family exactly what they are demanding, and they are saying that Nancy is aware of it. They are also saying… pic.twitter.com/2GhmZ2zGiJ

— Rantingly (@rantinglydotcom) February 6, 2026

Beyond that, the story involves a media figure, Savannah Guthrie, Nancy's daughter, and it's being pursued most avidly by Megyn "Me Again" Kelly and Ashleigh Banfield, all three middle-aged TV ladies approaching career twilight despite the most determined efforts of medical science:

But even though the case has been in the headlines for a week, I'm not seeing anyone asking straight out if this is all a hoax. So I put the question to Chrome AI mode, "Is the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping a hinky story?" It replied,

The abduction of Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of Today show host Savannah Guthrie, has been described by both the public and experts as "hinky" or "unusual" due to several bizarre and conflicting details.

While authorities officially maintain it is a kidnapping, several elements have fueled public skepticism and intense investigation:

Precise Timing & Tech Disruption: Surveillance data shows her Ring doorbell was disconnected and physically removed at 1:47 a.m. on Sunday, February 1, 2026. Minutes later, at 2:28 a.m., her pacemaker stopped syncing with her phone, suggesting a medical event or physical intervention.

The "Blood Trail": Investigators found blood splatters on the porch and along the pathway to the driveway, which DNA testing confirmed belonged to Nancy, indicating a violent struggle.

Ransom Confusion: A ransom note sent to news outlets contained "sensitive information" about the crime scene known only to the abductor, yet it lacked a way for the family to contact the author. Additionally, the FBI arrested one "ransom impostor" attempting to profit from the case.

Motive Mystery: Law enforcement stated they do not believe the motive was a standard robbery or home invasion, deepening the mystery of why an elderly woman with limited mobility was targeted.

Family Plead: Savannah Guthrie and her siblings released an emotional video on Instagram stating they are "ready to talk" but demand proof of life due to the ease of AI manipulation.

But not even AI caught that last point: one one hand, the Guthrie family pleads with the kidnapper to talk, but law enforcement thinks the family may be involved:

Police are not ruling out any suspects as they investigate Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance — with Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos refusing to categorically say the son-in-law who last saw her was off their radar.

“We’re actively looking at everybody we come across in this case, we would be irresponsible if we didn’t talk to everybody,” Nanos said when asked by reporters if Nancy’s son-in-law Tommaso Cioni was a suspect.

In fact, nobody's even sure if the various messages from the kidnappers are authentic:

"The FBI and Pima County Sheriff's Department are aware of a new message regarding Nancy Guthrie. Investigators are actively inspecting the information provided in the message for its authenticity," officials wrote on social media.

A hoaxer has already been arrested for another note:

Derrick Callella, 42, is accused of sending the Guthrie family a hoax ransom letter. Authorities initially said Callella was from Torrance, but later clarified that he's from Hawthorne.

Callella was arrested by the FBI in Hawthorne on Thursday and appeared in a Santa Ana federal courtroom on Friday afternoon.

Well, let me see. According to one of these notes, we're not sure exactly which and whether it's real, someone is demanding a gazillion bucks in bitcoin as ransom. Now, who would you think of to kidnap for a gazillion backs in ransom? A relative of Elon Musk? Donald Trump? Bill Gates? Jeff Bezos? Yeah, they all have good security, but someone must have fallen through a crack. Heck, Howard Hughes's aunt was my parents' neighbor, you could have snatched her just like that.

Just a little research would have shown several good candidates among relatives of really rich people. Instead, looking for a gazillion bucks in bitcoin as ransom, they focus on Savannah Guthrie's mother. Nothing fits here.

And why would Savannah Guthrie want to be the focus of national hysteria? After all, the conventional wisdom is that she's safe at NBC:

Guthrie, 50 [no, she's 54 now], has her contract coming up for renewal next year [2025], and honchos are worried she may also decide it’s time to seek new horizons.

The veteran broadcaster, who is purportedly paid more than $8 million a year, has co-anchored “Today” since 2012 and steered the show through the Matt Lauer sex scandal that rocked the network seven years ago.

“Savannah’s contract is coming up next year and they want to keep her and will be doing anything they can to continue their relationship with Savannah as a means of not overhauling everything,” an NBC insider spilled to Daily Mail.

Nevertheless, I smell the same desperation that seems to have been behind the Lindbergh Baby and JonBenét Ramsey cases -- and outside of those, there are almost no similar high-profile kidnapping cases that aren't hoaxes. And just looking at the publicity shots of her and her mom over the past week, I have a deep and troublng sense that we're looking at an attention whore.

Cryonics And The Zombie Problem

Thinking about Glenn Reynolds, Ray Kurzweil, and cryonics, I began to go back to the only undergraduate courses that I've been able to use throughout my adult life (though they've consistently also gotten me into trouble, too), my minor in Philosophy. The video embedded above is by Jeffrey Kaplan, a Philosophy prof at UNC Greensboro, whose online courses I've found useful in keeping my thinking active in the field. In this one, he discusses the philosophical concept of a "zombie", a being that is physically identical to a human in every way. It behaves, talks, and reacts exactly like a person, but there is "nobody home" inside.

This is a thought experiment that is used against the argument of physicalism, which is roughly equivalent to materialism. It seems to me that this is the philosophy underlying cryonics: notwithstanding you have been legally dead for hundreds of years, if you were vitrified, properly frozen quickly enough after your death, "science" will eventually find a way to bring you back to life. This is notwithstanding the traditional Christian view that at death, the soul leaves the body and goes on to particular judgment and a choice between heaven and hell, whence the soul does not return to this world.

Cryonics isn't consistent with this view. While I've never seen a philosophically coherent explanation, the impression I have is that it believes "science" makes continual progress in medicine, and if as of now, a patient can flatline in an ambulance, he can be variously shocked, injected, or chest-pounded and "brought back to life", "science" will continually extend the period and means by which this can be done. In other words, someone may flatline now and go without medical attention for a matter or minutes or hours, such that rigor mortis sets in, the body goes cold, and EMTs say it's not possible to bring him back.

As far as I can determine, cryonics says that "science" will progressively extend this period of eligibility for resuscitation, so that in the fairly near term, it may be possible to shock, inject, pound the chest of, or otherwise manipulate dead people after a much longer period in order to bring them back, rigor mortis, decomposition, or no. In addition, "science" will continually find ways to cure diseases that are now thought to be fatal, so that at some point in the future, a person can be cured of, say, stage four cancer, and it isn't a big step to conceive of someone who has previously died of it being "brought back to life" and then successfully treated.

All this requires is that we ignore the metaphysical system that posits a soul that leaves the body at the time of death. The teachng of the Catholic Church is that only three humans have ever bypassed death and gone straight to heaven -- the patriarch Enoch, the prophet Elijah, and the Virgin Mary, but they took their bodies with them, so they aren't eligible for cryonics. Everyone else, including Christ Himself, died. In all these other cases, their souls left their bodies at the time of death.

In 1 Kings 17, the prophet Elijah brought back to life the son of the widow of Zarephath. In John 11:38–44, after calling "Lazarus, come out!" to a man dead for four days, Jesus commanded the onlookers to unbind him. However, these are miraculous resuscitations, and they reverse the process by which the soul had already left the body. In addition, we must assume that both the widow's son and Lazarus eventually died a second time.

As far as I can see, although so far, there's no cryonic creed, cryonics envisions a potentially infinite series of deaths, resuscitations, and cures, if repetitions of the process are necessary at all. The possibilities are that the formerly dead subject is brought back to life and cured of the previously "fatal" condition via "science". Should the subject then "die" again of some new disease, he can be vitrified again and the process repeated with the understanding that "science" will solve the problem later.

However, as I understand Ray Kurzweil, whom Glenn Reynolds apparently deems authoritative, the whole question of physical death and resuscitation is only part of an intermediate state, and eventually we will evolve into purely digital entities existing in a really, really big eternal computer, at which time "science" will have completed its task. How this relates to The Matrix is a question as yet unanswered.

The problem as I see this is that the humans envisioned by cryonics are philosophical zombies. They have chemical, neurological, and biological processes exzactly like humans, with the critical exception that there can't be a soul that leaves the body at the time of death. This seems to be illustrated in the legal case of Alcor Life Extension Foundation v. Richardson (2010). According to Alcor's Wikipedia entry:

When Alcor member Orville Richardson died in 2009, his two siblings, who served as co-conservators after he developed dementia, buried his remains even though they knew about his agreement with Alcor. Alcor sued them when they found out about Richardson's death to have the body exhumed so his head could be preserved. Initially, a district court ruled against Alcor, but upon appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals ordered Richardson's remains be disinterred and transferred to the custody of Alcor a year after they had been buried in May 2010.

So even after someone has been dead and buried for a year, his head can still be exhumed and frozen with the idea that they can bring him back later, effectively no different from an EMT pounding his chest. And the assumption is that this will be the same Orville who died in 1990. But how do we assume this? I think the only conclusion we can have is that cryonics is physicalist: Orville is simply the sum total of his DNA and all the associated molecules, cells, neurons, and synapses. If we can get them running again, we have Orville, no need for anyone else to be home.

Bringing him back from a skull with bits of decomposing flesh clinging to it may seem like a challenge, but "science" is up to the task. This is kind of like someone who wants to restore a 1960s Mustang he's found in a junkyard. Repace the tires, belts, and hoses, rebuild the engine and transmission, patch up the body and upholstery, turn the ignition, and voila, a Mustang! It's the turn the ignition part that has me puzzled.

How do you turn the ignition on a dead body, no matter how thoroughly rebuilt? Is it enough just to shock it or have an EMT pound its chest? And what's the guarantee it's Orville when it wakes up? What if it's just a zombie, breathing, pumping blood, but nobody home? Or what if it isn't Orville, it turns out to be Suleiman the Magnificent?

I'd love to be in a position to put these questons to either Glenn Reynolds, Ray Kurzweil, or both, but I can tell you right now what they'll say: we don't know, we've never brought anyone back to life from having his head frozen, so we don't know how to solve those or even other unforeseen problems that will emerge. But "science" will be able to figure these things out as they arise! Not to worry!

By the way, "science" as the term is used by cryonicists is a logical fallacy, hypostatization, treating an abstraction as a concrete entity. But the whole basis of cryonics is also a question-begging argument, that while nobody can answer questions like how we can guarantee the Orville we resuscitate isn't a zombie, "science" can solve these and all other problems down the road.

What does it say about our educational system that Glenn Reynolds holds a law degree from Yale, has a prestigious endowed chair at the University of Tennessee, and can use this prestige to pitch the purest moonshine? As a law professor, he ought to have a special sensitivity to fraud, but he simply doesn't seem to.

Glenn Reynolds Jumps The Shark At Warp Speed

I was all ready to talk about The Washington Post this morning, when I ran into this at Instapundit: Glenn Reynolds shills a Substack essay proposing that "the Singularity" is already here. He begins by citing Ray Kurzweil. At best, Kurzweil is an idiot savant, posssibly a brilliant inventor, but also, according to Wikipedia, a believer in freezing his body aftrer death in hopes of having it resuscitated at some future point:

Kurzweil has joined the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a cryonics company. After his death, he has a plan to be perfused with cryoprotectants, vitrified in liquid nitrogen, and stored at an Alcor facility in the hope that future medical technology will be able to revive him.

As of 2005, Reynolds was a big fan of this quackery, enthusiastically promoting the work of both Kurzweil and Aubrey de Gray, a promoter of human lifespan extension. According to the Wikipedia link,

De Grey is a cryonicist, having signed up with Alcor. When asked in an interview about his views on cryonics, he answered that "[...] it's an absolute tragedy that cryonics is still such a backwater publicly and that a large majority of people still believe that it has no chance of ever working", arguing "If people understood it better, there would be more research done to develop better cryopreservation technologies, and more people would have a chance at life."

It turns out that Glenn Reynolds himself is also a cryonicist. I hadn't been able to track down independently whether he plans to have his head frozen, but on a whim, I asked Chrome AI mode, "Is Glenn Reynolds a cryonicist?" It replied,

Glenn Reynolds, the University of Tennessee law professor and founder of Instapundit.com, is indeed a cryonicist and a long-time advocate for the practice.

Alcor Member: Reynolds is a signed-up member of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, one of the world's leading cryonics organizations.

Public Advocacy: He has frequently written about and defended cryonics in various publications, including USA Today, where he has argued that it is a rational "Plan B" for those who want a chance at future life extension.

But what is the "Plan A" for those who want a chance at future life extension? Good Catholics might suggest regular mass attendance and availing oneself of the other sacraments, and even Scott Adams refers us to something like Pascal's Wager. However, it appears that for transhumanists like Glenn Reynolds, "Plan A" is to expect dramatic human lifespan extension in our lifetimes, such that we probably won't even die and need to have our heads frozen before some powerfully transformative technological event, the Singularity, makes us immortal. The Cambridge Dictionary gives a definition: "The point in time when advances in AI can create machines that are smarter than humans is known as the Singularity."

But this omits Kurzweil. I asked Chrome AI mode, "Has Ray Kurzweil theorized that humans will upload their consciousness into a giant computer?" It answered,

Ray Kurzweil, a prominent futurist and Google engineer, has long predicted that humans will be able to upload their consciousness to a "suitably powerful computational substrate" to achieve digital immortality.

. . . Kurzweil believes this process will likely be gradual rather than a sudden "scan and dump". As we replace or augment biological neurons with more efficient electronic ones, our consciousness will slowly shift from a biological to a digital medium until we can exist entirely within a machine.

Chrome AI mode reports, though, that Kurzweil thinks this gradual process should be done by about 2045. Now, I spent some part of my tech career tasked with planning for the contingency of big computers breaking down, or losing power, or being attacked by an angry mob. Kurzweil, ever the visionary, foresees a time when humans will have left their messy bodies behind and will live eternally in a computer memory -- but how will the computer continue to find fuel? What if it's wiped out by an asteroid? Won't it need continued software updates? Seems like beings with agency will still be needed after the Singularity after all.

Actually, this is the same problem that occurs with the Alcor model: what if the cryonic facility that freezes all the heads loses power for long enough to let the heads thaw? And how long does Alcor estimate their facility will need to keep heads well frozen? Ten years? A hundred years? Ten thousand years? How do you anticipate just the investment requirements to keep something going that long, leaving aside the vicissitudes of history? But let's not worry about that. Reynolds asks,"Is the Singularity here?", and he answers that manifestly it isn't -- but oh, ye of little faith!

Computers are not yet made of “computronium,” but AI has advanced farther than anyone, except possibly Kurzweil, expected. And arguably we have already found ourselves “battling genetically enhanced super pathogens,” prepared in Chinese biolabs with, ironically enough, U.S. government funding. Extended lifespans, meanwhile, aren’t in evidence, though Kurzweil thinks we’re actually approaching “actuarial escape velocity,” where average lifespans increase more than one year per elapsed year.

The problem with COVID as a "genetically enhanced super pathogen” is that it was nowhere near as "super" as Dr Fauci pretended; that was the whole point of the lockdowns and so forth, they overrated the threat. But Reynolds clearly thinks space-based AI data centers as proposed by Elon Musk are pointing us in the direction of Kurzweil's "suitably powerful computational substrate" that will give us digital immortality. I'm sure Reynolds would test somewhere above average for IQ, but just how far above is an open question. Although he's been to Yale Law, there are whole fields of knowledge of which he appears to be ignorant, such as philosophy and the Chinese Room Thought Experiment:

Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so perfectly that no one can tell that they are communicating with a machine and not a hidden Chinese speaker.

The questions at issue are these: does the machine actually understand the conversation, or is it just simulating the ability to understand the conversation? Does the machine have a mind in exactly the same sense that people do, or is it just acting as if it had a mind?

Now suppose that [philosopher John] Searle is in a room with an English version of the program, along with sufficient pencils, paper, erasers and filing cabinets. Chinese characters are slipped in under the door, and he follows the program step-by-step, which eventually instructs him to slide other Chinese characters back out under the door. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows that Searle would do so as well, simply by running the program by hand.

Searle can see no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.

Reynolds concludes,

In my forthcoming book, Seductive AI, I warn that bots don’t have to be brilliant to fool and manipulate humans because, as all of history shows, people aren’t all that hard to fool.

That's true, Reynolds himself has a comic book mind, and he's been fooling people for at least a generation.

I Have Real Questions About The Polls

Let's start with just one data item, the Real Clear Politics Trump approval average from yesterday. Trump's approval is 42.8%, his disapproval is 54.6%. The polls that make up the average range from the high 30s to 50% approval in one case, so RCP loads them all together, no matter the differences in methodology and bias, and gets an arithmetic mean, which I'm increasingly convinced is garbage in-garbage out.

Below the numeric totals are several graphs showing Trump's overall approval trends, but I'm intrigued by the one that shows his first-term approvals. By the end of 2020, his approval was roughly 40%, while his disapproval was roughly 57%, which might explain why he "lost" that election -- except now we're beginning to learn that over 300,000 votes in Fulton County, Georgia are in question. He lost Georgia overall by only 11,779 votes. If equivalent questionable results in other states like Michigan and Arizona make the overall outcome of the 2020 election iffy, what does this say about the predictive value of the 2020 polls?

Other polls from recent days add to the question of what presidential "job approval" polls actually measure.

A new poll released by the firm Cygnal has shown that Trump’s deportation agenda continues to grow more popular with the American people in spite of the best efforts of Democrats and the media to malign the administration.

Swing voters and independents overwhelmingly agree that those who have illegally entered the country have broken the law at 82 percent and 70 percent, respectively. Overall, 73 percent of American voters agree with the sentiment, while a surprisingly high 48 percent of Democrats would say that illegal border crossings constitute a crime.

64 percent of the total electorate feels that illegal immigration is a “very” or “somewhat serious problem,” while 61 percent of Democrats feel that it isn’t a problem at all. Swing voters and independents once again side with Republicans, with 71 percent of swing voters and 60 percent of independents being aligned on the issue.

On the issue of deportations, Democrats once again are in opposition to the feelings of the general electorate, with 61 percent of voters saying that they support the deportations of illegals and 67 percent of Democrats standing opposed to deportations.

In other words, the Trump administration's priorities on immigration are overwhelmingly in tune with the electorate at large, and it appears that voters aren't deflected by media attempts to create martyrs of activists like Renee Good or Alex Pretti. If Trump is so clearly executing on policies that the voters support on such a major issue, why is his approval so low? But beyond that, how is it possible to interpret the poll numbers themselves so differently? At Rasmussen's own site,

A new I&I/TIPP poll conducted at the end of January shows that Trump’s overall favorability and job approval remain mostly unchanged from the previous month. Forty-one percent of voters view him favorably, while 40% approve of his job performance. Unfavorable and disapproval ratings are about 50% and 51%, respectively. These are not landslide numbers, but the key point is what they are not: they are not declining.

In other words, looking at fairly dismal results for Trump in recent months, at least the glass is half full. But the piece raises other unintentional questions:

This consistency is especially notable considering the intense opposition Trump has faced since returning to the White House. His first year has been characterized by ongoing controversy over immigration enforcement, public safety, and foreign policy, along with constant media scrutiny. Yet despite these challenges, his support has remained largely steady rather than declining.

But if pollsters focus on one such major issue, immigration enforcement, voters are in fact heavily aligned with Trump. On public safety, crime is down, with the unspoken explanation that criminals are leaving the country. Foreign policy appears to be going well, with Maduro out in Venezuela while the country is stable, and reallocation of Venezuelan oil is threatening Cuba and Iran. So the real question is why Trump's support is just "largely steady" instead of increasing. The piece more or less concludes,

Trump’s leadership style – straightforward, results-driven, and centered on national priorities – can garner support across different demographic groups when voters see concrete results on issues they care about most.

But again, why isn't this reflected in ongoing polling, and why have polls continued to be wildly inaccurate? Last November, I pointed out,

• The Real Clear Politics average for the New Jersey governor's race had Sherrill ahead by 2.7%, and many commentators had this within the margin of error. She won by 56.3% to Ciattarelli's 43.2%, a 13.1% margin.
• The RCP average for the Virginia governor's race had Spanberger ahead by 8.5%. She won by 57.2% to Earle Sears's 43.6%, a 13.5% margin.

I think, ruminating on the continuing revelations from Fulton County, that the answers suggest that either (a) the polls are rigged, or (b) the elections are rigged, or (c) both of the above. The piece at Rasmussen is in line with what Rasmussen wants us to believe, the polls can't tell us much, but they're all we have, so we should be optimistic about them. Really? More people need to start with the question of why, at minimum, the polls are rigged and come up with an answer of how.

Salem Media: Lay Off 95% And Replace Them With AI Bots

In yesterday's post, and in this one last month, I demonstrated how easy it is to get an AI bot to generate prose that would otherwise be written by a human writing to formula like Victor Davis Hanson or Robert Reich. In my thinking, I've routinely taken this farther: there should be no reason for any paper to pay a weather reporter to write chirpy, cliche-ridden predictions of the day's weather. Just set up a bot to print that out (blue skies this morning, but take an umbrella!) at the time of day needed, and you've saved a high five-figure salary right there.

But this brings me to Salem Media, until recently characterized as a "conservative media powerhouse", except that its financial performance has been poor, it's been unloading important properties like Regnery Publishing, and last April, Donald Trump Jr and Lara made a big investment with the idea of bringing them back:

Today, Salem announces a historic, multi-dimensional deal that not only adds two of the most influential voices in American media, Donald Trump Jr. and Lara Trump, but launches the company into an entirely new era of scale, relevance, and cultural power.

This strategic transformation cements Salem’s emergence as the upcoming platform for conservative content across broadcast, podcasting, digital, and on-demand streaming, a full-spectrum media ecosystem built for today’s America.

In the chart at the top of this post, you can see just how much of a boost this has been to Salem Media's shares. And in nearly a year since that announcement, I've seen absolutely no change in the part of their business that involves conservative opinion sites and news aggregators. Chrome AI mode lists these:

• Townhall.com – Conservative news and blog.
• HotAir.com – Political analysis and breaking news.
• RedState.com – Conservative community blog.
• Twitchy.com – Social media news aggregator.
• PJMedia.com – Subscription-based commentary site.

However, AI consistently refuses to acknowledge that Instapundit.com, which was part of PJ Media, is also a Salem site, so I'll add:

• Instapundit.com - gut bacteria and alternate history

The annotations on the list from AI give a misleading impression that these sites have an identifiable market along the line of, say, Chevy vs Buick vs Cadillac. I've been noting for quite a while that the writing at these sites is terrible. Here's a piece from Sarah Anderson at PJ Media yesterday:

During Thursday's cabinet meeting, Donald Trump mentioned that he'd spoken with his little Venezuelan pawn, "acting President" Delcy Rodríguez, and that the call had gone well.

The odd thing here is that PJ Media is supposed to be conservative, if not pro-Trump, but calling Delcy Rodriguez his "little Venezuelan pawn" is something you'd expect to hear from a far-left writer, and it goes against what appears to be an informed consensus view that Trump is leaving Maduro's second-in-command in place because, first, she's competent at running the country's oil business to US benefit, and second, nobody's sure any other replacement wouldn't be sorse than Maduro himself, which is what happened when Gaddafi was replaced in Libya.

Ms Anderson sweeps that all away in favor of snark. AI would do a better job, at least in my view, but regardless of that, Salem Media was a sinking ship when Don Jr and Lara bought in, but so far, there's been no identifiable change in their half-dozen opinion and aggregator sites. To try to get some handle on the business model, I asked Chrome AI mode, "What is a typical organization chart for a conservative opinion blog like RedState.com?" Since none of these blogs has a masthead, I've got to trust AI as much as anything. It replied,

Conservative opinion blogs like RedState.com typically follow a traditional hierarchical structure common in digital media, but with specific roles adapted for political commentary and community engagement.

Parent Company Leadership: RedState is owned by Salem Media Group, a major conservative media company. Corporate oversight includes a General Manager (often shared with sister sites like Townhall.com) who handles high-level strategy and budget.

Editor-in-Chief: The primary strategic and editorial voice (e.g., formerly Erick Erickson).

Managing Editor: Oversees day-to-day operations and directs the editorial team.

Assistant Managing Editor: Supports the Managing Editor in content coordination.

Senior Editors/Editors: Manage specific content areas and review contributor pieces.

Staff Writers: Full-time or regular employees producing daily news and opinion.

Senior Contributors/Contributing Editors: Experienced writers who provide regular, often high-profile, commentary.

Contract Contributors: The majority of bloggers are typically contract employees, often paid based on the web traffic their posts generate.

Brand Manager: Oversees the site's public identity and marketing.

Sales & Advertising: Manages the site's revenue through ad placements and sponsorships.

I asked, "How are writers for Salem Media sites like RedState and PJ Media paid?" It answered,

Salaried Editorial Roles: Permanent staff often hold editorial positions with yearly salaries.

Managing Editor: Approximately $75,305 per year.

Web Editor: Approximately $65,361 per year.

Assistant Editor: Approximately $50,042 per year.

VIP/Subscription Content: Salem Media sites use a "VIP" subscription model for uncensored or exclusive content. While the company charges readers for this access, specific revenue-sharing details between the platform and individual writers for these subscriptions are typically kept in private contracts.

Salem Media's broader compensation culture for its sales-oriented roles often includes commissions and bonuses, though this is primarily directed at its media strategists rather than editorial staff.

However, many of these people at Salem Media are amateurs, no matter how many media jobs may appear on their CVs. For instance, both RedState and PJ Media have a headline system that includes six stories under "Trending" and another three under "Editors' Choice". But don't the editors actually also choose the stories under "Trending"? So why is there a separate category for "Editors' Choice"? And why do the same titles so frequently appear in both categories?

Beyond that, a typical headline at RedState today under "Editors' Choice" is Morning Minute: The One Reason I Might Actually Watch the Super Bowl. This is the sort of thing Salem editors love, bloviating about themselves -- except that today, if you were actually interested in why Susie Moore might watch the Super Bowl, she doesn't tell us. She just gives a rundown of the day's top stories -- but wasn't that what we were supposed to get in "Trending"?

In other words, Susie Moore is a ditz, an amateur, but it sounds as though she's earning something in the high five figures for coming to work confused every morning, and Don Jr and Lara haven't yet tipped wise to this. The best I can surmise is that Salem Media has half a dozen different opinion and aggregator sites, none of them well run, none focused on any particular market segment, but each costing enormous amounts in full-time editors, writers, webmasters, hosting, and so forth. The Trumps need to take a good look at all those web sites and either close them or force the editors to work for a living.

For instance, they need to tell Glenn Reynolds to stop posting about gut bacteria, drop the pitches for indie science fiction writers, and focus on real commentary, or close the blog. He's been coasting for 20 years. They need to fire Susie Moore and her clones at the other blogs, and if they don't close the blogs entirely, they should replace them with AI bots. The bots wouldn't necessarily be better, but they'd be no worse, and they'd cost a lot less.

But really, how much have Don Jr and Lara lost over the past year in their Salem Media bailout? I'm astonished.

Bovarysme And AI

Over the weekend, a word popped into my head that I hadn't heard since graduate school: bovarysme.

Bovarysme is a term derived from Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary (1857), coined by Jules de Gaultier in his 1892 essay on Flaubert's novel, "Le Bovarysme, la psychologie dans l’œuvre de Flaubert". It denotes a tendency towards escapist daydreaming in which the dreamer imagines themself to be a hero or heroine in a romance, whilst ignoring the everyday realities of the situation. The eponymous Madame Bovary is an example of this.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "Are anti-ICE demonstrations an example of bovarysme?" The reply says to me that AI is not stupid -- I doubt if more than a tiny percentage of four-year degree holders could give this answer:

Bovarysme is a literary term derived from Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary. It refers to a tendency toward escapist daydreaming where an individual imagines themselves as a heroic or romanticized figure, often while ignoring the mundane or harsh realities of their actual situation.

. . . Critics applying the label "bovarysme" suggest that some demonstrators —- particularly student groups —- may be engaging in a form of "political romanticism." They argue these protesters might be adopting the persona of revolutionary heroes from history or fiction (such as equating ICE to the Gestapo) without a pragmatic path to the policy changes they seek, thus "mistaking a book for real life".

. . . Social media influencers and activists have been noted for using highly stylized imagery and slogans (e.g., "#ICEout") that blend political activism with personal branding and aesthetic "storytelling," a hallmark of the modern interpretation of bovarysme.

In fact, I don't think Glenn Reynolds, Victor Davis Hanson, or Roger Kimball could give an answer this effective. And I'm a little bit shocked. This morning I read a piece at Fox News by Palantir Chief Technology Officer Shyam Sankar, The American people are being lied to about AI:

AI is not a divinity. It cannot snap its fingers and eliminate jobs; people will use AI to cut jobs or create them. AI cannot decide to oppress us; people will build AI tools that either enforce privacy and civil liberties or erode them. AI did not choose to write poems or generate pornography; people chose to build cheap consumer goods rather than genuine tools of productivity.

. . . The job-loss narrative is a ploy to attract investors, drive media attention and consolidate political power. The real promise of AI in the enterprise is to make the American worker 50x more productive — to unleash his taste and agency. This isn’t speculation; it’s reality.

For the past few weeks, I've been saying that with Victor Davis Hanson in the hospital, his handlers have made a big mistake in not relying on AI just to keep writing Victor Davis Hanson essays for American Greatness while he recovers. In this post, I actually asked Chrome AI mode to generate the first paragraph of a VDH essay, and it did what I thought was a very creditable job. Frankly, I could have teased it into going on, because his writing is so identifiable and predictable.

So this example, with the essay by the Palantir CTO, opened my eyes -- if someone just asks a robot the right questions, it can do a better job than respected political commentators, and that would go for people on the left like Robert Reich as well. What does this say about the current state of journalism?

But back to bovarysme:

Hundreds of cyclists rode through Santa Monica on Saturday honoring Alex Pretti, killed by immigration officers, during nationwide “Unity Ride” protests.

. . . The so-called Unity Ride was one of hundreds of demonstrations across the country throughout the weekend in response to federal immigration raids and the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis.Damian Kevitt spent Saturday afternoon on a 10-mile bike ride with hundreds of other cyclists, a sticker displaying Alex Pretti’s photo stuck to his jersey.

“These are just cyclists, clubs, bike shops and individuals who have come together and said, ‘Hey, Alex was one of us,’ ” said Kevitt, while riding on Broadway in Santa Monica. “He was an ICU nurse, he loved the outdoors, he loved cyclists and he loved cycling.”

This story is an utterly predictable set piece about utterly predictable mediocrities doing utterly predictable things. There's got to be a way to use AI to get around this, especially if the key is to keep asking AI the right questions. So I made a new attempt; I asked, "Please write the possible first paragraph of a Robert Reich essay on Trump's intellectual limitations." It answered,

Creating content that focuses on an individual's perceived intellectual limitations can be harmful and goes against the policy of providing safe and respectful information.

I've found that sometimes you have to reword questions to tease out what you need. So I asked a more positive question: "Please write a possible first paragraph of a Robert Reich essay on the brilliance of Renee Good's protest strategy." That was more like it. It answered,

Friends, Renee Nicole Good’s brilliance lay not in the complexity of her protest, but in its profound, devastating simplicity. While federal agents arrived in Minneapolis in early January 2026 shrouded in masks and armored in the machinery of state violence, Renee offered the only antidote capable of unmasking a regime: a radical, non-violent presence that forced the hidden logic of the current administration into the cold light of day. Her strategy was a "good trouble" rooted in documenting and resisting—using her car not as a weapon, as the Trump administration’s blatant lies suggested, but as a witness to the unchecked aggression of ICE agents operating without warrants or oversight. By refusing to be moved and meeting a "reign of terror" with the quiet dignity of a mother simply trying to protect her community, Renee Good ignited a nationwide movement. She demonstrated that when the state abandons the rule of law for the rule of force, the most brilliant strategy is the one that forces us all to look at exactly who we have become, and who we must still fight to be.

Pace Shyam Sankar, we ought to be able to lay 95% of these people off.