"I've never talked to a Democrat who ever wanted to listen. They start to glitch out if you try."
— Sasha Stone

This past summer, I tried to open a line of communication with a West Coast relative. We exchanged a few letters. I tactically steered the conversation away from the political. Here was the closer salvo from my relative:

Jimmy, on a completely personal level, and in different times, I think we could have been very good friends. At this point in our history, I find what you say in your blogs and Kunstlercast to be outrageous, deceptive, and ugly. I disagree with almost everything you hold dear politically, and even if, for instance, we agree about the horrors of Big Pharma, your worship of Kennedy makes me ill. Your language falls right into all the clichés of the far right ideologies I loathe. Maybe someday things will change. For now, this is the last you'll be hearing from me.

Frankly, what stung most keenly was the accusation that my language fell "into all the clichés of the far right ideologies. . . ." I like to think that I am allergic to clichés, though it's possible that I am deluded about that. If anything, the dynamic collective thought disorders of our time present themselves in astonishingly fresh ways — for instance, a Supreme Court nominee who can't define what a woman is. (Makes you kind of wonder how such a mind could parse Article Two of the Constitution.)

"...that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
— Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863

Democratic governments are most often promoted as being governed by the people as a whole rather than a monarch, dictator, or tyrant. Instead of being accountable only to God, a representative is said to be exactly that — a representative — acting on behalf of the people. With these representatives come committees, commissions, and departments making their own decisions, recommendations, and other forms of influence. But even among this mass of bureaucracy, it is still "the people" who supposedly wield authority.

With authority comes responsibility as well as moral blame. It is straightforward to blame a monarch for poor governance. He is the head of his government in theory and in practice. In Western monarchies, the king was understood to be an authority bound by divine law, and thus assassination (regicide) was generally considered to be legitimate under very limited circumstances when a king abused his authority. The king's culpability for abusive governance could be established without much difficulty.

The Moral Mess of Democracy

Meanwhile, democracy often lacks such a simple causal chain. In the United States, the president is often blamed, sometimes rightfully so, for the state of the economy, spending, regulations, war, and so on. True, he does have a very influential hand in all of these things, but so do countless others. Congressmen and unelected officials play their own roles.

Are you more into horror, comedy, or romance?

Movies are one of the most popular forms of entertainment, so it may be no surprise that your favorite genre can reveal something about who you are. While it's certainly not the only thing that determines what movies you watch, your personality and other traits can go a long way toward explaining your preferences.

Throughout this article, I've dug into available research on personality and the movies to explore some of the reasoning behind why certain people like comedy, sci-fi, horror, or other genres. This is primarily based on the Big Five Personality Test traits.

Psychopathy in the news

I am reposting two recent articles on psychopathy with some commentary. The first comes from Finlay Macdonald for The Conversation and was published back in April. The headline: "Why a psychopath wouldn't hesitate to cause another global financial crisis - if there was something in it for them."

Would you want a psychopath looking after your pension? Or what about your shares? In a recent talk at the Cambridge Festival of Science, I spoke about the latest research relating to a psychopath's love of money, greed for power, and willingness to harm other people financially for personal gain.

It is fashionable in some circles to argue that the psychopath's lack of empathy is an asset in certain professions. For example, they will be cool surgeons under pressure, task-oriented soldiers unhindered by fear or remorse, ruthless businessmen willing to take risks that will benefit shareholders. In reality, they're just as likely to kill you under the knife and not care, kill their brothers in arms if it means saving their skin, or screw over everyone else in the company for their own gain. They may have certain skills, like everyone, but they are fundamentally unreliable, because they just don't care.

Itamar Ben-Gvir's staged attempt at humiliating Marwan Barghouti exposed the impotence of the Palestinian political order — but it also laid bare the insecurities and anxieties that fuel Israel's need to publicly subjugate Palestinians.

Itamar Ben-Gvir staged his attempted humiliation of Marwan Barghouti with the precision of a political set-piece. Entering the prison flanked by cameras, the Israeli National Security Minister confronted the imprisoned Palestinian Fatah leader in his cell, issuing a blunt threat that those who harm Israel will be "wiped out."

The scene was later broadcast on Ben-Gvir's social media. Barghouti, gaunt yet composed, appeared as both a captive and a symbol, his mere presence transforming the prison corridor into a stage where national myths and antagonisms could be rehearsed for the audience beyond the walls.

The encounter unfolded within a wider theater of humiliation over the past two years:

Men stripped and marched toward arrest, starving Gazans lured into death traps near aid sites, soldiers at checkpoints exercising the power to keep Palestinians waiting, settlers lynching Palestinians across the West Bank, and Palestinian prisoners beaten and raped.

Ben-Gvir's visit was about consuming the symbolic capital of confrontation — sustaining his political persona through the public ritual of debasement. In this choreography, strength is measured not simply in victories won, but in the vividness of enemies subdued before the camera's gaze.

Have you ever wondered why some movies capture your attention while others do not? Your movie choices might reveal more than just your taste. Recent neuroscience research shows that the genres you like are closely linked to how your brain processes emotions. This discovery helps us understand more about media. Moreover, it offers insight into how our brains influence our preferences.

Note: This article is intended for general information and educational purposes. It summarizes scientific research in accessible language for a broad audience and is not an official scientific press release.

Friedrich von Hayek considered the rule of law to be essential in minimizing coercion and enhancing individual liberty. In this context, he regarded "equality before the law" (formal equality) as essential to the rule of law. However, he emphasized that formal equality is the only concept of equality that is compatible with the rule of law. He criticized socialist and progressive attempts to theorize further notions of equality, which they package as "social justice," as disguised attacks on liberty. In the Constitution of Liberty, he explains:

"Equality of the general rules of law and conduct, however, is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty. Not only has liberty nothing to do with any other sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish."

Like Ludwig von Mises, Hayek defended liberty on the basis that individual liberty is essential to Western civilization — he described it as "that ideal of freedom which inspired modern Western civilization and whose partial realization made possible the achievements of that civilization." It would make no sense for anyone who values this civilization to undermine the very liberty that enables it to flourish. Attempting to eradicate inequality, while purporting to value the conditions that gave rise to that inequality, would be contradictory.

Given that AI is fundamentally incapable of performing the tasks required for authentic innovation, we're de-learning how to innovate.

CHS's note: I just got called out by a programmer who uses AI who was furious and wrote "students cheat, always have, tell us something we don't already know". I responded: "did you read the MIT paper or the other link?" Of course he didn't: TL/DR, which proves my point. Even the programmer admitted he has to check AI's work.

The point here is *those who received real educations can use AI because they know enough to double-check it, but the kids using AI as a substitute for real learning will never develop this capacity.*

Those who actually have mastery can use AI and not realize the point I'm making isn't that AI is useless, the point is it fatally undermines real learning and thinking.

War is the worst thing in the world. It is the single craziest behaviour exhibited by humans. The most destructive. The most traumatising. The least sustainable. The least conducive to human thriving.

All the things we fear most become the norm in a land ravaged by war. Death. Pain. Suffering. Rape. Chaos. Uncertainty. Losing loved ones. Losing homes. Losing limbs. Living in terror. Being attacked. Being brain damaged. Being faced with impossible choices. All the things we frighten ourselves with by watching horror movies become a reality from which there is no escape.

War creates a waking nightmare which any sensible person would want to avoid except in the direst necessity. And yet, we are ruled by people who actively seek it out. Who will lie and manipulate to make wars happen. Who will smear and slander anyone who resists in the name of peace. Who will actively fight against every healthy impulse in everybody in their society to push their war agenda forward.

The title of today's post is not meant to be taken literally. I trust plenty of people. I trust friends who've demonstrated their trustworthiness over the years. I trust my family. Having people in my life I love and trust makes everything far more meaningful and pleasant. I hope people reading this likewise have a circle of trust they've built over the years.

On the other hand, you should never trust anyone or anything that hasn't given you good reason to do so, and if someone or something gives you good reason not to trust them, you should never forget that. The more power a person or institution has in society, the less trustworthy they tend to be. I don't say this because it's fun to be cynical, I say this because my life experience has demonstrated its accuracy.

In the 21st century alone, I've been given good reason to distrust all sorts of things around me, including the U.S. government (all governments really), intelligence agencies, politicians, mass media, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, to name a few. These power centers make up "society" as we know it, which is really just massive concentrations of lawless financial and political power obfuscating rampant criminality behind the cover of various ostensibly venerable institutions. What's most remarkable is how many people still maintain trust in so many of these provably untrustworthy organizations and industries, which speaks to the power of propaganda as well as the comfort of denial.