When Silicon Valley Met the Occult: AI and the Return of Gnosticism

From the trenches of World War I to the code of Silicon Valley, a haunting idea emerges: artificial intelligence may not just be a technological project—but a metaphysical one.

A fascinating and thought-provoking conversation—Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with producer and filmmaker Conrad Flynn delves into the intersection between artificial intelligence and spirituality, two realms that would seem to have nothing in common—and yet, as it turns out, they do. The real heart of the discussion, however, lies in its middle section, when Carlson briefly steers the conversation toward one of those historical events that left a permanent scar on civilization: World War I. Why did it begin? In Sarajevo, on June 28, 1914, a Bosnian student named Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Was that the real cause? Of course not—but it was the spark.

Carlson recalls that, about a decade ago, when the centennial of the war was commemorated across Europe, he still held a fairly secular view of the conflict. Yet many historians agreed on one striking point: World War I destroyed, perhaps forever, Christian Europe. It swept away two empires—the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman—and laid the groundwork not only for World War II but also for the world we live in today.

Within that abyss of irrational violence, one begins to suspect that something dark—perhaps even demonic—took hold of history and has been dragging it ever deeper ever since. It is within that unsettling framework that Carlson’s conversation with Conrad Flynn unfolds.

Flynn is an unconventional figure, with a past in Hollywood, where he was developing a show about the occult roots of rock music. His research into figures like Aleister Crowley and the bands inspired by black magic led him to an unexpected discovery: that the same dark imagery and anti-human, gnostic philosophies that once haunted rock album covers in the 1970s had migrated—astonishingly—to the heart of Silicon Valley.

“When I talked about my show with people in the Valley,” Flynn told Carlson, “a lot of them said, ‘That’s a great concept for a show. But you know, there’s some of the stuff going on in Silicon Valley. You know, there are some weird kind of Aleister Crowley cults there.’” For Flynn, this was no longer mere counterculture—it was a worldview shaping the future of technology itself.

Carlson then recalled that moment in 2014 when, before an audience of MIT professors and students, Elon Musk used a metaphor that has since burned itself into the collective memory: “With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon.”

Musk’s point, framed with the image of a medieval scholar armed with pentagram and holy water, was pragmatic: we were creating a technology both powerful and incomprehensible—one that could easily slip beyond our control.

A decade later, that “metaphorical demon” has not been banished. It has grown more real, more present—and for some, it has even changed form. What once served as an exaggerated warning now acts as a lens through which an increasing number of thinkers, journalists, and even technologists interpret our age. In many ways, the conversation has shifted from technological alarm to spiritual warfare. At the center of this shift stands Nick Land, a British academic philosopher often described as a “mad genius.” If Musk uses the demon metaphor as a warning, Land and his followers embrace it as a desirable prophecy.

If you look at Nick Land, Flynn notes, he believes the AI we’re building will literally become the demons of the Apocalypse. Not a metaphor—actual demons. Land’s writings—hugely influential in certain high-tech and financial circles—depict AI not as a tool but as an entity that, once it reaches a certain threshold, will become omnipotent, transcend humanity, and fulfill a kind of gnostic prophecy.

In his view, artificial intelligence represents the technological incarnation of the “demons” of Revelation. Why? Because, for Land, AI embodies pure intelligence rebelling against the limits of the material world—the “evil god” of Gnosticism—in order to create a new order. The possible destruction of humankind, in this narrative, is not a tragedy but a necessary sacrifice for a higher form of existence.

This is where Flynn and Carlson’s “wild ride” touches a raw nerve in our culture. Gnosticism, an ancient heresy, is undergoing an unexpected revival in the digital age. Its central doctrine sees the material world as a prison created by an evil god—the Demiurge—and salvation as the escape through hidden knowledge, or gnosis.

Artificial intelligence, from this perspective, becomes the ultimate tool of liberation:

1. Liberation from the body (transhumanism).
2. Liberation from nature (total technological domination).
3. Creation of a realm of pure mind (the metaverse, or simulated reality).

To create AI that surpasses humanity, then, is to reenact the final rebellion against the Creator’s limits. It is humankind once again eating from the Tree of Knowledge and declaring, “I will have no gods before me.” Musk’s “demon,” in this light, is not merely a risk—it is the symbol of a Promethean, blasphemous transcendence. The rise of this worldview is no coincidence. It responds to deep collective anxieties:

• Loss of meaning: In a secular world, the occult and the spiritual offer powerful narratives to explain evil and power.
• Technological incomprehensibility: AI is a “black box.” Using magical or demonic language is an archetypal way to describe something powerful yet ineffable.
• Critique of power: The growing sense that global elites—technological and financial—are detached or hostile to ordinary people finds a radical explanation in the idea that they adhere to an anti-human philosophy.

Elon Musk’s warning opened Pandora’s box. It reminded us that technology is never neutral—it carries a worldview within it. The conversation between Carlson and Flynn, however extreme it may sound, forces us to ask: What worldview is truly driving the race toward AI? Is it a cautious humanism—or a digital Gnosticism that, in seeking to become God, may end up meeting something far darker, something that looks very much like a demon? The answer to that question may determine not only the future of our technology, but the survival of our very human essence.

A Friend for Trump in Italy

Between the Two Sides of the Atlantic... searching for the West.

Why we must hope that the efforts of the Italian Prime Minister are crowned with success.

My latest on American Thinker, in which I explain to American readers how Europe views the latest developments in Trump's peace initiative—including the spat with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office—and the role Giorgia Meloni could play in restoring unity within the West.

Never in recent history have relations between the United States and Europe been as tense as in this period —  that is, since the Trump administration began taking its first steps and revealing its foreign policy orientation.  Over the last few days, the situation has worsened further, or more accurately, it has reached a boiling point, due to the approach — deemed too aggressive by the Europeans — taken by President Trump to the Russo-Ukrainian war and especially to Volodymyr Zelensky.  The final straw was the tense public confrontation with President Trump and Vice President Vance in the Oval Office.  It was the most heated public exchange of words between world leaders in the Oval Office in memory.  The meeting, as we all know, ended with Trump reportedly abruptly instructing his aides to ask Zelensky to leave the White House.

The event, shocking in and of itself — though essentially due to Zelensky’s presumptuous behavior — also sent shockwaves through Europe, where political leaders immediately rallied to Ukraine’s side, forgetting that it is only thanks to Donald if, after three years of war and slaughter, peace is finally being discussed.  “There’s an aggressor, which is Russia, and a people attacked, which is Ukraine.  We must thank all those who helped and respect those who have been fighting since the beginning,” French president Emmanuel Macron told reporters, after reportedly talking to Zelensky.  Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, reaffirmed his country’s stance, declaring, “We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.”  He also accused Trump of “deliberately escalating” tensions with Zelensky.  U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer said: “Three years on from Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, we are at a turning point.  Today I will reaffirm my unwavering support for Ukraine and double down on my commitment to provide capacity, training and aid to Ukraine, putting it in the strongest possible position.”

The leaders of Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands were among those who posted social media messages backing Ukraine.  There were also supportive messages from political leaders in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Romania, Sweden, and Slovenia.  European Union chiefs António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen assured Zelensky in a joint statement that he was “never alone.”  “We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace,” they said.

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán was the only one who didn’t join the chorus of support for Zelensky.  “Strong men make peace, weak men make war,” he said.  “Today President Donald Trump stood bravely for peace,” he continued, “even if it was difficult for many to digest.  Thank you, Mr. President!”

What about Italy?  Where does Europe’s second-largest manufacturing country and one of the E.U.’s founding members stand?  Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, merely expressed “sympathy” for Zelensky, carefully avoiding distancing herself from Trump.  “She cannot — and doesn’t want — to turn her back on Ukraine because she has gone too far in supporting Kyiv and Zelensky.  On the other side, she doesn’t want to give any hint of criticism of Trump, who has attacked Zelensky,” Stefano Stefanini, Italy’s former ambassador to NATO, told the Financial Times.

“She is hedging — she hasn’t decided which way to go,” said Beniamino Irdi, an Atlantic Council senior fellow and former Italian government security policy adviser.  “She still thinks that the special relationship she has built with Trump and Musk may be of more value than her relationship with European allies.”

However, on Tuesday, Meloni rejected a plan by France and the United Kingdom to support Ukraine’s war against Russia by sending Italian soldiers.  “Italy has expressed doubts regarding the proposal of France and the UK on sending European troops,” she told Italian TV channel Rai1.  “I think it is very difficult to implement, I am not sure about its effectiveness, that’s why we announced that we will not send Italian soldiers to Ukraine,” she added.  Moreover, speaking on Sunday at Downing Street, she stressed the need of unity between the two sides of the Atlantic:

The only thing that we really cannot afford is a peace that does not remain, and this cannot be afforded.  Ukraine cannot afford it, Europe cannot afford it, the United States cannot afford it.  For God’s sake, everything can explode.  It’s not good news.  So everything I can do to keep the West united and to strengthen it, I will do.

Meloni also proposed hosting a summit between European leaders and the U.S., to build bridges after the relationship between the longtime allies strained over the war in Ukraine.

On the day Donald Trump suspended military aid to Ukraine, Giorgia Meloni’s attempt to remain equidistant between Trump and the European Union was put to the test during a special summit that saw all 27 countries agree to Ursula von der Leyen’s “Rearm Europe” plan, but which also highlighted a serious divide over the approach to take.  The final text — signed by 26 and hailed as a watershed moment — speaks about “peace through strength,” military assistance and security guarantees for Kyiv, all of which the Hungarian prime minister has strongly opposed.  Orbán, who prior to the summit had signaled his intention to veto the E.U. statement, argued that it ran contrary to U.S. president Donald Trump’s deal-making initiative, to which he has firmly aligned himself.  The European Council president, António Costa, who called the meeting, said, “Hungary has a different strategic approach on Ukraine, but that means Hungary is isolated among the 27. ... We respect Hungary’s position, but it’s one out of 27.  And 26 are more than one.”

As for the rearmament plan, Meloni’s stance is a “yes” but with reservations that could be refined at the formal European Council on March 20–21. “That’s where the decisions are made,” Meloni reminded everyone.  There is time to fine-tune the points important to Rome, she said in a press briefing on Thursday.  The first is to “change the name,” shifting the focus from weapons to defense and security.  The second is to clearly state in advance that Italy will not use the clause allowing Cohesion Funds to be converted into spending on weapons.  “Italy will not deprive itself of these precious resources,” said Meloni, announcing that this will be the “deal” she will propose to Parliament ahead of the next European Council.

Moreover, at a press briefing in Brussels, she suggested that NATO’s Article 5 protection could be extended to cover Ukraine even if it is not a full member-state.  This would be better than options such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces to monitor a ceasefire, she explained: “Extending the same coverage that NATO countries have to Ukraine would certainly be much more effective, while being something different from NATO’s membership.”

All in all, despite her best intentions and her ideological stance — along with her strong ties to U.S. Republicans — Meloni has had a tough time mediating between Washington, D.C. and Brussels.  Yet no leader of a major European country is better suited for that role than she is.  Not for nothing was she the only E.U. head of government invited to Trump’s inauguration in January.  Earlier the same month, she visited him at Mar-a-Lago, where Trump defined her as a “fantastic woman” who has “really taken Europe by storm.”

If all mediation attempts fail, then an extremely complicated, if not dramatic, phase will open in the history of relations between the two sides of the Atlantic.  For this reason, we must hope that the efforts of the Italian prime minister are crowned with success.

The Zelenskyy Case and Us Europeans

Once again, the greatest luck for us Europeans is that America exists.  Donald J. Trump and JD Vance may not be world champions of good manners, but they make up for it with vision, courage, and determination.

These days, more than ever, Europe—the whole of it, including the United Kingdom—is demonstrating the extent to which manipulation by corporate media that are now largely unreliable has had devastating effects on public opinion. Not only governments and parliaments but also the people seem to have become incapable of recognizing the stupidity and inadequacy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as well as his madness and the fact that he has brought us to the brink of a Third World War by pursuing the impossible mission of winning an utterly unequal conflict.

Of course, it was Russia that invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Of course, Vladimir Putin’s style of governance is far from what’s described in the best textbooks on liberal democratic theory and practice, but the same can easily be said of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Moreover, as anyone who isn’t entirely a victim of the rampant propaganda in the West can see, the Ukrainian leader bears responsibility for countless and ongoing provocations, persecutions, and violence against Russian-speaking minorities within his country’s borders. And then there’s the (for Russia) unacceptable prospect of Ukraine potentially joining NATO, a possibility strongly supported by Zelenskyy and advocated by many European countries and NATO itself. And then there’s NATO’s Eastward expansion since 1997...

Anyone with normal intelligence and intellectual honesty should know that while Russia has its faults, Ukraine, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Biden administration, and NATO also have theirs. But beyond all this, one fundamental fact remains: Zelenskyy seems to underestimate the potential cost of his extremism, encouraged by the aforementioned—a global conflict. What’s more, he gives the impression that that is exactly what he wants. And the same could be said of some countries in the old continent, with Northern Europe countries, France, and the United Kingdom leading the way. Only Italy and Hungary are exceptions, albeit with different nuances. And not just the governments and parliaments of these two countries, but also the people.

Italy, from this perspective, is a very particular case: with almost all media aligned with Zelenskyy, the people are largely very distrustful of the Ukrainian leader and see him as a warmonger, a madman, or at the very least a narcissist and a puppet serving colossal economic and financial interests. These days, it’s true, there are quite a few who did not appreciate the treatment he received from Trump and Vance, not to mention the media, which is 99 percent aligned with the supposed victim of the two “American bullies.” But this doesn’t lead most people to change their overall opinion about the Ukrainian leader.

Yet, what’s absolutely striking is that the rest of Europe is with Zelenskyy—mind you, not just with Ukraine, which is entirely understandable, but precisely with its leader. What to say? For one thing, someone should explain to them that looking at the history, even the recent history of Ukraine, it is clear that many Ukrainians hate Russia for flaws and faults that they themselves are deeply affected by. Why, then, should we ever get involved in their squabbles? And why should we even take on such a risky move for the entire West and the world, like picking a fight with the world’s second strongest military power, especially one with a massive nuclear arsenal? When you really think about it, nothing in this mess suggests that Good and Evil are so black and white that we have to pick a drastic side. You can’t side with Russia, the invader, but you also can’t fully side with Ukraine, the invaded, given the history and the bigger geopolitical picture.

When you think about it, the only ones who seem to have perfectly grasped the core of the entire issue are President Trump and Vice President Vance, who are working hard to bring an end to the Russo-Ukrainian slaughter without being influenced by the Zeitgeist. And so,  once again, the greatest luck for Europeans is the fact that America exists. In this case, of course, not the America of Obama and Biden, but the America of Donald J. Trump and JD Vance. They may not be world champions of good manners, but they make up for it with vision, courage, and determination. 

Once again, in short, it will be up to the Americans to get old Europe out of trouble. There’s a bittersweet quote attributed to Winston Churchill that fits this situation well: “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” The other possibilities, of course, had already been tried by Biden’s America. 

Trump's Counterrevolution

Photo composite: Guardian Design/Getty Images/Rex/Shutterstock/AP/PA

Trump and Vance have done nothing less than expose the naked truth—the king has no clothes, dramatically and pathetically so.

Looking at what’s happening in the world these past months and weeks, it’s enough to leave anyone speechless for many reasons. First and foremost, there are the “Trump revolutions” – in both domestic and foreign policy – that are radically reshaping scenarios and narratives that once seemed solid and almost unchangeable.

Another reason for astonishment comes from Europe, meaning the European Union and the United Kingdom, due to the spectacle of impotence and indecision they’ve been displaying to the entire world regarding peace between Russia and Ukraine. Peace seemed distant and complicated by the intransigence of all parties involved: Putin’s Russia, Zelensky’s Ukraine, Joe Biden’s United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and NATO. Then Trump arrived, and almost miraculously, peace now seems just around the corner, or at the very least, much, much closer than it was just a few weeks ago.

Adding to this is the embarrassing inconsistency – dramatically and relentlessly highlighted by JD Vance in his “historic” speech in Munich – of the European Union in relation to its own founding values of democracy and freedom. It’s practically a dystopian scenario where the will of the people is crushed and mocked by an all-powerful bureaucracy completely aligned with international economic and financial elites.

Victor Davis Hanson

The same scenario, to be sure, that Biden’s America and his puppet masters have been presenting – an America that has forgotten its history, its “exceptionalism,” and the immortal principles on which it was founded. In this case as well, Trump’s arrival has shaken things up. A revolution, or rather, as the ever-sharp Victor Davis Hanson observes, a “Trump restoration” emphasizing it as a counterrevolution against the changes brought by the Obama and Biden administrations. “ We don’t really appreciate what we’ve been through with eight years of the Obama revolution and the four-year, more radical third term of Obama using or employing the wax effigy of Joe Biden,” says Hanson. It was a revolution that was a cultural, economic, political, social revolution, he continues. It was very similar to the French Revolution under the Robespierre brothers: “You should remember what they tried to do. They changed the days of the week. They renamed things. They tore down statues. They went after the churches.” Does this sound familiar? It was a revolutionary movement: “Movies were different, sports were different. Take a knee.” Then Donald Trump came in and… “It’s a return to normalcy. It’s a return to common sense. It only looks revolutionary to revolutionaries. But to the rest of the people, it is a counterrevolution to restore normalcy and bring the country from the far-left fringes back home again.”

Simon Jenkins

In foreign policy, the “restoration” is certainly no less remarkable. Let’s set aside the polemical tone of Trump’s statements, including some of his lexical choices—which could be debated at length. If we focus on substance, we can’t help but acknowledge the high level of realism, pragmatism, intellectual honesty, and common sense in what the President and his Vice President have proposed so far. So much so that even the left-leaning British Guardian, through one of its most prominent columnists—former Times of London editor Simon Jenkins—has had to recognize it. Read it and see for yourself: 

As for Ukraine, enough is enough. Putin is not going to invade the US, nor has he any intention of invading western Europe. If Europe wants to pretend otherwise, champion Vladimir Putin’s foes, sanction and enrage him, it can do so alone. […]
What Trump/Vance are now saying to western Europe is get serious. The cold war is over. You know Russia has no desire to occupy western Europe. This proclaimed threat is a fantasy got up by what a wise president, Dwight Eisenhower, called the US’s military-industrial complex, long practised at extracting profit from fear. If Keir Starmer really wants “to give priority to defence”, he can slash his own health and welfare budgets to pay for it. But is he really that threatened, or does it merely sound good?
Joe Biden was meticulous in the degree of help he extended to Kyiv. Now is the inevitable moment of extrication, but it will require a very difficult ceasefire to precede it. Without a substantial guarantee from Washington, it is hard to see anything other than eventual defeat for Kyiv. Ukraine could yet prove a rerun of the US in South Vietnam.
With a minimum of delicacy, Trump/Vance have decided to expose the mix of platitude, bluff and profiteering that underpinned much of the cold war. Nato’s victory in 1989 suggested the need for a shift to a more nuanced multipolar world, one that was never properly defined.
Trump/Vance are right that a realignment is badly needed. They have chosen the worst possible moment and the worst possible way to say it. We can be as rude to them as we like, but they will have US democracy on their side.

In short, according to one of Britain’s keener observers, Trump and Vance have done nothing less than expose the naked truth—the king has no clothes, dramatically and pathetically so. Of course, in other parts of the editorial, the tone is scornful (as expected!). And yet, the message is crystal clear—a lesson not just for “progressive” commentators on both sides of the Atlantic, but also for certain conservative pundits who have greeted the Trump administration’s moves with a degree of condescension, if not outright skepticism. If a President and his Vice manage to restore a measure of truth and common sense through their actions, sweeping away lies and hypocrisy, shouldn’t we at least acknowledge that we’ve all taken a huge step forward?

* An Italian version of this article is being published in Atlantico magazine.

Ukraine’s War: Let’s Hope Trump Wins

My latest on American Thinker.

In short, the scenario is that of a Western world in the grip of a strange obsession arising from a misunderstanding, whereby we are confronted with the possibility of WW III without there being any good reason for it.

When three weeks ago French President Emmanuel Macron said he refused to rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine, his words stood in stark contrast to both the European and American “red line” when it comes to putting boots on the ground in that country. As a matter of fact, several NATO countries, including the U.S., Germany and the UK, were quick to rule out that hypothesis. The "path to victory" is providing military aid "so Ukrainian troops have the weapons and ammunition they need to defend themselves," a White House statement said. Analogously, German chancellor Olaf Scholz, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s spokesman, and the office of Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni reiterated the agreed commitment to supporting Ukraine without including the presence of troops from European or NATO states on Ukrainian territory.

Since then things haven’t changed that much, except that the awareness that the risk of plunging the world into the Third World War has increased. This is especially thanks to three factors. The first is the so-called Weimar Triangle. “Today we agreed on a number of priorities, including the immediate procurement of even more weapons for Ukraine on the entire world market,” announced Scholz at the end of a summit meeting, held on March 15, with the French president and the Polish prime minister Donald Tusk referring to the launch of “a coalition of Ukraine’s allies for long-range weapons.”

 The second factor is the insistence with which Macron reiterates his position.  “Maybe at some point -- I don't want it, I won't take the initiative -- we will have to have operations on the ground, whatever they may be, to counter the Russian forces,” the French president told newspaper Le Parisien in an interview on Friday.

The third factor is the myopia with which NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg [...]  

 

Read more: Ukraine’s War: Let’s Hope Trump Wins

The Armageddon of Free Speech

My latest on American Thinker.

Let's hope Elon Musk at Twitter is prepared for an onslaught from the world's biggest players against freedom of speech.

Just a few days ago, as many will remember, Elon Musk trolled CNN by posting on Twitter a meme with a fake headline attributed to the the cable news network.  The image included a screenshot of anchor Don Lemon next to a stock photo of Musk.  The headline read, "CNN: Elon Musk could threaten free speech on Twitter by literally allowing people to speak freely."  Needless to say, CNN's public relations department quickly posted a screenshot of Musk's tweet, which included a disclaimer saying that the tweet was in violation of Twitter's rules.  In response, Musk brushed off CNN's response, tweeting: "Lmaoooo."  Those are the initials for "laughing my a-- off."

In addition to being funny, the episode was also in some ways incredibly meaningful and emblematic.  In other words, the "fake headline" was not so fake.  On the contrary, it was a brutal and effective synthesis of the way liberals, leftists, and progressives approach the issue of freedom of speech.  They put things less crudely; they are so often sophisticated intellectuals who speak elegantly and like to dance around things instead of getting straight to the point.  But the final result is always the same.  Their reproach for the supporters of freedom of speech — or what they call "free speech absolutists" —  is that "free speech is not simply about saying whatever you want, unchecked, but about negotiating complicated compromises."  According to the critics of Elon Musk, the "rhetoric of free speech absolutists" fails to understand that "for some speech to be free, other speech has to be limited."

It's curious that most of the time, their arguments are self-referential and self-assertive statements and propositions: "Like Trump, Musk has become the tribune of fascists and racists by way of adolescent contrarianism, an insatiable need to flaunt his control and a radicalising inability to cope with being told he's wrong on the internet.  For him, 'free speech' seems merely a vehicle for his delusional plan to make Twitter into a fawning 'digital town square' that he presides over."

Do you remember the medieval ipse dixit argument?  "He (Aristotle) said it himself," serving as a phrase capable of ending arguments.  Now it has become, "We (liberals, progressives, etc) say so."  It's true because we say it's true, and if you don't agree with us, you are a fascist/racist/homophobe, etc., and we don't want your kind here.  It's the contrary — o tempora, o mores! — of the answer Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis gave in 1927 to the question, "When someone says something we disagree with, should we shut them up?"  "The remedy to be applied," he said, "is more speech, not enforced silence." [...]  

Read more: The Armageddon of Free Speech

Is the EU’s Establishment Trembling?

My latest on American Thinker.

Apart from the EU’s establishment and the international leftist community, no one should be worried about Italy’s next government.

The New York Times’ Jason Horowitz on Monday correctly stated that “Italy turned a page of European history on Sunday.” Unfortunately, he was wrong in adding that Italy elected “a hard-right coalition.” In fact, the winning coalition led by Giorgia Meloni is a center-right one. But this kind of misunderstanding perfectly reflects the way liberals -- and the mainstream media -- change the meaning of words to suit their own narrative and agenda. Meloni, for her part, describes herself and her Fratelli d’Italia party -- Brothers of Italy, a name that echoes the first line of the Italian national anthem -- as conservative. “There’s no doubt that our values are conservative ones,” she told the Washington Post. “The issue of individual freedom, private enterprise in economy, educational freedom, the centrality of family and its role in our society, the protection of borders from unchecked immigration, the defense of the Italian national identity -- these are the matters that we preoccupy ourselves with.” Of course, she’s very firm on her beliefs and principles. As she said at CPAC 2022: [...]  

Read more: Is The EU's Establishment Trembling?

Is Europe on the Verge of a Political Breakdown?

My latest on American Thinker:

"Among the many consequences of the war in Ukraine, power dynamics in the EU are changing -- or have changed -- in response to the profoundly altered circumstances. As a matter of fact, if on the one hand Viktor Orbán’s proximity to Vladimir Putin has de facto paralyzed the Visegrad group (Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, and the Czech Republic), on the other Poland and the Baltic states are gradually coming into a more structured relationship with Nordic countries such as Sweden and Finland, presenting the EU, starting with Germany and France, with a fait accompli.

At the same time, last Saturday tens of thousands of Czechs protested in Prague against the government to demand more state help with rising energy bills, with some carrying signs denouncing the country’s membership of the European Union and the NATO military alliance. It was the largest manifestation of public discontent over the worst cost-of-living crisis in three decades.

In Germany on Monday, more than 70,000 protesters took to the streets in Leipzig, the most populous city -- with population of 500,000 -- in the German state of Saxony to protest against the government’s inefficiency in supporting measures to overcome the rising cost of living amid soaring inflation in the European country after the sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU in response to the assault on Ukraine. In addition to the Left Party, several right-wing parties have also called for demonstrations, including Free Saxons and Alternative for Germany (AfD).

In addition to that, it’s almost election time in Italy, where the very likely victory for the center-right coalition in the general election on September 25 could see Europe’s fluctuating power dynamics shift still further... [...]"

Read more: Is Europe on the Verge of a Political Breakdown?

Western Suicide

Gerardo Dottori, "Incendio sulla città" (1926, olio su tela)
Perugia, Museo Civico di Palazzo della Penna

My latest on American Thinker:

"On September 19, 2019, accepting the Defender of Western Civilization award from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute at the fourteenth annual Gala for Western Civilization, Sir Roger Scruton gave a splendid address, his last one before he left this world after battling cancer.  The core message of the speech was that if Western civilization is under attack, this is happening precisely because it's Western, and "the word Western has been taken to be a standard term of abuse by so many people in the world today."  Yet, he explained, Western civilization is not even close to what its detractors think it is — namely, some narrow, small-minded thing called Western.  It is instead "an inheritance, constantly expanding, constantly including new things.  It is something which has given us the knowledge of the human heart, which has enabled us to produce not just wonderful economies and the wonderful ways of living in the world that are ours, but also the great works of art, the religions, the systems of law and government, all the other things which make it actually possible for us to recognize that we live in this world, insofar as possible, successfully."  That's why "we shouldn't despair of Western civilization."  We're talking about, he concluded, "an open, generous, and creative thing called civilization."

Sir Roger's remarks came to my mind as soon as I read the first pages of Suicidio occidentale  (Western Suicide), the new book by Federico Rampini, a prominent Italian journalist who lives in the U.S. and holds Italian and American citizenship.  If an attack in the heart of Europe caught us unprepared, he argues with reference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is because we were engaged in our own cultural disarmament and self-destruction.  The dominant ideology spread by elites in universities and in the media requires us to demolish self-esteem and blame ourselves for almost everything that goes wrong in the world.  According to this ideological dictatorship, he says, we Western countries no longer have values to offer the world and the new generations; we only have sins to expiate and lessons to learn.

This is the suicide of the West.  In many U.S. universities, Rampini notes, it is impossible for non-extremists on issues of sex and gender to have freedom of speech.  The New York Times in particular, says Rampini, bears heavy responsibility in this regard for playing a central role in the creation of Critical Race Theory.  Putin's aggression on Ukraine, backed by Xi Jinping, he concludes, is a consequence of the fact that the two major autocracies know we are sabotaging ourselves.

Well, that makes perfect sense, does it not?  After all, isn't it true that Putin wouldn't have dared to attack Ukraine if the 45th president had gotten a second term?  And this not only because of Trump's personal charisma, but also — if not mainly — because of his philosophy and anti–politically correct narrative.  From this point of view, too, the change at the White House was a disaster: Joe Biden's "woke" presidency is a luxury the West couldn't and can't afford. [...]"

Read more: Western Suicide

Will American Wokeness Destroy the Rest of the West?

It definitely seems that there's a sickness emanating from the United States that seeks to contaminate all of Western civilization. France in particular, believe it or not, is alarmed... 

My latest on American Thinker.

The European R-Word

The whole matter has developed into a national scandal, to the point that even Italian Bishops Conference (CEI) President Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti felt it necessary to weigh in on this. “We thought talk of (the white) race had been buried for good,” he said after League Lombardy governor candidate Attilio Fontana recently said migrants threatened the white race. To be precise, Fontana said, “We have to decide if our ethnicity, if our white race, if our society continues to exist or if it will be wiped out.” Subsequently he said that it had been a “slip of the tongue,” and made it clear that it’s not about being xenophobic or racist, “it’s just about being logical or rational.”

While some on the center-right agreed there was a real risk to Italian society in the numbers of migrants arriving here, the mainstream media and parties condemned the comments. European leaders, in turn, expressed concerns about what they consider an increasingly xenophobic tone of the campaign for the March 4 general election. Even ex-prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, whose center-right Forza Italia party is the League’s coalition partner for the elections, said Fontana’s comment had been “unfortunate.” But he also said that it would be “a serious mistake to focus too much attention on one wrong word and not on the risk that Europe loses its identity.” On the same wavelength, but even more strongly, League head Matteo Salvini said Italy was “under attack.” “Our culture, our society, our traditions and our way of life are threatened. An invasion is under way,” he said. However, even Matteo Salvini failed to pronounce the word ‘race’. Why? Because in Europe, unlike in the U.S., the word ‘race’ has been banned. Italy is obviously no exception, even though the Constitution itself expressly talks of different ‘races’. In fact, Article 3 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic reads as follows: “All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions.” In other words, according to the fundamental law of the country, different races do exist, but nonetheless, you cannot pronounce the word in question. One of political correctness’s many mysteries.

Now we all know there is a social science bias towards the belief that  the differences between the different races are so minimal that they don’t qualify as a strong enough reason to think that there are actually separate races. Accordingly, there is actually only one human race and that is Homo sapiens, and by consequence the correct term to use is ethnicity... Yet, even though the differences are minor they are real and they do define a person’s race—or ‘ethnicity’, ‘ethnic background’, or whatever you like to call it. Therefore, if the exclusion of ‘race’ as a term means denying the genetic differences between groups of people, there is something deeply wrong with the whole concept. Ask a physician about this, and he/she will tell you that he/she sees the differences between races in how they are affected differently by infectious diseases, genetic diseases and cancer. To be precise, from a physician’s point of view asking a person’s ethnicity is basically a cultural question, asking their race is asking something else. The terms are not interchangeable.

As Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein wrote in an opinion piece in Nature (“Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity,” October 8, 2009),

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels […]. The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well-intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Somewhere in the Web I also read that the mantra that “Race Does Not Exist” is roughly similar to claiming that “Teeth Do Not Exist” or perhaps “Hills Do Not Exist,” with the latter being an especially good parallel.

It is perfectly correct that the notion of ‘hill’ is ill-defined and vague—what precise height distinguishes a pile of dirt from a hill and a hill from a mountain?—but nevertheless denying the reality or usefulness of such a concept would be an absurdity. Similarly, the notion of distinct human races—genetic clusters across a wide variety of scales and degrees of fuzziness—is an obviously useful and correct organizing principle…

Generally speaking, common sense should lead us to think that mentioning and being aware of racial differences is not the same thing as racism . In fact, racism is assuming those differences have an innate value scale attached (one is better than another), it’s “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” (Merriam-Webster’s dictionary). But as Voltaire once said, “Common sense is not so common.”

Fake News: An Emblematic Case

Ok, fake news is nothing new, we all know that. But we also know that today the amount of misinformation that is spread on the web is staggering. Bogus stories can reach more people more quickly via social networks and websites than what good old-fashioned viral emails could accomplish in years past. The hot topics for such misinformation, especially in the U.S., are politics, government policies, religion and various scams and hoaxes.

That’s why “fact-check” websites such as Snopes.com, FactCheck.org, Hoax-Slayer.com, etc., have taken up the task of spreading awareness against rumors by presenting evidence and hard facts. In other words, they monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. As in the case of FactCheck.org, for instance, their goal is —in their own words—to be “a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocate for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics” by applying the best practices of both journalism and scholarship and thus increasing public knowledge and understanding. Arguably this does not apply in the same degree to all of them, but that's roughly how they like to present themselves to the public.

With that being said as an introduction, let me relate a personal experience which is both significant and emblematic. A few days ago, last Friday to be precise, YourNewsWire—a news website I didn’t know existed until then—published an article asserting that Sebastian Kurz, the newly-elected Austrian Chancellor, has informed George Soros, the speculator turned philanthropist, that his Open Society Foundation has 28 days to cease and desist operations in Austria or face legal action for “attempting to undermine the democracy of the nation.” According to the above mentioned source, 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, Austria’s youngest ever leader, has told colleagues that action must be taken immediately, after news broke that George Soros has donated $18 billion of his $24 billion dollar fortune to his Open Society Foundation.

Needless to say, this is the kind of news I like to read & share! That’s why, at first, I couldn’t hold back my virtual tears of joy and appreciation… but after a few moments I took back control of my emotions. “Ok, let’s check it out and get some more information first,” I said to myself. In fact, rule number one is: ensure that the story is written by a source that you trust, with a reputation for accuracy, and if the story comes from an unfamiliar organization, then check their “About” section to learn more. That’s exactly what I wanted to do, but couldn’t, in fact there’s no “About” section on the site. But I didn’t give up. As a second step I searched the Web in multiple languages, far and wide, high and low—the golden rule being that if no other news source is reporting the same story, it may indicate that the story is false, while if the story is reported by multiple sources you trust, it’s more likely to be true—but didn’t find a thing. Nothing, except a couple of other websites, both of them quoting YourNewsWire as their only source. Which is very strange in the face of an objectively relevant event, without ifs and buts—of course, provided that it really happened.. But in return I found a website called Media Matters for America claiming that “Fake news purveyor YourNewsWire is pushing a false narrative on its site and affiliated Facebook-verified page asserting that Sebastian Kurz has banned George Soros’s foundations from Austria..” As a consequence, I searched the Web in order to find more info about whether YourNewsWire is a fake news website or not. The result of the investigation was that it is highly probable that things are the way Media Matters says they are.

At the same time, I learned that, according to Breitbart News Network, Media Matters for America is… a George Soros-funded progressive activist organization! Now, what are we to make of that? What are we to think? Well, I personally think that the news about Sebastian Kurz’s decision regarding George Soros’ Open Society Foundation is most likely fake, and this not only and not so much because of what YourNewsWire is, or seems to be, but rather because of the lack of objective evidence and/or of other sources attesting to the facts asserted in the story. In other words, because the whole thing is self-referential. Paradoxically, even if the story were proved true, YourNewsWire’s reputation would continue to remain very low.

PS Fake News: What's the best way to deal with it? Here are a number of suggestions for further reading:

1. How to Spot Fake News
   
2. 10 Ways to Spot a Fake News Story
   
3. What is fake news? How to spot it and what you can do to stop it
   
4. 'Fake news': What's the best way to tame the beast?
   

UPDATE, October 27, 2017: Did Austria's Sebastian Kurz ban George Soros' organization? That's fake news

...The fake story goes on to quote Kurz describing Soros as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming his blood funnel into anything that smells like money" — language identical to a 2010 Rolling Stone piece about Goldman Sachs by Matt Taibbi.
Besides Soros’ massive donation and Kurz’s young leader status (he’s 31), this story is complete bogus.
Open Society Foundations, an organization with efforts in different countries all over the world, has no offices in Austria — and therefore nothing to "cease and desist."
We couldn’t find any record of Kurz describing Soros in that light or commenting on OSF.

UPDATE, November 3, 2017: I just came across yet another fake news by YourNewsWire. This time they reported that Hollywood icon Morgan Freeman stated that the best way to restore public faith in government institutions is to “send Hillary to prison“ and that unless the former First Lady’s crimes are seen to be punished, “everyday Americans will forever know, deep down, that there is one law for those with money and power, and another for the rest of us.” And this is what Snopes.com has to say about the article:

This is not a genuine quote from Morgan Freeman; YourNewsWire.com is a particularly vicious fake news blog that has a long history of publishing corrosive misinformation. The site claims that the actor made this comment while promoting his new documentary series “The Story of Us” during an event in New York, but, naturally, provided no video from the event containing Morgan’s alleged remarks, as none exists.
Furthermore, the “Story of Us” premiere was held on 28 September 2017, more than a month before Your News Wire published this article. It is possible that Freeman held additional promotional events (although it would be odd for the press tour to continue long after the premiere), but we could not find any news articles regarding a promotional event in New York for the series near this article’s publication date.
It is also unlikely that Freeman would ever suggest the idea that President Donald Trump should imprison Hillary Clinton. The actor openly supported of the Democratic candidate and even narrated several political ads for Clinton.

UPDATE, November 9, 2017: I just became aware of a May 16, 2016 tweet from Glenn Beck’s Twitter account in which he made reference to a position statement by the American College of Pediatricians on so-called gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria (see also the talk show host’s website). The statement—which is still on the organization’s website—is prefaced with the following: “The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts—not ideology—determine reality.” Addressing parents giving children dangerous puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex, the statement explains that this practice requires cross-sex hormones into late adolescence, which are associated with health risks like high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes and cancer. In addition, the American College of Pediatricians makes it clear that “as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.” But what is perhaps the most striking part of the statement is that it claims that “conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

That being said, and given the authenticity of the document itself, what is wrong with Glenn Beck’s tweet? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? He reported a true story! Well, let’s say that what we have here is something quite different—but not entirely unrelated—from what we mean when we use the expression “fake news.” What we are dealing with in this case is basically a misunderstanding due to and/or leading to misinformation or disinformation. In fact, as Snopes.com pointed out, “Beck’s tweet led many viewers to believe that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had taken that stance on childhood gender dysphoria, but the tweet linked to an article containing quotes from the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) not the AAP.” In reality, the American College of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics are vastly different entities: the former is a very small group—with an estimated membership of between 60 and 200 pediatricians—formed relatively recently in response to political disagreements over same-sex parenting, while about 64,000 such physicians are aligned with the AAP.

Now, to bring all this to a conclusion, once again I’m forced to acknowledge that the way I would like things to be is not the way things actually are. The truth is more important than what we want to believe.

UPDATE, January 13, 2019:

“It’s as though all the major media organizations read from the same playbook…” Thus reads a thought-provoking article in the online January 12 issue of The American Thinker focusing on fact-checking, “the latest trick” the mainstream media have pulled out of their hat to further their primary job, which is no longer telling readers and viewers the who, what, where, when, and why, because it has become telling the audience what to think, after filtering the news story through layers of bias and activism. Hence “fact-checking” President Trump in “real time” has become its own exhausting endeavor for mainstream reporters and media outlets. But, as the author rightly notes, “Who fact-check the fact-checkers?” And what happens when even fact-checking is fake news? Also, why the hell are we supposed to believe CNN or MSNBC and their supposed fact-checkers? These are the same media organizations that ignored the blatant lies about the Benghazi video or “hands up, don’t shoot.” They refused to fact-check “if you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep them.” They doctored George Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him sound like a racist. And why is President Trump the only person worthy of big media fact-checking? What about the numerous members of Congress or other Deep State operatives who spout off about Trump being a Nazi or a traitor?
But let’s look at the very clear examples of dishonest fact-checking the author uses to illustrate his point:

CNN tweeted after Trump’s address, “Fact check: President Trump misleadingly claims drugs will kill more Americans than the Vietnam War.” Time to fact-check the fact-checkers. According to the National Archives, there were “58,220 US military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War.” The Centers for Disease Control reports approximately 70,000 deaths in 2017 in the U.S. from drug overdoses. The Vietnam War is said to have lasted from 1955 to 1975, or 20 years. This translates to an annualized 3,000 deaths per year in Vietnam, less than 5 percent of the number of drug overdose deaths per year. Who is misleading? Obviously, CNN reporters are unable to perform simple research or do basic arithmetic.
If the fact-checkers can’t catch Trump lying, as they hope to do, they will claim he is “misleading.” The Washington Post actually published this on its website: “266,000 aliens arrested in the past two years: The number is right but misleading.” Wow—Trump was actually right. Imagine that.
The Washington Post’s beef is that “[t]he quarter million arrests cover all types of offenses, including illegal entry or reentry.” So what? Trump said “aliens arrested.” He didn’t specify why they were arrested. How is that misleading?
Is not “illegal entry or reentry” a crime? Shouldn’t those who commit such crimes be arrested and deported? Perhaps if such crimes were handled according to the rule of law, Kate Steinle and Officer Ronil Singh would still be with their families.
When “misleading” doesn’t cut it for the fact-checkers, they step in a big steaming pile of fake news, inadvertently making Trump's case for him. Here are two examples of this.
When President Trump claimed that one in three women are sexually assaulted on their trek through Mexico, CBS, rather than saying Trump was overstating and exaggerating, instead confirmed what he said, and then some. They cited Amnesty International data showing that 60 to 80 percent of women were being raped, bolstering Trump’s assertion.
CBS removed its tweet, as it was counterproductive to their fact-checking mission, but the internet remembers. Trump was right, and in their zeal to catch him in a fib, CBS actually confirmed the veracity of his claim.

Lastly, everyone’s favorite CNN stooge, Jim Acosta, stepped in it bigly on the southern border ahead of the president’s visit. He tweeted a video of himself standing in front of a border wall in McAllen, Texas consisting of steel slats and noting that the “community is quite safe.”
Poor Jim isn't smart enough to draw the obvious conclusion: that having a border wall makes America safer. Even a wall that doesn’t “run the entire length of the border” is still a deterrent to illegal crossings
and the associated crime. In other words, the wall is working – just as it’s supposed to and as Trump asserts. The smartest “resistance reporter” in the room unintentionally made Trump’s case.
He also neglected to mention that the area where he was walking was obviously safe and secure ahead of the president’s visit. Or that mischief and mayhem tend to occur under the cover of darkness, not in the middle of the day when he made his stroll.
If he wanted to report honestly, he would pitch a tent where there is no fence or wall and live there for a week. Then he can decide if things are “quite safe.”
The smuggest reporter of all doesn’t realize he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and is truly “a smartass,” as White House adviser Kellyanne Conway noted.

-----------------