IAIN MCGILCHRIST

Dr. Iain McGilchrist published a book in 2009 titled “The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World.”  Completed after more than 20 years of work, Dr. McGilchrist’s book devotes 500 pages to the study of the human brain.  His work is remarkable for its dramatic hypothesis: The human brain is two separately functioning organs.

In the same fashion that human beings have a left arm and a right arm, the brain has a left hemisphere and a right hemisphere.  The hemispheres are similar, but function separately.  The central tenet of McGilchrist’s research comes in the Introduction to his work:

My thesis is that for us as human beings there are two fundamentally opposed realities, two different modes of experience; that each is of ultimate importance in bringing about the recognizably human world; and that their difference is rooted in the bi-hemispheric structure of the brain.  It follows that the hemispheres need to co-operate, but I believe they are in fact involved in a sort of power struggle, and that this explains many aspects of contemporary Western culture.

 Dr. McGilchrist sees the right hemisphere as “The Master” in his thesis, with the left hemisphere as “The Emissary.”  The right hemisphere is more adventurous, directing our actions and seeking to understand and formulate the human experience.  The left hemisphere is more rigorous, attempting to map our behavior to a known set of rules and guidelines.

While Dr. McGilchrist does not use this analogy, I see the left hemisphere as the authoritarian side of the brain.  The right hemisphere is curious and welcoming; the left hemisphere is more rigid and self-centered.  The left hemisphere lacks self-doubt.

The characterizations used by Iain McGilchrist are a departure from conventional descriptions of the hemispheres of the brain.  We are taught that the hemispheres represent a “creative side” and an “analytical side.”  The left brain is more data-driven while the right brain is artistic.

McGilchrist extends this concept by formulating a mediation process where the left hemisphere tells the right hemisphere how to perform based on the reality known to the left hemisphere.  The right hemisphere must compare this understanding to the situation that is currently presented, and decide whether to act based upon what it “knows” or what it “sees.”

It brings up the Marx Brothers line, “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

That is the genius of Iain McGilchrist’s work.  He relates the interactions of our brain to well-understood human behaviors.  We understand how the hemispheres relate to each other because we have our own personal examples of that kind of behavior.

The right brain must dominate our early childhood because the left brain is still an empty slate.  The right brain must use a parent or guardian as a proxy for the left brain because the left brain is not developed and is not able to share its experience.

As we get older, we depend more on our left hemisphere.  It is our life experience.  It helps us navigate unexpected events that we encounter.  It also keeps us functional as we lose the desire for right brain stimulation.

But as the left brain deteriorates, we must adjust.  Maybe we forget the more obscure rules in the game of Bridge.  Maybe we forget important dates.  We have to keep written lists because our left brain becomes less reliable.

Returning to the idea of “The Complete Picture,” we see that research on the human brain is, for the most part, restricted to reporting on individual outcomes.  We have documentation of an individual suffering brain damage, and research that tracks the individual’s recovery.  We know that people recover from a hemispherectomy, and that physical limitations result.

What is less understood is the behavior shift that occurs from brain trauma.  How does the brain compensate for damage?  Does the “Master and his Emissary” model go out the window?  Surprisingly, a government agency may have the answer for us.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an agency of the United States government that is responsible for biomedical research.  In 2009 it sponsored the Human Connectome Project (HCP) with a five-year task of developing a network map of the human brain.

That effort led to a demonstration of brain activity featuring unique differences between male and female participants.  The study, with the unwieldy name of “Sex Differences in the Structural Connectome of the Human Brain,” was presented to the National Academy of Sciences in 2012.  It shows activity between the left and right hemispheres being higher for female participants in certain tasks.  Male participants showed less cross-hemispheric activity.

With mapping capability demonstrated for gender differences, it should be straightforward to analyze differences based on authoritarian behaviors.  The idea that the left brain dominates authoritarian action can be tested!

The way is now clear to move beyond case studies of individual behavior.  We can continue to study those individuals who struggle with internal dominant/deferring behaviors, but can also move to studying behaviors between individuals.  A husband and wife engaged in interpersonal negotiations can be mapped as they engage in dominant/deferring behaviors.

Groups can be studied.  We can contrast the differences between those groups involved in gang-related activities and those in routine social interaction.  We can begin to understand group dynamics in a way that is vastly superior to the analysis of polling data.

Beyond small groups, we have the phenomenon of complete societies behaving in a certain fashion.  Why do human beings tolerate despotism?  Why do we become attracted to situations that are destructive to us?

Depending on whether we are dominated by our left or right hemisphere, we get completely different outlooks on life.  And at the center of these behaviors is whether or not we have self doubt.

Self doubt is the province of the right brain.  The left brain is self-centered and rigid in its understanding of the world.  There is a sense of “self” which the left brain does not question.  Its representation of the world is “reality,” and outside of this representation is a world dispatched as “The Other.”

The right brain has to act as a judge of the representations of the left brain, comparing what it sees on its own with what the left brain has catalogued as “reality.”  If there is sufficient evidence that the left brain’s representation is faulty, the right brain can make the left brain adapt to the “new reality.”

This give-and-take is what we consider as normal behavior.  As human beings, we have strong beliefs and feelings based on our life experience, and modify those beliefs only when confronted with strong evidence to the contrary.  This is why our dominant/deferring brain activity changes with age.  When we are young, the left brain is developing its “reality” and must adapt as new situations are presented by the right brain.  When we are older, the right brain expects the left brain to use its experience to keep us going.  The right brain goes on hiatus.

But back to the issue of self doubt: Authoritarians lack it.  It’s as if the right brain completely defers to the left brain.

Consider the case of people following a cult leader to their own self-destruction.  An authoritarian leader might convince cult followers of the imminent destruction of the world.  Only when the cataclysm fails to materialize does the left brain have to adjust.  In the case of an event like the 1978 Jonestown Massacre in Guyana, death interrupts the opportunity for the brain to reconcile.  Authoritarian behaviors can have deadly consequences.

It is therefore important to understand why human beings are attracted to authoritarian leaders.  Certainly there can be a fear factor, where intimidation is used to coerce the follower.  But this is not always the case.  Often a person will be drawn to an authoritarian figure without coercion.

Understanding the brain as a construct of two hemispheres can help us see that people will follow an authoritarian leader simply because the authoritarian becomes a proxy for the right brain.  Following the leader is the less complicated path to take.  We don’t have to engage in the work of analysis and interpretation; we simply sit back and let the authoritarian take charge.

It appears that authoritarians relish this phenomenon.  Having other human beings relinquish their personal power can be quite seductive.  Furthermore, when authoritarians see that power exercised by other authoritarians, it becomes an object of admiration.  We sometimes see “the authoritarian salute,” an automatic, reflexive behavior where one authoritarian leader uses a deep bow from the waist to show respect for another.

In 2014, Russia under Vladimir Putin annexed the country of Crimea.  The United Nations voted on a non-binding resolution that decried the annexation.  Of the 193-nation General Assembly, 11 nations voted against the resolution.  They were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.  A strong case could be made for the existence of authoritarian leadership in each of these countries.

Interestingly, we don’t find this of academic concern.  While we see authoritarians in various stages of power, from the autocratic ruler of a nation to the school bully, we still don’t find this worthy of study.

And yet, obvious questions abound.  Who are these authoritarians?  How do we identify them?

Is Reese Witherspoon an authoritarian?  In the early morning hours of April 13, 2013, she was arrested for disorderly conduct in connection with a field sobriety test administered on her husband, Hollywood agent Jim Toth.  She attempted to intimidate the arresting officer, asking him “Do you know my name sir?” and “You’re about to find out who I am.”

What about the case of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.?  On July 16, 2009, Professor Gates was arrested by Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley.  Sgt. Crowley had responded to a possible break-in at Professor Gates’ home.

Professor Gates had forced his way into his own home after finding the door jammed.  A neighbor saw this action and notified police that a robbery was in progress.  Sgt. Crowley responded, and asked Professor Gates to step outside.

The professor became perturbed and accused Sgt. Crowley of racism.  The Sergeant’s report indicated that Professor Gates felt he was being arrested “because I’m a black man in America.”

Both Ms. Witherspoon and Professor Gates exhibit authoritarian behaviors in these two instances.  They act with impunity and believe they are not wrong.  But should they be classified as authoritarians, or is their authoritarian side simply dominant at the moment?

We easily assign an authoritarian classification when the power of the authoritarian is unchecked.  In the Twentieth Century, we have the examples of Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Adolf Hitler (among others).  Tremendous human suffering results when authoritarians act with impunity and destroy the lives of those individuals under their control. 

But what about instances where the authoritarian behavior is less obvious?  We often witness these behaviors in private, and don’t find anything remarkable unless they are reported as infractions of institutional rules.

Maybe it is bullying at a public school or some type of criminal behavior.  It doesn’t become newsworthy until the authoritarian is limited by the power of a higher authority.

With limited academic study and no metrics for analysis, our experience with authoritarians is mostly anecdotal.  We are missing “The Big Picture.”

1. I SEE AUTHORITARIANS

2. WHO ARE THOSE GUYS?

3. IAIN MCGILCHRIST

4. WHY DO THEY HATE US?

5. THE GLASS CEILING

6. THE 21^ST CENTURY

WHY DO THEY HATE US?

In October, 2001, Fareed Zakaria wrote a cover story for Newsweek magazine with the provocative title, “Why They Hate Us.”  It was an analysis of the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11, and Mr. Zakaria ended the article with a call for the United States to help Islam “enter modernity in dignity and peace.”

Mr. Zakaria reports the Muslim world is beset with economic hardship and that Muslim fundamentalism is a reality.  However, while pointing out the problems, he does not offer a corrective path.  That is evidently an exercise left to the reader.

Why bring this up?  There is actually a tie-in with authoritarians.  It can be explained through a Venn diagram:

                                                   The Political-Religious Movement

The diagram shows how religious and political beliefs can be “co-opted” by people with authoritarian tendencies.  While political activities and religious beliefs are distinct and separate areas of human action, a special intensity of feeling comes when they are combined.

Political beliefs help us form a functioning society.  A particular outlook for collective action or individual accountability helps us structure the rules that govern our group behaviors.  Our political beliefs set the rules for constructive human interaction.

Religious beliefs help guide our individual behaviors.  We use religious instruction to guide our personal lives.

Because religious beliefs focus on individual behavior, they have an intensity that is not present in political beliefs.  We often find that we are less tolerant of opposing religious views than we are of opposing political views.

What authoritarians seek is the merging of the political and the religious spheres of influence.  That intersection creates an intensity of feeling that becomes the essence of any Political-Religious Movement.  The Venn diagram shown above indicates that a Political-Religious Movement is defined by this intersection.

While a Political-Religious Movement can occur anywhere, it is important to note that the United States of America has built-in defenses against this type of interaction.  Our Founders incorporated the constitutional principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the rule of law.  These deter the type of power that authoritarians seek.

While not impossible, it is difficult for one person or one political party to acquire authoritarian power in the American political system.  It is much easier in those parts of the world where American constitutional powers do not hold sway.  An authoritarian has a much easier go of it in third-world countries where commitments to the separation of church and state do not exist, and the separation and distribution of political power is not a defining principle.

To see a Political-Religious Movement in action, we might look to the Middle East and the country of Iran.  Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, demonstrates the central techniques used for consolidation of power.  First among them is to foster a philosophical duality.  That duality is a co-dependence on idealism and hatred.

If that concept seems foreign, note how the study of the Quran is used for the inculcation of “high ideals.”  If a follower exhibits a commitment to the Quran, that person automatically has high ideals.  If that idealism is then coupled with an object of hate, a level of fervent intensity is brought to the Political-Religious Movement.  Within the Islamic State of Iran, hatred is directed at Christians and Jews.

The pairing of idealism with hatred is characteristic and defining in any Political-Religious Movement.  Germany under Adolf Hitler had the ideal of a master race coupled with the hatred of Jews.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has its nationalism and idealistic devotion to Kim Jong-un merged with a hatred for Americans.

But what about the Middle East?  Americans may be confused with Islam divided between Sunni and Shia denominations that fight against one another.  It only makes sense when you understand that “the idealism” is one side of a Political-Religious Movement while “the hatred” is a separate component.  Within Islam, these two separate political-religious factions fight for supremacy.  While the religious component may be the same, the object of hatred is what defines them as two separate movements.

Another interesting issue within Political-Religious Movements is concern with the display of hypocrisy.  People wonder about leaders who “don’t practice what they preach.”  It is newsworthy when fundamentalist religious leaders engage in decidedly immoral activities, or ardent political leaders engage in activities that are in complete opposition to the practices they advocate.  (Recent examples involve Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries and Leland Yee of the California state legislature.)

The significant point in each case is not the personal flaws exhibited by each individual.  It is that we mistakenly assume authoritarians are drawn to an organization because of a belief system.

That is clearly not the case.  Authoritarians do not seek out Communism, Socialism, or religious fundamentalism because of idealistic attraction.  They seek out the philosophy because of the opportunity to engage in authoritarian practices.

It is not a dedication to collectivism, or religious zeal, or whatever ideal the organization promotes, but the fact that the organization requires authoritarian leadership.  The authoritarian finds an opportunity to “never be wrong” and to “act with impunity,” and that’s what the authoritarian seeks.  The relevant ideology is simply a prop.

A final point to note is that Authoritarianism is never self-limiting.  It demands more and more accommodation and affirmation, and is limited only by the power of higher authority or the death of the authoritarian.

For good or for ill, this is what defines the human experience.

1. I SEE AUTHORITARIANS

2. WHO ARE THOSE GUYS?

3. IAIN MCGILCHRIST

4. WHY DO THEY HATE US?

5. THE GLASS CEILING

6. THE 21^ST CENTURY

THE GLASS CEILING

Here’s something to consider: Authoritarianism is male-dominated.

While we may see authoritarian behaviors from women in our workplace or in social settings, we do not see women at the top of authoritarian regimes.  It never happens.  There may be female power “behind the throne,” but the front man is always that: a person of the male gender.

But might this be changing?  There are strong expectations in America that in 2016 a woman will rise to the highest levels of our government.  Many in the Democratic Party want to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States.

While it may not be apparent that this involves an opportunity for Authoritarianism, the associated factors are too strong to ignore.

Is there a Political-Religious Movement in place?  Not completely, but the Democratic Party is moving in that direction.  The political component of the movement is the Democratic Party itself, and it has a strong philosophical stance.

That philosophy can be seen in the idealistic intentions of its followers.  Members of the Democratic Party want to stop war, end violence and eliminate inequality.  They want to curtail climate change, end discrimination and eliminate hunger.  If an individual has an idealistic intent (perhaps with a Utopian slant) the Democratic Party is very welcoming.

However, rather than having a defined orthodoxy, the Democratic Party simply validates good intentions.  It is a political party that is “always trying to do the right thing.”

Note that I am describing the party from a humanist standpoint.  This has nothing to do with historical perspective or policy.  It is simply the way human beings view a Political-Religious Movement.

While the political component promotes the high ideals of the followers, what about the religious component?  The Democratic Party has traditional support from Jews and Catholics, but there is no institutional sect associated with it.

As a substitute, the Democratic Party welcomes any belief system, from Atheism to Secularism.  The guiding principle is the power and authority of the Democratic Party itself.  The primacy of the Democratic Party is what transforms it into a religion of its own being.  Everything becomes “political.”  The separate spheres of politics and religion coalesce.

The transformation of the Democratic Party into a Political-Religious Movement is an evolving process.  Because it is happening as a current event, we do not fully appreciate its significance.

We see its cultural impact, where many, but not all, are caught up.  But since each and every American is a part of that culture, we have difficulty “stepping back” and objectively analyzing the transformation.

That’s where it becomes important to look at the Object of Hate.  Followers of the Democratic Party have high ideals, and derive a sense of moral authority from that feeling.  But that is not what distinguishes them.  The feature that stands out is the hatred directed at Republicans.

The Democratic Party spends a great deal of effort characterizing Republicans as bad people.  The Party teaches Americans that Republicans are racist, homophobic bigots.  The Party sees Republicans as trying to destroy the environment, turn the economy into a catastrophe, shred the Constitution, harm our children and steal from our Seniors.  Republicans are liars and cannot be trusted.  Republicans must be destroyed.

That last sentence may be figurative, but it describes the intensity of anti-Republican feeling that is fostered by the Democratic Party.  That intensity is particularly evident in the Democratic Party Base.

You might be surprised to find that the Democratic Party Base sees a perfect world as a place where there are no Republicans.  They internalize that artful remark, “The Only Good Republican is a Dead Republican.”

The implication is ominous (at least for Republicans) but the feelings are based in idealism: If there were no Republicans, the resulting unity of thought would be a thing of beauty.

I realize that setting forth this construct in a few paragraphs seems extreme.  It helps to examine it within historical context.  Other Political-Religious Movements have employed the same mix of idealism and hatred to energize their movements.  We’ve seen it in Germany’s National Socialist Movement and most recently in the Ukraine and Nigeria. The philosophical duality of idealism paired with hatred is commonplace.

One aspect of the Democratic Party’s evolution into a Political-Religious Movement worth noting is its sophistication in the use of themes.  I mentioned the characterization of Republicans as bad people, but the manner in which the Democratic Party accomplishes this task is significant.  The Party teaches Americans that Republicans may not exhibit the racism or homophobia of which they are accused, but they have sinister intent.  Republicans want to hurt these people.  Republicans want to do bad things.

While Americans may not see actual instances of the suggested Republican behavior, they know what Republicans want to do.  That is an attitudinal aspect that simply cannot be underestimated.  It has great power to energize human feelings.

Again, I must emphasize that we are watching the evolution of a Political-Religious Movement here in America.  It is a work in progress, and is unfolding before us.  It provides a unique opportunity for study.

A musical group acts out the disembowelment of Sarah Palin.  Mitt Romney is characterized as being callous toward women dying from cancer.  Should we be concerned about the legitimacy of these cultural portrayals?  Are there bounds for decency?  What determines the limitations?

This is American politics, and it is fertile ground for authoritarians.  We have a ringside seat as the opportunities are exploited.

Whether Hillary Clinton is the person to rise to the top of the Democratic Party Movement remains to be seen.  If she does, we will be witnessing the ascension of a person of the female gender to a position of authoritarian domination in the United States of America.

That will be a “first.”

1. I SEE AUTHORITARIANS

2. WHO ARE THOSE GUYS?

3. IAIN MCGILCHRIST

4. WHY DO THEY HATE US?

5. THE GLASS CEILING

6. THE 21^ST CENTURY

THE 21ST CENTURY

Authoritarians are a fact of life.  Human beings have brains with two hemispheres, and the left hemisphere strives to become dominant.  It causes us to exhibit authoritarian tendencies and sometimes extreme behaviors.

What to do about it?  The first step is recognition.

Authoritarians are not subtle.  Their quest to “never be wrong” and to “act with impunity” is a dead giveaway.  We should be able to recognize these behaviors in the school bully or in the spoiled child.  Corrective action can be applied at an early age.

But there is one other aspect of authoritarian behavior that should be addressed: Human beings are attracted to authoritarian individuals and organizations.  We want to be a part of the action.

Maybe it makes us “cool” or is fun and exciting, but we want to join the authoritarians.  It is not a particularly noble facet of human behavior, but it is who we are.

This implies that a major cultural issue is the socialization associated with authoritarians.  Why are we attracted to individuals who teach us to hate?

Is it possible that the “enemy” is us?  Do human beings have a cultural bias in favor of authoritarians?  Is it something to do with the left hemisphere of our brains?

I think that if we find we are being taught to hate, we should be on high alert.  If we are drawn to an individual or organization because of the targeting of other people, we should be concerned.  Let’s step back and evaluate what is happening.

Please note that there is a difference in the “type of hate.”  Contrast Christianity with Islam.  In one religion, the object of hatred is abstract.  Christians are taught to hate the Devil and the dark forces that provide temptation.

In the other religion, the object of hatred is other human beings.  That’s a significant difference.

Human beings haven’t changed much over the centuries.  We should learn from human behaviors and adapt our actions.

Let’s make the 21^st century a good time to be less accommodating toward authoritarians.

1. I SEE AUTHORITARIANS

2. WHO ARE THOSE GUYS?

3. IAIN MCGILCHRIST

4. WHY DO THEY HATE US?

5. THE GLASS CEILING

6. THE 21^ST CENTURY

Labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Photo of Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Gianluca Colla/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a label attached to her.  It is “Women’s Rights Activist.”

She is in the news this week because she was scheduled to speak at the Brandeis University 2014 commencement ceremony in Waltham, Massachusetts, outside Boston.  The university wished to award her an honorary degree.

That all changed on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 when Brandeis withdrew its offer.  The university said that Ms. Ali makes statements that are inconsistent with the university’s core values.  They label Ms. Ali an Islamophobe.

I commented on the use of that label in a post titled “A New York Mosque.”  That was in 2010.  Here is where we are today…

Abdullah Antepli posted an article yesterday titled “Hats off to Brandeis University!”  Mr. Antepli is a Muslim chaplain at Duke University.  This is the concluding paragraph from his Duke Chronicle article:

From the bottom of my heart, thank you, Brandeis University, President Frederick Lawrence and all others who are behind this exemplary moral act. Thank you for not damaging already fragile, Jewish-Muslim relations any further. Thank you for not pulling the rug from under the feet of people who are admirably trying to repair the relationship and bridge the gap between these divided communities. As my Jewish brothers and sisters say, “Yashar Koach!” Well done, hats off to all of you and thank you.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a piece in The Wall Street Journal this morning.  It is titled, “Here’s What I Would Have Said at Brandeis.”  This is the complete text of Ms. Ali’s article:

One year ago, the city and suburbs of Boston were still in mourning. Families who only weeks earlier had children and siblings to hug were left with only photographs and memories. Still others were hovering over bedsides, watching as young men, women, and children endured painful surgeries and permanent disfiguration. All because two brothers, radicalized by jihadist websites, decided to place homemade bombs in backpacks near the finish line of one of the most prominent events in American sports, the Boston Marathon.

All of you in the Class of 2014 will never forget that day and the days that followed. You will never forget when you heard the news, where you were, or what you were doing. And when you return here, 10, 15 or 25 years from now, you will be reminded of it. The bombs exploded just 10 miles from this campus.

I read an article recently that said many adults don't remember much from before the age of 8. That means some of your earliest childhood memories may well be of that September morning simply known as "9/11."

You deserve better memories than 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. And you are not the only ones. In Syria, at least 120,000 people have been killed, not simply in battle, but in wholesale massacres, in a civil war that is increasingly waged across a sectarian divide. Violence is escalating in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Libya, in Egypt. And far more than was the case when you were born, organized violence in the world today is disproportionately concentrated in the Muslim world.

Another striking feature of the countries I have just named, and of the Middle East generally, is that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day.

Especially troubling is the way the status of women as second-class citizens is being cemented in legislation. In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to 9 the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house.

Sadly, the list could go on. I hope I speak for many when I say that this is not the world that my generation meant to bequeath yours. When you were born, the West was jubilant, having defeated Soviet communism. An international coalition had forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The next mission for American armed forces would be famine relief in my homeland of Somalia. There was no Department of Homeland Security, and few Americans talked about terrorism.

Two decades ago, not even the bleakest pessimist would have anticipated all that has gone wrong in the part of world where I grew up. After so many victories for feminism in the West, no one would have predicted that women's basic human rights would actually be reduced in so many countries as the 20th century gave way to the 21st.

Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.

When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority—including patriarchal authority—to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.

Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.

One of the best places to do that is in our institutions of higher learning. We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged. I'm used to being shouted down on campuses, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I do not expect all of you to agree with me, but I very much appreciate your willingness to listen.

I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.

So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.

Is such an argument inadmissible? It surely should not be at a university that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust, at a time when many American universities still imposed quotas on Jews.

The motto of Brandeis University is "Truth even unto its innermost parts." That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.

I come down on the side of Ms. Ali.  I get to be labeled an Islamophobe by our American academic community.

UPDATE 4/14/2014:
Zev Chafets, writing for Fox News, Characterizes Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a "Victim of an honor killing, Brandeis Style."

UPDATE: 5/9/2014:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali refuses to be silenced.

UPDATE 9/16/2014:
Yale University allows Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Teaching the Hate

Anti-Republican graphic from the 2/8/2014 DSCC e-mail

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Today is a day of caring for the people you love.  It is also a day that stands in contrast to the sentiments of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

The DSCC sends frequent e-mail messages to its subscribers.  The messages request money to help keep Democratic Party control of the United States Senate.

Here is a listing of the notes sent so far this year.  They are tabulated by date, showing the target of the campaign and some of the words used as descriptors for that person or entity.  It provides a glimpse of the tone favored by today’s Democratic Party:

Date                   Target                           Descriptors used by DSCC

01/03/2014      Republicans                stop Republican takeover

01/07/2014      John Boehner              (wants) people without food

01/10/2014      Donors                          happy birthday Michelle Obama

01/15/2014      Mitch McConnell        outrageous

01/15/2014      The Koch Brothers      brutal attacks

01/16/2014      The Koch Brothers      unusually aggressive; tearing down candidates

01/17/2014      The Koch Brothers      brutal attacks

01/18/2014      The Koch Brothers      they WILL take over the Senate

01/21/2014      The Koch Brothers      vicious attacks; barrage of attacks

01/22/2014      The Koch Brothers      every single disgusting Koch attack

01/22/2014      The Koch Brothers      every single revolting Koch attack

01/23/2014      The Koch Brothers      carpet-bombing…with absolutely vicious attacks

01/23/2014      The Koch Brothers      every single disgusting attack

01/24/2014      The Koch Brothers      outrageous attacks

01/24/2014      The Koch Brothers      outrageous attacks; despicable attacks

01/25/2014      The Koch Brothers      secret convention; scathing attacks

01/26/2014      The Koch Brothers      next onslaught of despicable attacks

01/27/2014      The Koch Brothers      viciously attack; scathing attacks

01/27/2014      The Koch Brothers      $6 million on despicable attacks

01/28/2014      Mitch McConnell        all the blame for 2013 dysfunction

01/28/2014      The Koch Brothers      UNPRECEDENTED early spending

01/28/2014      Mitch McConnell        outrageous gridlock; disgusting attacks

01/29/2014      The Koch Brothers      millionaire friends

01/29/2014      The Koch Brothers      scathing attacks

01/30/2014      The Koch Brothers      unprecedented early attack blitz

01/30/2014      Karl Rove                    dark and creepy; anonymous rich guys

01/30/2014      Republicans                 a sea of early attacks

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      unparalleled deluge of attacks; buy the Senate

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      attack onslaught; Republican takeover

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      nationwide attack onslaught

01/31/2014      The Koch Brothers      DOUBLED Democratic spending

02/07/2014      Mitch McConnell        477^th time he’s led a filibuster; disgusting

02/08/2014      The Koch Brothers      producers of carcinogens

02/10/2014      The Koch Brothers      absolutely brutal attacks; disgusting attacks

02/11/2014      Mitch McConnell        outrageous political tactics

02/12/2014      Mitch McConnell        saturate the airwaves with negative ads

02/13/2014      Karl Rove                    $138,000 worth of vicious attacks

I’ve not yet received the DSCC missive for this Valentine’s Day.  Maybe it will be something like 1/10/2014, wishing Michelle Obama a happy birthday.

As you can see, the odds don’t favor it.

UPDATE 4/3/2014:
Eliana Johnson at National Review Online provides background on the Koch-funded ads that are creating the intense reaction at the DSCC.  Charles Koch explains why he has become active in politics.  Both articles provide balance to the DSCC attacks.

Return to Top

Return to Bottom

Weaponizing Catherine Engelbrecht

 

 

 



Megyn Kelly anchors a nightly show on the FOX News Channel.  On February 6, 2014 she featured the testimony of Catherine Engelbrecht (pictured above).  Mrs. Engelbrecht had appeared before the House Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs.  Her testimony was cited as evidence she had been targeted for intimidation by agencies of the federal government.

Mrs. Engelbrecht (at 2:50 in the following clip) characterized the investigations of her business and political activities as “the weaponizing of government:”

In the 21^st century, our culture divides us.  Many Americans are invested in promoting the power and authority of the Democratic Party.  Mrs. Engelbrecht believes that as an individual, she is endowed with certain unalienable Rights, including Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Mrs. Engelbrecht does not take kindly to intimidation.  She has filed an ethics complaint against Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and points to her testimony as justification:

Megyn Kelly, contrary to others in the field of political reporting, finds the experience of Mrs. Engelbrecht newsworthy.

UPDATE 7/2/2014:
Mrs. Engelbrecht is now suing the Mississippi Secretary of State over alleged voter fraud in the Republican Primary Runoff between Chris McDaniel and Thad Cochran.

She explains the reason for the suit: "All we are asking is that the MS State Republican Party follow the law."  (The "law" in question is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.)

Return to Top

Return to Bottom