A provocative take on the layoffs at the Washington Post and the author’s unapologetic reaction.

If it’s wrong to spend a week celebrating the misery of your opponents, like that of the scores of just-fired Washington Post hacks who are crying like teenage girls learning there are no more “Twilight” movies coming, then I’m incredibly, totally, enthusiastically wrong. The former journos/current drive-thru operators still have not shut up about the WaPo’s mass layoffs, and I am taking unmitigated delight in their pain. Their suffering energizes me. Their tears nourish me. Their humiliation fuels my joy. Hey, maybe democracy dies in darkness, but as long as the WaPo dies, I’m good.

I would tell them to learn the code, but that’s old and cliché. Instead, I’ve been on X, inviting them to earn a little money for their kombucha and rent by buffing out my sweet luxury ride, which I paid for with my writing jobs. I’m a professional writer, and they’re not.

But hey, I’m sure that journalism degree from the University of College is going to get them another gigsoon. Say it with me – “Would you like to supersize that, sir?”

They haven’t taken their involuntary career tangent particularly well. They are all over X moaning about it and about us being giddy about it. Some people have told me that, because of my hysterical laughter at their situation, I’m going to be the victim of karma, but I think I’m actually karma’s enforcer. After all, these are the people who have done nothing but lie to us and about us for decades. From Russian collusion to Hunter’s laptop to J6 pogrom cheerleading to every other fraud and scam, they’ve obediently held to the Democrat line and done everything they could to screw with us patriots. Now that they’re being laid off en masse, we owe it to ourselves to take a moment and laugh at their pain.

Look, how about if I agree to care about them as much as they’ve cared about me for the last few decades? Agreed? Great. Now, back to reveling in their agony.

It’s been a few days, and I’m still laughing, and there is a smorgasbord of facets of their misery to laugh at. Certainly, the fact that a bunch of people who wanted us to lose everything – like our ability to govern ourselves, to be secure from criminals, and to keep our jobs (which they wanted sacrificed on the altar of their angry weather goddess) – are themselves losing everything is funny. There’s a glorious symmetry in their suffering, but there’s so much more. There’s their incessant whining about Jeff Bezos refusing to continue to subsidize their little bubble, like some bratty girl at Wellesley who graduates and finds that Daddy is cutting off her money and she’s got to actually work. Did these people actually work? They told themselves consistently how important and vital their “work” was, but mostly searched the thesaurus for admiring adjectives for dead monsters and retyped Democrat talking points for their dwindling coterie of readers. I guess that’s a kind of work, but it’s kind of hilarious how proud of it they were. If they could monetize patting themselves on the back, they’d be richer than the guy who founded Amazon and owned their paper, and who just owned them.

Personally, I love their incessant whining that Jeff Bezos somehow owes them sinecures. Why, he’s got so much money he could easily continue paying for them to provide zero value! It’s his moral duty! One even referred to his “stewardship” of the Washington Post in a typically overwrought X post. Stewardship? He’s a steward? What, like some sort of ink-stained Denethor? Well, they’ve got the funeral pyre part down.

No, the word they’re looking for and not finding is “owner.” Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. He can do what he wants with it. If he wants to turn it into a newsprint version of Maxim – is Maxim still a thing? – he can do it, although judging from the avatars of the canned reporters, they would need to seek out some outside talent. Most of the former writers look exactly like you think they would, SSRI-gobbling neuroticas and push-upaphobic soyboyz who, if they weren’t scribbling for a dying tabloid, would probably be out yelling obscenities at the heroic middle-class men of ICE who protect them from the savages.

What was Jeff Bezos getting for his money? Did you know that they had 13 people on the climate change beat? They were paying over a dozen people to write about a giant hoax. I think I’m going to go approach Storm Paglia at Townhall to see if I can get a personal research assistant to put on the Unicorn beat. Just kidding. We have to earn our views because we don’t have a zillionaire daddy subsidizing us.

Its subscription base was shrinking as the boomers who read newspapers were dying. I grew up with newspapers. I look back fondly on papers, just like I look back fondly on rotary phones. It’s part of the past. The Internet does the job more efficiently and effectively, but the regime media never changed its mindset. The Washington Post, and almost every other newspaper, has failed to evolve, and now it will die. The New York Times branched out into other things that were profitable. The same with The Wall Street Journal. Everybody else that is still trying to be a newspaper, as we once understood newspapers, is headed for the ash heap of history.

But even as the trend lines were headed downhill, they strapped a rocket to their back in their race to failure. They were always hard left, and they went harder left, not really understanding that the entire world is not a bunch of frustrated women, deviants, and neutered eunuchs searching for affirmation of their bizarre race-commie conceits. Even today, they’re still assuring each other that none of this is their fault. In fact, it’s all their fault.

Read Kurt Schlichter’s JUST RELEASED new bestseller in the Kelly Turnbull People’s Republic conservative action novel series, “Panama Red,” and follow Kurt on Twitter @KurtSchlichter.

Source: It Is Right and Proper to Laugh at the Suffering of Journalists

Picture Credit: From Wikimedia Commons: Pericles Gives the Funeral Speech (Philipp von Foltz, 1852)

In periods of civilizational stress, the defining intellectuals are rarely those who echo prevailing orthodoxies. Rather, they are individuals insisting on the legitimacy of first principles when those principles have become unfashionable or even dangerous to articulate. In contemporary Britain, Natasha Hausdorff, Douglas Murray, and Matt Goodwin exemplify this truth-seeking, altruistic calling. Each operates within a distinct professional domain—law, cultural criticism, and political science—yet all share a deeply anti-totalitarian idealism rooted in the defense of liberal democracy against ideological capture. Their engagement is not abstract but personal, involving reputational risk, social ostracism, and sustained public hostility. What unites them is not only dissent, but also a principled refusal to surrender truth, legality or democratic consent to coercive moral narratives.

Natasha Hausdorff’s contribution is distinguished by its juridical precision and moral clarity. As an international lawyer, she confronts one of the most ideologically distorted arenas of contemporary discourse: the legal treatment of Israel. Her merit lies not only in her mastery of international law but also in her insistence that law must remain tethered to evidence, context, and equal standards. In an environment where legal language is routinely weaponized to achieve political ends, her work exposes how selective interpretation and institutional bias corrode the credibility of the legal order itself.

Hausdorff’s anti-totalitarianism manifests in her resistance to what might be termed “normative inversion”: the process by which democratic self-defense is reframed as criminality, while terror, incitement, and authoritarian violence are excused as resistance. This inversion, which includes “victim blaming” at the national level, is not accidental but ideological, sustained by international bodies and NGOs that claim neutrality while advancing a rigid moral hierarchy. Hausdorff’s idealism consists in her refusal to abandon universal legal principles even when doing so would grant her professional safety. By applying the same standards to Israel as to any other state—and insisting those standards be applied universally—she challenges a deeply corrupt system that depends on exception and scapegoating.

The personal courage involved in this stance should not be underestimated. Defending Israel in contemporary legal and academic spaces often entails professional isolation, harassment, and reputational damage. Hausdorff’s willingness to endure these costs reflects a deeper conviction: that the erosion of legal objectivity in one case endangers all liberal democracies. Her engagement is therefore not parochial but civilizational. She understands that when law becomes a tool of ideological enforcement, it ceases to restrain power and instead legitimizes its abuse.

Douglas Murray’s singular merit lies in his capacity to articulate civilizational questions with philosophical depth and rhetorical force at a time when such questions are actively suppressed by mainstream media and academia. His legendary appearance at the Oxford Union twelve years ago became the precursor to numerous daring charges. Time and again, he has taken on Islamists and left-wing celebrities in front of menacing audiences. Importantly, he is not only a shrewd polemicist, who remains calm under pressure, but also a moral diagnostician of Western self-doubt. His anti-totalitarian idealism emerges from his insistence that liberal societies must believe in themselves to remain liberal. Against the prevailing assumption that self-criticism is the highest virtue, he argues that relentless self-denunciation becomes indistinguishable from moral abdication.

Murray’s battleground is primarily cultural. He confronts what might be called the “soft totalitarianism” of consensus enforcement: the informal but pervasive mechanisms by which dissenting views are marginalized without overt coercion. By challenging dogmas surrounding mass immigration, identity politics, and historical guilt, he violates the unspoken rules of acceptable discourse. The ferocity of the response to his work—character assassination, deplatforming campaigns, and persistent misrepresentation—testifies to the power of those rules.

Murray’s idealism is not reactionary nostalgia but a defense of Enlightenment inheritance: reason, individual moral agency, and universal rights. He rejects the reduction of individuals to group identities and resists the moral determinism that excuses behavior based on origin or grievance. This position places him in direct opposition to ideologies that divide society into permanent oppressors and victims, a framework mirroring the propagandistic logic of totalitarian systems even when expressed in therapeutic language.

Crucially, Murray’s engagement is animated by empathy rather than contempt. His unwavering critique of Islamism, for instance, is paired with a compassionate defense of Muslims who seek to live freely within liberal societies. What he rejects is not “diversity” as such but the refusal to draw moral boundaries. His courage consists in naming those boundaries when institutions and elites prefer ambiguity. In doing so, he exposes the paradox of a liberalism unwilling to defend its own conditions of existence. His deep concern is that the West, instead of standing firm on its Judeo-Christian ideals, is giving in to barbarism and thus preparing its own suicide.

Matt Goodwin’s merit is anchored in democratic realism. As a political scientist, he confronts the gap between elite consensus and popular consent, particularly on immigration, national identity, and sovereignty. His anti-totalitarian idealism is grounded in a simple but increasingly radical proposition: that democracy requires listening to voters even when their views are considered “inconvenient.” His work challenges the technocratic assumption that policy legitimacy flows from expertise alone rather than from democratic authorization.

Goodwin’s courage lies in his tireless determination to document and articulate patterns that many academics prefer to obscure for fear of ostracism or collapse of preferred theses. By analyzing electoral data, public opinion, and class realignments, he reveals how large segments of the population have been systematically excluded from meaningful representation. His critics often accuse him of “legitimizing extremism,” yet this accusation itself reflects a totalitarian impulse: the belief that certain preferences are illegitimate by definition and must therefore be managed rather than debated.

What distinguishes Goodwin’s idealism is his refusal to moralize disagreement. He does not portray voters as dupes or villains but as rational actors—fellow citizens with a claim to respect in that very capacity—responding to lived experience. In doing so, he restores dignity to democratic participation. This stance is costly in an academic environment increasingly aligned with activist (and, occasionally, extremist) priorities. Professional sanction, media hostility, and institutional marginalization (cancellation) are familiar risks for scholars who deviate from progressive orthodoxy. Goodwin accepts these risks as the price of intellectual honesty.

Taken together, Hausdorff, Murray, and Goodwin exemplify different dimensions of liberal, anti-totalitarian resistance. Hausdorff defends the integrity of law against ideological capture; Murray defends cultural confidence against moral coercion; Goodwin defends democratic consent against technocratic paternalism. Their idealism is not utopian but grounded in institutional realism. Unlike utopians, they do not imagine a conflict-free society, but they insist that conflict must be governed by rules, reason, and accountability rather than by intimidation or narrative dominance.

Hausdorff, Murray, and Goodwin have not spared themselves in the never-ending fight for justice. What makes the engagement of these three individuals particularly significant is that it occurs within liberal democracies that deny any resemblance to totalitarianism. Yet totalitarian tendencies rarely announce themselves openly. They emerge through the normalization of double standards, the stigmatization of dissent, and the substitution of moral certainty for empirical inquiry. Each in their own way, Hausdorff, Murray, and Goodwin recognize these patterns and refuse to accommodate them, even when accommodation would be personally advantageous.

The courage of those three modern heroes is therefore not performative but structural. It consists in sustained engagement over time—under conditions of persistent pressure. They do not retreat into irony or detachment but remain publicly accountable for their arguments. In doing so, behaving like true students of Socrates, they uphold a model of intellectual citizenship that is increasingly rare: one that treats truth as an honorable responsibility rather than a (narcissistic) posture.

Ultimately, the significance of Hausdorff, Murray, and Goodwin lies not only in the positions that they defend but also in the example that they set. They demonstrate that idealism need not be naïve, that realism need not be cynical, and that courage remains possible even in environments intrinsically hostile to independent thought. Their work reminds us that liberal democracy is not self-sustaining. It survives only so long as individuals are willing to defend its principles against both overt enemies and internal corrosion. In that defense, these three individuals stand as serious, if controversial, guardians of a fragile inheritance.

Lars Møller | February 12, 2026

original article located here has Audio Play feature so that you can listen to the article;

Source: In Defense of Civilization – American Thinker

Normalizing Sin And Removing Responsibility: Scientific Studies Attempt To Prove That People Are Born Gay

Recent scientific studies claim that some people are born gay. Could this be?

Many Christian parents have asked me this question. They are struggling with a child who has recently “come out” and are trying to grapple with this new reality. These parents have lovingly taught their children the Bible, taken them to church all their young lives, and can’t understand how their children could possibly choose this sinful sexual behavior. They think biology may help explain what they are wrestling to explain any other way. So can it? And if biology can explain it, is homosexual behavior still sinful if God made them that way?

An ‘Evolutionary’ Dead End

From a secular evolutionary perspective, it really wouldn’t make any sense for homosexuality to have a biological basis. One of the major tenets of evolution is reproduction and passing on one’s genes to the next generation. As one author put it, “The existence of homosexuality amounts to a profound evolutionary mystery, since failing to pass on your genes means that your genetic fitness is a resounding zero.”

And if homosexual behavior has a genetic component, how could it even be passed on to future generations? In many ways, it’s an evolutionary dead end. Some evolutionists have tried to explain it with the idea of kin selection. Even though homosexuals won’t pass on their genes, they help raise nieces and nephews who will have some of their genetic information. However, studies have shown no difference in how homosexual and heterosexual individuals treat their close relations, so this work-around seems to fall short.

A Series of Inconclusive Studies

Historically speaking, the search for a biological explanation for homosexuality has been unsuccessful or at the very least inconclusive. Two prominent studies were those of geneticist Dean Hamer and neuroscientist Simon LeVay in the early 1990s. Hamer tried to show that a region on the X chromosome was linked to homosexuality. He suggested a gene or genes existed in that region that had variants more often associated with homosexual behavior. However, later scientists failed to find this linkage.

LeVay looked to see if differences existed in the hypothalamus in the brain of homosexual men versus heterosexual men. He reported that a particular structure in the hypothalamus (known as INAH-3) was smaller in homosexual men. However, there were several problems with the study. The sample size was small, and the size of this region of the brain was in the same range for both homosexual and heterosexual men.

Two recent studies have once again shined the spotlight on possible biological causes for homosexuality but with still very inconclusive results. It’s important to remember that both studies assumed that sexual orientation has at least some measure of biological causation, which may or may not be the case.

One study found certain variations (known as single nucleotide polymorphisms—SNPs) in regions associated with two genes, SLITRK6 on chromosome 13 and TSHR on chromosome 14, were more commonly found in homosexual men. The proteins produced by these genes are involved in the development of the brain and thyroid cell metabolism, respectively.

However, it is unknown whether these proteins play any role in sexual orientation. Even the scientists who performed the research admitted there were problems with the study. For example, all of the participants were from one ancestral group (European), so the question arises whether these variants (SNPs) are just normal variations in people with that ancestry and not related to homosexuality. They also admit to having a small sample size, which may affect the results.

Another study looked at a possible biological cause for a supposed phenomenon that has been observed among homosexual men, known as the fraternal birth order effect. In summary, homosexual men tend to have more older brothers than heterosexual men. Why would this be? Some scientists proposed that the mother’s immune system develops antibodies against a protein important for the development of her male baby’s brain while in her womb.

If the mother’s body develops the ability to make antibodies against this protein when she is pregnant with her first son, when she becomes pregnant with subsequent sons, the antibodies will be produced and inhibit the actions of those proteins, making it more likely that these sons will exhibit homosexual behavior. The study found that these mothers did, indeed, have high levels of antibodies that attack this protein (NLGN4Y). However, it found that mothers of gay sons with no older brothers also had high levels of these antibodies, so the result seems inconclusive at best. The sample size was also small.

Even the authors themselves admitted they don’t know how this protein might have a role in determining behavior. They stated, “It is not certain how NLGN4Y might operate at the cellular level on the neuropsychology of men’s sexual orientation” and “sexual orientation is clearly a complex phenomenon with likely many factors influencing it.”

Both past and present scientific studies have shown no conclusive evidence that homosexual behavior is biological; and even if there is a biological basis, the researchers themselves admit that it would likely make a relatively small contribution (less than one-third if at all, with the environment and other cultural factors having a much greater influence).

The Root Problem Is Not Biology

In many ways, the attempt to tie behavior to biology is an effort to normalize sin and remove responsibility for people’s feelings and actions. The idea of genetic determinism is rampant and important in evolutionary thought, as humans would have to be nothing more than “matter in motion” with no soul and merely the preprogrammed product of their genes.

However, starting with a biblical worldview, we know that we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and have a soul (Matthew 16:26, 22:37). We are much more than the sum of our genes. We also know that we have a will and can make choices for or against God (Joshua 24:15; Matthew 12:30). God’s Word makes it clear that homosexual behavior is sinful (Romans 1:26–28; 1 Timothy 1:9–11; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11) but so are many other things like alcoholism, drug addiction, promiscuity, lying, cheating, stealing, and many other sins. If a gene was found that made it harder for people not to commit adultery, would that excuse adulterers who were born that way?

Ever since Adam’s rebellion, all of us are born sinners (Psalm 51:5), and all of us struggle with sin, but we must remember, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

True hope for those struggling with homosexuality is found only in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Answers In Genesis is an apologetics ministry founded by Ken Ham that is dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.

Source: Normalizing Sin And Removing Responsibility: Scientific Studies Attempt To Prove That People Are Born Gay – Harbinger’s Daily