Am I homophobic? Well, in the first place, I’ll be “phobic” to whatever I fucking feel like being phobic. You do what you want to do, and I’ll do what I want to do. How does that sound?

Second, in this particular case, having concluded that homosexuality is a filthy vice, I don’t think about the homos at all and hence am hardly phobic toward them.

I was never an atheist.

Never in my life did I affirm that the proposition “God exists” was false.

When I was young, I simply had no idea what God was or why anything that corresponded to God’s description should exist.

Until I learned.

If there is no such thing as an atheist Christian, how can there be an atheist Jew?

An atheist Jew is someone whose ancestors, perhaps many years ago, practiced Judaism but who has somehow managed to cling to this identity.

This person does not believe in the Jewish God, he does not follow the Jewish law, he does not read the Bible, he does not celebrate, or often even know the meaning of, Jewish holidays, he is only very vaguely aware of the history of the Jews, he does not pray, he does not visit the synagogue.

What makes him a Jew? If he thinks of his alleged Jewishness, what separates him from all others? Nothing, I submit. “I am defined by what the Nazis hated” is not an identity.

If Jews are merely a “people,” then not for long. If you are an “atheist Jew,” hopefully your children will convert to Christianity.

I like David Cole a lot. His columns are insightful and I agree with much of what he writes.

I don’t for a moment believe he’s a drunkard, his writings are both clever and sober. He’s a great storyteller.

Unlike him, however, I hold that there are such things as universal human rights.

And I do not buy the implication that accepting such rights entails any false affirmations of racial or national “equality.”

Look, there is no race or nation in the world worse than blacks. I think David might consider this opinion plausible. Yet here we are in America enjoying a kind of modus vivendi with them. We do not bomb black neighborhoods (blacks themselves pretty much do that) or send blacks to Africa. If whites can enjoy a measure of peace with blacks, Israelis can live in peace with the Palestinians.

In addition, our race problems are entirely the result of ideologies developed by white people. It is whites who have radicalized blacks, corrupted them, taught them to hate whites. If not for this disgusting egalitarianism, fake “compassion,” and hatred of the Western civilization, blacks could’ve been controlled. So again, peaceful coexistence is possible here, and a fortiori, in Israel.

I also object to the characterization of that conflict as religious, as Muslims vs. Jews. These people do not kill each other because of theological disagreements. I think it’s a purely political issue.

This war is unnecessary, Israel could have integrated the Palestinians and avoided the horror.

We can conceive of a better world, such as where everyone is perfectly healthy, or where people resemble the Na’vi in the movie Avatar, but such a world is impossible. God could not create it.

Such is life.

We are saved by sanctity to which neither “faith” nor “works” are identical.

Faith is only one part, and certainly not the whole, of sanctity, and works are external means to it.

For many, maybe even most, people neither sanctity nor genuine faith nor works are feasible. They should concern themselves with strict obedience to natural law; this way they will at least avoid hell.

The Israeli-Palestinian war is similar in some ways to the Russian-Ukrainian war, and where they are not the same, the differences favor Russia, says Vasko Kohlmayer.

Well, the U.S. is allied with Israel and so excuses it, and it opposes Russia and so demonizes it.

Not much of a mystery.

“Stakeholder capitalism” appears to be yet another attempt at a Third Way between free enterprise and communism. It’s just as futile.

1. Klaus Schwab writes: “All Stakeholders matter equally.” The ultimate stakeholders in society are the consumers. Under free markets, the consumers are sovereign. Moreover, they are sovereign equally, as in all have the power to judge production attempts. (They of course receive unequal incomes, but this too is an effect of previous consumer choices.) And since everyone is a consumer, under laissez faire it is literally true that all stakeholders matter equally.

2. Further, under stakeholder capitalism, “Society’s goal is to increase the well-being of people and the planet.” This is gibberish. Society, and the economy, is not an organism, still less a rational individual, but a process of social cooperation. An individual to society is not like a cell to the body.

It may be Schwab’s goal, it may under communism be the goal of the dictator, it may be a utilitarian goal. But society is not a person and has no goals.

If shareholder capitalism is utilitarian, as is now indubitable, then it is it that most efficiently increases well-being.

3. Again, stakeholder capitalism claims to “Focus on long-term value creation and ESG measures.” It is a mistake to say that the state is prudent and sagacious and the market is shortsighted. Indeed, the opposite is the case.