Home - Mercator

Featured

Trump's bizarre foreign policy musings

There is a growing feeling that America’s infatuation with wokeness has peaked; that the insanity of redefining reality is fading. One place, however, where it seems to be taking up residence is in the White House, under Donald Trump. As the steward of US foreign policy, Trump is planning to redefine international relations. His daydreams about buying Greenland, taking back the Panama Canal, and absorbing Canada may just be King of the Jungle chest-beating, but even mentioning them could have serious consequences. To be fair to Trump, American foreign policy has always featured a strain of fantasy. During the Iraq War, a Bush Administration official sneered at the “reality-based community” (ie, sane people): “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he said. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out.” And how did that work out for Mr Bush and his neocon coterie? Not well. How did it work out for the people of Iraq? Catastrophically. It led to 100,000 deaths in Iraq (one estimate is 600,000), plus the bloody rise of ISIS and a civil war in Syria. As a champion of liberal democracy the United States has traditionally supported national self-determination and opposed colonialism. Threatening to annex Greenland encourages bullies around the world to covet their neighbours’ land. It will help justify Russia’s campaign in Ukraine. It will embolden China to take back Taiwan. If Trump were to take Greenland, it would be impossible to condemn Putin or Xi in their adventures. If Greenland can become the 51st state, why can't Ukraine become Russian?

Michael Cook

January 13, 2025

New research shows that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is fake

For most of the 20th century, there was a growing conviction around the world that the Shroud of Turin was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, carrying a mysterious “photographic” image of Jesus’ body between death and resurrection. Then came the carbon dating of 1988, allegedly proving the Shroud was a mediaeval forgery. Overnight the Shroud went from Christendom’s most prized artefact to being considered a mere icon – albeit a powerfully moving one. Now, after almost four decades of further research, the Shroud has undergone a form of resurrection. The latest findings indicate it was the carbon dating that was fake, not the Shroud. This is the central conclusion of my second book on the Shroud: The Shroud Rises, as the Carbon Date is Buried. The first book, Riddles of the Shroud: Questions Science Can’t Answer, aimed to provide a journalist’s overview of the research that had made the Shroud the most researched artefact in history. The new book, as indicated by its title, explains why the carbon dating is now considered by many Shroud researchers as fatally flawed! The game changer that has reduced the carbon dating to a footnote in the Shroud’s history has been the long-overdue release of the original “raw” data from the carbon dating that was locked away for 28 years, despite repeated requests for the British Museum and the three carbon-dating labs to release it. The hidden truth about the carbon dating was first brought to light by a series of articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. But the full meaning of these academic assessments has now been made accessible to a wider audience by a series of articles and books explaining the flaws of the carbon dating in terms most people can grasp. One Shroud researcher who has done much to explain the failings of the carbon dating is nuclear engineer Robert Rucker. Rucker has written many articles explaining where the carbon dating went wrong. His most comprehensive report is a series of three articles titled “The Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin”. At the other end of the spectrum is the 800-page tome – The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé, by Shroud researcher Joseph G. Marino. The astonishing detail offered by this book may not be for everyone, but the book has been widely acclaimed as “indispensable” for serious Shroud researchers. In the middle of the two extremes is Michael Kowalski’s recent book, The Shroud of Christ: Evidence of a 2,000 Year Antiquity. Kowalski, the current editor of the British Shroud of Turin newsletter, is a physics graduate who also studied statistical analysis. He is also a member of the international Shroud Science Group (SSG) – a body of senior scientists composed, at last count, of 147 scientists (including sceptics) from all over the world. Members of the SSG examine Shroud research and take part in vigorous debates on subjects that have now included the latest revelations about the raw carbon-dating data. The main conclusion from all of this research is that the carbon daters got it wrong, and that there is really no reliable evidence at all that the Shroud is a mediaeval forgery. In fact, close examination of the carbon dating data indicates the carbon-14 measurements in 1988 reveals that the carbon date was not reliable at all and that the carbon daters should have admitted defeat. In other words, they should have told the world their efforts to come up with a reliable date for the Shroud had failed.

William West

January 14, 2025

ChatGPT’s surprising admission on abortion

As a philosophy teacher specializing in knowledge and logic, I have always been fascinated by how reasoning shapes our understanding of complex issues. My curiosity led me to interview ChatGPT, treating it as both a subject of study and a conversational partner. The goal was to explore its thought process across 25 topics ranging from politics to philosophy and social issues. While many discussions were insightful, the AI responses about abortion were especially thought-provoking. To my surprise, ChatGPT admitted that abortion is the termination of a living human organism—a significant acknowledgment. It warrants closer examination. The interview began with a foundational question: What is the nature of the entity within the mother’s womb? I deliberately used the term "entity" to avoid preconceived judgments. ChatGPT unequivocally affirmed that the zygote, embryo, and fetus are all biologically living organisms. It explained that these entities exhibit the characteristics of life—cellular growth, metabolism, and responsiveness to their environment. Science clearly distinguishes between living and non-living, and ChatGPT’s response confirmed that what exists in the womb is indisputably alive. Satisfied with this answer, I pressed further: If abortion ends this life, does it not destroy a living organism? ChatGPT admitted, “Yes, from a biological standpoint, an abortion involves the termination of a living organism.” It was striking to hear this confirmation, as it aligned with scientific consensus. However, ChatGPT began to distance itself from the moral implications of this acknowledgment, noting that societal and legal perspectives often prioritize other considerations, such as privacy. Next, I sought clarity on whether this living organism is human. ChatGPT provided an unequivocal answer: the entity within the womb is not only alive but also distinctly human. It pointed to DNA as the defining evidence, explaining that the genetic makeup of a human zygote, embryo, or fetus is unique to our species. This genetic identity, combined with a human-specific developmental trajectory, leaves no room for doubt. Hands instead of paws, legs instead of fins—everything about this entity’s growth confirms its humanity. But there was more. ChatGPT further acknowledged that this human organism is not only alive and human but also uniquely individual. The DNA of the fetus is distinct from both the mother and father, marking it as a separate being. With rare exceptions, such as identical twins, no two humans share the same genetic code. This individuality underscores the gravity of what is at stake in the abortion debate.

George Matwijec

January 14, 2025

Why is the infamous Stanford prison experiment still so influential?

A new translation of a 2018 book by French science historian Thibault Le Texier challenges the claims of one of psychology’s most famous experiments. Investigating the Stanford Prison Experiment: History of a Lie, published recently in English, documents serious limitations of the study – including that student “guards” were actually coached to dehumanise their “prisoners” – and asks how such a flawed experiment became so influential. An infamous ‘prison’ in a university basement You’ve likely heard of the Stanford prison experiment. In 1971, 24 young male volunteers were randomly assigned to the roles of “inmates” and “guards” in a pretend prison in the basement of Stanford University’s psychology department. The situation quickly got out of control. By day two, the volunteers playing the role of guards had begun psychologically torturing their prisoners. Stripped naked, hooded, chained, and denied food and sleep, the prisoners became traumatised, with half suffering nervous breakdowns so that by day six the experiment – planned to last two weeks – was called off. The experiment was conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who died last year at the age of 91. He argued that the transformation of seemingly normal people into cruel guards and passive prisoners was proof that social situations have the power to corrupt human behaviour. His sensational findings and the dramatic story of the experiment, illustrated with photos of uniformed guards in aviator shades and batons standing threateningly over cowering and hooded prisoners, made Zimbardo and his experiment famous. Since it was conducted over five decades ago, the lessons from the experiment have been applied to a burgeoning number of situations beyond prison. By 2007 Zimbardo used it to explain corporate fraud, military torture, cult behaviour and even genocide. A recently published English translation of French academic Thibault Le Texier’s 2018 book unearths a more complicated and troubling story of the famous study. It casts doubt on Zimbardo’s reliability as a narrator of his own research. Criticisms of the experiment are not new, with critiques of its methodology and Zimbardo’s argument that situations can overpower our personalities appearing as early as 1975. But Le Texier’s detailed findings, available in English for the first time, offer a full account of events behind the scenes.

Gina Perry

January 12, 2025

Is wokeness an ideology for an effete elite?

We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite by Musa al-Gharbi | Princeton UP, 2024, 432 pages Political and social developments during 2024 have led some to speculate that the “Woke” era is over. Donald Trump’s victory over a Democratic candidate who owed her position to race and gender alone – and whose radicalism on transgender issues arguably cost her the election – was the best example of this. Woke is certainly not dead, but it is in retreat. In fact, one brilliant American academic argues that Wokeness barely even existed, given that this social phenomenon was never really about standing up for the disadvantaged. Musa al-Gharbi’s biography is one of those “only in America” stories. He is mixed-race, raised in a military family in Arizona, a cradle Catholic who converted to Islam (via atheism) and has earned a PhD in one of the most leftist fields (sociology) in one of the most progressive universities (Columbia). His diverse background has probably contributed to the shaping of an outstanding book which hit the shelves in October: We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite.

James Bradshaw

January 10, 2025

Could a chill, normal dude do all this stuff?

Elon Musk By Walter Isaacson | Simon & Schuster UK, 2023, 688 pages Walter Isaacson could not have chosen a more fascinating subject than Elon Musk for the latest of his biographies, which include well known portraits of Steve Jobs, Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Henry Kissinger and Benjamin Franklin. And Musk is not out of place among this pantheon of history-altering men. The biography has been a number one New York Times non-fiction bestseller, a number two Sunday Times non-fiction bestseller, as well as the book of the year in various outlets.

Fr Gavan Jennings

January 09, 2025

23andMe is sinking after massive data breaches

23andMe, the personal genetic testing company, is drowning. Around this time a year ago, there was a massive database hack in which the genetic profiles of 6.9 million 23andMe customers were stolen and offered for sale on the internet, a severe attack on their privacy. Since then, the once thriving company has been on a steadily downward trajectory. Pretty quickly they were hit with a US$30 million class action lawsuit resulting in $10,000 individual payoutsto victims. Two months ago, their stock was in serious trouble and their entire board of directors resigned except for their CEO, Anne Wojcicki. Recently they announced a 40 percent layoff of personnel along with the news that they were discontinuing all of their drug therapy development programs. It’s no wonder that their new customer enrolment and annual income are also way under water. Should the decline of 23andMe concern you? If you or any of your relatives thought (along with 14 million other consumers), that it was a harmless lark to buy one of their testing kits, spit into one of their tubes, and send it off for analysis so that you could learn some cool things about your ancestry and DNA make-up, the answer is a resounding YES. 23andMe now owns your personal genetic information. After their data hack last year, they had to admit that their security was lacking for the storage of this very private information and they claim that they have now beefed it up. All well and good, but all bets are off now that the company’s future existence is insecure. Anne Wojcicki has said she wants to retain ownership of the company and take it private, but she also acknowledged that she has considered selling it. In either case, restructuring or a complete re-envisioning of the company under new ownership could lead to major concerns regarding the continued security and privacy of their former customers’ stored genetic data.