At RealClear Politics, Frank Miele considers the possible cross-party, Reaganesque appeal of Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. Miele, a conservative, concedes that he doesn't agree with many of the Senator's positions, but notes:

He is one of the few U.S. senators of either party who seems to follow his conscience instead of party bosses, and he speaks with simple straightforward authenticity that is sadly lacking among almost all elected officials.

That last would come as a welcome break from Trump's bombast, rambling, and thin-skinned touchiness. But more important, while some of Fetterman's positions -- such as his acceptance of "climate change" catastrophism -- concern me, Fetterman seems like a reasonable person, who has changed (and would change) his mind when confronted by facts or solid arguments:

On quite a few issues, Fetterman has planted himself firmly on the side of reason and tradition. He supports Israel's right to defend itself 100 percent, and reminds his radical colleagues that Hamas started the Gaza war and has only itself to blame for the deadly outcome. Likewise Fetterman enthusiastically supported President Trump's decision to decimate Iran's nuclear capability with a bombing sortie that left no doubt that Trump would follow up his words with actions. In both cases, Fetterman angered his fellow Democrats and won new supporters among Republicans.

On other issues, he has staked out a position as a sensible reformer. Originally against fracking, for instance, he has moderated his position to acknowledge the importance of fracking for keeping energy prices low, but insists on environmental protections being in place. Perfect position for an independent.

...

Most of his positions ... fall on the same side as the majority of Americans. His support for abortion rights may rankle many Republican politicians, but polling shows that most people agree with him that abortion is a choice "between a woman, her doctor and a God if she prays to one."

Miele partly addresses the concerns of people like me who view Fetterman with skepticism, given his "progressive" past: Some of Fetterman's positions have since become mainstream, and he has changed his mind about some. (In my mind, while the former isn't ideal, in that it would thwart efforts to walk back from them, it also means less new damage would likely come from his support for those positions than if they weren't already mainstream.

Miele's column is thought-provoking without being Pollyanna-ish about what supporting Fetterman would entail for Republicans and right-leaning (or formerly right-leaning) voters, and he ends fittingly:

Maybe no one's calling themselves a Fetterman Republican yet, but as the rest of the politicians beclown themselves over the next year, I suspect they will.

Given that Donald Trump and the MAGA swamp are completely discrediting the party that let them take it over, normal Americans need to give serious thought to which Democrat might be his best or least-bad successor.

Trump is otherwise paving the way for a President Ocasio-Cortez or worse.

-- CAV

"The sudden resignations this week of BBC director-general Tim Davie and CEO of news Deborah Turness has focussed minds on the role of the media. It has been startling – and grimly predictable – to watch senior figures at the BBC scrambling to defend their failures by muttering darkly about ‘right-wing conspiracies’ and ‘inside jobs’. Few, if any, have paused to consider whether the real problem might be their own cowardice.

"The same rot runs through mainstream media across the world. In Ireland, I’ve met too many well-paid figures at RTÉ, the 'Irish Times' and the 'Irish Independent' who seem serenely proud of their refusal to touch anything remotely controversial. ... [appearing] particularly self-satisfied, even self-righteous, about [their] ability to avoid difficult issues. ...

    

"I’ve thought a lot about how these individuals can so confidently defend their inaction. Most, when pressed, admit they knew everything all along and that, when it mattered most, their courage failed them. It raises the question of how long high-status professionals should serve a system they know is doing harm. How long before they find the courage to break ranks and refuse to comply?"

~ Stella O'Malley from her post 'The trans reckoning has arrived'

"Readers will be aware that the BBC’s current travails over impartiality stem from the leak of a 19-page memorandum by the journalist Michael Prescott who was for three years an advisor on editorial standards to the Corporation. Prescott’s dossier includes the revelation that President Trump’s remarks were falsified in a BBC documentary before the 2024 presidential election ... The memorandum, brought to light and published by the 'Daily Telegraph,' can be read here:

"In a full discussion of many of the BBC’s distortions, one page of the nineteen is devoted to [our] History Reclaimed [website]. In 2022 Alex Gray compiled our own dossier of the Corporation’s historical mistakes and prejudices, based on four programmes and two news bulletins over the preceding two years which covered subjects including slavery and the slave trade, the restitution of the Benin Bronzes, the Irish Famine of the late 1840s, the Bengal Famine of 1943-4 and the imputed racism of Winston Churchill. History Reclaimed called for accuracy and impartiality, the presentation of the full range of historical interpretations, the use of experts rather than ‘presenters,’ and the establishment of a panel of qualified historians to advise and assist the BBC. You can find our report here:

"We did not receive a direct reply, but the BBC put out a dismissive response accusing us of ‘cherry-picking a handful of examples.’ We now discover that Mr Prescott thought our points ‘fascinating and compelling’ and also ‘reasonable,’ and that he encouraged a meeting with us, but this was ‘judged inappropriate’ by the BBC.

"History Reclaimed notes that like so many other organisations and people in British life, we too have been ignored by the BBC when making accurate criticisms of their content and modest proposals for its improvement. We take heart from Mr Prescott’s endorsement of our points. We will watch with interest to see if the presentation of history on BBC radio and television improves. Given that we were brushed aside then and that the BBC is trying to deny its systemic failings now, we are not optimistic. Perhaps President Trump will have better luck."

~ from the History Reclaimed blog post 'BBC Scandal Confirms History Reclaimed’s Warnings'

At Reason, Ilya Somin takes a recent wave of resignations from the Heritage Foundation as his point of departure en route to discussing the decline of that institution since the mid 1990's from one of the better conservative think tanks to what sounds like a cesspit of nativism and nationalism.

After noting that the shift was enough for him to turn down an invitation to contribute to a Heritage publication in 2022, Somin names the problem:

[T]he problem here goes beyond the bigotry of a few "influencers" or the flaws of specific leaders at Heritage and some other conservative institutions. Rather, as Kim Holmes put it, this is the predictable consequence of "replacing conservatism with nationalism." A conservative movement that increasingly defines itself in ethno-nationalist terms as a protector of the supposed interests of America's white Christian majority against immigrants and minority groups cannot readily avoid descending into anti-Semitism, as well.

My Cato Institute colleague Alex Nowrasteh and I wrote about the connections between nationalism and bigotry in some detail in our 2024 article "The Case Against Nationalism." We are working on a follow-up piece that specifically addresses links to anti-Semitism and related current controversies surrounding the conservative movement. [links omitted, bold added]

Somin's piece is short but valuable for: (1) containing many helpful links the interested reader can follow to get up to speed on this controversy, (2) acknowledging that anti-Semitism is also a problem on the left, and (3) ending with the following comment on Robert George's invocation of inalienable rights in his resignation letter:

Unlike nationalist movements focused on ethnic particularism, the American Founding was based on universal liberal principles. Those principles remain the best protection for Jews and other minority groups. Left and right alike would do well to recommit to them.

Somin's attempt to rectify his past omission may or may not be as good as having said something earlier, but it is nonetheless a great service to American patriots and other friends of liberty.

As Ayn Rand once put it so well, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual." An institution that descends into collectivism of any form is no friend of the individual.

-- CAV

“Younging” is my stab at a term that’s shorter and more descriptive than “rejuvenation” and more positive than “de-aging.”

Once it becomes possible to shed years, people will be asking: “You look good, are you younging?” (Whatever word they use, I hope they ask it of me.)

Contemptuous dismissal of younging, especially in the mainstream media, is all that you see. But now The Wall Street Journal has published an opinion piece that gives a . . . wait for it . . . non-contemptuous dismissal! How’s that for gaining acceptance!

The headline is,

Nobody Ever Got Younger, but it May Be Worth a Try

The physician who wrote the piece thinks the anti-aging movement makes older people more health-conscious, and that’s a good thing—even though he claims that the idea of defeating aging is “absurd.”

But the full sentence walks it back ever so slightly:

As a physician-scientist, I could dismiss the antiaging trend as absurd.

Not as a scientist he couldn’t. And the headline tells the story:

Nobody Ever Got Younger . . .

A scientist would recognize that as a half-truth and a smear. Mice have gotten younger, monkeys have gotten younger. In the below, the bolding is mine.

In a recent study published in Cell, researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Capital Medical University introduced a new type of human stem cell called senescence-resistant mesenchymal progenitor cells (SRCs) by reprogramming the genetic pathways associated with longevity. These cells, which resist aging and stress without developing tumors, were tested on elderly crab-eating macaques [monkeys], which share physiological similarities with humans in their 60s and 70s.

The research team conducted a 44-week experiment on these macaques. The macaques received biweekly intravenous injections of SRCs, with a dosage of 2×106 cells per kilogram of body weight. The researchers found no adverse effects among the macaques. Detailed assessments confirmed that the transplanted cells did not cause tissue damage or tumors.

The researchers discovered that SRCs triggered a multi-system rejuvenation, reversing key markers of aging across 10 major physiological systems and 61 different tissue types. The treated macaques exhibited improved cognitive function, and tissue analyses indicated a reduction in age-related degenerative conditions such as brain atrophy, osteoporosis, fibrosis, and lipid buildup.

At the cellular level, SRCs decreased the number of senescent cells, reduced inflammation, and increased progenitor cell populations in neural and reproductive tissues. They even stimulated sperm production. At the molecular level, SRCs enhanced genomic stability, improved responses to oxidative stress, and restored protein balance. More than 50% of the examined tissues showed a reversal of aging-related gene expression profiles to a younger state. Single-cell analyses revealed significant reversals in gene expression among peripheral blood cells (33%), the hippocampus (42%), and ovarian tissue (45%). Machine learning-based aging clocks estimated that the biological age of immature neurons was reversed by six-seven years, and that of oocytes by five years.

[Is that monkey years or human equivalent?–HB]

Furthermore, the researchers found that tiny particles called exosomes, released by the SRCs, were the key agents of rejuvenation. These exosomes suppressed chronic inflammation while preserving genomic and epigenomic integrity. When isolated SRC exosomes were administered to aged mice, they significantly reduced organ degeneration. In vitro studies demonstrated that these exosomes could rejuvenate various human cell types, including neurons, ovarian, and liver cells. This discovery suggests that exosome signaling could be a fundamental pathway for reversing aging. [June 23, 2025, link]

But I’ll rest my case with the much older and more replicated mouse studies. Having learned just recently that sliding away from topics is the chief means of resisting persuasion, I’d ask the WSJ guest author (and skeptics among HBLers) to face squarely one question:

Is it conceivable that mice can be made young again but human beings can’t be?

Hint: the answer is no. Aging is not some species-specific condition. Aging crosses all animal boundaries. Not every animal species ages, but every class, order, phylum, and sub-phylum of animals do. That’s the very thing that makes people skeptical about stopping it, let alone reversing it.

Now, maybe the mice experiments aren’t valid. But it is just “absurd” to think that fellow mammals, mice, can be rejuvenated but human beings can’t be. That position would be on a par with holding in the early 50s, sure the heredity of mice is governed by a DNA double helix, but how do we know human heredity operates that way?

The best argument against the mice studies is that some (all?) of them work with artificially aged mice and then restore them to, approximately, where they would have been had they not been artificially aged. That could be likened to giving the mice a disease and then curing it.

I don’t know if this is a fair characterization of many or all mouse rejuvenation studies. It seems unlikely because these studies were carried out at top-level universities, like Harvard (and no, not just David Sinclair’s lab—also George Church’s lab).

Here’s my exchange with AI agent “Claude”:

HB: How many studies on mice have shown rejuvenation?

I don’t have a precise count of all rejuvenation studies in mice, as this is an active and rapidly growing field of research. However, I can tell you that there have been dozens of significant studies demonstrating various forms of rejuvenation in mice, particularly in recent years.

Partial cellular reprogramming – Studies using Yamanaka factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, c-Myc) to reverse aging markers in tissues like the retina, muscle, and brain

Senescent cell removal (senolytics) – Multiple studies showing that clearing senescent cells extends healthspan and lifespan in mice

Heterochronic parabiosis – Research where young and old mice share circulation, showing rejuvenation of various tissues in old mice

NAD+ precursors, Blood plasma factors – Research identifying rejuvenating factors in young blood and inhibitory factors in old blood

Epigenetic reprogramming – Studies reversing the epigenetic clock and restoring youthful function

The number continues to grow as the field advances. Would you like me to search for more current statistics on the total number of such studies, or information about specific types of rejuvenation research?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4zPY_XnfS8




Podcast audio:







The Enlightenment’s commitment to reason, individualism, and the power of knowledge sparked unprecedented progress in human life. Yet, despite this achievement, contemporary Western societies face deepening crises — mounting political violence, the collapse of alliances of free nations, and a growing support for authoritarian movements. What accounts for this reversal?



In his talk, “Saving the Enlightenment,” delivered at ARI’s 2025 Objectivist Summer Conference, Onkar Ghate diagnoses the problem at its root: our cultural crises are the aftermath of a crucial philosophical gap left by the Enlightenment.



Ghate argues that a key feature of our cultural landscape is “a blind rebellion against an orgy of self-sacrifice.” Crises like 9/11, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the widespread embrace of DEI initiatives marked the unfolding of self-sacrificial policies that cost American lives. Many who now condemn their leaders do not realize how those policies reflect the same moral code they still accept. They embrace alternative ideologies (like nationalism) that channel the same code. So they don’t know their real target: their rebellion against “elite” demands for self-sacrifice is “blind.”



This blindness, Ghate contends, stems from the Enlightenment’s failure to articulate a morality of self-interest. While its philosophers championed reason in science and politics, they never provided an alternative to the ethical frameworks that demanded individuals subordinate their welfare to collective duty. Consequently, modern culture lacks a coherent philosophy that sanctions the individual’s right to pursue happiness.



To secure the Enlightenment’s legacy, Ghate urges, requires adopting an ethical system that validates rational self-interest and personal happiness as moral goods — principles that only Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism fully articulates. Objectivism, in his view, provides “the new morality that's necessary to cement the achievements of the Enlightenment.”



Among the topics covered:




The Enlightenment and its failure



The grip of self-sacrifice



Self-sacrifice in the 21st century



Today’s pseudo-selfishness



Objectivism completes the Enlightenment




This talk was recorded live on July 2nd in Boston, MA, as part of the 2025 Objectivist Summer Conference, and is available on The Ayn Rand Institute Podcast stream. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Watch archived podcasts here.





Download video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/l4zPY_XnfS8



Download audio: https://media.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/content.blubrry.com/new_ideal_ari/Saving_the_Enlightenment.mp3

Today's guest post from Students for Liberty explains that Ludwig von Mises and other Austrian economists didn't just refute Marx's economics, they exposed contradictions in Marx's thinking so devastating that the entire system collapsed. ...

Marx built his system on "historical materialism." Socialism [he claimed] would arrive with "the inexorability of a law of nature." Material forces determine everything, he said: History has a predetermined path; human agency is an illusion.
Mises saw the fatal flaw immediately: Marx's philosophy refutes itself. His actions contradict his theory. His method destroys his conclusions. ... 

1. The Activist Paradox
Marx declared that socialism must arrive through inevitable material forces. Nothing can stop it. History has already decided. So Mises asked the obvious question:

If socialism is inevitable, why did Marx spend his entire life writing manifestos, organising workers, and agitating for revolution?
If material forces determine everything, why does human action matter?

Marx lived as if ideas could change history, while writing that ideas are powerless against material forces.
His life contradicted his philosophy. 

2. The Polylogism Trap
Marx claimed all ideas are products of class interests. 
Bourgeois thinkers produce bourgeois ideology. Proletarian thinkers produce proletarian truth.
Mises called this "polylogism." Different classes have different logics.
The problem? First, Marx couldn't even define the term! And second, this principle applies to Marx himself. 

If all thought is class-determined, then Marx's theory is just bourgeois ideology. He was, after all, a wealthy intellectual, not a factory worker.

You cannot claim "all ideas are ideological" while exempting your own theory from that rule.
The system refutes itself. 

3. The Origin Problem
Marx said "material productive forces" determine everything. That tools, machines, and technology create society. Law, culture, and ideas all flow from the means of production.
But Mises identified a fatal circularity:

Tools and machines don't fall from heaven. They are themselves products of ideas.

Before you can build a steam engine, someone must think of a steam engine.
Marx tried to explain ideas through tools. But tools only exist because of prior ideas.
You cannot explain the origin of society by pointing to things that can only exist within a society built on prior ideas.
Cause and effect, inverted. 

4. The Blueprint That Doesn't Exist
Marx spent decades critiquing capitalism. He preached its inevitable collapse. He promised a socialist paradise.
But he refused to describe how socialism would actually work. He called detailed planning "utopian."
Ludwig Von Mises exposed the consequences: Marx advocated destroying the most productive economic system in history to replace it with a system whose institutions he never analysed.
When Mises later proved that socialist calculation was impossible, Marxists had no answer.
Because Marx never thought about how his system would actually function.
He tore down without building up. He promised without planning. He diagnosed without prescribing.

This is what they don't teach in your political philosophy class:
The entire Marxist edifice rests on self-refuting contradictions that were exposed over a century ago.
Mises didn't just win on economics. He showed that Marx's philosophy itself was intellectually bankrupt.
Historical determinism makes activism pointless. Polylogism that invalidates its own claims. Material explanation that requires immaterial origins. A revolutionary program with no coherent plan.
One economist dismantled the entire system.
And many academics still pretend it never happened.
Every libertarian learns about Mises, the economist.
Few learn about Mises, the philosopher, who exposed the contradictions at the heart of the most influential ideology of the modern age.
These aren't obscure academic quibbles. These are fundamental logical errors.
Once you understand them, you can dismantle Marxist arguments at their foundation. Not with emotion, but with cold, clear logic.

This is the intellectual ammunition they don't want you to have.