If two New Hampshire men aren't a match for the Devil, we might as well give the country back to the Indians. -Stephen Vincent Benet (1898-1943)
House Advances New Sanctions on Russia and Aid to Ukraine (Robert Jimison, June 3, 2026, NY Times)
Defying Republican leaders, the House voted on Wednesday to take up a bill to impose sweeping new sanctions on Russia and provide additional aid to Ukraine, after a bloc of G.O.P. defectors joined Democrats in an effort to ratchet up pressure on Moscow more than four years into the war.
Consciousness Researchers Are Tripping: Michael Pollan’s journey into the mind (Kit Wilson, May 26, 2026, Commonweal)
Hurlburt claims that, in fifty years of experience sampling, his most important finding is simply how little we’re actually aware of the details of our inner experiences. Pollan supplements this with an elegant passage on William James’s magnificent lecture “The Stream of Thought,” in which James attempts to draw attention to the strange, swirling, constantly half-forming and half-dissolving nature of our conscious experiences: the both-there-and-not sensation of trying to remember a forgotten name; the protolinguistic feeling of intending to say something before you do; the “auras,” “halos,” “accentuations,” “associations,” “suffusions,” “feelings of tendency,” “premonitions,” and “psychic overtones” that accompany all our more code-like, sentence-friendly, and determinate thoughts. Pollan writes:
To read James’s heroic attempt to limn the stream of consciousness in all its nuance, strangeness, and paradox is to realize how much violence is done to the experience in the name of consciousness science…. How could we ever accept the idea that consciousness is reducible to information, to computable bits or pixels? How could the concept of information ever capture or convey something like the aura or halo of a thought, or its familiarity, or the “fringe of unarticulated affinities” linking two thoughts, or the afterglow of a thought and its coloring of a thought to come?
Indeed. All of this is reinforced by Kalina Christoff Hadjiilieva, a Bulgarian-born psychologist who specializes in “spontaneous thought”: mind-wandering, daydreaming, creative thinking, and the mysterious thoughts that seem to come to us from nowhere. As she points out, almost all consciousness science is focused only on our most explicitly conscious thoughts. But these are rare, discrete moments extracted from a vast, nebulous background—like tiny raindrops condensing inside a huge amorphous cloud of vapor. This background, Christoff Hadjiilieva estimates, accounts for something like half of what the mind is doing at any one moment. This highlights the absurdity of trying to produce thinking machines by focusing only on surface material like language and perception.
Everything then culminates in a kind of psychedelic punchline. Pollan meets Christof Koch, an American cognitive scientist and one of the true giants in the world of consciousness research, most famous for espousing integrated information theory—which posits, rather abstrusely, that consciousness arises in any physical system sufficiently interconnected and recursive. Back in 1998, Koch famously bet the philosopher David Chalmers that scientists would find neural correlates of consciousness within twenty-five years. In 2023, Koch graciously conceded, and gave Chalmers, the man who coined the phrase “the hard problem of consciousness,” his promised case of Madeira.
In the years since, Koch has become increasingly suspicious of purely physical accounts of consciousness, his skepticism reinforced by recent experiments with psychedelics. Pollan quotes from a conversation with Koch after his return from an ayahuasca retreat in Brazil: “It was extraordinary…. I accessed this universal mind…. It was what Aldous Huxley described in The Doors of Perception. There was no self. There was Mind at Large.”
Koch is not the only scientist Pollan talks with who admits to a drug-induced revelation. A little earlier, the neuroscientist Kingson Man describes his experiences with a psychedelic called 5-MeO-DMT:
I disappeared, fell out of time, and then came back with the realization that everything in the world is love. I know, ridiculous! As a scientist, there’s no reasoning about it. But I understood for the first time that everything is connected by the same substance, and that substance is love…. And I realized there’s more going on in consciousness than I can hope to build with my dinky little machine. A robot can act like it’s in love, but it’s still a puppet being pulled by strings.
Of course, there’s something funny about these drug-induced breakthroughs, and it should all be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. Nonetheless, I found it striking that what these trips offer scientists—setting aside the wilder flights of fancy—are often simple reminders of something that was always there. In an email to Pollan, Koch likens his experience to a famous philosophical thought experiment in which someone who is colorblind is able to see color for the first time. A reductionist explanation involving photons and receptors wouldn’t be enough. “Wouldn’t you go around for the rest of your life with the certainty that you had experienced something utterly real that demanded an explanation? So it is with me and my mystical experience.”
Even Kingson Man’s more stereotypically hippie-style revelation could be seen as a reminder of something we forget only because it’s ever-present: love really is real, and irreducible to any physical mechanism. This is particularly easy to forget when you’re professionally trained to filter out the familiar—but remarkable and mysterious—experiences we have every second of our waking lives, and to think only in terms of the theoretical grids we place on top of them.
It’s all just footnotes to Hume
REVIEW: of Allen Buchanan, Political Tribalism: How It Hijacks Our Minds and Diminishes Our Humanity (Alexander Motchoulski, 2026.06.2, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews)
Morally, tribalistic ideologies impede individuals’ moral reasoning primarily by representing politics as a zero-sum struggle of life and death on which one’s existence and identity depend (52-53). By representing politics as a condition of high-stakes group conflict, such ideologies are supposed to motivate transgression of what would otherwise be seen as moral norms in one’s behavior toward those that one views as Other.
Cognitively, tribalistic ideologies undermine our ability to reason about and with persons perceived as Other because such ideologies represent the other in terms of rigid stereotypes which obscure differences among persons falling within that category (36-37), impede one’s ability to take the perspective of persons deemed Other (45-47), and impede uptake of testimony from persons regarded as Other (80-81). Tribalistic ideologies’ effects on our moral reasoning compound with those cognitive effects, transforming what should be truth-seeking discourse into interactions aimed at defensive scorekeeping against opposition criticism (rather than fair consideration of and response to such criticism) and exercises in signaling one’s group affiliation and sorting one’s interactions to take place with one’s group (62-5).
Tribalism, then, is that way of thinking and feeling, of seeing and desiring and reacting, that is the driving force behind the antagonism observed in contemporary politics.
All the President’s Losses: Courts are telling Trump “No” (Joyce Vance, Jun 01, 2026, Civil Discourse)
The courts continue to let the White House know how this democracy works. It’s become hard to keep track of all of Trump’s losses in court as they continue to add up.Here are the details on some of the newest ones…
Donald who?
The Cartoonist Who Mocked the Madness of Modernism: With biting satire, Alan Dunn captured how 20th-century architectural trends left everyday Americans astonished, baffled, and enraged. (Gabriele Neri, MIT Press Reader)
In 1936, Alan Dunn was paid $25 for his first cartoon in Architectural Record. The drawing shows a scene from American suburbia, with two single-family houses side by side. On the right, we see a modern, geometrically abstract abode with large windows set into very slim walls, a flat roof, bright metal parapets, and no traces of decoration. In short, a work of architecture aligned with the new avant-garde style spreading across the country.Gabriele Neri is the author of “Alan Dunn,” from which this article is adapted.
But to the left, another house appears — one with much bolder features. It is composed of a post set into the ground on which two bare slabs are wedged, which constitute the entire living space on their own. The elevated living space is reached via steps with a curved handrail that rises from the ground to the top. There are no other pillars, not even walls, a roof, or windows. The house, in its sculptural incompleteness, is an exercise in absolute radicalism. Looking perfectly at ease, its inhabitant reads the paper, lounging on a futuristic chair, seemingly unperturbed by issues of privacy or climate control. This display gets on the nerves of his modernist neighbors, irritated by such extreme modernity.“Well, we’re dated!” the wife complains to her husband. “That abstractionist next door built his house in space-time.”
It is a typical setup by Dunn, then a mainstay of The New Yorker’s graphic humor, notorious for satirizing the transformations of 20th-century American architecture. Trained at the National Academy of Design and the American Academy in Rome, Dunn was a shrewd visual critic who brilliantly juxtaposed everyday aesthetic banality with surreal disruption. He showed that, rather than a matter of substance, the modernity seeping into Americans’ lives was, above all, a phenomenon of form — a passing fashion soon to be supplanted by new trends and convictions.
Anti-Woke, or Just Wounded? A Typology of Two Types of Anti-Woke Intellectuals (Scott Barry Kaufman, June 1, 2026, Skeptic)
When we hear “narcissism,” we picture the grandiose type: the swaggering, self-promoting, attention-hungry performer. But in a study with Joshua Miller, W. Keith Campbell, and Brandon Weiss, my colleagues and I mapped how narcissism actually breaks apart into different faces. There’s grandiose narcissism: antagonistic, dominant, status-seeking. And there’s vulnerable narcissism: neurotic, hypersensitive, easily wounded, perpetually aggrieved, convinced the world has failed to grant the recognition it owes. The antagonism is the thread the two share.
Both feed the second anti-woke intellectual, but in different ways. Grandiose narcissism builds the brand: the crusader who discovers that being The Person Who Fights This Thing brings a following, a revenue stream, a standing ovation, and who needs the enemy to stay enormous because the enemy is now load-bearing for the self. Vulnerable narcissismsupplies the wound: the person who was genuinely humiliated—fired, mobbed, exiled, betrayed—and for whom the critique is no longer about the world at all but about settling a score that never closes. A real injury becomes a permanent organizing principle. The crusade is the bandage that never comes off because the cut is never allowed to heal.
And when this goes collective, it gets its own engine. The work of Agnieszka Golec de Zavala on collective narcissism describes groups built around the belief that we are exceptional, that we are not sufficiently recognized, and shows that such groups reliably turn hostile toward whoever they cast as the threat to the in-group’s image. An anti-woke movement organized around shared grievance, rather than shared inquiry, will behave exactly this way: ever-vigilant, ever-aggrieved, retaliating against perceived insults to its own greatness. The truth-seeking recedes; the score-settling takes over.
That’s the distinction I’d draw, and I’d put it as a question anyone in this fight can ask themselves: Am I doing this to make society better, or to repair a narcissistic injury? The two can look identical from the outside. They have very different effects on the world.
And here is the part I find mega-ironic: the second camp talks, almost without exception, from a place of pure victim mindset. The very thing they are most likely to mock in their opponents (the grievance gang, the victimhood culture, the perpetual woundedness group, the “everyone is out to get us” cohort) is the thing they have most thoroughly become. Their accusation becomes a mirror of themselves.
This is the root of the Right’s obsession with manliness: they lack iot.
Thanks largely to robots, Ukraine is now talking about winning, not just surviving: Uncrewed and autonomous systems—and the willingness to adapt to them—have neutered Russian advantages. (Patrick Tucker | June 2, 2026, Defense One)
A small but growing number of European officials and analysts are saying what four years ago was unthinkable: Ukraine isn’t just surviving its grueling war with Russia, it is in some ways thriving and may even be on a path to victory.
This isn’t yet captured in headlines—for example, about last weekend’s barrage of Russian drones and missiles around Ukraine—but in the details, like how some 90 percent were intercepted.
Several long-term trends have shifted in Ukraine’s favor, and the core reason is its fierce focus on AI and robotics.
In the crucible of war, Ukraine has developed drones and ground robots that can hold territory—even take it back.
Waiting in Darkness: The U.S. fuel blockade against Cuba (Joy Gordon, April 27, 2026, Commonweal)
Violence is easily recognized when it takes the form of bullets or bombs. The causality is indisputable, the human impact immediately visible. But economic violence works very differently. Deprivation does not kill or maim directly. Rather, it creates the conditions that bring suffering and hardship. When these are severe, infant and child mortality rates increase, illnesses and injuries are more likely to be fatal, and life expectancy decreases. We know that sanctions may have all those results. Unilateral sanctions, which the United States has imposed on numerous countries and thousands of individuals, have a massive impact on mortality, causing more than five hundred thousand deaths every year.
Folks don’t care to acknowledge that W ended the Iraq War, rather than starting it. Regime change makes ending sanctions acceptable.
Taiwan’s more relaxed than most of us about Trumpian deal-making (Bill Emmott, May 31, 2026, Asia Times)
So it is worth asking why Taiwan itself seems comparatively relaxed about the potential implications of the Trump-Xi summits. This may help us separate the noise that inevitably surrounds these summits from the true strategic signals that both sides are conveying.
One reason why Taiwan is less concerned than others is a simple one: it has had to learn to live with its geopolitically anomalous status for nearly 80 years now. If it got nervous every time the Chinese and American leaders talked, even ones like Xi and Trump, it would soon have a nervous breakdown.
Moreover, while certainly the People’s Republic of China has become vastly stronger in economic, military and political terms, especially over the past two decades, so has Taiwan. The Taiwanese know that they could not defeat China in a head-on conflict but they also know that they are strong enough to impose huge costs and pose high risks for China.Ukraine’s success in resisting Russia’s invasion since February 2022 serves as an inspiration for Taiwan but most of all as a warning to China.
What matters to Taiwan is that it can keep on strengthening its defenses sufficiently to help deter an invasion.
Taiwan actually could win a head on conflict.
The Fire of Stupidity Cannot Be Contained (David French, 5/31/26, NY Times)
[M]illions upon millions of people are enduring democracy as “the worst form of government” without the necessary balanced understanding (that citizens in the mid-20th century had gained through firsthand observation) of “except all those other forms that have been tried.”
So even fascism and communism — for some people, at least — are no longer avatars of atrocity, but dynamic alternatives to a sclerotic present. In their frustration, all too many people are attracted to the theoretical benefits of authoritarianism, and they don’t have the experience or the education to understand its actual and inevitable defects.
They do not understand the link between their fashionable and transgressive ideologies and the oceans of blood that fascism and communism spilled across the globe.
In this ahistorical context, even political violence can seem justified — perhaps even a bit daring and romantic — unless you’ve lived through, say, the riots that swept American cities in the 1960s, a cataclysm that was far more violent, deadly and prolonged than anything that happened in the United States in 2020.
The compromises and restraints of diplomacy, which can often mean granting painful concessions to terrible regimes, can seem like a fool’s errand, unless you’ve witnessed the indescribable horrors of world wars.
The problem is rather different than Mr. French describes: it is the atavism of the Last Men. Life is so affluent and boring, thanks to the triumph of liberalism, that these people are willing to embrace violence just to make their lives more exciting.