#492 — The Second Plane, 25 Years Later

Religious Belief Becomes Violent With Doctrines on Martyrdom, Paradise, Apostasy, and Blasphemy

The attacks of September 11, 2001, exposed how sincerely held religious beliefs can lead to catastrophic violence. When the first plane hit the North Tower, some could explain it as an accident or a random act of madness. The impact of United 175 on the South Tower, however, dispelled those illusions. The second strike demonstrated that this horror was intentional and that the perpetrators fully expected to die, revealing a degree of commitment that could not be chalked up to mere insanity or accident.

This intentionality and willingness to die reflects deep, sincere religious belief. Nineteen men committed mass murder because they were certain they would be rewarded in paradise for it. As Sam Harris notes, the hijackers’ actions were not driven by mental illness or desperation, but by the conviction that martyrdom guaranteed entry to paradise. When jihadists proclaim, "we love death more than the infidels love life," the evidence suggests we should take them at their word. Ideas—in particular, those centered on doctrines of martyrdom, paradise, apostasy, and blasphemy—can be lethally consequential.

The 9/11 hijackers were not impoverished or uneducated. Twelve of the nineteen attended college; all four pilots were FAA-credentialed. These were not desperate men with nothing to lose but individuals who believed jihad was a sacred cause and martyrdom a means to paradise. The ideological continuity is further evidenced by documented letters, videos, and instructions, which explicitly tell jihadists to anticipate paradise and seek martyrdom.

This continuity persists across decades. Harris points out that the perpetrators of October 7, 2023, in Southern Israel acted with the same "religious certainty" seen on 9/11. He describes a militant calling his family after murdering civilians, his voice ecstatic, animated not by despair but by the expectation of religious reward. Harris argues the ideological thread tying September 11th and October 7th is unbroken, with both attacks animated by doctrines treating mass murder as sacrament. Beliefs drive behavior as reliably as any ordinary conviction.

Jihadism Persists As a Threat Regardless of Western Policy or Grievances

After September 11th, the United States launched a $8 trillion war on terror, involving long and costly campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. While these efforts included both necessary actions and major errors—like the destabilization of Iraq and the ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan—Harris maintains that these mistakes and the resulting turmoil do not explain, let alone justify, jihadist violence. Policies and grievances do not erase the role of ideology. America's failures in Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, or elsewhere, or even longstanding grievances about Western intervention, cannot account for the persistent reality that organized religious extremism persists independent of Western action.

Jihadist attacks in Paris, Madrid, or Mumbai, Harris argues, bear little relation to American or Isra ...

Misdiagnosing 9/11: Blaming Poverty, Policy, Despair Instead of Religious Motivations

After the September 11th attacks, many prominent commentators, academics, and journalists in the West quickly began asserting that the hijackers were driven by poverty, American foreign policy, or a sense of despair. This narrative, however, runs contrary to the actual backgrounds of the hijackers. Twelve of the nineteen had attended college, and all four pilots held FAA credentials, disproving the idea that the attackers were poor or desperate men with nothing to live for. Instead, they were highly motivated by religious ideology.

Evidence From Hijackers' Writings, Correspondence, and Testimony on Religious Commitments

Clear evidence exists from the hijackers themselves as well as the people who trained them. The 9/11 attackers left behind letters, made videos, and included instructions explicitly referencing their motivations. Surveillance, their recovered writings, correspondence, and witness testimony all confirm that they were obsessed with waging jihad against infidels and Jews, viewing martyrdom as a guaranteed path to paradise. The instructions they carried on the day of the attacks told them to anticipate paradise and to ask God to grant them martyrdom.

Failure to Recognize Attacks as Acts of Worship, Not Political or Economic Calculation, By Ignoring Religious Ideology

Despite this clear body of evidence, an entire class of Western liberals, academics, journalists, and intellectuals could not or would not process the fact that the 9/11 atrocities were acts of religious worship rather than acts rooted in politics, economics, or psychological desperation. Even today, many continue to avoid reckoning with the reality of religious ideology as the central motivation behind the attacks.

Response to October 7th, 2023 Shows a More Organized and Formalized Pseudo-Moral Intellectual Confusion

The aftermath of the October 7th, 2023 attacks saw this pattern intensify in speed and coordination. Celebrations and justifications for the attacks occurred almost immediately in cities such as New York and on the campuses of elite American universities. Before Israel had even begun its military response, over 30 student groups at Harvard released statements holding Israel exclusively responsible for the massacre of its own civilians, for the rape, mutilation, and murder of youth at a music festival. The acts were described as "liberation," "resistance to occupation," and "decolonization" rather than murder.

Elite institutions now operate under a pseudo-moral, identitarian framework, where conflicts are understood solely in terms of oppressor and oppressed. Once these roles are assigned, no subsequent facts alter the narrative. As a result, jihadist organizations or theocratic death cults—explicitly committed to genocide and known to commit atrocities, such as throwing gay men off rooftops—are classified as liberation movements at Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia. At universities, these groups are defended as anti-colonial revolutionaries, even when they openly advocate genocide against LGBTQ+ people.

Islamo-Leftism: Far-left and Islamist Convergence Using Liberal Tolerance Against Liberalism

The convergence between far-left and Islamist political actors has become more prevalent, leveraging the openness of Western liberalism against its core values. For l ...

Sam Harris argues that the concept of "Islamophobia" confuses legitimate critique of Islamic doctrine with xenophobic or racist prejudice, resulting in a lack of ideological clarity and dangerous concessions to theocratic demands.

"Islamophobia" Blurs Lines Between Critique of Islamic Doctrine and Xenophobic Racism

Harris points out that mainstream organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center have labeled critics of Islam—including those from non-white, Muslim backgrounds and who speak languages such as Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi—as anti-Muslim extremists or even racists. These individuals end up profiled alongside genuine hate groups, despite their criticism being directed at a set of ideas, not at people. Harris asserts that failing to distinguish between critique of dangerous ideas and animosity toward a community constitutes a capitulation to theocratic forces.

He draws a crucial distinction between Islam and Judaism as religions: Judaism is not a missionary faith and is generally regarded as having ethnic and racial dimensions, since Jews are usually born into the faith rather than converted. Anti-Semitism thus inherently involves elements of racism or ethnic hatred. In contrast, Islam is aggressively missionary, with no ethnic prerequisites for membership. This means critique of Islam targets a system of beliefs, not an ethnicity—a distinction that is foundational to liberal societies. Harris emphasizes that criticizing ideas, including the doctrines and consequences of Islam, is central to liberalism, no different than critiquing communism. In his view, calling such criticism bigotry is a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberal discourse should permit and protect.

Islamists and Apologists Weaponize Islamophobia Claims to Gain Power and Subvert Democracy

Harris argues that Islamist activists and their apologists weaponize the term "Islamophobia" to stifle debate and exert power, even within Western societies. Symbols like the hijab are portrayed as empowering by some in elite circles—even college students at Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford—despite being, in Harris’s view, the most visible method of enforcing gender apartheid across the Muslim world. Islamists are described as exploiting identity politics, grievance narratives, and liberal tolerance not to promote inclusion, but to undermine liberal norms and fortify illiberal practices.

He provides concrete examples, such as attempts by Islamists at the United Nations to criminalize blasphemy, worldwide campaigns to blame Salman Rushdie for the fatwa issued against him, or to fault the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo and the Danish cartoon controversy for their own violent deaths. Harris claims that in each instance, rather than upholding free speech or condemning violence, significant elements of public discourse have shifted blame onto those who "offended" religious sensibilities, rather than the violent actors.

According to Harris, the reach of Islam goes beyond internal community debate: it uniquely seeks to compel even non-adherents to observe its restrictions. He argues that public figures and citizens alike cannot safely criticize or depict the Prophet Muhammad, even in Wester ...

Immigration policy in liberal democracies must safeguard the foundational principles of open societies: tolerance of diversity, free speech, political equality for women, secularism, and scientific rationality. Accepting these values means recognizing the necessity to vet entrants’ ideological commitments before allowing them to immigrate. We should not welcome Islamists or jihadists, whose beliefs and intentions conflict with the core tenets that underpin liberal democracy. Radical diversity around these non-negotiable values is undesirable, as it risks undermining the very survival of open, tolerant societies. The imperative is not about racial, cultural, or ethnic prejudice, but about the maintenance and defense of key liberal values for all.

Vet Immigrants for Core Liberal Values Without Xenophobia

Goal: Ensure Newcomers Uphold Principles of a Liberal Society

Vetting immigrants should focus on their commitment to liberal democracy’s core values. This is not an expression of xenophobia or racism. The author explicitly differentiates their views from those who oppose immigration based on skin color or cultural markers—such as aversion to foreign foods or music—affirming instead a genuine appreciation and enjoyment of cultural diversity. This "xenophile" stance welcomes diversity of background and experience, but not diversity in allegiance to equality, secularism, and liberty.

Jihadists and Radical Islamists Are Enemies With Incompatible Values, Not Misunderstood Victims

Jihadists and radical Islamists are not victims with rational grievances to accommodate, but rather adversaries seeking to impose oppressive values incompatible with liberal society. Their ideological goals stand in direct opposition to the freedoms and openness of Western democracies.

Xenophile Appreciation For Diversity Aligns With Vetting That Rejects Theocratic or Anti-Equality Candidates

A love for cultural diversity can coexist with principled exclusion of those whose beliefs threaten equality and secularism. Accepting the music, food, and traditions of immigrants is entirely compatible with insisting they honor the basic principles that make peaceful coexistence possible.

Key Immigration Candidates: Muslim Dissidents, Reformers, Apostates, Secularists Escaping Theocracies

Experts in Jihadism: Insights From Life in Islamic Theocracies

Those best equipped to expose the dangers of radical Islamism are often devout believers in other faiths, former ...

Podcast independence ensures honest discussion, shields against conflicts of interest, and supports the freedom to address controversial or career-threatening topics. The structure and values underpinning a subscription-based show distinguish it in a media landscape increasingly entangled with advertisers, networks, and political influence.

Subscription-Based Funding Allows Honest Discussion Without Self-Censorship or Pressure

Most podcasts are supported by advertisers, sponsors, or network affiliations. In contrast, “Making Sense” relies solely on listener subscriptions, a choice made explicitly to preserve the integrity and honesty of its editorial content. The absence of commercial funding means there's no need to consider brand concerns or corporate sensitivities when choosing topics or guests. Even though the host admits there are brands and products he genuinely loves and could recommend, reading ads would undermine credibility and force consideration of their interests, not just those of the listeners.

Many podcasters face unavoidable conflicts of interest—especially when discussing sensitive areas like religion, politics, or matters of identity—because their shows are entangled in sponsorship deals or obligations to networks. Recently, a New York Times article exposed a deeper level of corruption: some podcasters secretly accepted payments from political campaigns to endorse candidates. This led to abrupt and suspicious shifts in coverage, highlighting how such financial pressures corrupt editorial judgment and credibility. The host expresses strong disdain for this practice, underscoring that such compromises are inconceivable for a genuinely independent show.

Subscription-based funding frees the podcast from these entanglements, ensuring the host can pursue conversations—including potentially career-ending subjects—without fear of losing support from advertisers or parent companies. This freedom is central to maintaining the show’s credibility and mission.

Subscription Support Fosters Independence, Enabling the Host to Express Controversial Views Without Fear of Advertiser or Network Retaliation

Podcaster independence, supported by listeners rather than advertisers or institutions, creates the freedom to express and explore even unpopular or controversial views. Even the wealthy and famous, the host notes, operate under the constant threat of reputational or professional harm should they fall afoul of prevailing moral panics or social controversies. The podcast host shares that many prominent individuals confide privately that, contrary to expectations, they do not feel able to say what they believe in public. Despite their resources, they remain fearful of damaging their relationships with media platforms or institutions that could abruptly end their careers.

J.K. Rowling’s recent experience serves as a striking example. Despite earning over a billion dollars from her books and spawning billion-dollar film franchises and theme parks, Rowling faced overwhelming backlash for questioning the removal of "woman" from public discourse. She withstood this due to her extraordinary success and unique platform, but the intensity of the response—including public denouncements from actors who owe their careers to her, like Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe—reveals the extent to which structural incentives enforce self-censorship. These actors, regardless of their personal beliefs, publicly distanced themselves for fear of professional reprisal. Most writers lacking Rowling’s stature could not have survived such backlash; their works would have been unpublished, and their careers destroyed. This ...