The Belly of the Beast

day-126-larry-grows-suspiciousMuch is made in some spheres of how universities are essentially indoctrination programs to turn young men and women into liberals.  My recent return to university with the beginning of the semester has had me musing on this subject, especially as more and more I see instances of progressive beliefs sneaking in places where they shouldn’t be.  Given this type of immersion, one would have to be a remarkable individual to avoid becoming at least somewhat progressive.

The situation has gotten to the point where it is expected that if you are in college you will skew liberal.  While many might consider this irksome, why not run with it?

Why not take that reputation and use it to subvert the Cathedral?

Look, if you find yourself at a high-level universities, whether large Ivy League Schools like Harvard or smaller, liberal-arts colleges like Swarthmore, you happen to be at an institution designed to train you to be a foot soldier for the Cathedral.  This grants you a unique position that a clever reactionary would seek to exploit.  You’re expected to become liberal.  Why not give people the impression that you have become so?

Now, why should one bother maintaining a reputation as a good progressive?  Well, for one, it makes your life easier.  Colleges are bastions of feminism, multiculturalism, and other liberal and progressive ideals.  You can spend your time being accosted by people for disbelieving in the sanctity of democracy and equal rights, or you can save your energy for things like learning and making good grades (or doing drugs and banging sluts if you prefer).

Second, it gives you a bit more breathing room.  A conservative that brings us something like human biodiversity is well on his way to being shunned for being a racist.  A liberal who does so, well, I’ve never seen it happen, but it would seem that most people have never experienced that.  The shock of hearing someone who cheers for diversity actually point out that humans are different is probably sufficient to give you breathing room for a quick explanation (the cognitive dissonance between celebrating diversity and claiming that everyone is equal could also be pointed out at this point).

So do what is expected of you.  Listen to Macklemore, support gay rights, and protest against “rape culture” and “systematic oppression”.  Write papers full of Marxist drivel.  Speak of the evils of colonialism and Machiavellian politics.  Hell, join clubs and organizations that encourage diversity.  There’s really no end to the opportunities to make oneself appear to be a good little liberal.  Make your public face that of an idealistic and hopeful liberal, and watch as your life is suddenly far easier.

In private however, things need to be a different story.  Remember, all this posturing is useless if you aren’t treating it as a means to and end.  The means, of course, is to be able to get away with certain behaviors.   But for what end?

I propose bringing more Legionnaires into the reactionary fold.   Make your public face liberal, and in private (with those you feel can be convinced of the truth) bring those willing to open their eyes over to the dark side.

It’s hard to deny that many in the under-25 demographic (and probably the under-30 demographic as well) feel cheated and robbed of the world we were promised.  We were told to go to college to be guaranteed a good job, be nice to women (and don’t oppress them with your patriarchy), and to vote for Obama because of “hope and change”.  We now stand on the cusp of inheriting a world of violence, racial tensions, and economic and cultural decline, and we know it.

I really don’t believe anyone over 30 understands just how deep the resentment and anger is ensconced in the collective psychology ofGeneration Screwed“.  It’s this anger and frustration that contributed to the development of the “Occupy” Movement, and it is this anger and frustration that explains why a significant portion of the Reactosphere is under 30.

Play off of this anger.  Anger is a powerful emotion.  Use people’s anger and channel it.  Whether it’s the opposite sex, the economy, the modern system of industrial agriculture…etc, everyone has a pet issue that riles them up.  Demonstrate how a reactionary viewpoint is the optimal solution to their problem, slowly bring them over to the truth.

Bryce over at Anarcho Papist has suggested to me that one approach to take is to start off by offering men advice on dating using some of the ideas found in game.  Though I’ve never tried this personally, It doesn’t strike me as a bad strategy. Wear down a man’s viewpoint on women and sex and you plant seeds of doubt that can spread to the rest of his worldview.  I look forward to implementing this tactic in the future to turn people to pre-reactionary views.

The tactics available are nearly endless.  The point is this: Pretend to be liberal and concerned with “equality” in public, and in private work towards developing a cabal of devoted reactionaries using whatever tactics necessary.

Some might recognize this strategy as being similar to the “anti-prometheism” proposed by Bulbasaur over at The Right Stuff.  While this is indeed the inspiration for my thought, the key difference is that while Bulbasaur proposes actively working towards a more leftist future, I am content merely to adopt the guise of doing that, while seeking to build within the system those who would one day strive to undermine it.

Reaction certainly needs boots on the ground and people unafraid to show their faces, like Golden Dawn or Generation Identitaire, but it also needs fertile ground for such organizations to take root.  This can really only occur in a system that worships at the altar of egalitarianism and contains sufficient dysfunction to breed resentment of current policy.  Colleges are thus fantastic grounds for stoking the fires of reaction among the young.

If you are still uneasy, think of it like this: Going off to college is meant to open your mind to news ideas and expand your intellectual horizons.  It would be downright rude of you not to help your friends get past the horizons of equality, democracy, and liberalism.

I admit this approach isn’t for everyone.  It requires you to be two-faced, to wear a mask that won’t fit well on everyone.  Can you live a life tricking people into thinking that you are something you’re not, only revealing yourself at calculated times in calculated ways?

If you can, consider this post “The Legionnaire’s Guide to University”.



On Masculinity

What is masculinity?  This is a question men have been trying to answer since the dawn of time.  One would think that after thousands of years of analysis, there would be a satisfying answer.  Yet, just as philosophy has not yet been completed, so too it seems that masculinity will never be categorized in a fashion to everyone’s liking.

One of the big reasons that the part of the internet known as “The Manosphere” even exists is because so many men nowadays lack the guidance previous generations received as to how to be a man.  As such, different definitions have been worked out.  Roosh would argue that it mostly comes down to how many women you can sleep with.  Brett McKay thinks it has a lot to do with living up to your specific culture’s norms about what constitutes manliness.  Jack Donovan proclaims the idea that masculinity is all about being a high-value member of a tribal gang.

I’ll throw my hat into the ring.

The way I see it, masculinity is composed of four categories.  What we know as masculinity can be seen as a four-legged stool, with each of these categories being one leg.  Undercut one of them, and the structure becomes incredibly unsteady.  Cut out two, and the whole thing collapses.  With that in mind…

Hard Masculinity: Hard masculinity is, quite simply, the ability and willingness to employ physical force.  The most overt example of this would be delivering a violent beatdown in a fight.  However, this category extends beyond violence.  Being a star athlete is a less extreme expression of this component of masculinity.

Hard masculinity is the component of masculinity that you find feminists complaining about.  It is that primal, violent animal inside of all men that when awakened is capable of great and terrible things.  It is Achilles slaughtering Hector before the walls of Troy, MMA fighters pounding each other in the ring, or even just an ordinary individual setting a new PR in the weight room.

This is why many recommend martial arts and weightlifting as ways to become more masculine.  Both work together nicely to increase your ability to become a physical threat.  They make you dangerous, which is a consequence of increasing one’s hard masculinity.

Note that hard masculinity is not just the capability to use force, but the willingness to do so.  Someone big and strong but afraid of getting hurt does not possess the same capacity for hard masculinity as a lightweight boxer who does not fear pain.

Soft Masculinity:  Soft masculinity is the ability to control yourself and others.  Can’t stop eating food you know to be bad for you?  That’s a lack of soft masculinity coming into play.  Soft masculinity is, in a nutshell, control.

It is from that this control of the self that several manly virtues such as courage, honor, and self-discipline are derived.  It is from the control of others that charisma and dominance come into play.  If bashing someone’s head in represents hard masculinity, having people who will do it for you is soft masculinity.  If the gladiator in the arena embodies hard masculinity, the Emperor who ordered the gladiators to fight represents soft masculinity.

If you see a man crying or displaying excess emotion, and tell him to “man up” or “act like a man“,  this is the component of masculinity you are calling upon.

The interplay between hard and soft masculinity is nuanced.  At times, they complement each other, like when grinding out the last few reps in a painful set of deadlifts when you’d rather go home and drink beer.  Other times, however, they may be at odds.  Kicking someone’s ass in a bar fight because you felt they insulted you is a great example of hard masculinity, and an utter failure of soft masculinity.

Soft masculinity without hard masculinity leads to pacifism and aestheticism.  Hard masculinity without soft masculinity leads to thuggery and barbarism.  A man needs both, for one without the other is nearly useless.

Soft masculinity can be thought of as control, discipline, and dominance.

Low Masculinity: Low masculinity represents the ability to take care of yourself and satisfy primal urges.  In the modern world, this means having enough self-reliance to be able to go out and make enough money to have your own place and provide for yourself, as well as having the social skills to be able to convince women (or men, if that’s your thing) to have sex with you.

The reason why moving in with your parents after college is considered unmanly is because it’s a declaration that you still lack enough self-reliance to be able to live on your own.  This is also part of the reason why so many men find it emasculating to be fired from their job (the other part has to do with high masculinity, which is expounded upon below).

Like it or not, a man capable of getting laid has a greater capacity for low masculinity than one who is not, all other things being equal.  In this regard, men who advocate ones “notch count” as a measure of masculinity are half-right about a small piece of a bigger picture.  They’re not wrong per se, they’re just missing a lot.

Skills like being able to change a tire and live off the land are considered masculine because they directly increase a man’s ability to take care of himself.

High Masculinity: If low masculinity is the ability to satisfy your primal needs, then high masculinity is the pursuit of a higher purpose.  This could be as down-to-earth as taking care of a family and children, or something more akin to conquering a huge empire.  Just as a boat without any means of propulsion is really just a large buoy, a man without a higher purpose to strive for can never be described as a “real man”.

The second reason why it is considered emasculating for a man to lose his job is because it interferes with his ability to provide for his family.

The archetype of high masculinity without low masculinity is the starving artist, making beautiful music or divine paintings but forever being a dependent on others.  Think Vincent Van Gogh, although annoying hipsters living off trust funds often fall into this category as well.  Low masculinity without high masculinity is the realm of the hedonist.  The so-called “schism” in the Manosphere is just the debate over whether high masculinity or low masculinity is a more valid measure of a man.

Granted, the labelling of these terms as “high” and “low” would normally imply a moral judgement.  This is not, however, the case here.  Just like with hard masculinity and soft masculinity, you need both high masculinity and low masculinity to truly be “manly”.

The takeaway message one needs to realize here is that many if the ideas that people subscribe to as to what composes masculinity are incomplete, and are part of a larger whole.  The pieces need to be balanced in order for the whole to be complete.





If anyone of these is lacking or dysfunctional in some way, then masculinity begins to wither.

Given that this is a fairly brief summary of my thoughts on the matter, it would seem prudent to examine each piece of the puzzle in more depth in future posts.  Look for that in the coming weeks.


A Quadrumvirate of links and the future of the West

History occurs in cycles.  Empires rise.  Empires fall.  Populations ebb and flow.  Economies shrink and grow.  There truly is no greater conqueror than time.

It is slowly becoming more evident to people that things are not going to be all sunshine and happiness and gay marriages going into the future (although given the inevitability of the third one can at least bet on that happening at least somewhat).  The United States, and perhaps the entire western world, are coming down off the most recent temporal apogee of economic, technological, and geopolitical influence.

It has happened in the past.  It will happen again in the future.  People seem to lose track of that.  I attribute this to not enough focus on the big picture.

It really is vital that you read the above links before you continue, in order.  They offer a model of how society collapses, as well as views and commentary of where in the model we are now and what the scenery looks like from our vantage point.

I’ve read a fair amount of material debating and analyzing whether there is a collapse coming, what form it will take, how best to prepare for it.  I’ve pored over demographic numbers, boned up on generational theory, kept a keen eye on geopolitical tensions, spent inordinate amounts of time deconstructing powerful ideologies I believe are dysfunctional and harmful, and become so familiar with basic economics that I have the grounds to accuse it of date rape.   After all of that, I can confidently say that I have no idea what is going to happen.

Which isn’t to say that I’m not going to try to make a few predictions.  What I believe is that from now until around 2018 or so, things (I use “things” in the most annoyingly vague sense you could possibly imagine here) are going to steadily deteriorate.  There’s too much ambiguity to make any meaningful predictions, but I shall do what I can.  There will be small-scale protests at the Russian Olympics for gay rights, but not large ones.  Barring drastic circumstances, a democrat will be elected to the office of US presidency in 2016.  Nationalist parties will achieve ever greater levels of support.  Peace will not spontaneously break out in the Middle East.  That’s about all I’ve got so far.

The time frame from 2018-2025 will be the dark times.  Something big will happen toward the beginning of this time frame (give or take a few years) that in the far future will be viewed as the moment of collapse, even though the events that will set whatever it is into motion have no doubt already started.  Will it be war, depression, civil unrest (i.e. urban riots), New World Order, any combination of the above…etc?  I have no idea, although I do believe that whatever happens will involve a greater level of violence than many are used to.  This event will probably be big enough and significant enough for you to know what it for what it is when it happens.

This is where most people stop thinking.  It’s enough for them that something drastic is coming, and they begin prepping, freaking out, sounding the alarm, or whatever their personal preference happens to be.

What no one ever seems to think about though, it what to do next.  The next 10-15 years are going to be exceedingly interesting, and provide a shock to the system that most of us will have never seen in our lifetimes.  There ‘s going to be a fair amount of “patching up” that needs to be done.

Don’t expect to survive that long?  Revise your expectations.  Previous crises, like the American Civil War, the Great Depression, the Fall of Rome, and the Holocaust all had ample numbers of survivors.  If you have at least 15-20 years of life expectancy left, you’ll more likely than not weather the storm.

So beyond 2025, what will happen?  I see several possibilities.

  • The first is a new Dark Age, similar to when Rome fell.  Life expectancy, literacy, technological advancement, and standard of living will all fall, and humanity is just going to have to claw its way back up.
  • Another is the break-up of the United States.  Whether by region, demographics, religion, or other form of distinction, the United States will become a bit less united.
  • A Golden Age of humanity emerges in which we achieve unprecedented and unparalleled levels of technological and economic growth.  Will we achieve post-scarcity?  The Singularity?  Perhaps interstellar travel will be developed, or in time all of the above.  Anything will become possible.
  • Empire.  Out of the ashes of a great war (I believe an international one is much more likely than a civil one), a single faction emerges to seize utter control.  Supreme power no longer rests in the hands of previous regimes, but in a new order.  The Age of Caesars begins.
  • Orwellian Dystopia.  Privacy is finally abolished.  Big Brother is always watching.  Freedom (and individual virtue) is crushed under the iron fist of whatever power reigns supreme.
  • Malaise and Malingering.  The developed world limps through economic turmoil, and while things never really get better, people are able to make do and get by.  Racial tensions remain high barring earlier civil unrest, and many people have moved away from liberal-leaning philosophies toward those more advantageous for their own survival.

The first thing that many of you will see is that several of these aren’t necessarily incongruent with each other.  A Orwellian dystopia, for example, might arise out of prolonged economic stagnation. An Imperial takeover of a large Western country could reinvigorate growth and development.  Alternatively, something unforeseen entirely could occur.

The takeaway here?  The future is uncertain, and few scenarios are too implausible to consider.  A prudent individual would take precautions, and yet, how can one prepare for something when it it uncertain what it to be prepared for?

Sounds like fertile ground for a future post.


Progressivism and Reaction as a Chess Game

One of the tricky parts about accepting the ideas of The Dark Enlightenment is understanding how all the pieces come together.  Meta-analysis of who we are has been happening for a while now.  This is a necessary step towards understanding who we are and how we can best achieve our goals.

To my knowledge though (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), no one has performed such an analysis on The Cathedral, that entity against which we strive.  It occurred to me that The Cathedral can easily be described as pieces on a chessboard, so that is the avenue I shall pursue.

First off, the pawns.  Pawns get a bad reputation for being dispensable, but this viewpoint lacks nuance.  Pawn position shapes the field of play across the board, and one correctly positioned pawn can subtly destroy an offensive or viciously undermine a defense.  Similarly, the positions taken by your average progressive (but especially the brahmins) hold sway over the political discourse in the United States.  Most liberals and progressives thus fall under the classification of pawns.

The minor pieces (the Knights and the Bishops) are more flexible and far-reaching than the pawns.  Their Cathedral equivalent would be entertainment fixtures and public figures who perhaps do not comment on the news, but voice progressive viewpoints and support progressive causes.  Websites like Cracked, Jezebel, and Salon would fit into this category, as would celebrities like Angelina Jolie and Jim Carrey.  Many lower-level elected officials fall into this category.

Next, we move to the major pieces, which in chess parlance refers to the Rooks and the Queen.  The rooks can be thought of the majority of universities and media outlets across the country.  Working together, they provide a powerful punch to alter how the pieces move across the board.  Similarly, universities and media outlets are a potent combination that fundamentally controls how the debate over all issues in the western world is framed.

The Queen is the most powerful single piece on the board.  However, its real world equivalent is not a single entity, but several.  The queen is The Cathedral itself, and more specifically, all the organs that compose it.  This means The New York Times, the three branches of government, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and a few other high-level and incredibly influential organizations.  The top-level figures in news, education, and government all fall under this classification.

And what is the King, the piece that signals the end of the game if it falls?  The ideology of modern liberalism itself.  Without it, all these other pieces mean naught.

I could probably stop here, but it seems distasteful to leave this metaphor only half completed.

Extending the analogy to the Reactosphere is nebulous, in part because it is still growing and developing, as opposed to the established order of The Cathedral, and also in part because Chess fundamentally implies a symmetrical conflict, of which this war of ideas most certainly is not.  However, after wading through the muck, I think I’ve dragged out a reasonably accurate characterization.

The core distinctions that form the framework of this analogy are based off of Anarcho-Papist’s Taxonomy of the Reactosphere. It would be prudent to familiarize yourself with that piece before reading further.  Understanding the various themes and specialties of certain bloggers might also help one better visualize the pieces in play here, but it is not necessary for the comprehension of this particular interpretation.

The pawns in our side would be your average individual who reads reactionary blogs and sometimes even comments, but lacks a blog or other platform from which to espouse such ideas.  These foot-soldiers will become increasingly important in the long-term (very long-term?), but for the next few years growth in the number of pawns will only serve as a measure of how easy it is to notice the societal dysfunction.

The minor pieces would be those Dark Enlightenment blogs categorized as Commentary, as well as those considered Data Theory/Sciences.  Invaluable in when it comes to recruiting pawns, their writings are crucial to help make sense of and understand concepts and principles on a basic level.  Without the Data Theory/Sciences blogs, many Dark Enlightenment theories would have no legs on which to stand.  The flexibility of these units will prove invaluable in the coming struggle.

Moving on to the major pieces, the Rooks would be those blogs defined as Low-Theory.  Powerful in their own right, they are most effective working in teams to discuss and refine the thought on issues and questions put forth by the High-Theory blogs.

The Queen of Reaction?  The High-Theory blogs, without which none of the other pieces would be able to function as effectively.  The minor pieces and rooks are meant to be the ones in the thick of the fighting.  The queen is rarely meant to throw itself into the fervor of combat, , struggling over the minutiae of claiming squares, but to be a force hanging over the board and inflicting its will over all the other pieces.  The imprint of Moldbug will forever lie heavy upon the Reactosphere.

Progressivism and Reaction.  The two kings on this chessboard.  If either one falls the game is over.

So is that it then?  No.  Assuming this struggle to be a clash of kings is a mistake.  It’s a sign of not having enough grasp of the big picture.

Do chess pieces move on their own?  Of course not.  It is the player that pushes the pieces across the board.  If the King falls, the game is over, but a new game can begin.  If the player falls, then the chance of any further games is done (at least until another player appears).

It is not enough to fight the King.  You need to fight against the player.

Marxism.  Progressivism.  Classical Liberalism.  All of these ideologies are Kings, not players.  What is the player that spawns all of these kings?  A simple, but pernicious idea:

Everybody is equal.

If this idea falls, than everything else falls with it.


Transcending the Manosphere

In coming weeks, I was planning on publishing a post detailing the nature of the Manosphere in relation to the Reactosphere and the ultimately small-minded focus of the former.  However, Bryce Laliberte over at Anarcho-Papist just offered up a brilliant rendition of about half of what I was planning to say.  Go read it, it’s spot-on.

Admittedly, he probably put it better than I would have.  Nonetheless, he stopped halfway, in my opinion.

The Manosphere is a starting point, nothing more.  This is a truth that more men need to realize.  Too many men are getting caught up in the Manosphere as some sort of final truth, and contenting themselves with Manosphere platitudes instead of pursuing ever high levels of intellectual and spiritual development.

There is certainly value to be had for the average male with Manosphere.  Getting your life under control, taking responsibility for yourself, and learning how to talk to women are all transition points that every male needs to pass to be considered a man.  Things like working out or picking up a martial art provide tremendous benefit to many.  But where does one go once these basic accomplishments are achieved?

The Manosphere doesn’t have an answer for that.  As such, it is inevitable that any man who really seeks greater things for himself will grow beyond the core concepts of the movement, and surpass it.  Men need a higher ideal to strive for than chasing pussy and running themselves down on the hedonic treadmill.

(Now seems to be a good point to address the infantile argument that a man’s worth is in how many women he lays. Women attain status from male attention and validation.  If you are male and you derive and assign status based on female attention and validation, you have completely missed the point of having a Y chromosome.  Good job.  Both Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla supposedly died virgins.  If this makes you think any less of them consider that a sign that you need to reexamine your priorities.)

As I said, the Manosphere has its use.  After all, males today need to learn how to  be men, and most red-pill and game blogs at least start them down that path.  But the Manosphere can only take one so far.  The thing that it seems that so many writers in the ‘sphere are missing is that you cannot treat the process of becoming a man as an end in and of itself.  Doing so puts a cap on your capability to grow and develop as a man.

The process of becoming a man has to be a means to an end.

Player Burnout is a thing because too many men treated sex and women as an end.  Pleasure is not and cannot be the end all and be all.  Men need higher ideals to strive for.  If the Manosphere is to continue to be relevant, it must find a way to transcend itself and give men a higher cause than it does currently.  New writers must emerge who can build upon the lessons of the Red Pill and replace those whose focus on sex and game prevents the community from boldly moving forward to new heights.

This is where the Manosphere and the Reactosphere can come together.  Reaction offers a nobler goal to pursue than vagina, and the lessons of the Manosphere are important to be heeded, as long as they are recognized as a building block, not a building.  Imagine a Reactionary Movement populated by manly men who take direct action against the hegemony of The Cathedral instead of banging away at keyboards all day.  A fusion of the best parts of both spheres, if you will.

Any serious attempt to combat The Cathedral is going to require at least some boots on the ground (in the manner of Golden Dawn).  The windows of The Cathedral will not be broken without throwing a few rocks.  Yet in order to get such a Legion together, it will be necessary to recruit those in the Manosphere who can see beyond weight-lifting, game, and sex, and transform them from men of the Red Pill into Legionnaires of The Dark Enlightenment, fighting not just against feminism with game, but against all manifestations of The Cathedral with the weapons of reason, truth, and unapologetic masculinity.

Ultimately, The Manosphere is fighting one battle in a much larger struggle.  This is necessary, but what our side needs is warriors who can fight in any of the battles that need to be fought.  We don’t just need men.  We need Legionnaires.


Gay Rights Activists hate Black People

It’s no secret that The New York Times has been on a spate of Russia-bashing lately, mainly with articles about how utterly awful and dreadful and horrible homosexual men and women have it in such an awful and backwards country.  Part of this clearly has to do with expressing The Cathedral’s denunciation of Russia after Putin refused to hand over Edward Snowden to be tortured, put in front of a kangaroo court, and thrown in prison for life granted a fair trial.  Why, with all the outcry, one might reasonably expect to believe that Russia has authorized judicious use of the death penalty for anyone and everyone suspected of being homosexual!

Oh, it hasn’t?  Forgive me.  I must be thinking of some other place.  A place in which homosexuality is outright illegal, and punishable by death…

Know where I’m referring to?  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did.  The Dark Continent.

Africa is actually a very interesting study on what persecution of homosexuals actually looks like.  Russia’s laws actually come off as fairly lenient when compared with Uganda’s “Kill the Gays legislation or a clause in Mauritania’s legal code that would seem to indicate that homosexuality is to be punished by stoning.  Anyone who makes any attempt to actually research which countries hate gay people the most will quickly realize that Moscow starts looking a hell of a lot like San Francisco when you compare it to Khartoum.

So why are gay rights activists so focused on Russia, and not, say, Morocco?  I’ll admit the biggest reason is probably because The New York Times is telling them to do so.  Yet, this does not explain why The New York Times is telling them to do so.  Some theories will point to Russia’s geo-political influence, or perhaps the looming Winter Olympics in Sochi.  Yet I find these explanations unconvincing.  Allow me to propose a different theory.

Liberals just don’t think blacks are capable of the same standards of behavior as whites.

We see this in our own country with “progressive” support for affirmative action, which outright declares that blacks cannot compete on an even playing field with whites.  We see it when the star witness for the most racially motivated trial of the century was taken seriously despite not being able to read.  Why should we not expect this dynamic to extend to international affairs?

Think about it.  When was the last time you saw a celebrity like George Takei condemn any African country for anti-gay laws?  Now do a quick sweep of that Facebook page and time how long it takes you to find an anti-Russia post.

Remember, for liberals, Gay Rights are a moral issue.  They demand Gay Rights in all white, industrialized nations.  For them, Russia’s laws are a moral travesty.  Yet why are they not holding African nations to the same moral standards?  Do they think blacks not capable of meeting such a standard?

If we look beyond their lofty words, we see that deep down, liberals look down on blacks and view them as incapable of meeting the same standards as whites.  For all their talk of “equality” and “diversity”, their actions reveal them for what they truly are.

Next time you hear a Gay Rights Activist speak about the need to boycott the Winter Olympics, just remember, you are dealing with someone who doesn’t believe in the ability of black people to be as moral as white people.

Think about that next time you hear someone call for “equality” and “diversity”.


Who runs the world?

Formal power is easy to identify. One can always look to a political leader or a CEO and say ‘That man is in charge”. However, it is not always so simple to identify those who wield more informal power.  A common example of this happens at many universities, in which the liberal students will decry how conservative the institution is while at the same time the conservative students will bemoan just how liberal everyone and everything happens to be.

Who is right? This appears to be a simple question, yet finding the answer is exceedingly difficult.  However, this is one heuristic I’ve found that has yet to fail me.

Simply take note of which groups of people are more willing to restrict free speech.

Why does this association hold true? Simple. Allowing the proliferation of free speech necessarily increases the inherent chaos and conflict found in the marketplace of ideas. Chaos lends itself well to creativity and innovation, but not to stability and security. Now, stability and security are the foundations of any hierarchy, including a hierarchy of ideas.

Starting to see the connections yet?

If you remove stability and security, you threaten the hierarchy with disruption. This threatens those that are most reliant on the hierarchy to endure. Any threat to the hierarchy must be crushed if the status quo is to endure.

Lets make this a little less abstract. If you have two political parties, which one is more likely to call for restrictions on free speech? Answer: the one in power, because free speech leads to new ideas and new ideas threaten the existing system of power. Removing free speech removes the possibility of challenges to the hierarchy that could arise from the promulgation of unrestricted communication.

When you are in power, free speech is a liability. When you are not, free speech is a necessity. This is why Nazis burned books when they ran Germany and nowadays appeal to free speech protections with desperate vigor.

Free speech only threatens those in power. Those out of power need it too much to worry much about restricting it.

Voltaire once said “To learn who rules over you, simply found out who you are not allowed to criticize.”  There is much truth in this statement.  However, its scope is too narrow.

If you wish to know who rules over you, find out who is trying to restrict your right to speech in any form.

So who do I think runs the world? I have a few guesses.