Silence Dogood Wire

An extremely prominent policy proposal which has been embraced by the liberals in the United States is that public universities and colleges should be tuition-free institutions. A Pew Research poll conducted in 2020 found that 83 percent of democrats and left-leaning independents support this proposal. Despite its popularity, the idea of “free” college in the United States is one that is extremely dangerous, because it continues to be embraced by moderates and opens the door for government indoctrination.

One of the reasons why this policy is so prominent in the national discourse is because it is not just embraced by radicals like Bernie Sanders. Presidential nominee Joe Biden, who presents himself as a moderate, adopted a modified version of Sanders’ plan in a bid to gain more progressive voters. His plan would make public colleges and universities tuition free for people earning less than $125,000 per year which is a significant portion of the population. It is also important to note that this is a plan that was proposed by Bernie Sanders in the past. 

His embrace of this radical policy illustrates an important dynamic within the democratic party which you could call the progressive lag effect. It occurs when a progressive leader like Bernie Sanders infuses an idea into the public mind like free college for some people. Although it might have seemed absurd in the past, it gradually gains traction as people come around to his way of thinking. 

Meanwhile, progressives have moved on from wanting free college for some and want free college for everyone. Eventually, the lag will catch up and democratic party leaders will be calling for this proposal while Sander’s followers move on to something more progressive.

However, the main danger with the idea of tuition free college for everyone, or even just people making less than $125,000 per year does not have anything to do with increased taxes or the removal of individual responsibility (although these are also problems). The main danger of “free” college is that it opens up the door to total government run indoctrination. 

In fact, one of the reasons why indoctrination is so prominent on college campuses is because tuition increases allow universities to hire more administrators that serve their leftist purposes. However, they are only able to make these tuition increases because of government subsidies which guarantee loans to students. By making all public colleges “free” the government would be eliminating many cost barriers to universities, which would allow them to hire even more administrators, who often drive on campus neo-marxist events. 

The totalitarian mindset behind the liberal vision shows through in innumerable ways. There are no institutions in America where free speech is more severely restricted than in our politically correct colleges and universities, dominated by liberals.

— Thomas Sowell (@ThomasSowell) September 6, 2020

Subsidizing college even more would actually be subsidizing revolution. The people who are currently rioting and their leaders, are often college educated. They have been steeped in critical race theory nonsense which erodes the foundations of society. When they go to college they don’t hear anything about America being good, all they hear is that it is evil at the core. When you tell someone this, how do you expect them to react? If America is truly like Nazi Germany, then that would make black people like the Jews. The Jews certainly had a right to kill and burn and pillage in the streets of Nazi Germany. So why shouldn’t these college grads do it to America?

If free college were ever made a reality, those who supported it would be contributing to our society’s destruction. College is merely a credential and people measure its value through a cost benefit analysis. If your future earnings aren’t going to be improved enough for you to pay off your degree and have a higher standard of living, then you shouldn’t go to college. However, people like Bernie Sanders know that college has become much more powerful than a credential. It is a center for indoctrination that allows neo-marxists to push forth seemingly just views on unsuspecting students. Subsidizing college is subsidizing revolution.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

BLM rioter throws tear gas at police in Portland

Over the past few months, as cities have been burning, democrats and their supporters have been largely silent on the rioting. Only a few have come out to mildly condemn rioting. On Sunday Joe Biden stated, “I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right.” However, he has been living under a rock for the past few months or just wanted to save his poll numbers. 

At the same time as he condemned the violence Biden also called on President Trump to do so as well. This despite the fact that when Trump tried to send federal troops to Portland, Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris supported a bill that would prohibit him from doing so. Therefore, it’s safe to say that the Biden/Harris ticket doesn’t actually care whether or not your cities burn.

However, the people that they are beholden to- radical politicians, their progressive base, and the media- are not merely passive about what is happening, they are actively rooting for, justifying, and covering up the violence.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler is one of those people. His August 28th letter to President Trump shows that he is a liar and a fraud. In the letter he refused help from Trump, saying that the president had failed at his COVID-19 response and that he wanted images of violence for his reelection. 

If it was true that images of unrest were good for Trump’s reelection, then why would he refuse federal help? The federal troops would obviously be employed to stop the violence. Also, if he is worried about COVID-19, then wouldn’t he want to enforce physical distancing which is absent at the riots? The truth is that Ted Wheeler doesn’t care about the violence. If we are to judge his motives by the outcome of his actions we could easily come to the conclusion that he likes it. Despite saying that “Those who commit criminal acts will be apprehended and prosecuted under the law,” officials in his city have dropped the charges of numerous people, some of whom were accused of felonies

In June, Reinoehl, the alleged antifa shooter, was arrested in eastern OR w/stash of drugs & illegal pistol.

In July, he was arrested at a Portland antifa riot w/an illegal gun. He fought police. Those charges were never pursued.

On Sat., he went on to allegedly kill Danielson. pic.twitter.com/h4DsdcnSgL

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 31, 2020

Kamala Harris also likes the riots despite her claim that she disavows violence. On June 1 of this year she posted a link for the Minnesota Freedom Fund on her personal twitter account. The goal of the fund was to post bail for people who were arrested while protesting in Minnesota. 

Despite what she tells us now, she has always been in favor of the destruction, because she believes, like her democratic colleagues, that America is systemically racist. If this is true, why wouldn’t you support rioting? If the system is truly rigged, then you are justified in destroying the system.

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020

The media is also covering up and justifying the violence which is occurring in cities across America. CNN has run multiple chyrons which prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. On “The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer” CNN displayed a chyron which read “8PM Curfew Ordered After Violent Protests Over Police Shooting Of Unarmed Black Man In Wisconsin.” However, fifteen seconds after it appeared, CNN’s employees removed the word “violent” from the screen. There is no way to read this other than that they don’t want people to know what is happening in major cities. They care more about the democratic politicians who run those cities than about the people who are having their livelihoods destroyed.

CNN accidentally displays honest chyron about #ViolentProtests, quickly changes it to remove “violent” about reporting on the Kenosha riots…

Well, at least they didn't call them “peaceful protests” anymore!#FakeNews #CNNisTrash pic.twitter.com/w1j0UTeQix

— D Alex (@D_Alex_connect) August 25, 2020

However, major news organizations have gone even further than merely covering up the violence. “Your most trusted name in news” also justified it. Another CNN chyron read “Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting.” It was displayed as CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez stood in front of a burning building which had been torched by rioters. CNN and other news organizations blatantly justify the violence that is occurring in cities.

Although democrat leaders have suddenly decided to disavow violence, they are merely showing that they are vicious opportunists who do not care about the American people. Don’t count on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to stop this violence. Their progressive base and the media support it. And if Harris wasn’t the VP nominee, she would too.

President Trump’s hard-line stance with Iran has not escaped criticism from many people who feel that his diplomatic style is too incendiary and provocative. Many believe that his scrapping of the Iran deal and the recent vote to extend the Iranian arms embargo will force us into an isolated foreign policy which will be damaging to the U.S. However, critics of an aggressive strategy on Iran suffer from a severe case of eurocentrism, forgetting that we have many non-European allies. Far from risking isolation, the hardball U.S. foreign policy against Iran is an important counter-measure to hostile actors who want to see a dangerous and powerful Iran in the Middle East.

Those who criticize U.S. foreing policy as risking isolation against Iran completely ignore our status in areas of the world other than Europe. While it may be true that Western European countries wish to preserve the shoddy Iran nuclear deal, we have many Middle Eastern allies who support us in our fight to stop Iranian aggression. One such ally is Israel who has been a harsh critic of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Back in 2018, in a bid to convince the U.S. to leave the deal, Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu brought forward evidence detailing how Iran lied about its nuclear goals before singing the Iran deal in 2018. Israeli operatives recovered 55,000 pages of evidence in a Tehran warehouse. 

Critics of Netanyahu argued that he was engaging in political showmanship in order to convince the Trump administration to leave the Iran Nuclear Deal. Even if this is true it is important to realize two things 1.) The Iran Nuclear Deal is meant to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon 2.) Israel doesn’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon because Iran wants to destroy them. If the nuclear deal actually did its professed job of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear warheads, Israel’s criticism of the deal would be incongruous with its desires. From the beginning Israel recognized the fact that the deal will not stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and they are prepared to stand with use in our fight for international stability.

However, U.S. policy is not merely a bilateral pact with Israel. Other Arab countries are also in strong opposition to Iran because it is a threat to the entire Middle East. The U.A.E.-Israel peace deal offers a prime example of how U.S. policy towards Iran is a recognition of Middle-Eastern interests. The peace deal is as much (if not more) about stifling Iran’s regional ambitions as it is about promoting peace. Recognizing this fact, Iranian officials were quick to criticize the deal as a “huge mistake.”

Even countries who haven’t normalized relations with Israel are highly supportive of U.S. measures to neutralize the Iranian threat. Saudi Arabia voiced its support of the U.S. decision to leave the deal back in 2018. According to their Foreign Ministry, “Iran used economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to continue its activities to destabilize the region, particularly by developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist groups in the region.” The powerful gulf states have affirmed their position that they see Iran as a threat to be countered with the help of the U.S.

Those who believe that the U.S. is wrong for voting to extend the Iranian arms embargo without the support of other UN security council members or for leaving the Iran Nuclear deal suffer from the arrogance which causes powerful countries to impose their will on other states. President Trump’s Iran policy is a recognition of what is best for the peace and stability of the Middle East. The great powers of the region in question have spoken and they are allied with the U.S. in its fight to stop Iran from being a dominant power.

Photo Attributions: Tom Page / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

No single organization in the history of the world has been more over-hyped than the United Nations. Despite extravagant pushes for reform, it is severely limited in its goals. While the U.N. may purport to promote peace building, this does not change the fact that while it was in existence we have had multiple international conflicts including the Vietnam war, Korean War, Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan. Additionally it did nothing to save the 100 million people who died from communism or prevent the nuclear standoff between the United States and Russia. The U.N. is merely a nice facade which serves the purpose of making power rivals seem more civilized. In reality, the U.N.  is ineffectual, subverts the interests of its greatest members, and gives power to dictators. Despite the organization’s nice title, the nations of the world could not be more disunited and private alliances between countries will always take precedence over the U.N. Its inability to counter Iran and its de facto disregard for human rights make it a neutered and weak organization.

The U.N. has shown its incompetence in regards to checking hostile foreign powers in its conduct towards Iran which has been a designated state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. A 2019  Report conducted by the U.S. Department of State reported that Iran has continued to instigate violence throughout the Middle East by supporting “Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East.” Additionally, “Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to provide support to terrorist organizations, provide cover for associated covert operations, and create instability in the region.”  Despite this, four days ago the U.N. rejected an extension of an arms embargo which has been in place in the country since 2007. This move would allow weapons to be shipped directly to the Tehran regime by October 18 of this year. Unsurprisingly, the two countries that voted no were Russia and China. However, 11 countries abstained because the Europeans were worried that it would destroy the shoddy Iran nuclear deal. The fact that the U.N. cannot pass resolutions to stop state sponsored terrorism is absurd and points to its ineffectuality.

The U.N. also spouts high-handed rhetoric about the need to preserve human rights. In 1948 the organization passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which outlined basic human rights. However, despite this supposed desire to uplift humanity, the U.N. has virtually no power to actually enforce the recognition of human rights. It can’t even condemn member states who don’t live up to its standards. Take China’s treatment of the Uighur Muslims. If someone were to bring forth a resolution condemning the Chinese Communists Party’s evil behavior, they could automatically veto the resolution. Another country that has veto power on all resolutions is Russia, whose power hungry president has been maneuvering for years to continually stay in power. Last month these two countries vetoed a resolution to extend humanitarian aid for millions of Syrians suffering from violence. Due to the veto power of these two dictatorships, the resolution was defeated despite the fact that every single other country on the security council voted to approve the measure. An organization that relies on Russia and China for support can do little to uphold human rights or bring about a substantial change in geopolitical relations.

The United Nations -as implied in the name- can only work if nations are united. It does not magically heal a divided world or silence the repression of brutal dictators. It is a weak and hamstrung organization that cannot effectually bring about substantial change. Because the U.N. relies on tyrannical regimes to cooperate in its quest for noble goals it can do little more than spout moralistic rhetoric and provide aid to countries that Russia and China deem as non-threatening. This organization is nothing more than a nice facade which covers the bitter power rivalries which plague our world.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Colin@TheTruthAbout / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Democrats often posit themselves as the party that will defend and protect workers to their last breath. Each of the democratic presidential candidates this year supported vastly changing employer/employee relations. The democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris support a $15 minimum wage, forcing people who work in unionized places to pay union dues, and raising teacher wages by $13,500. Despite this fiery rhetoric in favor of workers rights, democrats are not the party of the working class. Either democratic politicians are ignorant or they are trying to fool workers into voting for them. They discourage new hiring and their policies cause unemployment. If the democratic party were allowed to achieve all of its goals they would do much more to harm workers than to help them.

The list of jobs which democratic states could have created but discouraged with their policies should be enough to serve as an indictment of the far left policies which the democratic party continues to endorse. This week, in an effort to protect workers, a California superior court ordered  Lyft and Uber to reclassify their drivers as employees. Before, they were classified as independent contractors.  This new classification would force Uber and Lyft to provide full benefits to people completing a part time job to earn extra money on the side. Uber has threatened to leave California altogether if the state remains steadfast on this ruling. 

It is also important to note here that Joe Biden would support measures like this on a national level because he wants to fight the “gig economy” by forcing many companies to reclassify independent contractors as employees. Electing him would be an endorsement of these failed policies. It is hard to understand how democrats could be so completely oblivious as to think that discouraging a company from hiring people and causing it to lay off its employees could be good for workers. My guess is that they didn’t ask the some 100,000 Uber drivers in California, who make their livelihood from the company, whether or not they disagreed with the ruling.

Workers in New York have also suffered from the failed scheming of democrats. The infamous Alexandria Ocasio Cortez caused Amazon to pull their plans to build a campus in Queens, New York. She was not alone, though. State senator Michael Gianaris led the movement. They cost the city the 25,000 jobs that Amazon would have created. AOC then had the audacity to ask “haters to apologize,” after Amazon decided to open offices in a New York neighborhood. Apparently she doesn’t realize that a single office location won’t bring the 25,000 jobs that an entire headquarters would have. To be fair, Governor Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio did support Amazon’s initial move, but it is hard to imagine that this ever would have happened in a state that was run by republicans.

In addition to discouraging individual companies from moving to their cities, democrats’ plans would also cause layoffs throughout the entire country. This is due to the fact that they want a federally mandated $15 minimum wage to be implemented. It is an undisputed fact among economists that minimum wages hurt low income workers by causing layoffs of people who are not considered to be worth $15 an hour. According to a study done by the Congressional Budget Office in 2019, a minimum wage of $15 would  increase wages for some but, “1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate.” It  is extremely disingenuous that a party who presents itself as pro-worker could call for this radical policy which would cause over one million people to be laid off. The only reason they would do such a thing is either because they are ignorant or they like demagoguery.

Despite imploring workers to vote for them and promising a number of protections, democrats are in no way the party for workers. They are out of touch with reality and call for radical measures which would hurt America’s working population almost beyond repair. Demonizing the companies that provide people with jobs and imposing stringent regulations on them is a surefire way to make it so that workers have very little opportunity to work.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Today, in a spectacular turn of events, Joe Biden chose the woman who accused him of racism when discussing forced busing -Kamala Harris- as his vice presidential candidate. This will likely be one of the most important veep picks in history as Harris will wield significant influence in the White House as Joe Biden’s mental health declines. Voters certainly know this and that is why, instead of attacking Biden on his selection skills, Trump instead decided to call out Harris’s absurd policies in a White House press conference. This makes it particularly clear that this race is mainly between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. The most important question to moderate voters that Harris will have to answer in her campaign is this: Can she bring stability and healing to an extremely divided nation? Her record clearly answers this question in the negative as she has failed to condemn violence and tried to crush opponents using slanderous and inconsistent tactics.

Currently, the most important question for our politicians is whether they can stop the Antifa initiated violence that is engulfing cities. The violence is bad for people of every race, creed, and culture. Harris is certainly not the person to bring an end to this chaos. Instead of commending (or at least not criticizing Trump) when he sent federal troops to Portland, she decided to introduce the “Preventing Authoritarian Policing Tactics on America’s Streets Act.” If passed, it would have prevented the Trump administration from sending troops to Portland to stop the Antifa led violence in the streets. 

She has not once condemned the violence which had been going on for over fifty nights before federal law enforcement arrived. It appears that she wants to capitalize on the support of her radical left base. There is no easier way to promote violence than by using tactics such as she does. She fails to condemn the chaos while repeating the rioters’ talking points thereby ensuring that those who are committing crimes will continue to do so, because they see results. Harris is definitely not the candidate to stop violence and chaos in the cities.

She is also not the candidate to unite us at a time when we are very divided. One important way in which we can increase discourse is by at least not trying to slander those you disagree with. She certainly did not live up to this standard during the Brett Kavanaugh hearing. In fact, after he was appointed to the supreme court she released a statement saying that Christine Blasey Ford had, “serious and credible allegations of sexual assault” and that the appointment of Kavanaugh was “a disservice to survivors everywhere.” In essence, she tried to destroy his life based on the claims of an inconsistent woman who didn’t remember any details about the night of the alleged assault. Political banter has always been a part of politics but when someone tries to destroy their opponents with slanderous lies, it certainly does not promote discussion between people with different political affiliations.

Additionally, those who believe that she may have been sincere in her “believe all women” craze need to recognize that she is on the ticket with a man accused of sexually assaulting Tara Reade. When asked about the allegations against Joe Biden she stated, “I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.” This shows that she doesn’t have the principles necessary to be a uniting leader in a divisive time. She attempts to hype up a progressive base by endorsing absurd ideologies and attacking people and then backs off of those positions when it is politically convenient.

This election moderates will be concerned with who will provide stability and a sense of normalcy. The ideological beliefs of the candidates are certainly important to voters registered along party lines, but the vast amount of independents just want the craziness to stop. After four years of Trump, many are ready to throw in the towel and vote for Biden. However, it is important to remember that Biden is merely the puppet of those who hold his leash. If Harris is holding that leash -as she will be if he is elected- things will certainly be worse for the country. She will fail to stop violence in our cities and she will cave to progressive causes and ideologies the minute it suits her purposes.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that China helped Saudi Arabia develop technology to advance it in its quest for nuclear capabilities. The facility that the two countries created together is used to extract uranium yellowcake out of uranium ore, which is essential in the development of nuclear weaponry. Although the country is a long way from being able to develop nuclear warheads, officials stated that it was a big step in the country’s drive to perfect nuclear technology. On the surface, it is unclear why China would raise such a controversial issue which is sure to raise a significant amount of backlash from Israel and her Western allies. Additionally, China is already allied with Pakistan which has nuclear capabilities and is in the same region as Saudi Arabia. They also have an estimated 320 nuclear warheads which can be delivered by sea, air, and land.

However, China has always been an agent of chaos on the world stage and its actions are an attempt to spread that chaos to other regions. In fact, they often benefit from instability. It allows them to maneuver outside of public view, when countries have their attention focused on other issues such as global pandemics. 

China is also able to weather the crises which it creates with much more ease, because of the totalitarian government which holds the country in its grip. People who live in democracies are not used to the suffering and uncertainty which conflict brings, but Chinese citizens must deal with it daily, and are much more tolerant of measures that are subversive to their rights. Hence, China likes international and regional instability.

There is certainly no better way for them to fuel this instability than by continuing to pit the Middle East’s two biggest powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, against each other. Iran has been striving to attain nuclear weapons for years, but China’s actions may accelerate this struggle by creating a nuclear arms race between the two countries, which are divided along both religious and political lines. Effectuating this race would allow China to choose a side (Iran) and significantly strengthen its ties with that country.

This would put the U.S. at a significant disadvantage as they would be obligated to discourage both countries from obtaining these types of weapons. With the U.S. as a mediator and observer, we would be unable to aid any side in the race for nuclear weapons.

If the United States wishes to curb Chinese ambition it must strengthen relations with existing countries to create a block of stability in the wake of Chinese chaos. It can do this in the Middle East by continuing to provide Israel with advanced weapons and by unilaterally supporting Israel’s right to the West Bank. Additionally, it can make foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia (which is our largest buyer) contingent on limited involvement with the Chinese government. China has been continuing to exploit weaknesses on the world stage for a long time and it is important to make sure that our alliances our secure and dominant in order to counteract Chinese ambition. 

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Communist Philosopher Karl Marx

One idea at the forefront of liberal circles is that whites and racial minorities have always existed in opposition to each other and if existing institutions are not changed then there will continue to be racial fricitions. This is expressed in the book White Fragility with the statement that, “white identity is inherently racist.” However, the breaking down of society in two separate groups is fraught with errors which make it ignorant and simplistic. It ignores other identities besides mere whiteness and blackness and creates the illusion of perpetual racial strife.

The division of society into two separate groups has its modern day origins in communist philosophy. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels purport that, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” In their eyes, society was divided upon one line of identity; class. They believed that the old society would live and die by class. Either leaders around the globe would willingly accept their doctrine, or more likely, a revolution would occur. Positioning these two groups against each other was a way for them to explain all of the fundamental shifts which occurred in society through the ages. Although it was obviously false and simple-minded, it garnered wide approval, because of its simplicity. This allowed it to be accepted by the masses of people who desired an explanation for their lowly status.

The same phenomenon is occurring in discussions about race. White is said to only exist in opposition to black just as communists believe the rich exist in opposition to the poor. This allows people who hate Western society to take the easy way out and turn an issue that we have, into the only issue that we have. It allows them to ignore all of the nuances that we have in our society and feeds the masses a simplistic view of history which falls in line with their false prejudices.

However, there is a very large problem with this false binary. It ignores the fact that there are infinite numbers of groups that supersede racial considerations. The fundamental assumption which people make when they set up premises that put white in continual opposition to black, is that the loyalties of white people always lie with other white people. However, most white people have loyalties which lie far outside of race. For example, I would feel more comfortable being around someone of any race who is a conservative Christian than I would a white, liberal, atheist. This is true for many people. Political and religious affiliations will almost always supersede racial ones. 

By establishing two groups and creating a false binary, liberal elites create a sense of perpetual racial conflict that allows them to push their narrative that America was founded upon white supremacy. However, most of the conflict between groups in our modern society is between people with different political affiliations, not with different races. You would be hard pressed to find a white liberal who would choose to associate with a MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporter than a black liberal.

Simplifying society down into two groups is a trick to ingrain certain beliefs in people. Intellectuals often attempt to get people to accept the false premise that society is based upon white supremacy, because it allows them to castigate all of our societal institutions as evil. The belief that all of society is based upon race struggles is as ignorant as believing that it is all based upon class struggles. Simple explanations like these are easy to feed to the masses and allow intellectual-supremacists to criticize society as a whole without delving into the specifics which they know nothing about.

Anti-censorship protesters in Australia

Photo Attribution: Tarale / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Have you ever been screamed at so loudly that you suddenly decided to change your opinion and convert to someone else’s viewpoint? Or worse, have you ever been told by someone that if you say something you will be fined and possibly jailed for it if it happens again? Neither of these strategies is a great way to get people to abandon their belief systems, even if what they are saying is truly evil. Despite this, the former strategy has been quite prominent for a long time. However, the latter strategy is a relatively new phenomena which has made its way into the halls of the democratic party. A 2017 Cato Institute poll found that 52% democrats believe in laws which prevent hate speech.

Unfortunately, “hate speech” is a very ambiguous term and its proponents find themselves on very shaky moral ground when they propose laws which affect it. A proponent of these laws writing for the Washington Post stated that, “there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is.” Another word that could be used for hate speech is speech that you do not like. Because there is no concrete definition, the legislature will be able to define the term in any way that it wishes. This was illustrated in Canada where bill C-16 which deals with gender identity was passed. When asked whether the bill would criminalize the intentional misuse of gender pronouns a Canadian lawyer stated that, “It might.” In fact, because the term “hate speech” is so unspecific, the prosecution of crimes relating to it would probably depend on the attitudes of the judges and the composition of the government rather than reference to concrete rules of conduct. The fact that a professional attorney did not know the actual outcome of the law means that it is left open to interpretation by those in power.

Aside from the term hate speech, the term group is also left open to the interpretation of the legislature. The dictionary definition of hate speech is “speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.” There is no limit to which humans can be subdivided down into individual groups. It is quite possible that society could devolve into a legal hierarchy of protected classes with a number of unprotected ones whose views were treated as unworthy of expression. It doesn’t take much to recall when liberals were saying that Trump was a racist for connecting crime and illegal immigration despite the fact that he ended the quote with “some, I assume, are good people.” Therefore, it is not hard to imagine that discussions of policy, such as securing the border, that happened to relate to certain groups could be deemed racist.

Other than the obvious problems with defining terms, there is a much more pressing issue with free speech laws which could lead to a very dystopian future. This is the fact that our cultural institutions are under attack. The American Civil Liberties Union, which used to stand up for freedom, stated that America was founded upon white supremacy. As such, the founding documents must also be racist. In the future, it wouldn’t be surprising to find people calling for the censorship of  these documents and people who espouse their beliefs. In fact, if hate speech legislation is passed and found constitutional, there is no rational limit to what can be defined as hate speech, which is something that is admitted by its proponents. Hate speech laws could easily be used to crush the minority into submission so that they accept a new woke agenda.

All that those who scoff at this dark reality need to do is look at the college campuses and the rhetoric that is spouted across the country. They claim that speech is violence and then go on to define racism in the broadest terms possible The founders recognized that men are not angels and that as their governments are not composed of angels, it is fickle to place your trust in them completely. The composition of legislatures changes and parties shift. Not so long ago, Southern Democrats were known as dixiecrats and would have done anything to stifle the freedoms of black people. Mandating violations of free speech would open the door to usurpations of power in corrupt administrations and would allow institutional elites to define terms in any way that they wished so as to stifle opposition to their so-called anti-racist goals. 

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Plato in the School of Athens, by Raphael

A favorite statement by college elites and those they influence is that “all white people are racist.” Despite the absurdity of this claim on its face, it is important not to reject it as the mere ramblings of a large group of discontented people. This phrase is something much more sinister and is a calculated attempt to overthrow the liberties which this country was built upon. In an interview on Michigan Radio, Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility stated that, “Racism comes out of our pores as white people. It’s the way that we are.” If this be the case then society must be torn up at the roots. However, what many people don’t realize is that when they accept this argument, they are de facto accepting tyranny, which is the logical conclusion of the arguments of people like Robin DinAgelo.

Before illustrating the harm which the idea that all white people are racist can cause, it is important to refute the claim altogether as it has no intellectual backing. A study reported on by Vox stated that 5.64 percent of white people in the U.S. have views aligned with the alt-right, which is a racist fringe movement. It is important to note however, that this study was extremely biased and even if the questions asked were answered in the affirmative, racism could not be imputed as a belief of the respondent. The questions asked how important their race was to their identity, whether or not white people should fight laws that were discriminatory towards their race, and if white people felt discrimination. However, even if we take the study at its inaccurate face value, the remaining 94.36 percent of white people are not racist.

As the idea is a natural outgrowth of the belief that all police officers are racist it is important to refute this claim as well. This can be done with relative ease, given that there is virtually no evidence that police kill a disproportionate number of black men. In an extensive study published in the National Academy of Sciences researchers stated that, “in the typical shooting, we did not find evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity.” Therefore, while racist incidents may happen, they are not tied to any systemic factors within the police departments

The sheer absurdity on the face of the claim that all whites are racist, should alert people that its covert operation is much more important. In Federalist No. 55 Alexander Hamilton writes that,  “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” 

Because our form of government and representative democracy itself presuppose these qualities, what is the natural conclusion of the belief that all people are racist? The answer is that our conduct will be controlled by the philosopher kings that Plato imagined in The Republic. This is one of the reasons that elites are so fascinated with this fabled text. They fancy themselves to be the philosopher kings who will bring goodness into our lives. This is illustrated perfectly by Robin DiAngelo who states that, “As a former professor and current facilitator and consultant, I am in a position to give white people feedback on how their unintentional racism is manifesting itself.” Therefore, even though she is white (and therefore an admitted racist), she believes that she has the moral superiority to lecture us on the way in which we live our lives. Besides the sickening self-flattery of this claim, it is undeniably evident that she believes that people like her should run our society for us. If we are all racist then it takes people like her to counteract that evil and build our society anew.

Robin DiAngelo, college elites, and public intellectuals, who espouse the doctrine that all people are racist are in no way virtuous. They are arrogant, self-conceited bullies, who want to cram their ideas down our throats. The easiest way for them to do this is to claim that we are all racist, because who would allow a society of depraved people to vote? Who would allow them to raise their kids in the manner that they wish to? Who would honor their institutions? The natural conclusion of this evil doctrine of intellectual-supremacy is despotism of the few over the many, the erosion of our God-given freedoms, and the usurpation of power by self-styled philosopher kings.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood