You’ve Probably Never Encountered Real Conservative Views

I was directed to a question last week:

Why is it that the more I’m exposed to conservative logic, the further left my thinking goes?

To the person who asked the question, chances are you are likely not being exposed to Conservative logic, at all.

Let me ask you something that you need to answer very honestly; are you being exposed to conservative views, or are you being exposed to people who aren’t conservatives telling you what conservatives believe?

I’ll tell you honestly, I’ve written a great deal over the last few years explaining to people what my conservative views are, and many uncomfortably squirm as they realize that my logic is far more nuanced and based on far too many facts to be explained away as simply as many so freely do. I’m told of how I hate blacks, and women, all people of color really, and any minority. I’m told that I only want rich people to have a good life (ironic given my lowly status in the bottom quartile.) I’m told I’m anti-science by people who don’t understand the concept of P-hacking and still think solar will save us, but nuclear energy is going to leave the world in a barren husk. I also want poor people to die (which explains so much of my behavior.) This is what I’m told of what I believe, anyway. Nevermind that those proclaiming this to me (and you) are those empowered by such untruths because they deceive very good people just like you away from ever giving my views a chance.

Look, I’m going to give you three examples of what our logic really is. It’s not going to be easy. My beliefs take a lot of time to understand, so it’s going to take time to read them. If you balk at the time spent reading it, imagine writing them. That said, I promise anyone who reads the answers thoroughly will have so many of their stereotypes about conservatives shattered and question where they’ve been getting their information for many years.

Let’s start here… you probably think I’m cruel because I am against all forms of government healthcare. Would you like to understand why, or are you fine with that belief about me?

Why are conservatives so against universal health care?

Finished? Let’s shift gears to why you probably think I hate Muslims. There’s way more to that story too.

What do Trump supporters think about the current restrictions on U.S. visas?

How about one that gets to the heart of a lot of things.

As a conservative, what did you dislike about Obama?

I feel I’ve made my point, but if you want to keep going, we can keep going.

I can do this all day, bro.

Now, if you read any of those, you probably got challenged a lot on what you’ve heard, and I bet, now that I am pointing you straight to the answers, that you probably can’t say you’ve heard those arguments straight from one of us. Maybe you’ll say, “But I’ve just never heard someone put up such an argument because Conservatives aren’t usually that informed.”

ಠ_ಠ

For that, I look_of_disapproval in your general direction.

We are out there, but you haven’t been looking. In all honesty, you’ve known where to look all along. Usually, when you’re told about the most horrible people on Earth, you should actually do yourself the favor of learning what they believe from them, and not from your friends. In this way, I’ve discovered Ben Shapiro, the Jew who was declared a white supremacist Nazi; Toronto Professor Dr. Jordan Peterson, who was recently called a champion of the Alt-Right and compared to Hitler; or to Thomas Sowell, who many on the left like to pretend doesn’t exist because he single-handedly destroys so many of their arguments with his existence alone, let alone the brilliance in his logic that will leave you thinking for days. I’ve learned so much from so many prodigious minds simply by being skeptical of the people who tell me there is something wrong with them.

You’ve probably forgotten how to do that. Instead, you listen to your friends and your trusted sources and your gut leads you to what more perfectly aligns with your cognitive strata of how the world works. That’s okay. I do too, and I get it. “Who’s got the time for all that?” We all have jobs, we all have lives and such. I do, I get it. But this stuff matters. If you do the easy thing and simply vote with your heart and your gut, frankly and bluntly, you’re likely to cause some extremely profound and long-term suffering for many people, and odds are, exactly the people you’re trying to help.

Look, I’ve read many of the other guys, and while they may hyperfocus on a particular problem to unveil fascinating details about their particular subject of interest, the narratives they weave often unravel when confronted with external evidence which conflict with the notions of oppression, repression, and general manufactured misery which are the underlying assumptions for so much of their work.

For example, we can both agree that the blacks in the United States suffer disproportionately more than whites. You’ve probably heard this via progressive theory, which states that this is due to the deliberate works of racist whites to create institutions of repression to keep blacks marginalized.

One way to look at this is by noting that most of the ways that blacks are marginalized relative to whites, whites are marginalized to Asians. This is most obviously due to fact that our Korean founders wrote the Korean Constitution of the United States to ensure that they and all other Asians score higher on tests, do better in college, make more money in their careers, live in nicer homes, and retire to better lives than their non-Asian counterparts. Absurd, no? Given that, let’s look at how conservatives explain it.

But Conservative logic does sound very different. They acknowledge the white/black disparity, but instead of placing blame on hate canonized in the bowels of our society’s institutions, they place the blame for this disparity on rationale much more in keeping with Occam’s razor, that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. The competing hypothesis of Conservatives? That rather than some collective cabal of powerful white men secretly pulling the strings to ensure racism remains an institutionalized motivator in the United States… blame the incompetence of the very social programs designed to help minorities. Conservatives believe that racism itself is no longer a driving motivator in America, but that blacks (and other minorities) are still held back, in a tragic irony, by many of the poorly devised social programs sold to Americans to raise them up. Hearing these arguments articulated caused probably the most stunning shift in my beliefs, which I owe completely to Larry Elders, Thomas Sowell, and one particular book by Jason L. Riley (all black, by the way) which I guarantee you will shake up the assumptions many on the left hold to this day, but which I encourage everyone who says they want equality.

Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed: Jason L. Riley

I get it though. Everyone wants to be the good guy. You want to feel like the evil in this world is clear and obvious and that you are fighting against it. If you are fighting against the evil, then you’re the good guy, and anyone who disagrees with you — well they must be the villains. It feels good to think that way. That’s why the arguments win so much, because when someone says, “They do this because they are evil,” and the villain replies, “No, you’re just wrong in how you solve problems,” most people will side with the one they think is nice rather than the argument that requires in-depth and impartial analysis and understanding. Suffice it to say, most people would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the one who they think is good than the one they think is reasonable because few people care as much about being right as they care about being good. There are worse motivations in the universe, I suppose.

Having said all of this, I’m fairly certain you haven’t actually been exposed to much conservativism. If you are new to politics, you probably think the left are the good guys and the right are the mean ones who only like money, power, and repression. Almost certainly, you didn’t hear that from your conservative friends. I’d even venture a guess, that you may not have any.

That’s not even a judgment statement. There’s a reason for that.

You need to understand that most people after leaving their parents’ house and coinciding with the time they start forming their own ideas, lose connections with most conservative institutions and begin being inundated with progressive influences. For example, your parents and the family that raised you is a conservative institution. If you attended church as a kid, that’s one too. Most kids have trouble replacing these institutions after they leave the nest. Instead, these institutions are replaced by colleges, which have undeniable value but are grounds where views and opinions highly biased to left-wing attitudes are allowed to go unchallenged and can ironically be very oppressive of dissenting information critical of their ideas. And yes, I have evidentiary support for that statement.

Furthermore, this is also the time where you no longer have access to sources of information like your old networks, including your parents, so you’re going to need some new sources of information. This last year has shown us, that almost the entirety of the news industry is too highly biased against an honest understanding of conservative values and views. Perhaps you disagree, but you’re going to have to explain why all the high profile media failings of the last year were all aimed at making someone (namely Donald Trump) look bad. This is also a stage of life where you are okay with this because it is difficult to understand the meaning of the institutions that are lost to you and what the influences you have around you aim to do with your life. Simply put, you undervalue tradition and wisdom, and overvalue your new sources of information without developing a critical analysis of, another irony, the very people telling you to be critical of your traditional pearls of wisdom.

Don’t forget that when this is happening you’re surrounded by friends who are going through the same things you are. You’ll lean on those peer groups heavily as you enter your period where you start forming political ideas. Of course, you’re still basically the blind leading the blind, and one very opinionated know-it-all can affect what is allowed to be said on an entire dorm floor. That probably wasn’t one of the Conservative students, if we’re being honest.

Now, maybe a lot of that matches your story. Maybe none of it does, but probably at least enough to make you question if you ever actually heard a conservative explain their views from their own mouth and if you are really just functioning off assumptions and misinformation told to you by people very against conservatism told you, whether they knew it or not.


Thank you for reading. If you liked this series, please like and follow The War Elephant on Facebook. Reports like this are made thanks to support from patron donations through the social funding site Patreon. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how.

Support Jon Davis3

Does the white working class really vote against its interests?

This is such a profoundly arrogant statement for anyone who actually believes it. I’m really glad that liberals like Jay Wacker and Ian McCullough answered, providing good, nuanced viewpoints from the liberal side. It’s been important to see good examples such as theirs for displacing the anger many people living in this situation may experience when liberal outlets and individuals speak from such a profoundly wrong and disrespectful point of view. The only thing wrong with their answers is that they don’t address the question specifically from our viewpoints. So with thanks to those gentlemen, I’ll offer that.

I remember the first time I heard “you’re voting against your interests”, immediately after the election by yet another person who was just so sure that he knew the conditions of my life better than me. Yet this same person was shocked, shocked I tell you, that Clinton didn’t win with the New York Time’s predicted 90% chance of victory a few weeks before. What does that tell you? It told me that a bunch of people who had absolutely no understanding of me and my life days ago suddenly became experts on my condition, as well as suddenly being able to view every policy proposal on the books from my perspective — better than me!

I want to be honest, every single time I have seen this levied in earnest, it has been by someone bitter about the election wanting to mock us and not from genuine concern. If it had been a concern, they would understand that mostly, they are wrong. They rationalize policies they wanted and then argue how that would have been better for us than what we wanted. This is positively asinine since, right up until about a year ago, our needs, concerns, wishes, and grievances were being mocked by the people making these plans, so to say that they in any way would solve our problems is laughable. I’m sorry, but no one who calls me and people like me part of a “basket of deplorables” has my best interests at heart.

Okay, at this point, it just sounds like I’m angry. I am, but let’s look at some real arguments to give substance to the outrage.

I really love that my good friend Ian McCullough brought up the What’s the Matter with Kansas? book. I’m a conservative, he’s a liberal, and we have a lot of respect for each other so I would recommend him to anyone. But here, I’ll offer the other side of the story.

Much of the ideas behind What’s the Matter with Kansas stems around the fact that Kansas, like many red states, takes up more in government aid and welfare than they contribute, specifically when compared to wealthy blue states like California and New York. This phenomenon of people who soak up government aid in spite of their conservative voting patterns appear in places with namely two things in common:

  1. They once were solid Democrat and are now solid Republican
  2. Their main source of income was from agriculture or some other displaced industry.

Those points are important because you need to understand how amazingly rich my community used to be. I live in a small town in Oklahoma. For all intents and purposes, they could have written that book about us, but they chose Kansas. First of all, there is a reason that we want to “Make America Great Again.”

We look to the 1950’s with nostalgia because of how truly wonderful it was for us. First of all, if you look out to the open fields, everything was farmland. People were working and providing well for their families making cotton that made American clothing as well food for Americans. Fortunes were made as small towns like mine were looked at as great places to raise a family with lots of opportunity and wealth to go around for those willing to work and live peacefully.

Then it all went away. Price controls on labor and government subsidies for some made it impossible for agriculture to be profitable for the average farmer. My grandfather actually ran the last cotton gin in the 1970’s before it went under because there were no more growers. Furthermore, the jobs around cotton disappeared, such as the pants factory, one of only two factories in my town, that is not just a cement slab, as it has been… also, since the 70’s. After that, a few mega-growers overtook all industries and the region was gutted. Many of these mega-growers, now maintain their prices through illegal immigrant labor, but that is a whole other story. You don’t hear much from this because both the Republicans and Democrats are guilty of supporting the subsidies and supporting the mega-growers, so neither are ever going to say a word about. The collapse of the labor market for agriculture was much of the same as the story of the Rust Belt, but instead of seeing withered factories, I sit surrounded by some of the most fertile farmland in the country that hasn’t seen a plow for more than 40 years.

But then the government came to save us.

After the collapse of agriculture from the viewpoint of farm labor in the 1960s, millions developed a dependence on government aid to save themselves from the decline which was ironically brought on by government intervention into the market. This was actually the second time they did this.

I want you to understand what the world is like for us as a unique culture in the US. Long after slavery had ended, most of us, as in my very white, very poor ancestors were still picking cotton in the fields. Both mine and my wife’s grandmothers told stories in visceral detail about what picking bowls of cotton, the weight of hauling that heavy bag through the fields, and the scorching summer heat of a West Texas farm in the 1920’s and 30’s. For perspective, this image is one taken about 30 miles from my home at about the time people when people were desperate for “someone to do something”.

After that, the New Deal did those things. It brought out huge government works programs and told people it would take care of them. Work hard and Social Security would be there for you. What actually brought us out of poverty were millions of men returning from World War II with saved up money, a massive industrial base that built up from the war, and the relaxing of war-era rationing. All this combined was an explosion in economic growth the likes of which that generation had never known. However, many believed that the promises of the New Deal would be enough to get them through retirement. There was no need to save because Social Security would be enough for them. While the region was growing immensely wealthy, my grandparent’s generation was making choices they had no idea would straddle their children’s generation with hardships they never foresaw because they thought the good times would continue on forever.

As the crops disappeared in the 1960’s and 70’s, however, they had a horrific wake-up call… right about the time of the War on Poverty and the Great Society began to take effect. These programs gave out exceedingly more benefits based on need, particularly to those who weren’t working or who had children born outside of marriage, not to mention numerous housing decisions that were terrible for the neighborhoods they were affected.

Following that, what we saw wasn’t a world where the government helped us or where people were mostly lifting themselves out of poverty. Quite the opposite. Funds were distributed, but here, there are people who live in poverty as a career. They are able to maintain a minimum lifestyle off government funding. Since that point, what we are seeing nationally is that the poverty line has mostly flatlined, while handouts continue to rise. This is most prominent in the areas like mine, where welfare is already normalized and where the tax base is having a harder and harder time keeping up with its rise.

I’m not talking about some distant statistical scarecrow. I am talking about real people I see daily. I mean the parents of many of the students at the school where my wife and I work and the people who live next door to me. This lifestyle is not conducive toward raising healthy homes or giving their kids a good foundation, let alone a future. It certainly isn’t capable of creating the types of wealth that people can safely retire on, nor does it produce the sorts investment into future growth in their community. Instead, it drives down the tax base while increasing the amounts infrastructure requirements by way of city utilities to schooling. You wonder why education is so low here? It isn’t because no one thought to pay teachers more. It’s because we have too many kids and not enough of a tax base. Multiply that by everything we’d like to give our people. This is what small-town conservatives fear when we talk about the welfare state.

If you’d really like to understand how the welfare state has affected the family in culture, as well as what life is like for millions of Americans who absolutely no one is listening to, I would strongly recommend reading Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis: J. D. Vance. It outlines far better than I could how culture has declined in the rural areas most likely to be the topic of this question.

Secondly, a very good juxtaposition of What’s the Matter with Kansas? would be something like What’s Going on in Texas?

Texas is the best embodiment of what many want to see happening, as far as the white working class. Granted, they didn’t suffer from the destruction of the agricultural labor market, or at least they were able to transfer their economy over into oil, shipping, and finance. But they’ve also made some very good choices and have a particular culture that has made them very wealthy, serving as to disprove much of narratives surrounding what left-leaning advocates believe should happen in states like theirs. They have wealth, they have investment, they have manufacturing and industry. They also have greater protection of property rights, not to mention being the anchor of job recovery during the massive recession over the last decade for the entire nation.

This is particularly true against far more left-leaning states like California. I couldn’t find a more current one, but it is worth noting that this graph ended almost immediately before the graph above started.

Furthermore, it has a lower cost of living with higher living standards and even manages to have better income inequality than most other states. Particularly egregious is comparisons to states like California, where Texas’ saw growth for both its wealthiest 1% and the bottom 99% over the period of 2009 to 2012, while California saw similar growth for its top 1% but a -3% decline in income for their 99% over the same period.[1]

Are there problems? Sure. But they are sitting pretty by most people’s standards, particularly the states which have suffered the long-term effects of collectivist policy, such that Democrats are currently suggesting, as well as those who had no major industry to replace agriculture after the state intervened into it. So this is where we are now. People say that states like mine vote against their interests because we wholeheartedly reject modern collectivist measures to “raise us out of poverty”. We, however, are already straddled with the financial and culture burden of exactly these same kinds of measures from generations past.

The worst part, when we say these things, we are completely ignored. In the best cases, we are dismissed as not knowing what is best for us because we are just the working class, more commonly known as rednecks, white trash, and hillbillies, and mostly by people who have never set foot in our towns. In the worst cases, we all suddenly became racists for pointing out images like the family of poor whites picking cotton or for mentioning that according to the US census in 2010, the number of poor whites outnumbers the number of poor blacks by about 12:1. If I say that, you hear me saying that “there is no problem with black poverty” instead of hearing what I am actually saying that the problems of poverty are not due to racism, but are rooted in exactly the same kind of bad governance. But mostly, you just don’t hear from us at all. That’s because the same sorts of metrics that gave The New York Times and virtually every other major news media outlet absolute certainty that Clinton was going to win, can only come to such an unfathomably wrong conclusion because they completely and totally don’t reach out to more than a third of the nation who don’t live in easy to reach, mostly urban, mostly rich, liberal cities.

Yet these people are the ones who want to tell us what our interests are? Pure arrogance


Thank you for reading. If you liked this series, please like and follow The War Elephant on Facebook. Reports like this are made thanks to support from patron donations through the social funding site Patreon. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how.

Support Jon Davis3

Can Trump’s Wall Really Work?

Again, these are not pretty solutions, and won’t stop a determined anything from scaling it. No one is reasonably expecting it to cut off 100% of either crime related to the south of the border sources or illegal immigration. There will still be novel solutions to ever-growing problems, however, like the Great Wall of China, the main source of exploitation for both crime and illegal immigration en masse, being a largely unchecked and unenforceable border between the US and Mexico will be removed from the options for those attempting to break US laws of entry. In some places, tunnels will be dug, but for the 170,000 people who entered the US illegally in 2015 to try to pop out of a single hole in the ground… it’s going to be noticed. Across more than 2,000 miles of open border? Not so much. A person with enough desire and motivation can scale a line of Hescos just as easily as anything else. Whether we’re talking about a massive wall taking years, or a few piles of really elaborate sandbags, it serves as a very strong barrier to slow people down and prevent the movement of much larger goods, such as large amounts of drugs, weapons, or vehicles carrying even more. While you might be able to get over such a wall, the time it took to get a huge backpack filled with this sort of contraband is enough that someone watching a camera feed will probably say, “Hey Joe, you see that down at mile marker 87?”

Some will even be able to overcome the massive walls planned out, but the vast majority will be turned away, attempting to try their luck through some fraudulent means at border checkpoints. Given that we will then have the manpower to check these resources, that too will become tougher to execute. So it won’t work for 100%, but we have every reason to believe that a 95% reduction in illegal border crossing and south of the border originated international crime is completely possible. That’s great news. That’s the point of this wall, and by all evidence we have, there’s nothing to say it couldn’t do the job.


Thank you for reading. If you liked this series, please like and follow The War Elephant on Facebook. Reports like this are made thanks to support from patron donations through the social funding site Patreon. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how.

Support Jon Davis3

It Doesn’t Need to be Pretty

There are also numerous avenues on how to approach the building of such a wall beyond just the extreme assumptions of building the most expensive variant of proposed walls across the entire border. We can even look to implementation set up in Iraq and Afghanistan for such examples. If you’ll look at my profile picture, you’ll see what are called T-barriers.

Also called Bremer Walls and Jersey Barriers, these are large and freestanding concrete slabs are cheap to build, transport, and install. They essentially fit together like massive Lego bricks with a notch fitting two together that is mirrored on the opposite side so that an infinitely long chain can be created able to bend around objects or buildings and adjust with the terrain that is impossible to destroy without heavy machinery. They’re like legos for big boys.

In Iraq, we used them for two reasons. You can see behind me, that they were lined around our prefabricated living units. This was because the walls were able to absorb the blast of an incoming mortar, small missile, or random rocket-propelled grenade, which might come our way and endanger the thousands of Marines inside. The second way we used them was during the “Surge”, a change in tactics to our counter-insurgency efforts where, overnight, entire city blocks could be quarantined off with these units. This allowed Marines and soldiers to wall off whole neighborhoods within hours, allowing few points of entry and exit that could be manned and checked while teams searched house to house for weapons, contraband, or other signs of enemy activity. Just as quickly, the walls could be moved or removed to clear other parts of the city.

I want to be clear, that like the Great Wall of China example, there is nothing stopping someone determined from getting over one of these walls. A ladder could do it. What they do, however, is prevent the free flow of large numbers of people, and more importantly, a large amount of cargo to pass freely. You might be able to sneak over the wall yourself, and you might even be able to get over with a rifle, but there is no way you are going to be able to sneak an entire team with heavy weapons, rocket and bomb parts, and other logistical considerations over the wall clandestinely. That’s what the T-barriers did. They broke up the enemy’s ability to move and, in my mind, had a major part in the story of how the United States successfully quelled the insurgency around 2007… not that anyone heard about that.

All that to say… I’m a big fan of these simple impediments. They saved a lot of lives.

Even more humble is the HESCO barrier. These ingenious little devices are little more than 21st-century sandbags, literally. They are large canvas bags supported by a metal frame which be broken down and stacked by the hundreds when unused, taken out and unfolded where they will be installed, and then just have sand, dirt, rocks, or anything dumped in them.

Installation of these barriers is even easier than that of the T-barriers requiring little more than two unskilled technicians, a truck, and a lot of dirt.

Importantly, I’ve seen these things stacked four high, making a wall of about twenty feet. Interestingly, it can be filled with dirt excavated in other areas of the construction project. These “insta-forts” are able to be installed, and just as importantly, taken down, in a matter of days, rather than weeks, months, or even years and at a fraction of the cost of what most are assuming such a wall would cost. Granted, this is not a solution that will last a thousand years, but it will get the job done in many of the areas where a massive wall isn’t required, but some impediment is.

This is why the same technology (yes giant bags of sand and dirt still count as technology) is used in the United States civilian side to protect against the sudden threat of flooding.


Continue to the next section.

The Wall

We’re Not the Only Ones Doing It…

So now let’s ask, can it be done?

The best places to look for that answer is where others are attempting similar feats. Case in point, Saudi Arabia.

Along the Northern border of Saudi Arabia, bordering Iraq, the Saudis began plans to build a series of walls and fence works in 2006. Construction was expedited after the invasion of Iraq’s Al Anbar and Nineveh provinces in 2014 by Islamic State forces, where construction began around September of that year. The project calls for some 1000 km long stretch of varying degrees of fortified walls, fencing, and some areas manned with remotely operated UAV surveillance.

From the Independent Journal Review

“…consists of 78 monitoring towers, eight command centers, 10 mobile surveillance vehicles, 32 rapid-response centers, and three rapid intervention squads, all linked by a fiber-optic communications network.” [3]

Also is Israel’s southern border which, in the words of Israel’s Prime Minister, worked out pretty well.

 In fact, looking across the world, we see that the concept of building border walls is not a new idea propagated by the Americans, but one in which more and more countries are attempting to take advantage.

Continue to next section…

Why We Need the Wall

Bringing us back to the contemporary, what would “success” for the US Southern Border Wall be?

The first thing that has to be accepted is that the scale of illegal immigration from Mexico is staggering with huge effects on the United States.

Likewise, according to the same Pew Research centered, illegal immigrants currently account for some 3.5% of the US population.[1] With regard to Mexican immigration, this is most readily felt in parts of the country where few people go, the small towns. There is a map created which represents every person on the US census as a color-coded dot – One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

Zooming out shows the map as apparently completely blue, but when you zoom into many areas, such as my town highlighted with the arrow above and shown below, you see the homogenous blue zones suddenly become remarkably racially diverse.

Why my town, as well as so many towns, become suddenly homogeneously blue as you zoom out, I don’t understand, but I do understand that this is a mostly invisible issue to many who do not live in small towns like mine, nor are the externalities of it. Those externalities include that the low wage low skill jobs that employed the majority of the population are gone. There are still people doing them, but much of the work for people starting their careers have shifted to immigrant and often illegal labor. Secondly, is the impact on the schools. In my town, the population has shifted from 5% Mexican population in the 1970’s, to around 50% today. In general, this isn’t a problem except when we factor in for illegal immigrants. I’ve polled Mexican-American students at the school who volunteer that they believe at least 25% of the students are living in the United States illegally. By that, we can estimate that some 8 to 10% of the students of the school are not legally supposed to live in the town or the country for that matter. These students do have access to the same education and the same resources but are not bearing the same tax burden. For small towns like mine, having 10% of the students not contributing to the tax base is devastating to the educational standard provided, with ripple effects that can be felt for generations. This, along with many other factors, is part of why Oklahoma education is facing an existential crisis.

Likewise, let’s look at some numbers from the US Federal Sentencing Commission in 2015. Illegal immigrants accounted for 37% of all federal crimes, discounting all immigration-related federal crimes, this accounts for 14% of all federal crimes. In that remaining category, they accounted for 75% of drug possession, 30% of kidnappings, 21% of national defense crimes such as exporting arms, munitions or military equipment, and providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, 18% of drug trafficking, 10% of money laundering, and 5% of all murders. [2]

I want to be clear, this isn’t saying that Mexicans are bad people or even that all illegal immigrants are bad. I don’t even believe the majority are guilty anything more than knowingly attempting to subvert our immigration laws, but all of these crimes… should not be able to happen at all. We simply must accept that the United States would be better off with fewer people selling drugs, fewer kidnappings, and fewer murders, and if an easy to prevent much of that is tougher enforcement of immigration law, then great.

Similarly, the economic burden placed on our rural labor force and education systems should not be happening at all.

That is how we will be able to measure if the Southern Wall will be a success. If it can dramatically reduce the influx of illegal immigration as well as the crime coming through or dependent upon an open Southern border, then it will be a success.

Having established that, let’s ask first if there is evidence to support the building. San Diego built their own wall and saw perhaps the best proof we need.

The wall in San Diego reduced illegal immigration apprehensions by 95%.

Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector.

“It was an area that was out of control,” Henry says. “There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year.”

Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol’s San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.

San Diego Fence Provides Lessons in Border Control

Furthermore, let’s look at the national level implementation in the US. Most illegal immigrants to the US actually came over in the 1990s when apprehensions reached a staggering 1.6 million per year.

Policies beginning around the time of 2000 halted much of the illegal immigration into the US but just as much was the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which saw the construction of 653 miles of reinforced fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. Due mostly to this, US Border Patrol now is forced to make far fewer apprehensions. Extending the 653 miles would further reduce the need for US Border Patrol agents to make what still amounts to a quarter million apprehensions a year.


Continue on to next section.

 

What Did Conservatives Dislike about President Obama?

When President Barack Obama was elected, I was rather a-political. I was starting college. I actually just got out of the Marines and off an Iraq deployment only a few months prior. I also had a slew of problems adjusting to civilian life amidst a recent series of personal tragedies. Politics? Whatever. Who has the time?

The only real moment that stood out to me in 2008 was when another student, a black student if I’m being very honest, said very confidently to the whole class, “It’s time we had a black man in the White House!”

That was it. That was the end of his explanation.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. My entire life, I had been raised on the belief that skin color had nothing to do with a person’s ability and that treating every race equally was all that mattered. We had been taught to be colorblindbut there was a student arguing that policies didn’t matter, voting patterns didn’t matter, experience didn’t matter. His skin color alone was what mattered. I was floored. This was racism. That was exactly racism. This was complete and total racism. It was saying, in a college History class no less, that a person was qualified for the most powerful role in the country because of the color of his skin. He might as well have said, “I’m not voting for anyone if they are white.”

I looked to the teacher, and she said nothing, as if, “Good enough.” When did it become acceptable for people to say that skin color alone was the qualifier for anything, especially the office of President of the United States?

I wanted to ask right then, “Don’t policies matter?”

I legitimately wanted to know. Like I said, I had a lot of life happening in 2008, so the election didn’t really weigh too heavily on my mind, even though it was already September or so. I’m ashamed of how ignorant and apathetic I was. But here I was in college and I wanted to know what the man stood for. In particular, I wanted to know his foreign policy. Remember, I was so fresh from the sandbox, I still had sand falling out of my… Let’s just say it was still on my mind. Many of my friends still in the Marines were going to deploy again very shortly into the tenure of the new president, and so many people I knew had already suffered so much for the gains we had made in Iraq. By the end of 2007, the war was as good as won. So all the next guy had to do was nothing stupid and we’d be fine there. Still, I wanted to know that this guy wouldn’t botch the whole thing.

But I said nothing. At that time, I was afraid of saying, “That’s not good enough for me. I’d like to know his foreign policy.” I feared that if I questioned his logic, I would be called a racist.

That was my first run in with identity politics. And as an additional point, I didn’t go to school in some blue state where I might have expected this. I went to school in Dallas, Texas.

I did start looking more into things on my own, though. That left me with only one real series of questions.

“What does Change even mean? Change what? How? What’s the context, here?”

Then the election happened. I wasn’t too torn up, though I was surprised. I expected people to go for the experienced veteran, being that we were in the middle of two wars. I understood very little back then.

After that, however, I started seeing a lot of things that were fairly alarming. Now President Obama was making some terrible choices with our military. This included ignoring the conflicts to a great degree while apologizing across the world for our presence. “This will embolden our enemies,” I thought. Then he placed in a series of secretaries over the DoD and the various branches who clearly were more interested in “reforms” that had nothing to do with making our warfighters more combat effective, but everything to do with partisan social agendas. There were also cuts being made and the sequestration. Just so you know, that’s a really frightening word if you’re in the military, and particularly if you’re in the military in the middle of two active conflicts. Then there was the pullout from Iraq. There, I got angry. I told my wife then that if we pull out of Iraq the terrorists were going to take over all of Al Anbar (where I had been deployed). But he gave out that wonderful stimulus package, so everybody got $800. Why should I complain?

Then ISIS happened and I was proven right. Places, where people I knew died, were now the property of the worst terrorists the world had ever known, born strictly out the absence of the American military forces after we had gained control of it years prior. I was upset about Iraq, to say the least. Then I got more upset at the complete lack of a response to Russia in Ukraine; upset about the Iran deal; upset that Afghanistan was ignored after they got Bin Laden; and upset that diddly squat was being done about a suddenly nuclear-armed North Korea test firing their first generation of ICBMs.

Switching back to local… did I mention that I also graduated during this time… and that I had to get a job during the slowest recovering recession in our nation’s history? Nothing will slap you in the face harder than finding out that graduating with honors from a good university and military experience aren’t enough to get you a decent job a full four years after Obama took office and more than five years after the start of the recession.

I ended up finally being hired in a crap retail management position where my job was to write schedules that screwed over my employees. Of course, that wasn’t what the ad read, but yes, that was my job. I had to take people who had been working with the company for years and deserved full-time status, and never allow them more than 32 hours a week. If they worked more than 35 enough weeks, they automatically qualified as full-time employees. Why is that bad? Thanks to this new healthcare legislation coming down that forced companies to pay healthcare worth more than the labor of their employees, the companies juggled to figure out a scheme that allowed them to stay in the black. That involved Operations Managers like me essentially switching from managing operations, the sort of harder and faster motivation that I was good at, to screwing over employees. I was good at harder and faster. I was Marine after all, but not screwing over good and hardworking people who deserved to work the hours they wanted to, but I would be doomed if I gave them more than 35 a week. Granted, I didn’t realize at the time that I was an evil corporate miser, but looking back, that’s all I was.

Oh, my company was bad, but then I found out that they weren’t the only ones. As it turned out, people predicted that this behavior would run rampant. Unemployment would go down, but underemployment would skyrocket as people would take on not one job adequate for their needs and appropriate to their skills, but three part-time jobs because no one was going to be hiring full-time employees now. Upward mobility also became impossible, and millions of people still couldn’t get healthcare.

I’ve read many arguments against The Affordable Care Act, but this is the one that did me in on the President’s desire to do nice things domestically. There were really obvious signs that this wouldn’t work, that it would cause some massive problems, but people who raised their hand to say anything… racists — or if they objected to the plan itself, they lacked empathy. I’m sorry, but all those kids in college who were so livid toward anyone who disagreed with them and said they lacked empathy, they never had to empathize with real people. They didn’t know Charity.

And Charity isn’t a euphemism. That’s her real name: Charity H. She was a real hard worker. Always reliable. I knew that if anyone flaked, I could rely on her. She was quiet, but exactly the sort I wanted on my teams. It was my job to force her into taking a second job. I became very angry years after leaving retail and walking past that same store and seeing Charity still working there, probably in the same position, and probably at no more than 32 hours a week.

At some point during this time, the church shooting happened where a deranged nutbag shot and killed a small bible study at a predominately black church. That was heartbreaking, reminding every one of Columbine and other shootings of the sort. The president himself went to lead the funeral. I thought that was classy. Then, out of nowhere in the speech,

“It’s time to take down that flag!”

He was talking about the Confederate flag, in whatever state still flew it. I’m sure there was a healthy debate about that before the shooting, but to me and many people, this was a statement taken so far out of left field — owing absolutely nothing to the problem of bat-crap crazy people murdering others — that I was floored at how he seemed to shift the blame to a whole state for what this one guy did. In reading the actual text of the speech, the entire three paragraphs of the eulogy where the flag came into question, he didn’t mention the actual killer once. Instead, the clear and overwhelming focus was on how racist America was, not the individual in question. American history somehow caused this. It was literally as if he was saying all of us were responsible — not just the killer. Even if he was a perfectly sane person who just simply was a horrible, horrible racist, we all were responsible because of American history. He was just a symptom of a deeply racist nation. I was completely lost as to why this egregious crime was being suddenly turned into a political call to action that had nothing to do with the events in question, one that put the onus of responsibility on all Americans and their inescapable racism.

I remember not long after that, there was this 16 or 17-year-old girl posing with her friends in front of the flag before prom. Prom. They’re freaking kids. You may not agree with that. You may think that every white person in the South with a Confederate flag is a raging racist out to enslave all the POC, but you’d be wrong. I know these people and you’re wrong, but whatever. What came next was absurd. A protest formed outside the girl’s home. I don’t know how, but she got doxxed and a mob of protesters began harassing her family and threatening her, right outside her bedroom window.

Full stop. That’s unacceptable. I am not a free speech supremacist. I’ll fight very hard for people to say things that I don’t even agree, but there is a line of decency we do not cross. I don’t believe that speech should happen at someone’s front door. People get crazy and at the snap of a finger can turn a protest into a mob. It was indecent for people to “protest” like that.

In a conversation among Top Writers about how terrible this girl was, where the fact that they were protesting at her house was the context of the article, I pointed out this fact. When a mob is allowed to threaten minors for an Instagram photo, I call the moment. Of course, that opened me up to a barrage of being called a racist. The heck? I wasn’t even supporting the flag. I could care less about the flag. I was just saying to leave the protests out of people’s front yards and don’t think you’re the good guy for terrifying little girls.

Then we get into Black Lives Matter. Look, I’ve read the data, and there are cases where police acted wrongly. Nobody is saying it never happens. But we were asking for people to wait for evidence before stories based on a few unverified facts became major national narratives and the source of outrage for millions. Case in point: Michael Brown, where wild protests followed the “execution” of an innocent black teenager trying to surrender to a murderous racist white cop. As the days went by, there was less and less evidence to support this story, and more that exonerated the police officer. So when we actually had evidence that Brown was doing a lot of stuff he shouldn’t, I was the guy who said something, “Maybe we should wait for some evidence before the riots?”

Oh, how things went South after that. Turns out, I was completely right and that the Department of Justice’s investigation completely proved that Brown attacked the police officer, made no effort to surrender and that the officer was completely in his rights to shoot him. It turns out that the whole “Hands Up; Don’t Shoot” story was completely falsified by the guy who was Brown’s accomplice in the crimes that got him killed. Doesn’t really matter. By this point, we had Top Writers literally saying, and I am directly quoting, “Jon Davis wants people who look like me back picking cotton,” and posting pictures of some random white guy assaulting Martin Luther King Jr. saying, “Here’s Jon Davis’ grandpa,” inside Quora answers!

It was insane. Of course, I don’t blame Barack Obama for that directly, but he set the stage for this outrage culture. He normalized outrage culture and never tried to check it as cities went up in riots based on little to no evidence other than narratives of systemic racism.

Then there was the slaying of several police officers at a BLM protest in Dallas. This was it for me. In the speech at the memorial service, many people, myself included, interpreted the President’s words as, “But a lot of cops do bad things too.” It felt, in that moment, that the President of the United States was standing over a funeral where police officers had given their lives protecting people who despised them, and there was a suggestion that the killer was in the slightest way possibly justified because some cops somewhere are bad?

You don’t have to agree with me. You don’t have to respect my opinion. That’s just the way it sounded to me… as well as millions of other people like me. I know that most people reading this don’t have access to right-wing news, but people were furious that this was being politicized so blatantly and that it happened by way of pushing this notion over the bodies of as-yet-not-buried police officers who died fighting a radicalized terrorist to protect citizens at a protest against them. This was insane. But you’re not allowed to say these things. I know, because repeatedly, those of us who did were bombasted if we were ever critical of anything.

He had a personality cult. That’s what it was. The core of his supporters were a repressive and hateful cult of personality around the man. Whether you call them Social Justice Warriors or whatever, that’s what they were: A cult of ideologues; an extremely vocal minority of his followers with far too much power who used dirty tactics to silence anyone who disagrees with any of their agenda. I’ve never seen anything like it. No one was allowed to be critical of anything he did, what he said, or even the massive and undeniable policy failures he led like pulling out of Iraq. If you ever opened your mouth, you were immediately branded with every hateful, toxic ad hominem meant to smear your reputation so that anything you said no longer mattered. Many good liberals, people who I don’t fault for voting Obama for very good reasons, did nothing about it. I was bitter about that for a while. Many were and still are my friends, but now I think they were just terrified of the SJWs too. Over the last year, many, have come to me silently to say as much.

Again, I can’t blame President Obama for what everything his followers did, but I got sick of the constant feeling of mob tyranny, of a president who was above criticism, and of the feeling that anything I said would get Google to return my name with “he wants people who look like me back picking cotton.” I think that’s what really turned me from simply saying, “I don’t like the President’s politics, but I appreciate his service,” to “I’ll do anything to avoid another eight years of this madness.” It wasn’t him. He seems like a decent human. Good husband. Good father. He seems very fine, and I do appreciate his service to the country. But it was that personality cult of his rabid fanatics.

I’m going to be honest, I don’t think I would very much like Donald Trump as a person. I would have rather had Marco Rubio. I’m still happy I voted for Trump, though. That’s because I didn’t want a nice fella. I wanted someone who would win and who would be a hammer to the fanatics that supported Obama to the point of militancy. I mean that. Militancy. They said and did things I would expect to see in Iraq. Blatant acts of terrorism were ignored or even had the blame pushed to people like me for speaking out. Nothing could be questioned and if you stepped out of line, you were slandered or people threatened to take away your jobs, and often, even real threats of violence. They’re still doing it. What would eight more years of that look like? Would my writing be censored as “hate speech”? Would people who speak like me have thugs show up at my door? Would I be locked up in the gulag?

No. Not cool. The intolerance of these people was enough. I was sick of it.

I may not like Donald Trump as a person, but I love Donald Trump Supporters. I’m their supporter because I know them personally. I grew up with them, and I know their hearts. They’re good people who didn’t deserve the unmitigated treatment they got over those years and continue to receive today. And no matter what kind of a person he is, he spoke for them when everyone, even the other Republicans, ignored them. I didn’t want a nice person out to win the Nobel Prize for making the world feel special. I wanted a hammer.

Short answer: Maybe as an individual, President Obama was a really swell guy, but I felt he was a bad president. Not a communist or a Kenyan born Muslim Manchurian candidate. Not Satan or the anti-christ. Not even the worst President ever, but in the bottom half. I felt he was someone who had a vision of the United States that didn’t reflect reality, made bad policies reflective of that vision, and alienated many when he stirred up the divisive rhetoric to push his vision on us.

I know, I know, you want to tell me about what a terrible person Trump is. Say what you want about Trump, but at least now people are listening to the “flyover states” and the unacceptable behavior by radical left-wing fanatics is finally being called unacceptable by the good Obama voters who I still love as dear friends. Maybe if that had happened years ago, we’d be having a conversation about Marco Rubio. But it didn’t.

That’s why, if we’re being honest with ourselves, most conservatives don’t think Obama was a bad person. It was his core fanatics we couldn’t stand and it was they who helped Trump win the election.


Thank you for reading. If you liked this answer, please upvote and follow The War Elephant. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how. All donations greatly appreciated!

Twitter has no Principles

People are talking about the “white nationalist purge” of Twitter, which I honestly care little about. Those who are followers of the blog know that the Alt-Right hates me more than most because I have done as much as I have to literally teach people how to inoculate themselves from their rhetoric.

But Twitter honestly get’s no credit in this one. While it’s fine if they want to silence these types of people, it isn’t fine if they refuse to silence fanatics on other fronts. Twitter has long been host to organizing and empowering groups that support terrorism from the Islamic State to Anti-fa, so to suddenly take a stand now and expect praise for it, sorry, you’ll get none from me. When you only silence people who you specifically find detestable, but refuse to take action against far worse among people who violate your own rules but are politically incorrect to hold them accountable… we have a saying for that.

They have no principles.

This was outlined clearly with the banning of Roger Stone back in October. I wrote about it on Quora then and will share it again here. You can say that they did the right thing by enforcing some standard of decency on the platform. I’ll agree. I hate seeing the dumbing down of all media that eventually led everyone throwing around “F-this” and “F-that” on the nightly news or even Star Trek. I really hate it. I think what he said was important enough to be said, but a completely terrible way to say it.

That said, Twitter still has no principles… because you don’t get to only enforce the rules on ideologies you don’t like.

 I want to be upfront: I don’t like Julian Assange, but the man has a really big point.

So Twitter is trying to “take a stance against abuse”, but then they just ignore posts like this from only weeks ago?

Just a few weeks ago I asked the question Why isn’t Twitter banning people celebrating the Las Vegas Massacre? and still, there has been nothing but silence as far as doing anything about that. Literally, thousands of people reported those tweets and the users are still active.

Or how about the real head-scratchers, people with millions of followers who can get away with murder… provided that they are targeting the right people. Or, should I say… people on the Right.

Habitually.

And it isn’t just President Trump. Olbermann does this sort of thing all the time to many, many people. Twitter does nothing about these cases which are reported again, and again, and again.

So the message that Twitter is sending out, clearly is that they won’t respect targeted abuse, but they will only enforce that policy on right-wingers when they start imitating the left-wingers who have made their careers off it.

So having said that, Twitter deserves nothing but condemnation for this move. Suspending Roger Stone is something I would be totally fine with… if he was the only one acting like he does. If he set this bar so low, then I would say that the punishment was fair. Since he’s not, not even the worst, and since Twitter regularly proves itself to be such an irrefutably biased platform, then no, this is a complete mockery of the site.

Look, everyone understands fairness. Everyone. You don’t get to suddenly come down and start enforcing the rules… but only for the right people. I should say, only for the right-wing people. It shows absolutely no integrity on the platform to demonstrate their principles, but making clear the only principles they have are partisan loyalty. Look, I’m fine with suspending people acting like dirtbags… but suspend all the dirtbags.

Fair isn’t fair if you only treat people you hate “fairly”.


***Thank you for reading. If you liked this answer, please upvote and follow The War Elephant. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how. All donations greatly appreciated!

Should Hate Speech be Outlawed?

I have a saying: “words mean things.”

I say this because words have stopped meaning what rational people think they mean, so when one person calls for something reasonable, such as “ban hate speech,” they are really saying things the common public would find radically different.

Let’s look at a few words you probably think you know.

Something simple first — “harm”.

If someone harms you, a rational understanding of that might be the infliction of damage with lasting effects to the appearance or function of a thing, such bruising or wounds suffered from an assault, or damage was done to a vehicle after a car crash, maybe even the infliction of severe mental trauma discernable by reliable diagnostician. But what if “harm” only meant whatever a really convincing trial attorney could convince 12 strangers it meant, and punitive damages reaching the millions began to redefine what “harm” meant in a legal context, even if we still thought you needed something to show for it. Whether we agree or not, because the legal sense of the word evolved out from under us, we could still be liable for “harm” that no rational person would have seen coming.

This got worse following the Iraq War when movies and literature about returning veterans popularized PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). While these movies and literature were disastrous for how the public saw veterans as ticking time bombs, the general public now had this lovely new idea of “trauma” to conflate the idea of “harm”. Now, a disease which legitimately affects many people was being co-opted by many, many more to validate that they were or could be “harmed” with mental “trauma” in the same way doctors see an outbreak of self-diagnosed diseases… right after a medical drama featuring that disease airs on TV. Based on that argument, schools hard to start instituting warnings in their classes to ensure no one would be traumatized by their lectures. These were called “trigger warnings”. Note the direct link with PTSD, where legitimate victims of the disease will often be “triggered” by stimuli similar to what happened around the time of their traumatization. An example would be a dog barking before a bomb went off or a particular song before a car wreck. These sometimes involve a manic episode and can make mundane events very frightening. They are completely random and usually have nothing to do with the thing which caused you harm (real harm) but are just your brain’s defense system in overdrive trying to protect you from what it thinks will bring danger. Knowing that, how pissed off are you when some 19-year-old college kid raises their hand to say, “Professor, I feel I will be traumatized by this subject, so you shouldn’t teach it.

But this is the Federalist Papers. You’re in American History. You need to know this.

You see? Right there, something really neat just happened. What you or I might regard as a rational defense to a stupid complaint… others would call violence.

I’m not kidding.

Many of us view violence as some form of directed harm toward a person. But what happens when “harm” no longer means what we thought it meant? When words don’t mean things, harm can simply mean words and ideas that you subjectively perceived as being potentially traumatizing… based on your definition of trauma. And someone who doesn’t follow through with your demands for protection from “harm”, someone who continues to say things you don’t like… well, they just directed harm towards you… “violence.”

Of course, this necessitated a call for “safety.” People who were offended by certain ideas are marginalized by places where those ideas are shared and are, therefore “unsafe,” necessitating a need for “safe spaces”. I’m just going to share with you what I think a safe space is.

When I was in Iraq, we had these little concrete bunkers all over the base where we would run to during mortar attacks. Our command was really nice and gave our safe spaces benches. I was the Rock, Paper, Scissors champion until the “All Clear” sounded. I really liked my safe space.

Growing up in Oklahoma, we also had neat safe spaces. Everywhere you go, here are cellars in backyards. You go there when things called tornados come around. My grandpa called them “frady holes,” and that’s cool because tornadoes are really scary. You feel really safe in a frady hole, though.

Those are freaking safe spaces.

But when colleges start demanding safe spaces for things that absolutely no one in the history of words was in danger of… then the word “safety” just doesn’t mean what it used to, either.

For context, this…

… wasn’t because some hateful misogynistic man came onto campus to demand all the women be kicked out and sent back to the kitchen. This safe space was created in response to this woman…

Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, a feminist activist who has been campaigning for women for about twice as long as many of these kids have been alive. Why was she called “anti-feminist?” Because her research advocates that most of the inequities in the West are due mostly women’s choices, their freedoms, and that women in the West have won their most important battles for equality. She further argues that feminism today should be focused on places in the world where women have no rights, and face the potential of punitive gang rape, genital mutilation, or where they don’t have a right to participate in the democratic process.

People need “safety” from that?

Of course, some people don’t call for safe spaces in response to perceived violence. This one actually scares me, because when words became violence, some people decided that meant that they could fight violence with violence as a form of self-protection. Of course, when they have expanded the definition of violence to mean “words”, but kept the definition of violence that means “actual violence” they found themselves justified to literally beat peaceful protesters with signs saying “no hate” and no one thought this may signify an inconsistency in their logic. This is Antifa, the group which considers itself freedom fighters against “fascism”, yet another word which has completely lost meaning. This, however, is also why Antifa is now considered a terrorist group. Thank goodness that word still has meaning.

And finally, if you really want to know how terrifying this usurping of language is actually getting, look to Canada’s case of Lindsay Shepard from two months ago.

Lindsay is a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University, and was called in for a punitive meeting with her professor and the “Diversity and Equity Office”. There, she was accused of violating two laws, both provincial and federal by sharing a video by Professor Jordan Peterson, taken from a debate on Canada’s public access channel. They also declared he was a “key leader of the Alt-Right”, which is false and that sharing his video neutrally as she had done, instead of stating beforehand that she disagreed with him and what a horrible man he was and what the students should think, it was, “Like presenting a speech by Hitler neutrally.” She was told there were reports against her for forcing her “transphobic views” on students who claimed she created a hostile environment, jeopardizing the safety of students on campus.

The irony was that the video was over forced speech, and you can get the details on this affair here.

What later came out after this story blew up in an extremely public backlash against her treatment and the outright violation of free speech it was, an independent investigation turned up that there had been no student complaint in the first place. It was simply an inquisition and abuse of power by the school’s Diversity and Equity Office and it’s biased professors. It was such an embarrassment to the university that the University President was forced to publically exonerate Shepard, castigate the professor and staff, and completely rehaul the school’s rampant and abusive “Diversity and Equity Office.”

Having said all of this and returning to the topic that began this conversation, do you want to know what laws Ms. Shepard was accused of violating?

Laws against Hate Speech.

Other people are writing very good responses for slippery slope arguments about what could happen. I’m not. I’m saying we are already there. Hate Speech codes, laws, and attempts to prevent “violence” are already being used abusively by people to silence and marginalize dissenting views. This is because words no longer mean what we think they mean, to the point that two people can be speaking the exact same words, but mean radically different things. Literally, we are saying similar words, and we believe we understand each other, but we are cognitively speaking two different languages. In the worst cases, manipulators of justice play off the naivety of good people to push legislation that no rational person would tolerate in a society.

Final thoughts:

When someone says, “We must outlaw Hate Speech,” the vast majority of us agree, because we’re good people. But, when what actually happens is…

  • A 20-year-old grad student gets bullied…
  • By her own supervising professor and her school’s Ministry of Truth…
  • for neutrally sharing a video in a college class from your country’s own public broadcasting channel…
  • Of a speaker they have decided without evidence is part of hate group…
  • For not conforming to their deranged ideology…

then nobody really fought hate speech — they made Hate Speech into law.


Thank you for reading. If you liked this answer, please upvote and follow The War Elephant. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how. All donations greatly appreciated!