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!

Advertisements

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!

What does it mean to take the red pill?

From the point of view of conservatives, more new age right-wing populists who haven’t thoroughly been exposed to the theory behind their beliefs in the form of conservative writers, “red-pilled” is the period of realization where they start viewing the world differently due to some great political realization. A common experience, a person who doesn’t really have much of a political experience, but has been the target of political action, whether it is being involved or very near an activist cause that had little justification or that they made some opinion statement and suffered the social media backlash from politically minded left-wing radicals, colloquially known as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). Following this, they usually enter a period of isolation where they are afraid to speak up openly and start to feel the effect of “gaslighting” (where numerous people try to convince you are crazy or hold irrational beliefs.)

Then you run into something, some news story, some video, or some event, that makes you aware that your experiences are part of a pattern of behavior by the SJWs, or more broadly the progressive left, where others like you have felt the same pressures, and the same irrational hatred you experienced, and finally, that there are many others who feel the same as you do and share your views.

That is the red pill moment.

This is when you realize that many of the narratives around various forms of oppression simply aren’t true. Some have credibility, but often the sources are worth exploring, and through the raw data is usually true, the facts don’t point to the conclusions the activists say they do when weighed with other information. Often, there are far more rational and evidence-based explanations for inequalities in our world then that hate explains everything and we must outlaw people’s thoughts or ban those the activists deem as haters.

Mostly, you learn that speaking out about this will get you attacked by people with deep-seated agendas to support the narratives, whether they are true or not. This opens your eyes to the reality that if there are structures which exist to repress people… that is one of them — a complex of doctrines and activists which actively promote narratives of oppression while actively seeking to repress arguments against them by vilifying those who make them rather than through open debate. Then you’re left realizing how much you’ve been missing out on all long.

From then, you start questioning everything and find many new sources, many that bring current events into question from a very different point of view. I would recommend Ben Shapiro, personally for anyone who might be at this point and looking for those new sources of information. As you learn, the more the majority of the “SJW” worldview falls apart at closer analysis.

For context, “the red-pill” phrase began to have a more concrete political meaning than “a moment that I realized something big (i.e. any random epiphany)” inspired by the movie the Matrix, came from men’s rights movements. Arguing that there are many inequalities facing men especially — the “death gap” of higher mortality of working men, the inequity in divorce settlements, the media ignoring issues of men’s health such as prostate cancer, settlements, often unjustly having no access to their kids after separation, the perception of guilty until proven innocent following rape accusation, and simply many other issues that are never addressed in an environment where the overriding narrative is one built on feminist narratives of a history of systemic repression of women’s rights. That evolved into criticisms of modern Third Wave, or intersectionality feminism which began around the 1990’s as simply furthering a message about an established and mysterious patriarchy which exists to marginalized women. One noted champion of this notion — Christina Hoff Sommers, a feminist activist for many decades who believes that the goals of feminism have been achieved in the United States and that the goal of feminism should now be bringing equal rights to women in other parts of the world.

It was furthered with the movie “The Red Pill”, a documentary by a feminist who wanted to show the world how stupid and evil the men’s rights activists were. She literally said that was her motivation, but once she made the movie and was really forced to listen to them, she confessed that it had completely changed her view on the subject.

Since that point, “The Red Pill” idea has mushroomed out to a series of smaller movement of similar criticisms of various Progressive and Intersectional movements. Many who “take the red pill” gravitate to the Right, where they either find a home with right-wing populist groups or with mainline conservativism.


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!

Egalitarianism and Why Fair isn’t Fair

I don’t know of any conservative who even wants a system that is egalitarian.

I know. I see so many of you good people clutching for your pearls, but egalitarianism, in the strictest of meanings is a horrific way to live.

First, let’s consider one law which more people need to understand — Price’s Law.

Derek J. de Solla Price was an efficiency expert who studied the behavior of organizations, and among his most important findings was something later called “Price’s Law”.

Price’s Law says that 50% of work at a company is done by a small number of people. Specifically, it says that 50% of work is done by the square root of the number of employees.[1]

What means is that if you have an organization, be it a company, government, club, church, or even sports team, half the tasks needed to be done will be done by the square root of the total population of the organization. This includes work like managerial and administrative, which (can) work as force multipliers for efficiency in getting other tasks done. So if you have a club of 9 people, 3 of them are responsible for half of everything done. To be clear, this isn’t a true law of economics, but a very good rule of thumb, as all of us know those people in an organization that if they disappear, the whole place would fall apart. This gets more extreme the larger an organization we get, a company of 10,000 people – 100 people are responsible for half the work, 1,000,000 people – 10,000 (an example of this is the military, where extremely competent officers are required to leverage the fighting capabilities of many, many warfighters.) But what about the whole of the United States? At around 320,000,000 people fully half of the tasks done which we all require to remain viable as a nation is done by only 17,888 people.

Obviously, this isn’t talking about physical labor. Simply put, one individual’s labor can’t be stretched that far, but people who create work, opportunity, and make it possible for more work to be done, those are the people in the 17,888. We’re talking about people like Mark Zuckerberg, who through the invention of Facebook, transformed the way we communicate together; Bill Gates, who changed the way we work; Jeff Bezos, who is in the middle of changing the way the world buys goods in no way different than when Sears Roebuck started shipping out catalogs to take advantage of the railways. We are also talking about elected officials like Governors, Senators, and the President, whose decisions can either help or hinder the efforts of millions to get work done.

What Derek Price was actually trying to figure out wasn’t who the best people were, but why companies fail. By showing that there were people who did a far outsized proportion of the work, either by physically doing it or through their efforts, making it get done, he showed what happened when those people left.

When companies begin making poor choices, the choices that weigh on these individuals more than others, they often leave to pursue better opportunities. Promoting someone into their place doesn’t often solve the problem, as this involves training costs and ignores the problem that talent, education, and drive are important features necessary for the success of an individual in their given role. So what Price was studying were companies in the midst of their best people abandoning a company on the road to failure after a few bad choices, which then led to a complete and unavoidable collapse.

The moral of that story is that we aren’t all equal. There are those of around who are far, far more useful than all the rest of us, and if we don’t provide some reason for them to stay in that role, they will leave.

Just as much as the inverse of these people.

Look toward any manager you know. You know what? Forget managers, look to your own experiences. Ask yourself if most of the time isn’t invested in the bottom 10% of employees under their charge. Either it is trying to drive them to meet expectations, or fixing their screw-ups. Expanded out, we also know that most societal problems come from the bottom 10% of any group, whether we are dealing with outsides disbursements in charitable aid, crime rates, or unemployment. Now, here’s the big problem… if an organization, be it a company, university, or the country don’t create systems that keep and grow those high performers, then they will lose them, but nothing such organizations do will get rid of the bottom 10% who bring with them most of the problems. The problems won’t diminish when things get bad, but the problem solvers will leave. That’s the sort of cascade failure Derek Price sought to study and ultimately solve.

So the real moral of the story is that people aren’t equal. Some cause huge problems far outweighing the rest of us, while others fix problems in ways that far, far, far outweigh the rest of us.

Given that, an egalitarian distribution of resources is a disastrous model as society benefits when those who do the most are given the most power to do more.

Some people might call this “maintaining the status quo”.

Well, let’s look at that status quo from the perspective of the bottom.

The poorest people in America have access to clean running water, which places them better off than 80% of the planet. They live in a country where crime has been declining steadily for over 30 years. They have a car, a TV, and a smartphone. They have air conditioning. They have access to the internet and the information to do just about anything with it. They have free education up to the 12th grade, and through numerous need-based college grants, most can qualify for a two-year degree or trade certificate for with no other qualification than family income. In fact, in the United States, a person living today lives a better life than any human alive 100 years ago, and 99% of those living 50 years ago. And here’s the big one…

In most countries, the poor are defined by starvation. In the US, the poor are identified by obesity. Why? Because they can afford the calories necessary for their survival, but they can’t afford expensive nutritious food, planned diets, and gym membership fees of the more affluent. What a monumentally amazing time and place we live where the poor people are fat instead of starving.

Such a reality begs mention of one of history’s greatest progressive presidents and his famous words on the measurement of progress.

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.

– Franklin D. Roosevelt

If we are comparing the world that many egalitarians want, it would not be better for the poor. That’s why demands for egalitarian redistribution models which are aimed at helping the poor are either lying to you or lying to themselves. They are not aimed at helping the poor. What we have, the status quo is the single best model 10,000 years of civilization to help the poor, as evidenced by the lifestyle of our poor as compared to the poor of everyone else’s.

No, egalitarians don’t love the poor. They simply hate the rich.

Conservatives, however, want everyone to equally have the same path to prosperity and keep what they earn to give it back to society by whatever means they see fit. We’ve seen through the narrative of history and proof of research that this is by far the better system not just for them, but for everyone… poor included.


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!

Google Employees Blacklisting Conservative Peers

Image result for Goolag

The context of this is an Inc article which states that Google is not specifically blacklisting conservatives as much as there are a documented number of Google employees and managers who are internally blacklisting fellow employees from working as part of teams with them.

From the article Google’s Other Ugly Secret: Some Managers Keep Blacklists

… An unknown number of Google managers maintain blacklists of fellow employees, evidently refusing to work with those people. The blacklists are based on personal experiences of others’ behavior, including views expressed on politics, social justice issues, and Google’s diversity efforts.

Inc. reviewed screenshots documenting several managers attesting to this practice, both in the past and currently, explicitly using the term “blacklist.”

It also states, to reiterate, that this isn’t condoned by Google officially.

A Google spokesperson told Inc. that the practice of keeping blacklists is not condoned by upper management, and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated. It’s not clear whether that principle applies in Damore’s case. Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law, the views expressed in the manifesto and echoed by others who oppose political correctness do not seem to merit legal protection.

That should be enough information to place this in a proper frame of reference, as the question itself is a little misleading.

The question with what most of the Right usually thinks comes down to whether or not we agree that a business has a right to do whatever it wants. I would fall into that camp, however, I believe in the law that is already set forth and that companies have an obligation to follow that law. California law treats political affiliation as a protected class, therefore, being that we’re now seeing employees fired for “views that are inconsistent with the mainstream”, as the article puts it, then we are dealing with a question of if Google need to rethink its internal positions before it starts suffering some major legal problems. We also need to contend with the fact that Google itself isn’t the one acting in a partisan discriminatory manner by refusing to hire based on partisan lines, but rather, it’s employees coordinating internally to discriminate other employees by way of denying them access to projects or future promotion opportunities.

So I have to ask where the line is. The law is the law, and while most Conservatives or Libertarians might argue whether a law should exist, they agree that a law that is in the books is to be honored. This is especially true of the Conservatives as a major vein of Conservatism is respect for the law as without it, society descends into anarchy. The question comes in whether the employees have crossed the line in blacklisting people for holding Conservative views and more so than this, if Google itself is to be held as complicit with this discrimination on grounds of being unresponsive to the continued behavior of their employees to systematically limit the potential of its employees who have dissenting opinions.

As far as what do Conservatives think, obviously it sucks. There is a growing body of evidence that Silicon Valley culture has an intolerance to anything which fails to fall in-line with it’s Progressive Technocratic culture. While rarely do we see explicit intolerance stated by the companies, we do see numerous times where individual employees or even teams have the ability to exercise their intolerance over crucial elements of various products, such as manipulating Google’s pagerank, the Facebook feed, or Twitter’s trending topics. Given the overwhelming power these companies have over daily life, and the dominance of what appears to be a monocultural atmosphere with expressed amity with the rest of the country, I’m wondering if the tech bubble is going to burst when words like “anti-trust” start being raised more seriously. Companies who don’t take this form of expressed ideological intolerance seriously, such as Google with their blacklists, may see a day where they meet the fate of companies like Standard Oil.


For more, follow The War Elephant and Subscribe. Please help me make more content like this by supporting via my Patreon Support CampaignThank you.