Silent Cal: A Genuine Conservative

Author- Kenny Zeng

Calvin Coolidge or simply Silent Cal served as the thirtieth president of the United States. He served from August 3rd of 1923 to March the 4th of 1929. Born in Plymouth Notch, Vermont in 1872, he is the only president in American history to be born on July 4th. At the same time, he also presided during the decade of the Roaring Twenties, in which the American economy experienced enormous economic growth. Inventions such as the radio and the washing machine emerged at this time, which helped to ease the lives of Americans. At the same time, Coolidge tends to be one of those prominent leaders which Americans tend to forget. Unfortunately, historians tend to forget the significant role that Silent Cal and his administration played that contributed to ushering the boom. More precisely, historians tend to look up to former presidents who accomplished more in their tenure, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  At the same time, progressive historians, in particular, tend to place the blame on Coolidge for the economic calamity that would result in the 1930s. Specifically, when historians attempt to rank presidents, Silent Cal does not seem to make the top ten list as one of the greatest presidents in American history. However, this article shall explore and argue how particular policies of the Coolidge administration, helped to represent the embodiment that conservatives and libertarians conform to today. Furthermore, this article shall demonstrate why Coolidge should be considered one of the best conservative presidents in American history.

During the United States presidential election of 1920, the American people elected Warren G. Harding, who served from 1921-1923 as the twenty-ninth president. During his presidency, which lasted from 1921-1923, Harding’s victory signaled to the American people that an era of conservatism has arrived at the nation. Specifically, Harding stated in the Republican National Convention in 1920, “We must stabilize and strive for normalcy, else the inevitable reaction will bring its train of sufferings, disappointments and reversals.”[1] At the same time, once Harding assumed office in 1921, the nation experienced a depression, which lasted from 1920-21. More precisely, economists like Milton Friedman argued that the monetary policy set by the Wilson administration sparked this temporary depression. The Wilson administration created the Federal Reserve in 1913, which consisted of a private central banking system that controlled the supply of money in the economy.  However, once Harding assumed office, he applied libertarian principles to attack this crisis. Simply put, he strongly advocated that the federal government should not intervene in the economy. Harding firmly believed in a limited government, where the government should not resolve economic malaise, as in contrast to future presidents, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As the Harding presidency continued after the mini- depression, he continued to govern the nation with these sets of principles. Unfortunately, on August 2nd, of 1923, Harding suffered from cardiac problems after his recent trip to the West and Alaska and died. Following Harding’s death, Coolidge’s father, who served as a justice of the peace in Vermont, swore his son in, over the family bible and he assumed the office of the presidency.

Once Calvin Coolidge assumed the office of the president, he had a set of conservative principles that he sought to implement, especially taxes. Coolidge wanted to finish the agenda that Harding laid out for the nation. When Harding and Coolidge won the presidential election of 1920, the lame duck Wilson raised the top marginal tax rate to 70%.[2] However, President Harding urged the Congress to lower the marginal tax rates from 73% in the year 1920 to 56% in 1923.[3] At the same time, Coolidge also urged the Congress to reduce the marginal tax rate further than Harding. He lowered it to 25%, which is even lower than Ronald Reagan, who cut the tax rate to 28%.[4] Conservatives often credited Reagan for actually reducing the marginal tax rate to 28%. At the same time, they tend to ignore Coolidge’s accomplishments. Working closely with Coolidge, his Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, who served from March 9, 1921 – to February 12, 1932, persuaded Coolidge to cut taxes and spending. As Coolidge stated to the Congress

To the Congress of the United States:

It had been my earnest hope that a 25 per cent reduction in taxes to be paid for the current year might be provided by law before the 15th of March current. The taxpayers, the business interests, agriculture, industry, finance; in fact all the elements that go to make up the economic welfare of the people of America would be greatly benefited by such action. It would remove an element of uncertainty from the current financial year at once, which would be a strong stimulant to business, with its resultant benefit to the wage earner and the agriculture of our country. It is impossible to see that any harm could accrue from this action, and there is every prospect of resulting benefits which would be very great. It would be a positive step in the right direction, which is much needed at this time to justify the confidence of the people that the Government is intent solely on the promotion of the public welfare, without regard to any collateral objects.[5]


Therefore, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1926, which lowered the marginal income tax to 25%. As a result, Mellon has argued successfully that the government received more revenue after the tax cuts than the previous fiscal years.[6] At the same time, Coolidge and Mellon’s conservative fiscal policy also helped to inspire the Reagan administration 56 years later to follow in the footsteps of Coolidge. Coolidge argued that once the government lowered the marginal income tax rates for all Americans, the government would be able to acquire more revenue. At the same time, in order to achieve a surplus for the nation, the federal government would have to curtail government spending as well drastically.

Furthermore, another conservative principle that Coolidge implemented included curtailing government spending. Following the First World War, the national debt shot up to $27 billion dollars.[7] However, once Coolidge assumed the office of the presidency, he outlined his vision for cutting government spending massively. As Coolidge stated in his Address to the Congress,

We have met this evening to take counsel together for the purpose of securing greater efficiency in government by the application of the principles of constructive economy, in order that there may be a reduction of the burden of taxation now borne by the American people. The object sought is not merely a cutting down of public expenditures. That is only the means. he indirect beneficiaries are all the rest of the American people, who must and do make an indirect contribution to the payment of the enormous sum of more than $10,000,000 every day in the year which goes out from the National Treasury. This is nothing more or less than a restriction upon the freedom of the people.[8]


As Amity Shlaes argued, once Coolidge left office, the federal government and the debt shrunk to pre- First World War levels.[9]  He cut various departments, specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs by 24%.  Also, Coolidge continued to curtail massive spending for infrastructure, in particular to highways. In the year 1924, the federal government spent $92 million dollars on roads, and they only spent $80 million by 1929, which is a 13% cut. [10] Therefore, as one can deduce here, Coolidge here strongly argued and implemented successfully that the government cannot spend the money of taxpayers more efficient than the individual themselves. Rather, the economy would continue to grow and prosper if the government would refrain from squandering the money recklessly from taxpayers. Coolidge’s policies set the foundation for conservative politics.

Furthermore, another conservative principle that Coolidge adhered in his presidency included curtailing the growth of federal government. More precisely, during the Roaring Twenties, Progressives, in particular, advocated that the federal government should grow the state. For example, Progressives argued that the federal government should provide pensions to World War I veterans. However, at the same time, Coolidge’s perseverance to limit the growth of government set a precedent for conservative politicians to follow.  Coolidge stated to the Senate,

To the Senate:

I am returning herewith Senate bill 5, “An act granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Civil and Mexican Wars, and to certain widows, former widows, minor children, and helpless children of said soldiers and sailors, and to widows of the War of 1812, and to certain Indian war veterans and widows, and to certain Spanish. For the next fiscal year the effect of this act will be to take an additional $58,000,000 of the moneys paid by the taxpayers of the nation and add it to the pension checks of the veterans of the wars from 1812 to 1902 and their widows and dependents. This is the effect for the first year; but the burden upon the taxpayers will continue for many years to come. No conditions exist which justify the imposition of this additional burden upon the taxpayers of the nation.[11]

In other words, Coolidge also successfully resisted the demands from the Progressives, where they primarily argued that the growth of the government would improve the lives of its citizens. However, as Coolidge demonstrated as president, the government cannot spend the money of taxpayers better than individual Americans themselves. The American government tends to misallocate the revenues that they obtain from taxes. Therefore, as one can conclude here, Coolidge’s resilience to resist the Progressives’ demand helped to grow the economy and limit the government during his presidency.


In conclusion, contrary to the Progressives’ thinking, Coolidge’s administration has demonstrated successfully that the nation can still prosper. More precisely, even if the government adhered to a laissez-faire doctrine, where the government limited its role and followed policies that favored the free market, the economy can still thrive while at the same time preserving liberty. Although Coolidge encountered critics in his presidency, his will and tenacity to follow the conservative doctrine should symbolize to all conservatives that his policies helped to make the nation prosper. In other words, rather than following the tradition of the neoconservatives like Reagan, or those who want to expand the power of the state; genuine conservatives like Rand Paul of Kentucky, Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky should emulate Coolidge’s doctrine. Conservatives ideally advocate for a form of a limited government and argue that individuals should be free to make their own decisions, rather than the Washington bureaucrats running their lives for them.


[2] Amity Shlaes, Coolidge, (New York: Harper Perennial, 2014), 222.


[4] Amity Shlaes, Coolidge, 6.


[6] Amity Shlaes, Coolidge, 264.

[7] Ibid., 3.


[9] Amity Shlaes, Coolidge, 6.




Google Employee Fired Over Controversy, Wikileaks Offers To Hire Him

Author- Vladimir Zark

On Monday, August 7th, James Damore was fired from Google for certain ‘distasteful’ things that he wrote in a publicly available memo, entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”. His complaint focuses particularly on the political bias Google expresses, and I quote, “has equated the freedom of offense with psychological safety” and “has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed”. These issues present a grave concern for free speech at Google and YouTube. I’ll provide the link to it at the bottom.

Damore’s rational dissemination of the idea that “on average, men and women biologically differ in many ways” was one of the key reasons for his being fired. Apparently, sources say that Sundar Pichai, the Google CEO, had canceled his vacation to address the so-called ‘firestorm’ that resulted from this comment. It is notable that Damore had held his position as a Google computer engineer for 3½ years, and had prior education at schools like Princeton, Harvard, and MIT. Apparently, the memo was released not long after Danielle Mastrangel Brown was hired in June – she was hired to work as a vice president and “chief diversity and inclusion officer” in order to help improve Google’s hiring success with women and minorities. Tomorrow, Mr. Pichai will have a meeting to talk about what happened, claiming that Mr. Damore’s memo was “advancing harmful gender stereotypes”.

In light of this event, Damore has filed a complaint against Google for ‘coercive statements’, which includes threats. On Tuesday, Julian Assange from Wikileaks offered Damore a job, claiming that “censorship is for losers”. He also said that “women and men deserve respect. That includes not firing them for politely expressing ideas but rather arguing back”. And apparently, this isn’t the first case of Google dealing with such problems: earlier in the year, the U.S. Department of Labor had filed a lawsuit against Google and requested to see if it was following ‘equal employment laws’. A great time to be Google, I’m sure.

Clearly, Mr. Damore’s point about the differences between men and women not being “just socially constructed” can be framed as controversial, but by no means should it warrant such unprofessional behavior from Google. He had not, after all, made any claims about what these differences result in – his only claim was that they “may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership”, which he used to address Google’s concern with diversity and rebut their argument that it was due to implicit and explicit biases. The problem is that Google’s agenda to “achieve a more equal gender and race representation”, as Damore says, “has created several discriminatory practices”, most of which revolve around preferential treatment for people of a particular gender or race. Damore latches onto a very fair point: Google’s leftist bias interferes with its impartiality with regards to race and gender, and is likely motivated by the fact that “the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%)”. Damore blames confirmation bias.

The fact of the matter is that whether or not you agree with Damore’s opinion, the potential damage to online free speech cannot be denied. Our right to speak is our right to express ourselves in accordance with the first amendment right, and what Damore said, though viewed by some as an unreasonable and uncivilized opinion, is within his right to express in any setting. Though Google, being a private company, reserves the right to fire anyone on such grounds, it’s clear that their decision was not ideal. Google had even allegedly accepted that “much of what was in the memo was fair to debate”. Even Mr. Pichai had admitted that the points in the memo “are important topics”. So what is the aftermath of this? Will we see a backlash against sites like Google and YouTube, or will there be complete suppression of dissenting opinions in these companies?


In Defense of a More Ethical Capitalism

Author: Vladimir Zark

Capitalism is by far the most established economic system in the world. Though it has its share of faults, one cannot call capitalism in itself ‘bad’, nor can one designate its perpetuation a ‘failure’, like one can designate some attempted communist and socialist states. One can gather, then, that the capitalistic model can prove very effective, both for improving the economy and improving the living standard of societies. But capitalism, like every system, can fall prey to corruption from within. I believe that the root of the problem, at least in the U.S., lies in absurd wealth inequality between the rich and poor, inefficient and obsessive overproduction, a lack of honest meritocracy, overwhelming monopolism, and, most importantly, distorted values that prioritize wealth, competition, and self-interest above all else.

I will address these point by point, and try to explain my argument for a more ‘ethical’ approach to capitalism with regards to the U.S. model. Notice that I’m refraining from using a political ideology to frame my point, since my goal is to be precise and objective. My goal is to understand capitalism as a ‘good’, but focus on the unethical aspects of its actual manifestation in the U.S. I seek to reform our capitalism.

The first clear sign of American capitalism’s unethicality begins with the establishment of monopolies: octopuses that get so powerful and influential that smaller businesses simply cannot compete. Free market economics thrives on competition in the natural sense, that is to say, the ‘equality of opportunity’ principle, yet in our current system, one certainly cannot break through with a new fast food or electronics franchise – not unless they make a deal with the already existing ones. The power of McDonald’s is so great that every burger restaurant conforms in some way to its influence. Perhaps there is a reason, after all, that in every major department in this country, whether it is food, electronics, energy, or otherwise, you see no more than a few major companies owning most of the share. The unethicality of this lies in the fact that no one who works an honest living can compete with these franchises, and everyone who works either for themselves or for a franchise of this kind are profiting very little. Monopolism doesn’t help the people, it stifles genuine competition, and it often encourages the mass-production and sale of low-quality products, ranging from terrible food to poorly made electronics. We must push for the growth of small businesses and refuse these low-quality products, since only then can we mount any kind of sustainable effort for a more ethical capitalism.

This also manifests in severe inequalities between the rich and poor and presents a severe concern for so-called ‘meritocracy’. As a VERY poor person myself, I can say for certain that bad decisions do lead to poverty, and am perfectly willing to admit that the poor aren’t poor simply because of a corrupt system. However, the idea that my talent alone can bring me out of poverty proves recognizably absurd to me, seeing as there are many untalented writers out there who can generate income, and even likely get out of poverty if they know the so-called ‘right people’. A poor person with no connections is almost incapable of becoming rich, even if he has talent and good prospects. How can a system such as this be ethical, then? You are required to ‘know’ people to get any advantage. And if you’re wealthy, chances are you’ve had the good fortune of finding people along the way, also wealthy and likely wealthier than you, who are willing to ‘do business’ with you and expand your wealth. The complex interweaving of connections in this country is devastating, where any person ‘groomed’ for success is most likely going to succeed – he’ll have any grades he wants, any college he wants, any car he wants, any girlfriend he wants, any status he wants, and any immunity to the law he wants, so long as his parents are wealthy and esteemed. This doesn’t simply put the question to meritocracy; it puts the question to capitalism itself. Can you, or can you not, realize an honest ‘American Dream’ any longer?

And the poor in this country are truly disconsolate, depraved-looking souls. You think of every day that those beggars, especially the honest ones, tread through the boxcars of the train like zombies – you know full well that the average beggar, depending on their appearance, smell, and appeal, will get no more than a few dollars a day, having passed through a boxcar of people whose wallets have hundreds. But why is it that our poor have to suffer like this? Even those who are victims of their own bad decisions at least deserve a place to sleep and food to eat, don’t they? Or perhaps cutting our sizeable military budget isn’t worthwhile to accommodate these people. An ethical capitalism must have a ‘soul’ behind it – the fault of our capitalism is that it treats its citizens like machines of income, not human beings. And no, I am not pro-welfare. I think welfare is the bane of efficiency since it makes people complacent with having little and not working for it.

An ethical capitalism would encourage its people to work, but not force people to constantly scrounge for the next day – how can it be that even the middle-class, even the higher-class in some areas, cannot earn enough to live comfortably? The problem is that the cost of living is inflated to such a great extent, and absorbs so much of our earnings, that we must desperately work just to pay off rent. Besides, much of the wealth that our top billionaires have is absolutely useless to them, like dead weight – what does Bill Gates need? He can donate 99% of his wealth to charity and still live a comfortable life, yet if we donate 99% of our wealth, most of us would have to panhandle. It’s not a question of socialist redistribution or anything like that: it’s a question of “why is it this way, and how can it be allowed to continue?” In my opinion, with the size of our economy, we can accommodate every homeless person with a small housing space, provide them basic food and shelter, and encourage them to work so that they don’t depend on a welfare state anymore. It will increase morale, give more credibility to our capitalism, and help us assert our status as a so-called ‘first world country’.

Another point I’ll make is in regards to the inefficient overproduction of goods. Our obsession with monopolism and expansionism has made it fashionable to produce a few million iPhones, generate profit, and trash the many thousands that aren’t sold. Many of the goods we sell in stores are made in China and are generally low-quality products that help no one and break very often. Perhaps we end up paying less for them, especially if we buy in bulk, but as far as the products themselves are concerned, no one benefits from their sale or distribution. The food that is sold in franchises as McDonald’s and Burger King gives many generations of children diabetes, increased risks of heart disease and failure, and even developmental problems if too much fat and sugar are ingested. Our mass-produced clothes, though decent, are sold at inflated and unnecessary prices, and unfortunately, our people still buy them, just as they buy the fast food and cheap products. Hopefully, you’ve noticed the problem: the consumers are responsible for shifting the motivations of our capitalism, since their buying choices influence production. If our consumers made smarter choices about what they bought, these several issues would not persist as much.

Finally, we must address the value system in our country. Because of many of the aforementioned problems, particularly the non-existence of pure meritocracy, it seems that honest working people find it contradictory to do honest work. Once they gain some degree of awareness about their position, they find that self-interest and exploitation are the only way to ensure survival. Good people get screwed, walked all over because they’re seen as gullible wallets. In my experience, as someone who knows many people on welfare, I can say for certain that everyone’s trying to get more, squeeze the system for as much as they can get. Though this seems justified in the sense of survival, it perpetuates the corruption and makes our capitalism a game of who can ‘steal’ the most. Either you’re stealing in welfare because you’re poor, or you’re stealing in the stock market because you’re rich – truly, what’s the difference? Our value system, which emphasizes ‘everyone for themselves’, has made it difficult to even make honest friendships without thinking of them as business deals. Every friend made is an ‘opportunity’. I don’t have an honest answer for how to reform our value system in a more ethical way, but I can say for sure that reforming the game so that the rules don’t require you to steal would be a positive step. Stealing is done only in desperation.

The problem is not in capitalism, but the way the system takes freedom away from our citizens. Most of my friends and acquaintances are honest people living honest lives – some of the younger ones are even idealistic and good-hearted. But once they spend enough time in our economy, they lose hope in the artist’s life, or the musician’s life, or the writer’s life, seeing as all of those paths are unsustainable and discouraged for ‘ordinary’ people. Thus, they settle for accounting, biology, and law school, seeing as those put bread on the table. But, if your heart cries out to be an artist, musician, or writer, how can an economy take that away from you? How can capitalism be against its own people? Surely, there is a need for cultural and economic reformation. America is a good country with good values, and most of its citizens are honest people with integrity. Surely, depriving them of the chance to thrive because of an unjust economy is not right.

Do White Men Deserve To Vote? (Response To Affinity Magazine Article)

Author- Paul McCrary

In this day in age when it comes to the political climate, it feels like instead of moving forward we are taking steps back. By this I mean instead of forgetting the past (much of which we couldn’t control) it’s more about getting pay back. I am talking about the article from a website called Affinity called, “Do White Men Really Deserve to Vote?”

The article starts by talking about the past which is important to know but should not be the basis on where we should get our laws from. “After all, women and people of colour went through times of not being allowed to vote, and the fact that white men never had to experience that is an injustice.” How is this an injustice? Is it because we have learned from our past mistakes and moved on? Is it that we care about equality for all people regardless of gender and race? Please tell me why this hypothetical evil white male oppressor be punished for something that happened a few decades ago. This happened a long time ago isn’t it finally time to move on?

So now that we’ve established that all the voter suppression happened a few decades ago let’s look at another part of this article. “Historically, white men have had few problems voting and the way things are going, they will never understand the kind of injustice others have faced.” This is actually not true in the slightest. In fact, only white male PROPERTY OWNERS were allowed to vote in the beginning. Also, the writer of this article is only sixteen, so she will never understand, by her logic, the kind of injustice others have faced.

“Furthermore, the point here that has to be made is that banning white men from voting temporarily will help them understand systemic injustice and help them become better, more empathetic allies to the social justice cause.” To address the first point you don’t know what it is like to face systemic injustice one bit. Even if this did show them about this “systemic injustice” how will this make them allies? Wouldn’t that mean they are the victims of the injustice? Now back to the reality of her point. The people who are supposed to gain from her cause don’t necessarily want her help. I’m Latino and I don’t see this injustice and I’m not nearly the only one in my generation who believes this (I’m in Generation Z.) We don’t need her help to solve this injustice because what she is doing is fighting fire with fire.

If that isn’t enough to persuade you away from both this new “social justice” movement and Affinity, let me want to leave you with this thought from this article. “White men who want to become better allies always come across the problem of “I will never understand what it feels like to be systemically oppressed” but this proposal may further their understanding of minority needs and improve relations between different genders and races, which is the ultimate goal; equality.”



Post Postism

Author- Vladimir Zark

Here’s an essay I’ve been dying to write. Let’s just say that it’s academic, but not supposed to be serious because, plainly said, it’s supposed to be satirical. Sadly, we’ve depreciated as a society and a people so much over the last, what, 20 years? – that I can’t even posit this essay ironically anymore. Allow me to explain the notion of post-postism. Essentially, this is my title for the era, or period, of society that is its ultimate downfall. First, we have the people, who cannot take a joke, who are so fragile and meek that they must be catered to at every stop, who must be treated as utter babies, coddled like toys. These people have lost the understanding of what it means to be mature, well-conducted, considerate of history or wisdom or any of those dated terms, and completely indifferent to the onslaught of ‘progressive social change’ that they have wrought, which shall be their downfall if it continues. These people live on coffee, worship idiots, listen to degenerates, learn from bigots, and inevitably become a foolish mess of uncertainty.

This is the first implication of post-postism, the decline of individual importance. The second symptom, should I say, is the degeneration of culture and decline of quality in EVERY aspect – let it be art, music, film, literature, science, or philosophy, society has ruined it. How would I prove this? I would ask the average person who Salvador Dali is, who Friedrich Nietzsche is, who Kurt Vonnegut is, who the United States presidents were. And after that person will blankly say “I’ve heard those names before, I think” and recite to me George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson (god knows he wouldn’t remember the other 14 or so who preceded him), FDR, JFK, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, he will say “why do I need to know about those other guys anyway?” And you will realize the true implications of post-postism, where culture is nothing, and stupidity prevails. Then you will begin contending with the problem of “everything is subjective” and “everything is a social construct”, used completely un-ironically in the modern day, as though nothing is real. Nothing is real. God isn’t real because he’s dead. Science isn’t real because it’s sexist and places some people above others – boo hoo. I’m saying these things ironically, you know.


Nothing is real. Nothing was ever real except one thing – my feelings.



Virtually everything in liberal America is inevitably subsumed in the hurtful presence of the opinion, the thing that some are entitled to without question – some others should probably take several tests to prove the right to own one – like a driver’s license. An opinion license is probably the greatest social invention I have ever thought of next to the reproduction license. These two things can regulate who has the most basic rights, but only in earning them. In the modern day, I am gripped with fear if I talk to a person while they have the presupposition that I’m evil because I’m white. Ah, did you not think I’d have addressed this at some point in the era of post-postism? Don’t be silly. The white person has lost himself to a particular degree of uncertainty in this day and age – the white teenager is befuddled to know that he is privileged, gifted with invisible authority and power over his lesser minorities and ethnically diverse persons, who go to the same university of higher learning as him. He begins to suffer from the strange symptom of dissonance that he, the rational person, sees around him and experiences firsthand. He begins to wonder if he is going mad, if he is indeed the one who is at fault and not his irrational peers, and if he is indeed suffering from a veil of invisible gifts he himself has never known about but has had his wonderfully informed peers ‘educate’ him on. He recalls the financial stresses that he might have faced, the times of hardship that befell him when his parents couldn’t afford his basic necessities, but his conscience about the matter is repressed, won out by the great ‘white guilt’ he has only recently known he has. And he pities those that he oppressed for so long before, and feels pained that he had been related to a distant great uncle that owned slaves – he would never consider doing it himself, but he still feels bad. And then he is told that his culture is founded on imperialism and domination, and that he has no culture if he really thinks about it – he is even told that his feelings of masculinity are frail and without substance. This man, this poor white man, is the target of harassment – I am that target too. And I do not complain about the position I’ve been placed under – where I’m branded guilty but feel completely innocent – but I simply wish to make light of and consider the strangeness of the position, hoping to derive the truth of it all.But truth, you must know by now, is not the interest of those who control the narrative.

And in the era of Post-Postism, those who control the narrative have all the power, for they impose themselves onto others, having no reprieve from their emotional sufferings until they’ve sufficiently weeded out every individual fiber of ‘bigotry’ from the others – and the others do not feel the same emotional sufferings as they do, making the problem even more confusing and, honestly, quite silly. The problem with our Post Postist society is not necessarily in the endorsement of these narratives, for the narratives themselves may even be quite valid – it is in the imposition of these narratives onto others, the normal and healthy people, who do not see the need to suffer the same burdens as the emotional ones do. With imposition comes a desire to control, for no matter how sincere the topics of the narrative endorsers may be, the agenda under which that narrative is imposed may not always be easily accounted for. And when you do discover that agenda, whether it be the advancement of certain groups of people, or the collapse of others, you realize just how horribly twisted and conniving these endorsers actually are. We are given very specific values, values implanted with enormous cultural and intellectual assumptions – and the endorsers aren’t happy with them, for their identity isn’t given priority under these values. But of course I would not be able to argue a position on narratives and not account for my own. I am a white person, of course. I am a male, of course. I am of low socioeconomic status, to be honest. I have never felt privileged based on my race. I have indeed felt dejected based on the lack of cultural relation that I can have with other people, with the exception of other Russian people and, occasionally, a decent person. In my quest along the academic and intellectual ladder, I have never been given any special gifts or benefits on the basis of my race – everything I’ve earned, that being my scores and my writing and my own intellectual development, is all a product of my own endearing effort and hard work. Furthermore, I am often treated with an odd sort of dejection on the basis of being ‘abnormal’ and “overly interested in things people your age shouldn’t care about”, and that fascinates me. So, I will say, in my experience with this era, that identity is very hard to achieve, especially when my view of the train presents to me a set of values that, indeed, reflects how secluded everyone is. Sure, I’m writing this on a computer, and am thus isolating myself from the rest of the world, but at the very least, I am doing something meaningful, contributing an intellectual product of sorts. But in the era of Post Postist culture, intellectual products do not possess that necessary design and function that they used to have only a decade ago. Intellect itself has been distorted and misinterpreted, finding itself falsely manifested in people who agree with ‘progressive’ rhetoric and ‘liberal’ values – though I use those words loosely, and not to state an argument against the left wing. What I mean is that the fundament of Post Postism is in the specific values promoted by liberal culture. It’s in the rejection of individual identity for a racial, social, or sexual one, the utter ‘reformation’ of the traditionalist model of the household and the family, and in the end of it all, an almost entropic descent into subjectivity that overtakes any hint of truth with the assumption that truth cannot exist outside of context. And you might think that these three things that I have listed aren’t necessarily bad – you might even argue that they breed a new, more developed and receptive culture.

But you might miss the point, my dear friend, that the past was a much different intellectual playing field. The past, if we take away all of its unpleasant bans against certain groups of people which I do indeed find unethical, was a far more sturdy and perhaps Darwinian field of intellectual discourse. By this I mean to say that if you were saying meaningful things, and were tapped into the right intellectual ideas with the best possible cadence, you would be listened to and praised for your insightfulness and people would respect your commitment. But in this day and age, in Post Postism, there’s no such thing as intellectual discourse. The prioritization of the subjective narrative holds utmost weight and credence, taking over even the most objective and realistic subjects of discourse, such as the physical sciences. This movement is frightening and devastatingly real. Regardless of your opinion on the question of progressivism, you should see that there are very realistic trends in life that can have utmost reproducibility. These trends have the greatest importance at all times, overtaking the subjective narrative almost without opposition. The only problem is that we don’t take notice of them or logically reflect on them as we should.

Instead of regarding the real social and intellectual problems that are causing our students to have anxiety and depression levels rivaling that of asylum patients in the 1950’s, we are interested in how the white man is subjugating his ‘lesser’ peers by putting them through the exact same trials and tribulations as he’s going through, that being the attainment of an education, a job, a social life, a respectable intellectual identity – you will not be walking down the street in a Manhattan area and tell me that we are putting anyone who isn’t white down on the spot. Indeed, we are even helping them. Do you honestly think that affirmative action is a merely necessary justification? It’s a biased placement of one group of people over another on the mere assumption that they’re less fortunate. I am in a low income family, and I have NO SUCH THING. So please, my friend, hear me out for the last time, and realize that I do not speak because I want to hear my own written voice. Realize that I am not interested in attacking certain groups of people for any reason. I am only interested in attacking and reforming the truly difficult structures that enforce biased and unrealistic values. Bear with me, because this could become a large scale problem, or even has already. And I’m sorry if I couldn’t do more to stop it.


Mainstream Libertarianism is Leftism

Author- Michael Galka-Giaquinto

Over the past couple of years many libertarians have slowly migrated towards the alt-lite, alt-right, or broadly nationalist (which is where I would place myself) spectrum of politics.   The reasoning behind their political shift was that mainstream libertarianism was ineffective in fighting the left’s continuing encroachment on personal and economic life.  The reality is that mainstream libertarianism is fundamentally an anti-American, pro-degeneracy ideology designed to benefit the most elite segments of our society.

One of the problems with mainstream libertarianism is that it does not acknowledge the nation-state.  Despite the overwhelming evidence in regards to welfare overuse, terrorist activity, wage deflation, higher poverty, environmental damage, slower GDP growth, rise in sex crime, and enlargement of the state positively correlating with mass immigration in the United States and Europe, the Libertarian Party of the United States and mainstream libertarian organizations like FEE and CATO describe the nation-state as an “irrational” association, and not as a valid or free association.

That is completely false.   The basic flaw of libertarian philosophy is that humans can function as atomized autonomous individuals, but that is empirically untrue.  Take the example of the feral child.  The feral child is the curious phenomenon of a child raised away from civilization and often exhibiting animal like traits, along with an inability to reason in regard to basic values of sustainability, such as life, liberty, and property. The evidence of feral behavior in humans raised in the wild is overwhelming while the outcomes from children living in stable nuclear two-parent homes are consistently better than those coming from single-parent homes.  All of this suggests that an individual’s value is not arbitrarily decided by that individual or subject to the wind, but dependent on being raised within a stable two-parent home that is capable of inculcating a child with positive values.  Eventually that child can be married off to another member of the extended community, which is the basic building block of the nation.  The nation is then characterized by a common language, heritage, and even more importantly a common purpose that requires protection through a set of laws and standards in order to ensure the continuation of the nation, and by extension its values.

The fact that humanity is actually made rational by the family, and acquires their values from familial lines and preserves via the state enforcing basic moral, political and economic standards, suggests that libertarianism has much more in common with the globalist left, whose ultimate goal is a one-world “stateless” society where everyone is miraculously happy and equal and magically harmonized into a vague utopian ideal, unfettered by “oppressive” nuclear families, “restrictive” sexual norms, and “restrictive” drug laws.  Those leftist ideals are the only things the libertarian movement has actually accomplished.  Their denial of hard voting pattern data, group identities and norms, and familial breakdown resulting from the pro-choice, LGBT, and drug movements have contributed to the collapse of western birthrates, and the enlargement of the government, both of which are ultimately anti-libertarian (in the true sense) as they constrict our liberty.   However, the elites have benefited tremendously from cheap labor and an ever expanding welfare state supplementing their low-salaried immigrant workers needs.

In order to attain liberty one must be a nationalist and take a conservative position on social issues.  We all come from a family, have been socialized by a community, and  received protection for a future through the use of a state that ensures our fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.  Not all family lineages, or more broadly speaking, cultures possess the ideals Americans hold dear, and mass immigration has resulted in the erasure of those ideals, and because the immigrants largely  vote as identity blocs that often times result in Sharia policing, sanctuary cities, leniency of sex crime laws, welfare and social security fraud, and in especially outrageous cases, no-go zones where native born people are frequently told to avoid for their own safety (see the Geller Report for no-go zones in Europe).   The elites however, like the Koch Bros, benefit from the tax cuts and cheap labor.

If libertarianism results the ultimate erasure of freedom and the degeneration of culture and family (and the values of capitalism that were nurtured as a result of those strong families) it can only be described as a globalist leftism.

JFK On Abortion As Population Control

Author- Maria Santana

Not too long ago I had written about Roe v. Wade here on Specifically, how the ruling was fabricated to eventually lead to the legalization of abortion in the United States. The 1973 landmark Supreme Court ruling was a 7-2 decision. It was on the basis of the right to privacy under Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the two Supreme Court justices to dissent this decision was Byron White.

John F. Kennedy was influential in this Supreme Court ruling – well sort of. Byron White, a pro-life advocate, was appointed by Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1962. Kennedy considered abortion to be a form of population control and that it was ‘repugnant’ in comparison to Japan at the time. He said very little about abortion because it had not been considered a significant topic in politocs dueing the 1960s. Justice White along with Justice William Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion on the decision. Here is an excerpt:

‘With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.’

Planned Parenthood did exist during the presidency of Kennedy and did not publicly advocate for abortion. Nonetheless it did not stop them from producing and distributing brochures explained that birth control and abortion were not the same thing. Interestingly enough Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist.

Even the name of the organization Planned Parenthood is oxymoronic. I say this because the name seems as though that parenthood should not exist unless it is planned. Many lives before and after today will exist unplanned. With that being said, an unplanned or unexpected life is less worthy than a planned one? Just because a life is unplanned does not make the being insignificant or not having a purpose.

In 2009, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quoted as saying this for the New York Times about abortion and population control. “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

It is clear that abortion is about population control and globalist. Conspiracy theories aside in regards to Kennedy’s assassination, it is clear that he foresaw the future of the United States. He had visions that led to the deep state having to get rid of him. Today the Democratic party would not know what to do with Kennedy in regards to abortion or his views on other issues like taxes, foreign policy, communism etc. Today abortion is a very sensitive and highly controversial topic with the election of President Trump. Abortion has even become a bigger booming industry today.