Political Correctness and the Oppression of Free Speech

Just when you thought that you were guaranteed the right to free speech by the state... Political correctness is a here to take it away, by limiting both your freedom of speech and your freedom of thought!

Despite what the American government proclaims, free speech in modern American society is merely an illusion, and this is in great part due to political correctness. If we truly had freedom of speech, we would be able to express our ideas openly, no matter how socially or politically unacceptable they are, without the threat of persecution. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The persecution of those charged with making politically incorrect statements is so prevalent today that I hardly need to present any examples.

But, of course, the state has very few legal restrictions on free speech; yet the state still manages to covertly restrict it through the imposition of political correctness upon the people, which is generally, conveniently enforced through persecution by the mob, and silently fueled by the state’s encouragement and occasional intervention.

The ideology of political correctness aims to label certain speech, actions, and even thought that is considered "offensive" as wrong. This is contrary to both human nature and what is reality. Political correctness is a tool of mental oppression and an affront to our rights and our freedoms and should be disregarded, except, perhaps, in politics.

- Voice of Reason

Christianity is Just as Bad as Islam?

This is a controversial topic even among staff of this blog so writing about it will probably cause certain amounts of outrage.

The topic, which I'm about to introduce, was prompted by a comment I read on Planck's Constant:

"And if we're going to deport people on religious grounds, why stop with the Muslims? Christianity is just as bad as Islam. It's not Islam per se that is the problem, it's Islamic *totalitariansm*." - Valda Redfern

Well Valda, that's where you're wrong. Christianity is not "just as bad as Islam" - that's just perverse political correctness. I wish it was only her that shared that opinion, but quite frankly its a widely believed myth.

Let me take you back to ancient Greece for a while - togas not required. We're going to visit three very important figures in philosophy, mysticism and science(but we'll forget the latter for today).

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are our subjects - they were all titans of the mind and their philosophy all originated in the same place. They all had schools and many people who followed their particular branch of thought, they all had digressed significantly from their common root.

Examine these men for a minute, they all had philosophies that told you how to live and what to believe. So even though we just call them philosophers now, their philosophies answered the same questions that religions answer today. They had religions.

Humor me and imagine that Socrates and Plato's branches had reformations, they abandoned a lot of the principles in their original guiding texts, they condemned the misdemeanors committed in their names. What they had now was what they believed to be a clean, more perfect, more humanitarian guide to life. It was effectually neutered of all its dangers.

Let's dissect the believers of all three of these religions. The religions are a guide for their lives and all believers try to keep as close to them as possible. In all of these religions there are people who selectively believe(or pick and choose which parts they commit to) , and the proportion is much larger in Socrates + Plato's branches. There are also many people who vehemently think a minor deviation from the philosophies is a crime, and these people are much larger in proportion in Aristotle's branch. There are also many people in the middle who follow almost completely the things that their local religious leaders tell them.

In Aristotle's branch the radicals are the ones that control the local and global religious leaders. In Socrates' and Plato's branch the religious leaders are generally in the middle or to the selective beliefers' side, and yes, there are still a large number of radicals in charge of local affairs.

Aristotle's branch was forged out of a time that necessitated brutality and great violence, and so it incorporates it into the philosophy. There was no and for the immediate future will be no reformation in this religion.

These branches are embroiled in bitter conflict with each other throughout the world.

Aristotle's branch generally views itself as perpetually embattled and persecuted, there are a very large number of them. They are at war.

Which sounds more dangerous to you? Socrates? Plato? Aristotle?

Aristotle obviously.

Aristotle's is Islam, Socrates' is Judaism and Plato's is Christianity. There is no equality among them because they happen to be religions from the same branch.

Thanks perverse political correctness, but you can leave - and never come back.

- Spero

How The US Government Should Work

I don't know how many easily excited souls actually do tune in to C-SPAN regularly but even they must notice the lack of well - vegetable level energy present in the US legislative branch.

Take a gander for a minute at this video of the people who make our laws in roaring, full scale, unbridled, uninhibited action.



Well if that didn't get your adrenaline rushing there's not much hope for you. Now, quite frankly, when "all the best men go into business" we know why. As Americans we have to ask ourselves "What the hell is that?"

Why are people who have all the explosive energy of rocks making our laws?

The legislative branch should be a place of bare knuckled ideological combat, it should be a theater of the mind, a forge of grand ideas - hammered and polished(by both sides) until something elegant comes out.

It should be more like the British House of Commons.




Less speech and more debate is just what the doctor prescribed. People like Senator Harry Byrd from W. Virginia would not survive. They would be eaten alive or relegated to obscurity in the back of the room.

People might actually watch the government in action. They might actually say, "Hey that's what I want to do!"

Because I guarantee you right now that no 12 year old is sitting at home saying he wants to be the next Larry Byrd - he has a hard time competing with 50 cent.

Maybe we'd get some bright minds back into politics, maybe as a people we wouldn't be amazed that some one as unique as Obama (for his many faults) managed to appear.

- Spero

Created Equal? Racial IQ

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

"I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true. If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society." The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals."

(Please read the article)

I waited a long time to post on this because I frankly wasn't comfortable, I didn't like having to make the decision whether to believe sound scientific evidence or my values. I searched and searched. I found even more evidence that I just didn't like one bit.

It made my stomach writhe when I learned that Black Nigerians have a slightly higher average IQ than Black Brits despite their massive education and wealth advantage. Black Americans follow the exact same IQ trend as other African countries too.

If you follow the equator around the globe you find the same trend of low IQ, South East Asians 85-90, Africans 80-85, Arabs 83, Latinos 85-90 (Full blooded American Indians even lower).

Yet after you make a slight geographic jump to the north you have: Asians(Oriental: China, Japan, Korea ect.) 104, Europeans 100(plus a couple points maybe), Russians(who've gone through a huge amount of internal strife themselves) 96, Americans 100.


Jews and Asians have a high occurrence of Goucher's and this is one way scientists try to explain why they score the highest on IQ tests(110 and 104 respectively). If you take a look at it objectively also, mass murder and persecution probably helped the Jews obtain a high IQ average - natural selection in progress.

Because of the massive difference between Black and Jewish IQ's there are probably more Jews with an IQ of over 140 than Blacks despite the fact that blacks have over 200x more people in their category than Jews.

I find some consolation in the fact that society fictionally created IQ. If we were living in a society based around hunting in the Serengeti than the standards of intelligence would probably be much different. But that doesn't help much - the society we have proved superior over that one. Plus, no matter how you look at the situation, present reality doesn't change.

People will claim that by evolution's standards there wasn't enough time for such a difference. But they must realize that this is a very small change by evolution's standards - magnified to catastrophic consequences by the power of modern society. It is not a question of the ability to do math, but a question of the ability to do math slightly faster.

From this comes only one possible conclusion, everything else(less an earth shattering revelation be found) just doesn't work. There is a genetic difference in racial IQ.

- Spero

PS: Sign the Geert Wilders' free speech petition - Here