Category Archives: Reactionary Enlightenment

A place for information and discussion on topics such as Philosophy, Sociology, History, and Government

Sports, Homosexuals, and Liberals

As you all probably know, there was a homosexual NBA player, Jason Collins, who “came out” in the past month. And just as if cued, the liberal mainstream media is heaping up the praise to this “courageous” man so high, that they begin to lose sight of reality. Now, this post isn’t going to debate whether or not it was right of him to do that(I am firmly against homosexuality, as I believe it is unnatural, possibly even a genetic or mental disorder), but I do plan on addressing the left’s response to people with slightly different opinions.

Just last night, after defeating the Miami Heat in Game Six of the NBA Eastern Conference Championships, Pacers player Roy Hibbert, and I quote from ESPN, “went on a rant” when he used one gay slur as well as made a derogatory remark against journalists. The media was furious over this man speaking his mind, much in the same way Collins did about himself. But what was this slur which he stated? “No homo”. Wow… After perusing through the comments section on bleacher report as well as ESPN, many fans seem to be getting outraged over this political correctness being forced down everyone’s throats. One comment, made by Jkooistr on, gave me a good laugh:

Rudy Gay wears homosexual slur on his jersey during game.”

-ESPN headline is 2014

I could definitely picture that happening.

But why are these players being punished for exercising their first amendment rights? Nowhere in the United States Constitution does it state that we have the freedom from being picked on or the freedom from verbal abuse.

Another great example from the sports world:

Minnesota Vikings star halfback Adrian Peterson recently stated that he was “not with” gay marriage, which is an apparently more controversial statement since his team formerly employed a punter, Chris Kluwe, who is very outspoken about “homosexual rights”. However, the very same people that praised Collins for revealing his “true self” are the exact same ones criticizing Peterson for revealing his feelings.

Neither Peterson’s nor Hibbert’s comments could come even remotely close to being classified as hate speech; even if they were, “hate speech” is not illegal according to the Constitution as well, as it is protected under the First Amendment.

One last example of our media’s homosexual agenda, again from the sports world, a domain previously left for those men of the greatest strength, skill, and virtue.

This comes from and is an article that will be published in the June 10th ESPN the Magazine issue. Titled, Out on the Edge, it discusses Kwame Harris, a former NFL player who unwillingly came out after attempting to take the pants off his ex-lover in front of a Chinese restaurant in Menlo Park. These are the actual first three paragraphs of the story:

KWAME HARRIS walked toward the showers the first day of freshman football camp at Stanford anxious and intimidated. He’d never showered with his high school team. Except for his brothers, he’d never seen another man naked, and he was about to be surrounded by them. He didn’t know where to look, how to look, how long to let his gaze linger. He was 18 years old. A breeze could give him a hard-on. If that happened, he’d have to flee

He approached the crowded tiled room with columns housing several showerheads where men clustered soaping down. “They looked like Greek statues,” he recalls. “I think everybody was looking at everybody else’s penis, but it was more curiosity. Like that’s a medium-size penis, that’s a small one, that one looks like mine.”

A player paused beside him. Kwame was 6-foot-7, 320 pounds, and the teammate, blue-eyed and blond, was about the same height but had a sexual swagger Kwame envied. “Dude, this would be a gay guy’s dream,” the teammate said. “Imagine how much fun you could have here.”

Why in the world is an article on ESPN talking about “hard-ons” and a gay man discussing other men’s penises in a high school locker room? It appears as if the author and the publishers have no problem with children who frequent this site, looking for news on their favorite teams and athletes, reading about this perversion.

It sickens me that topics like this are becoming mainstream. Unfortunately, this is an ominous sign that the liberals, progressives, communists, and social reformers of the world are winning. As much as I hate it when Liberals blindly say “in 50 years, everyone will see the gay rights movement as nearly identical to the civil rights movement of the ’60s”, two movements which I loathe entirely, it may be coming true.  That doesn’t mean we can’t fix the world first though.


Science is a Religion

Religion and Science, in today’s world

Let us take a look at Science. You know, the institution that brought the marvels of flight to Mankind; the club that peers into the depth of what we are constructed of; the system that offers up a model of Nature’s creation with the Big Bang Theory. It is just great stuff, isn’t it?

But why is it taught in schools? What happened to the whole notion of Separation of Church and State?

For those of you that are completely clueless of what I’m getting at, listen up. Science is a Religion! 

Not only is Science a religion, science is THE religion of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Sure we still have Christianity, Mohammedism, Mormonism, Sikhism, and a plethora of other religions that I am too lazy to name, but Science has trumped them all. And you probably don’t even know it yet. But don’t worry, you will.

To make the association between Science and religion, one must first define what religion is. According to the good ol’ folk who edit Wikipedia:

Religion is an organized collection of belief systemscultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values

They also go on to state that:

Many religions have narrativessymbols,traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their ideas about the cosmos and human nature, they tend to derive moralityethics,religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

However, since Wikipedia can’t always be trusted, let us look at the official definition of religion from Merriam-Webster:

The service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

As well as:

A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Now, taking base ideas from both definitions, we can begin to understand the idea of religion is essentially a collection of beliefs that give meaning to life, explain its mysteries (where we come from, where we go when we die, why are we here, etc.), and are sometimes used as a basis for laws, ethics, and morals. Since the idea of a God, Gods, or any divine being varies from culture to culture, as well as differs across time, we cannot safely give any distinct reference to a deity in this definition. It would simply not be justifiable for some corners of the world and their own practices and beliefs.

We can also add to our definition of religion that they usually contain some sacred texts(the Bible, the Quran, etc), are guided by some form of standard bearer(priests, rabbi, etc.), and require Faith in what is being delivered to its adherents. After all, how are we supposed to know that some higher authority exists if we have never seen him/her/it? Better yet, if we HAVE seen this power, how do we know what we’ve seen is legitimate?

Let us look at what Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster say about Science though. As per Wikipedia, Science is:

A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2] In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

So, according to this definition, Science gives us a body of knowledge that rationally explains and predicts our surroundings. Let’s look at the official Merriam Webster definition now, just to double check our information.

The state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

It goes on to add:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Now let us compare how both of these institutions are similar:

1) Both of these give Mankind an answer to our own origin, as well as a response to the origin and creation of the Universe/Multiverse and all of Nature that surrounds us.

  • Judeo-Christian religions say: God created all that existed in six days, then rested on the seventh. We are created in his own image. After we depart from our Earthly confines, we will ascend into Heaven or be grasped by the clutches of Lucifer from Hell. 
  • The Modern Science religion says: The Universe and all that was in it was created in an event that occurred approximately 14 billion years ago now known as the Big Bang. Following the rapid outward expansion, things began to coalesce into Stars, Planetary bodies, and the like.
  • Why Science is a Religion in this case: In this case, Science gives Mankind an alternate answer to the Deity-created Universe located in many cultures. However, we can never know which one is the correct interpretation of Creation. We were not present to see either sources of our origin; just as more ancient peoples had to take faith that God created them and everything else, modern Man is taking faith that the Universe began after the Big Bang. The material evidence behind the beginning located on Team Science is just that, material evidence. Can we always trust our senses? How do we know that our theory won’t change down the road? What about the Steady State theory? We will never know the real truth. But this materialistic religion of Science greatly contradicts with the spiritualistic religion of.. well… pretty much all religions. Not only that, but Science has not given us an answer to what happens when we die or before we are born to the same extent as all religions have.

2) Both of these cast out those labelled ‘Heretics’

  • Judeo-Christian religions do: Well, they do cast out heretics, non-believers, and the like. Remember the Inquisition? Not only that, but these supposed ‘Heretics’ have gone on to cause great schisms in what began as the Catholic Church in Christianity; I would discuss all of these splits, but this graphic essentially sums up the majority of Christian ‘branches’ or varieties:
  • The Modern Science religion does: First of all, to see the persecution of non-conformist scientists, just look at Kurt Gödel and the reaction from Princeton after he began publishing his ‘proof of the existence of God’. To be involved in the cult of modern science, one must completely shun the calling of other organized religions, or at least they must suppress their faith. We must also view it from a standpoint of different views within the science realm. In example, the current accepted theory of the Universe’s creation is the Big Bang; anyone that is opposed to this theory is pushed under the rug by pretty much any publishing agency and their views are laughed off. But all of this does change frequently, which brings me to our next point…

3) Both of these change with the times

  • Judeo-Christian religions do: One of the major areas of recent change in many Christian churches is on the issue of homosexual marriage. As public opinion begins to inch upward towards allowing this degenerate ‘union’ to occur, many religious institutions such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, and Episcopal Church have begun accepting homosexuality and disregarding the bible’s teachings that it is a sin. Why has this happened? Because as the men and women of the West began to lose their moral compass due to the perversions of a Liberal society, they pressure these congregations to not be “backwards” and instead act as if it were the future where homosexual marriage “will be seen as the second Civil Rights Movement.”
  • The Modern Science religion does: I will use the same example with science: the issue of Homosexuality. Up until the early 1970s, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. Why was it removed? Did science prove in fact that it is not a disease? Nope. In the early 1970s, the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM began to pick up steam, not because of scientific findings, but due to protests by groups like the Gay Liberation Front. In fact, most people today accept the idea that being a homosexual is perfectly in tune with nature, which is poured into their malleable little heads by the Jewish controlled Mainstream Media. There has still been very little real evidence to refute the claim that Homosexuality is a disorder; just a bunch of pseudo-scientific ‘findings’ that perpetrate the current world order’s belief that it should be accepted, without any real factual support.

4) Both of these institutions have their own ‘Saints’

  • Judeo-Christian religions have: People such as St. Luke, St. Nicholas, St. Patrick, St. Veronica, St. Stephen and St. Boniface.
  • The Modern Science religion has: People such as Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei, Marie Curie, James Clark Maxwell, and Isaac Newton.

5) Both of these require Faith in the teachings, laws, codes, ethics, and morals of the system

  • Judeo-Christian religions: How do we know that an all-powerful God that created us in his image existed if we cannot see him or feel his presence? Faith. How do we know that when we die, we there is either a Heaven or Hell awaiting our soul? Faith. How do we know that our lives are not meaningless? Faith.
  • The Modern Science religion: How do we know that Evolution is in fact correct, regardless of any evidence to support it or refute it? Faith. How do we know that we are made up of tiny particles called atoms and even tinier quarks, regardless of any evidence to support or refute it? Faith. How do we know that the Universe had an instant of creation and has not just always kind of been here, regardless of any evidence to support or refute it? Faith.

So as you can see, science is essentially some form of a very modernized religion when you take into the account of the definition of both entities, as well as the striking similarities between the two. However, I am not saying that we disregard science completely. I prefer something quite similar to this model of the Unification of Science, Spirituality, and Philosophy (notice I use the word spirituality and not religion. This is because spirituality is more of an individual relationship with a deity, as well as the ‘mysteries of the Universe’, while religion is more of a method for controlling that relationship.)

Unification of Science, Spirituality, and Philosophy

If we can completely cast off the burdening shackles of just one or two of these pillars of individual and societal formation to accept all three equally, we can create a better society and a better man that is more in tune with Mankind, Nature, and God.

Shout out to Matt Heimbach

Mr. Heimbach (right)

I would like to give a shout out to Towson University Senior and President of the Towson White Student Union, Mr. Matt Heimbach. Due to your brave actions against the menacing horde of degenerate Marxists, Liberals, Anti-Rascists, and Druggies during a Washington D.C. May Day festival, you have helped expose the Far-Left for who they really are: perverse, vile, hate-filled, and ignorant.

I’m sure all of us in this corner of the Reactionary/Far-Right Blogosphere have already come to this realization about our leftist antagonists. However, for all of those out there that are unsure about this ideology, this view point, this way of life, I urge you to watch the intolerant actions of these hordes of hate filled scum. The only thing that the eight members of Heimbach’s organization did was peacefully protest; they did not deserve any hate-stricken rhetoric, nor the URINE being dumped on them by the leftist crowd. The actions of the mob were truly sick and inhumane.

Here’s a passage from the WSU’s after action report:

To those on the other side of the fence who despise us and what we stand for, we urge you, from the bottom of our hearts to consider this: Take a good, hard gander at the young faces amongst that crowd. Harness for but a moment your political convictions, clear your minds and forget what your professors and media czars have said. Can you truly, honestly look at these misguided young men and women and say you see decent, civilized, PEACEFUL youths fighting for human rights? Does truth and spirit glimmer in their damning eyes and obscene tongues as they shout vile, hateful rhetoric to our police who lay their very lives on the line every day for us? And bear in mind, I’m not sure how many of you know this, but some of these people were not just “fringe leftists” and your usual run-of-the-mill anarcho creeps who’ve heard one too many Kathleen Hanna records, either. Some of them among the crowd were in more of the well-known anti-war women’s groups like Code Pink, whose members can be seen in a couple of other videos on YouTube debating us. This is what the future is if you don’t wipe the sleep out of your eyes and accept the fact that the last two generations have FAILED, royally and miserably, I might add, in keeping ungrateful, uncivilized, foul, bratty, little upstarts of the lowest common denominator like this OUT of your lives, OUT of your schools and universities, OUT of your communities, OUT of your families and your homes, OUT of your streets, OUT of your country, and OUT of your beloved hemisphere that your forebears’ carved for YOU out of the Occidental wilderness. We urge you, our brave fellows and countrymen, our bold and graceful ladies of the West, to join us. If not for your people’s sake, then, in the name of all that is sacred and holy, for your families’.

You are not going to get the full truth from the news media. So expand your sources, expand your mind, and expand your heart; do this so you can really and truly understand why we believe what we believe. Maybe, just maybe, this circle is for you.

Check out more news from the Towson University White Student Union here!

The Destruction of Occidental Nations (Part One)

This will be a series consisting of many short posts in which I discuss the crumbling foundation of the West.

All across the Occident, numerous nations, cultures, and peoples are being thrown under the rug due to the guise of fairness and equality. “What’s the problem with that?” very many duped and beguiled people would ask. After all, why should predominantly and traditionally white nations have all the spoils? Give some to those poor, starving Africans! Shouldn’t they have an equal opportunity to make a living in whichever country they so desire?

No. They shouldn’t.

Immigrants in America

The problem with the incredibly lax, and even welcoming immigration policies employed by a vast majority of European nations is that they bring in droves of immigrants to be used as cheap labor, which then help contribute to the decline of that nation’s native culture through a sudden and extreme attempt at a diffusion process. But again, one may ask, “These people need our help though! We’re giving them a chance at prosperity and a new life in their new homeland!” To that I would respond, yes, you are correct. Giving those “poor” souls an opportunity to start anew in one of the more “modern” and “civilized” nations of the world does help them. But that is the problem. It only helps those workers. Not the whole of society and the native populace.

Citizens of these nations need to start questioning what is a greater priority: the survival of a poor immigrant family, or the survival of an entire nation constructed on hundreds to thousands of years of blood, brotherhood, and hard work.

By giving these masses of foreign people endless amounts of aid, nations are playing Russian Roulette with their future as they gamble on whether or not these immigrants are going to pull their fair share of work in society. However, many of these immigrants are lured to white nations not because of the chance for work, but because of the opportunity for money.

Notice the difference in the two words. Work can provide you with a steady stream of money. But acquiring money does not take work. Anyone can make money by, say, robbing a bank (even though this task may be difficult). Therefore, many immigrants are lured to a life of crime, in an effort to easily make even more money than they could have while laboring in a menial and low-paying job.

Looking at data from the Department of Homeland Security, 11% to 15% of the prison population is filled with illegal immigrants. This is juxtaposed with only 8.6% that make up the whole United States.  This data also does not take into account the large masses of legal immigrants.

So, essentially, there is a high chance(as compared to a native citizen) that an immigrant is going to do two things:

  1. Steal your job
  2. Steal your stuff

I personally believe that each country should have a closed border policy. Greece for the Greeks, Russia for the Russians, Brazil for the Brazilians, China for the Chinese, and so on. If you don’t like your current home, don’t just pack up and move on to leach off another one. Try to change the system.

Monthly Poll: April 27-May 27

For the first monthly poll, I would like to gather data of my readers’ ideal form of government. Please elaborate on your views in the comment section if they’re derivatives of what is considered ‘normal’ by today’s standards.

Why I am against Democracy (Part One: The ‘Goodness’ of Democracy)

America, the poster child of the Democratic Age

Ah Democracy. The gleaming child of the Enlightenment and the efforts of the French and American Rebellions. Such a grand, illustrious form of government, where Man and his fellow Man are equal, no matter their race, sex, creed, religion, hair color, eye color, length of toe nails, number of shoes they own, or whatever…. It just sure is great isn’t it? We all live in Winthrop’s City Upon a Hill, don’t we? Sending down rainbows, puppies, God-Rays(Oh wait, modern day proponents of democracy tend to lack a little bit of faith in the God(s) department), and freedom from the pulpit (Darn! Another bad, evil reference to religion) top of our ever-so humble position as the morally correct and ideological superior chosen people; we are in reality the guides to a better, more perfect unified world.

Essentially, we’re taught that democracy points to, or is a utopia. That this ‘paradise on Earth’ system of governing is infallible, true, and without equal. That’s what you’re told in the history textbooks, am I right kids? However, there is a little more to the story of democracy and its supposedly impeccable track record. And you won’t find this anywhere near the history textbooks.

Now what I want you to do is to just think about this one simple quote, normally attributed to the ol’ British Bulldog himself, Prime Minister Winston Churchill:

History is written by the victors.

(Churchill is also attributed to another interesting quote, which I thought I would just throw in here since he was already brought up in the context of the previous paragraph)

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

I assume that you have probably heard of it, read it, or casually glanced over the former statement, and you might have even caught sight of the latter as you were cramming information into your shallow mind the night before your big World War II exam in history class. But have you ever thought about the historical connotations of it?

Lets start this Reactionary Enlightenment session with a little what-if game…

You are a time traveler from the present day. Your machine, manufactured from… lets call it the Carlyle Institute, doesn’t allow you to pick a re-entry point into the historical timeline. Instead, you must spin a wheel, causing the machine to select its trajectory based off the initial velocity of its spin. You give it a nice, hard tug, cross your fingers and hope that you do not appear in the deep chill of the ice age, seeing that you forgot to pack adequate winter clothing, and off you go.

Knocked out from the initial time jump, you wake up slightly disoriented by the journey and stumble out of your cardinal red pill shaped device. It appears that you’ve arrived during a late evening near a small, rural town. Checking your time travel universal calendar and GPS gizmo, you are informed that the date is July 1st, of the Year 1863 and that you have fallen into the heart of Adams County, located in southern Pennsylvania. You are also notified of the name of the nearby town: Gettysburg.

Now, for a moment, let us pretend that you slept through all your professor’s boring, self-promoting history lectures generally regarding his over-priced books, and missed the occasionally important slivers of information concerning this date. Therefore, you don’t know that July 1st, 1863 is the date of the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. If you didn’t know that anyway, go read a book on US history for once! Alright, side note over..

Battle of Gettysburg

So, since we’ve just established the fact that you are oblivious to the historical significance of your arrival date, you decide to take a stroll through the surrounding countryside. Spotting a cluster of tents, with ol’ Glory flying high over them, you walk on over to catch up with some old-timey (literally) folk. You happen upon what appears to be a regiment of bruised up soldiers, getting some rest after what appears to have been a long, hard-fought battle. Unbeknownst to you, the old scraggly man you saunter on up to is General George Meade, the commander of the Union forces that led the Army of the Potomac during Lee’s Gettysburg Campaign.

Also unknown to you, is the fact that you carry one of the deadliest diseases in the world called… Let’s call it Rooseveltianism, a disease first discovered after citizens were innoculated with the New Deal in 1933, and now usually contracted by “voting” in representatives who will further the efforts of the Hand-Out/Bail-Out Nation which we currently reside in. To anyone not previously exposed to this ghastly affliction, it causes death at first sight (Okay… just want to point out that voting for Liberals does NOT cause those not familiar with key proponents of Keynesian Economics to suddenly and dramatically die. Just as we have to utilize our imagination to grasp time travel in this example, I am asking you to consider doing the same for this fictitious disease. Don’t worry, we have almost arrived at the conclusion of this fable, and the point of it will be revealed shortly.)

George Meade and his fellow commanders of the Army of the Potomac

As you scratch your head, wondering why the somewhat disheveled old man has just keeled over, along with the majority of his uniformed buddies, you decide that you have overstayed your visit in this serene, yet quaint little neck of Pennsylvania. Just as you turn your back to the moribund regiment, you see a volley of cannonballs sailing over the horizon. You take this as your final eviction notice from the period and scurry on back to your Red-Pill time machine while evading a barrage of heavy fire. Pressing the large shiny “Take Me Home” button, you breath a sigh of relief and brace for the journey. (Notice: for this story, we are making the assumption that time is all on one gigantic timeline, and your actions have interfered with your distinct future.)

After the journey, you stumble on out of your time machine again and breath in the sweet, sweet smell of freedom. Your home in the good ol’ U.S. of A., right? Nope!

You look around and see a plethora of plantation-like homes, still under the guise of antebellum architecture. You observe a black chauffeur driving a seemingly well-to-do white family to go conduct their business in the town. Over yonder, past the memorial to the victims of the War of Northern Aggression, you pick out a band of young black men and women tending to a field, under the supervision of a young white man and his whip.

The Confederate States of America

Due to your ignorant actions back on July 1, 1863, you allowed the Confederacy to crush the remnants of the Union troops at Gettysburg and ultimately win the war.

Now why did I bring up this pointlessly long fable? To draw you into the setting and use it to destroy whatever illusion you had left that is contrary to the notion that one of the reasons why Democracy is considered “Good” is because it has triumphed over “Evil” in the past.

Consider your newfound home in the CSA: Their statues and memorials commemorates what they would call “The War of Northern Aggression”. Why? Didn’t the plain “Civil War” work just fine?

Nevertheless, you currently don’t dwell in the same timeframe of the Universe in which you used to. You don’t live in the era which allowed itself to name that war the “Civil War” out of necessity to perpetrate the bloodshed as between members of a divided house. You are now located in the era which calls the war “The War of Northern Aggression” out of a necessity to portray the bloodshed as between two separate, independent nations. But which perspective is correct? Who is in the right in naming this phenomenon and who is in the wrong?

It is a fairly simple answer: Both are correct. Both names are derived from similar experiences regarding a certain war, with the only factor changed is the fact that you haplessly slaughtered Meade’s army at Gettysburg in one instance of the event, and did no such thing in the other (What we consider to be the “real world”). Therefore, the outcome of the violence was different in both scenarios and this makes the perspectives of the citizens and rulers in the aftermath of the war equally valid, as both happen to be correct in their own situation.

Now, as we can safely state, as with the outcome of most wars, the stronger (or luckier) side was victorious. However, just vanquishing your opponents does not guarantee eternal stability in your newly acquired realm. Citizens of both your original and particularly in your recently acquired territories may still hold sympathies toward your defeated foe. In this example, that would be like stating that members of the Northern States of the CSA still hold anti-slavery, pro-union ideals.

These people will obviously be seen as rebels, or possibly even traitors by their new overseers. Therefore, in an effort to establish and sustain order in the newly acquired states, the rulers have a few options:

  1. Pull a Stalin and purge them
  2. Banish them from your realm
  3. Attempt to sway public opinion in the rulers’ favor in order to lessen the rebels’ revolutionary thoughts

The first two options run into some difficulty because as for the most part, it would be fairly easy to hide an affiliation with a certain group or mindset. Unfortunately, if the new government gets hit with a case of paranoia, a very likely consequence of their newly acquired power, they may recklessly purge anyone even remotely suspected of committing treasonous acts. This first option also runs into issues of morality, but we will not discuss those now as I have not set up a basis for morals in a ‘reactionary’ state yet.

Therefore, by process of elimination, the only option that remains and is plausible, is the third point. In order to impress a different opinion or ideology unto a group of conquered peoples, a newly acquired leader must assume the moral high ground. Ergo, the new leaders attempt to corrupt the masses into believing that the old guard was “Evil” and their new guard is “Good”. They must do this in order to abandon a predisposition towards chaos and seek out a more orderly society, justified by their conquest over a caricature of evil based off the old order. However, there can never be proof that this slave morality and its portrayal of the old as distinctively bad is completely correct, as morals are subjective and vary from Man to Man.


So, as you can see, new governments or world orders acquired through the use of arms must attempt to portray their vanquished foes as “Evil” and themselves as “Good”. If they cannot justify their right to power through these means, the old ways will begin to surface and expose cracks in the rulers’ grasp of the realm.

As related to our elaborate example, by changing your timeline, you have exposed the myth of an objective and permanent sense of morality, truth, and ideology. The United States of America of today holds a set of morals and ideas of “Good” and “Evil” vastly different to that which is found in your altered Confederate States of America.

Therefore, you can safely make the argument that the foundation of what is labelled as today’s “Democratic” society is bunk and not some perfect system as it is portrayed as. It is only seen as positive today due to the victories over its enemies, which was not determined by which side “right” was on, but by who had the superior military forces. We don’t live in a national socialistic, uber-German state right now, not because a modern democracy is morally above it, but because the Allies defeated Nazi Germany during the Second World War with their military.

Stay tuned for part two, coming soon! In that segment of the “Why I am against Democracy” series, I will discuss the notion of Democracy, its longevity, and how long a democratic system can possible last before making a subtle transition to something much more sinister.