freedom and reason

If one believes that the United States is intrinsically white supremacist, then I understand why he wants to destroy the American Republic. But a rational people should not leave the fate of the republic to the designs and delusions of a few. White supremacy is not in the DNA of the nation. If anything, it is in the DNA of the Democratic Party—the party of the slavocracy, of Jim Crow, and now of DEI.

Let’s recall together the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice John Marshall Harlan, the sole dissenter in the case, wrote that the Constitution is “color-blind” and that the law should not allow states to discriminate based on race. Plessy v. Ferguson upheld racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine. The case arose when Homer Plessy, a mixed-race man, violated Louisiana’s segregation law by sitting in a whites-only train car. He was arrested and challenged the law, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled against Plessy, stating that segregation was constitutional as long as the facilities provided to black and white people were “equal.” This decision legitimized racial segregation for nearly six decades until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Now let’s recall Harlan’s words: “But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind….” It’s true. There is no mention of race anywhere in the Constitution. Harlan continued: “In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.” Harlan then concluded with this: “It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race. In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a landmark 1857 Supreme Court decision that ruled against Dred Scott, an enslaved man who sued for his freedom after living in free territories. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s majority opinion declared that black people, whether enslaved or free, were not US citizens and had no legal standing to sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in US territories, effectively striking down the Missouri Compromise. This decision strengthened pro-slavery forces and Democratic Party hegemony and was a major factor leading to the Civil War. It was later nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment was written to recognize black Americans as US citizens.

Perhaps it goes without saying that Harlan was right, and in series of judicial decisions and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democrat regime of racial segregation was broken and his dissent was vindicated. We now look forward to finally realizing in our concrete lives the fundamental law upon which our civilization is based. The only people holding up progress are the Democrats who are desperate to keep alive the racial division that benefits the corporate state they serve. As for white supremacists, one would be hard pressed to find any. Not that they don’t exist, but that there are so very few.

* * *

“Joe Louis is a credit to his race—the human race.” —Sportswriter Jimmy Cannon

The evolution of racial progress can be seen in many domains of history. As something of a boxing historian, the history of the Sweet Science is for me a paradigm of racial progress. Consider the careers of three legendary fighters, heavyweights Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, and Muhammad Ali. These athletes show how sports mirror broader societal shifts, and chronicle the American journey out of racism.

Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion, faced persecution due to his race and defiance of social norms in early twentieth century America. After winning the heavyweight championship in 1908 (securing the world title in the minds of everybody in his 1910 beatdown of lineal champion Jim Jeffries), Johnson became a target of white supremacists and the government, especially for his relationships with white women. In 1913, he was convicted under the Mann Act, a law meant to combat human trafficking but often used selectively against black men. Johnson’s conviction, widely understood as racially motivated, forced him to flee the US for several years. He eventually returned and served a prison sentence. In 2018, he was posthumously pardoned by President Donald Trump.

In contrast, Joe Louis emerged as a hero not just for black Americans but for the entire country, embodying American courage and might during World War II, particularly as he rallied the nation in its fight against Nazi Germany by demolishing Max Schmeling before a packed Yankee Stadium on June 22, 1938. It took Louis a single round to get the job done. Hitler had held up Schmeling as the personification of the master race. The first fight in 1936 saw Schmeling defeat a young and overconfident Louis. By the time of the rematch, tensions between the US and Nazi Germany had escalated, and the fight became a symbolic battle between democracy and fascism. The decisive victory made Louis a national hero.

Muhammad Ali, then Cassius Clay, defeated Sonny Liston on February 25, 1964 in one of the biggest upsets in boxing history. This was the same year as the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlawed racial discrimination in employment, federally-funded programs, and public accommodations. It ended institutional racism, guaranteeing equal access to restaurants, schools, and transportation. It strengthened voting rights and gave the federal government power to enforce desegregation. In the wake of this historic national achievement, and carried by his astonishing talent, Ali became arguably the most iconic figure in sports history, beloved by black and white Americans alike. His journey from a brash young champion to a revered elder statesman illustrates how far America has come in its recognition of racial equality.

* * *

I have been reflecting on all this over the last several days because Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett has been on a tear lately arguing that all the problems of black Americans as a group are the consequence of white supremacy. Crockett is determined to remind us that white supremacy is baked into American society. But is it? It’s hard to see how based on what I have just written. The nation’s love affair with Joe Louis told us that white supremacy was cracking. Louis exposed the fallacy of white racial superiority. By the seventies, black actors, athletes, comedians, musicians, and politicians took their place alongside their white counterparts. The three Michaels—Jackson, Jordan, and Tyson—became the face of their respective domains. The nation twice elected a black man. Those elections weren’t close.

It’s time to move on from the belief that American society is permanently imprinted by the legacy institution of white supremacy. The United States ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade, chattel slavery, and Jim Crow segregation. Today, America celebrates people from all races. The structures of institutional racism were knocked down a very long time ago. White supremacists are not keeping down black women like Jasmine Crockett. Materializing the ideal of a colorblind society is only being hindered by race merchants like Crockett and her ilk. It’s time for Democrats to quit the practice of racecraft.

They don’t want a colorblind America. They don’t stand with Justice Harlan (who was nominated by a Republic president, for the record). And some of us understand why the representatives of corporate state want to keep racial divisiveness going. It’s a power play that benefits the power elite. A majority of Americans, black and white, are wise to the ruse. Those who continue pushing the line only lose their legitimacy before the eyes of a nation ready to walk through the open door to a colorblind future.

But persist they will:

JUST IN: Democrat Rep. Summer Lee of Pittsburgh calls the Trump administration “white supremacists” and demands “reparations” be paid out. pic.twitter.com/vOLzfX4bb1

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 12, 2025

In contemporary discourse, especially in progressive circles, a peculiar argument has gained traction: that refusing to affirm a person’s self-conception equates to denying their very existence. This assertion is a conflation of two distinct ideas—recognizing a person’s objective existence (mind-independent) and affirming their self-perception (subjective).

A person’s existence is not contingent upon the beliefs of others. I do not believe in thetans, yet Scientologists exist. They are people who do believe in thetans. I do not believe Muhammad spoke to an angel, yet Muslims exist; it is enough that they believe that Muhammad met Gabriel in a cave near Mecca. Scientologists and Muslims do not require my affirmation or approval or affirmation to exist; their beliefs may be untrue, but their right to hold them remains intact, and they continue to exist all the same.

For the record, I disapprove of both Scientology and Islam and I would attempt to talk a family member or close friend out of joining either cult because I presume they seek my counsel. But if they made the decision to see themselves that way, I would still regard them as family and friend and would treat them no differently than before—unless of course they demand that I believe the same or affirm their religion or approve of their choice. My only obligation is tolerance.

I frequently encounter the argument that if I do not affirm a man in his self-perception—if I do not accept what he thinks of himself or what he claims to be, if I do not affirm his subjective identity —I am denying his existence. Just the other day on X, I was confronted with a version of this argument, and the person was obviously offended.

Here’s the context: Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill) had referred to Representative Sarah McBride (D-Del) as “Mr. McBride.” This is because McBride is male. “The chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. McBride, for five minutes,” Miller said in the House chamber last Thursday. “Thank you, Madam Speaker,” McBride replied, before proceeding to deliver a speech. McBride did not disappear because of Miller’s use of male pronouns.

https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1888086469979357583

My take on the matter was something along the lines of whether it would not be disrespectful to truth and freedom to expect an official representative of a secular republic to follow the rules of an ideology held by a small minority. To be sure Miller could have follow the minority’s rules. It is a person’s prerogative. But my view is that representatives should not act in bad faith, so her having done so would have irked me.

Based on my comment, a user from McBride’s tribe presumed that I did not acknowledge his gender identity. It was clear that his following assertions were not made in agreement with my point, but represented instead defiance of the alleged trans erasure project. He wanted me to know that, in all his interactions with others (he works for a food delivery platform), he has never once been “misgendered.” I gathered from this that he believes he passes, but the more likely explanation for what he perceives as affirmation testifies to the hegemony of gender ideology rules. Those with whom he interacts are reluctant to transgress the novel norm. His defiance testified to his acceptance of the doctrine of erasure.

When I explained that he is free to identify any way he wishes, it was at that point that he blocked me. I wished the interaction had continued because I wanted him to know that I do not need to recognize him for how he sees himself, that his existence does not depend on my acknowledgement at all. He exists independent of my consciousness; I never knew he existed until he commented on X, yet he always has been (at least since his birth and until his death). Perhaps his defiance was really agreement with my position. I could be wrong. I will never know.

But I want readers to know that I have always maintained that a person is free to believe whatever he wishes about himself. I am a libertarian, and freedom of self expression is one of central tenets of the standpoint. I genuinely have no desire to dictate to people how they must to think of themselves, nor would I ever treat a person differently based on self-expression. My view is the same for those of different religious faiths, as I earlier explained. My view is the same for those of different political ideologies, as well. Whatever one believes, he is entitled to it, as well as to my tolerance.

At the same time, tolerance must be reciprocal. If one man is free to believe something about his identity, another must be equally free to not believe what he believes, and even to disagree with it. The principle of tolerance permits disagreement, so it’s okay. It’s, simple, really: if I cannot dictate what another must believe about himself, then neither should he be able to compel me to affirm his self-perception. If my refusal to affirm his belief is framed as a denial of his existence, or a threat to it, even if he defies my power to do so, and I am punished for that refusal, then I am no longer free to believe as I will. The moment affirmation becomes mandatory, freedom of conscience and thought ceases to exist. Then it becomes not about individual dignity but about ideological control. I am of course not erased—I am oppressed. That’s what makes it complicated.

At the core of this debate is the question of whether respect for others necessitates agreement with their self-definition. Advocates of gender ideology argue that refusal to affirm another’s identity is harmful. But compelled affirmation undermines intellectual and moral autonomy, and this is harmful because, as noted above, it violates the freedoms of conscience, speech, and publishing. It also violates the right to free association, since it requires an individual to obey the rules of a group to which he does not belong. 

The tension thus lies between social cohesion, as dictated by some, and individual liberty, as self-determined, as well as protected by fundamental law, and if the government upholds the dictates of some over others with respect to the fundamental rights just noted, then the government violates that law. If affirmation is enforced, then liberty is sacrificed in the name of ideological conformity. This is why the state of a free nation is obliged to remain neutral on such matters; the person whose affirmation is force becomes unfree. 

Presumably this is the reason, in 2021, when the House adopted rules under Speaker Nancy Pelosi that replaced gender-specific language (such as “he” or “she”) with gender-neutral terms (such as “they” or “Member”), no formal rule was adopted mandating pronoun use based on gender. Members are generally addressed by their official titles anyway (e.g., “Representative” or “Congressperson”). The rules also allow individual members may choose how they wish to be addressed, and decorum rules guide respectful communication in debates and official proceedings. But to my knowledge, preferred pronouns were never prescribed. Credit where credit is due goes the cliché.

Pelosi’s changes primarily focused on replacing gender-specific terms (e.g., “chairman” with “chair,” “father” and “mother” with “parent”) in House documents to promote the progressive norm of inclusivity. Promoting ideology this way is certainly obnoxious, indeed incongruent with the principles of a free nation, but that Republicans have not to my knowledge rescinded the rules since assuming control of the House strongly implies they were not impositions with the force of discipline behind them. If I am wrong about that, I will correct the record.

This distinction between affirmation and tolerance is the crucial point. Tolerance allows for peaceful coexistence despite differences, while forced affirmation demands conformity to a prescribed belief system. If a man believes that 2+2=5, he is free to do so, but his belief does not alter mathematical reality. My insistence that 2+2=4 does not erase his existence; it simply affirms a mathematical truth. However, if I am compelled to say that 2+2=5, then I am no longer free. And if the man who states mathematical falsehoods refuses to defend my freedom to dissent, then he has marked himself as an authoritarian. I am at present free to criticize the man who asserts mathematical falsehoods, but unless he is teaching these falsehoods to captive audiences, such as school children or college students, I have no grounds to stop him from doing so.

Paradoxically, the idea that I must recognize a person for who he claims to be lest he ceases to exist grants me an almost godlike status. It implies that my acknowledgment or affirmation is what sustains his being—as if, without my validation, he would vanish from existence. I am simply not that important nor that powerful. I still maintain that identity is not what a man thinks of himself, but what he is. The point I wish to make here is that very argument that demands compulsory affirmation in the name of personal autonomy ironically undermines that autonomy, making identity dependent not on the individual or on reality, but on the perceptions of others. This absurdity testifies to the corruption of postmodernism and its reduction of reality to subjectivity. Indeed, the farce of gender identity is self-confessed if its existence requires my affirmation, since it confirms that he believes his identity depends on my believing it, as well. But I have no such obligation, and he nonetheless continues to exist whatever either of us believes.

I want to emphasis this problem of freedom and coercion, for this is really what is at stake here (not the man’s existence). This real issue arises because societal pressures increasingly push for not just tolerance but affirmation—the expectation that one must actively validate another person’s self-conception to avoid accusations of bigotry or hostility. This is a long-standing project to make a man’s stubborn commit to the truth and freedom appear as if it is an act of discrimination or harassment. But it is this ideological project that manufactures the conflict; when affirmation demands the acceptance of ideas that contradict one’s own beliefs, when affirmation is no longer a personal choice but an enforced obligation, freedom of thought and speech are compromised.

This is not a matter of civility or decorum; this is about the fundamental freedom of individuals to hold and express beliefs, which includes not agreeing with or expressing beliefs he does not hold. This is really not about him but about all of us. Freedom is reciprocal. A man is free to believe that he is something, but I must also be free to disagree. If I cannot dictate his beliefs, then he cannot dictate mine. If his identity depends on my acceptance, and I am punished for refusing to affirm it, then I am not free to hold my own beliefs. If disagreement is prohibited or penalized, then one belief is being forcibly elevated over others, and autonomy is eroded. Yes, I am repeating myself, but the matter of freedom eludes a great many people so it bears repeating.

As I have written about at length on Freedom and Reason, control over language and belief has been a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell, a keen observer of authoritarianism, warned of the dangers of linguistic manipulation, where dissent becomes a crime and objective reality is sacrificed for ideological purity. He warned the world of the Thought Police. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, argued that the free exchange of ideas is essential precisely because no authority should have the power to dictate belief. There can be no commissar as no one is suited for the position. No man is God. Nor can any man speak for him. There can only be authoritarians who presume to be or speak for God.

Historical instantiations of authoritarianism are plentiful; National Socialism, the Soviet Union, and Communist China are the most notable, but they hardly exhaust the examples one may cite. Increasingly, nations of the West impose on the populace rules that compel speech. This is true also in the United States (otherwise, this essay would be about the United Kingdom or some other nation that polices speech and writing). This is a road that should never be traveled. When social cohesion is built upon enforced agreement rather than mutual respect, it ceases to be true cohesion and instead becomes a form of intellectual subjugation. It is therefore crucial to state, over and over, in no uncertain terms, that a free people will resist being dragged into the downward spiral of unfreedom. If they don’t, they are already unfree.

Therefore, the real tension is not between affirmation and bigotry or hostility, as is often framed, but between authoritarianism and freedom. A society that values liberty must defend not only the right to believe, but also the right to disbelieve and even to dissent. The moment disagreement is treated as an existential threat, free thought is sacrificed on the altar of ideological control. Affirmation must remain a choice; it cannot be required, not without establishing the authoritarian condition. Even under the demand of civility and kindness, we trade genuine freedom for the illusion of consensus when we demand conformity to the ideologies or others. It is, as I have argued, a form of bad faith. Agreement cannot be enforced by fear, intimidation, or sanction; it must be built on mutual respect. Those who stand outside gender ideology do not believe in its myths. Those who do believe the myths will have to tolerate the disbelief of those who don’t. I disbelieve.

I want to share an example of being wrong from my own life. My purpose is not just to illustrate how ideology can lead a person to a flawed understanding, but also to urge the public not to abandon the concept of equity in the justified backlash against DEI. This essay is inspired by a Facebook post that challenged those who oppose DEI to courageously reject each word in the acronym—diversity, equity, and inclusion—along with the purpose they convey. The post was intended to shame opponents of DEI, but it framed the issue disingenuously. The real task is not to accept or reject these words based on how they have been co-opted but to reclaim their proper meanings. In this essay, I focus on equity to illustrate the importance of clear and consistent definitions.

In the 1990s, while in graduate school, I was assigned to teach an introductory sociology course. While lecturing on inequality, I presented affirmative action as an effort to promote equity, which I defined as ensuring equality of opportunity. To illustrate this, I began with an analogy: wheelchair-bound children. I believed that by starting with a clear example of a physical barrier, I could then apply the concept to racial disparities. After all, who would object to accommodating wheelchair-bound children?

I explained that a teenager in a wheelchair needs a ramp to enter a school building. This accommodation does not guarantee academic success, but it does ensure that the student has access to the same educational opportunities as others. In my mind, this was a clear example of equity—removing a tangible barrier to opportunity.

A student interrupted, asking, “Are you saying black people are like crippled people?” To my ears, his question implied that he found the analogy offensive because he saw disability as an inherent deficiency in a judgmental way. My response was dismissive: “Is there something wrong with being disabled?”

Years later, I came to understand the deeper significance of his question. He was pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. While wheelchair ramps are an example of equity, affirmative action is not. The disadvantage faced by disabled individuals is partly because society is designed for those without physical impairments. A wheelchair ramp addresses an objective, verifiable need. Racial disparities, however, do not stem from inherent physical limitations but rather from complex social, historical, and economic factors. The causes of racial disparities are contested and difficult to isolate, making policies designed to address them inherently more subjective.

My inability to grasp this distinction at the time stemmed from ideological conditioning, which had redefined equity to justify group-based policies under the guise of justice. This is how ideology can constrain logical thinking, and why critical self-examination is necessary.

Equity, properly understood, focuses on removing tangible barriers to opportunity while allowing outcomes to be determined by individual effort and circumstances. The example of a wheelchair-bound child needing a ramp is appropriate—he is not guaranteed success, but he is given the same access as his peers. In contrast, affirmative action does not remove a concrete barrier; it selects individuals based on race, treating them as members of a collective rather than as individuals.

A more accurate analogy can be found in gender differences. There are clear physical distinctions between men and women that justify differential treatment in certain areas, such as sports. Women’s sports leagues exist because strict equality—forcing women to compete directly with men—would systematically exclude them from competition. Equity, in this context, requires separate leagues to ensure fair opportunity. This differs from racial affirmative action because it is based on an objective, measurable difference rather than an abstract social construct.

Similarly, economic disadvantage presents a tangible and measurable disparity. Poverty, regardless of race, creates barriers to opportunity. Poor individuals face limited access to quality education, healthcare, and economic mobility. A class-based approach to equity, which targets disadvantaged individuals irrespective of race, is more effective at reducing disparities and promoting fairness. In contrast, race-based policies assume uniform disadvantage within racial groups, ignoring the fact that economic circumstances vary widely among individuals of the same race. Addressing class-based barriers ensures that assistance goes to those who genuinely need it, rather than being distributed based on racial identity.

This distinction is crucial in the broader discussion of fairness and justice. Equity should be about removing clear obstacles to opportunity, not about enforcing proportional outcomes. Affirmative action, as it is commonly practiced, does not eliminate barriers—it creates a new form of discrimination by prioritizing racial identity over individual circumstances and merit.

DEI frameworks often distort the meaning of equity. They claim that equality means treating everyone the same, while equity involves ensuring equal outcomes. This redefinition is misleading. Properly understood, equity is a form of equality—it ensures equality of opportunity by accounting for real differences in circumstances. However, when equity is redefined to mean achieving uniform outcomes across groups, it ceases to be about fairness and becomes a tool for ideological work.

In practice, if equity is to be just, it cannot be based on ideological constructs and speculative social theories. It must be grounded in objective realities—physical, economic, and structural barriers that can be addressed without resorting to group-based discrimination. If we are to reclaim equity from ideological distortion, we must insist on applying it consistently and rationally, ensuring that it remains a tool for fairness rather than an instrument for enforcing ideological conformity.

The American Republic will be $52 trillion in debt by 2035. Interest on the debt will crowd out spending on programs that benefit the people. We will in the end bankrupt the nation. We have to stop Trump from exposing the swindle.

Knock from your head any virtuous notions or respect for law and tradition. The proper function of the executive of the federal government is not good stewardship of the taxpayer dollar but obedience to the plan, obedience of the sort displayed by Biden and Harris and the progressive rank-and-file. To be sure, they’re an embarrassment to watch, but we need demented and unintelligent stooges who fear and loathe the salt of the earth.

What’s the plan, you ask? It isn’t obvious? We shovel money into the ravenous maw of the transnational corporate elite until there’s no country left. I never said that was a bad thing. On the contrary, it’s a good thing. We will dress it in the flags of nations and glorify the international rule-based order. We will demand the free flow of capital and labor across the globe.

“Isn’t a country for the people?” the proles will predictably cry. Don’t laugh in their faces. But we must finally disabuse them of this silly notion that they actually have a country. They don’t. They’re serfs. They just don’t know it yet. And serfs must bend the knee to their betters. Smear the recalcitrant as fascists and racists. Discipline them for their obstinance. Mock them for their fidelity to family and country. On second thought, laugh in their faces.

MAGA is just a bump in the road. Keep your chins up. Take the long view. It may take a little longer, but we will get it done in the end. We have a world to win. After all, Michael Parenti was right. We have only ever wanted one thing: everything.

“Choose love” is a terrible slogan when the agenda requires perpetuating the perception that racism is a problem in America. We can’t have a positive slogan in the end zone. We must have a divisive slogan that alerts those who watch the NFL to the need to suggest that there are racists among them.

As for myself, I won’t watch the Super Bowl because the sport is corrupt, the championship game engineered. However, ideally, there should be no slogans. The NFL should not assign to itself the role of moral entrepreneur. But if any slogan is to appear, hats off to the programmers who decided to promote a positive one rather than one that recalls the mass hysteria of 2020, a moral panic that led to cities being wrecked, law enforcement being Fergusoned, and citizens being intimidated and, in numerous instances, injured and even murdered. The NFL played a major role in this.

But don’t fret, those who wish to keep alive the divisive message. Snoop Dog and Tom Brady have teamed up for a Super Bowl commercial to [hashtag] “Stand Up to All Hate.” I suppose they could have promoted the slogan “Choose love,” but since the NFL will paint that slogan in the end zones, that would be redundant. Here we get the yin and yang of the ideology. After all, we can’t assume that people know that love is good and hate is bad. (Is love always good? Is hate always bad? That’s another conversation.)

What is a “moral entrepreneur”? This is a term we use in sociology to refer to power actors who work to influence or create laws, policies, and social norms based on their moral values or beliefs. These entrepreneurs actively campaign for certain behaviors to be defined as acceptable or deviant, often with the goal of protecting what they consider the greater good of society, an endeavor that often involves manufacturing evil. The moral entrepreneur challenges existing norms and create new ones by pushing for change on issues like social justice. Moral entrepreneurs use their influence and resources—in a word power, derived from wealth—to shape public opinion and public policy, attempting to transform societal values in line with their agenda, which is dressed in the language of ethics and morality.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” —Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

I no longer live in the great state of Tennessee (my home state—perhaps I will one day return there), but I keep up with matters there, especially when they touch on matters of national concern. The Tennessean reported on Tuesday that “Tennessee Republicans file bill to allow public schools to reject undocumented children.” By “undocumented,” propagandists mean illegal aliens. In US law, the term alien has historically referred to any non-citizen (see 8 U.S. C. § 1101, 8 U.S.C. § 1365(b), etc.). Illegal broadly means not permitted by law, and it applies to both civil and criminal violations. Those who are here illegally are therefore illegal aliens. If they or their parents crossed the border illegally, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325 or § 1326), their presence here constitutes a criminal offense. If they overstay their visas, it’s a civil penalty. That said, here’s what I think is important to consider in this case.

If and when a school denies enrollment to illegal aliens (the legislation leaves that determination up the district), it is sure to be challenged by enterprising attorneys and advocates for illegal aliens and thus trigger judicial review. Nothing is ever really or inherently unconstitutional from the standpoint of stare decisis, the legal principle that courts follow precedent but are at the same time permitted to overrule precedent and trigger judicial review. This is because either the precedent was poorly decided (based on flawed reasoning or an incorrect interpretation of the law), the legal landscape has shifted (over time, changes in societal values, technological advancements, or other factors might make past rulings no longer relevant or just), or the law evolves (courts may find that constitutional interpretations, evolving understandings of rights, or new legal theories warrant a departure from established precedent. In other words, the law is never really settled, as everybody recently found out with Dobbs, which ended the 1973 precedent established in Roe v Wade concerning abortion rights. Indeed, this is likely the point of the legislation, to attempt to overturn the precedent in question, Plyler v. Doe (1982).

This is not a bad thing. Legislatures have the power, I will assert the obligation, to trigger judicial review because, as the representatives of the people, their duty is to express the popular will, with due respect to the individual, and this must presume that the people are not weighed down by past political attitudes or shackled to moribund manifestations of law. The judiciary’s role in a constitutional republic eschewing the tyranny of majoritarianism is to work from law and principle to determine whether the interpretations of the law are valid, as well as whether majority desire conflicts with the liberties and rights of individuals, and hence on which side the law and those who administer it must come down.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that no government can make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens. This is one of those instances where the plain text of the clause leaves little to no wiggle room for judges. Whether an illegal alien has the same privileges and immunities is a more open question, albeit the term jurisdiction tells us something about the status of persons to which the article refers. Given that those here illegally can be deported (and even naturalized citizens under certain conditions), whereas native-born citizens cannot, it’s not safe to assume that illegal aliens are entitled to the things citizens are. Indeed, any honest reading the article tells you that they are not. Just as the man who breaks into your house is not entitled to your stereo system, the man who breaks into your country is not entitled to the things your tax dollars buy. And that’s the way it’s supposed to be in a representative system where the citizen is sovereign. If anybody from anywhere can exploit public resources, then the citizen has no country.

On the question is whether the precedent established in Plyler v. Doe will stand or fall, whatever one thinks of the matter, one must keep in mind that the Supreme Court in 1982 had a different composition than the Supreme Court in 2025. Most of the court’s justices then were appointed during the 1960s-70s progressive era. Even moderately conservative justices, for instances Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, evolved into left-leaning judges on the bench. I don’t see a lot of evolving on the bench today—and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. To be sure, it depends on where the observer stands. I trust where I stand is clear enough.

The almost certain judicial review provoked by Tennessee’s actions—if enacted and contested guaranteeing it—will land the question finally in the lap of the Supreme Court, and given the Court’s present-day composition, it is probable that Plyler v. Doe will not survive. It will likely go the way of Roe v Wade (1973), Chevron (1984), and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), precedents established during the progressive era of the Court. If overturned, it will make life difficult for those who are in the country illegally, which will in turn disincentivize the desire of those who wish to illegally enter our country or overstay their welcome to exploit resources meant for citizens. If the Court also overturns US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that all persons born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status, are to granted citizenship, then the Court can make it even less desirable to enter or stay in our country (you can read my essay on that matter here: “Blatantly Unconstitutional”? Ending Birthright Citizenship for Illegal and Certain Other Aliens).

The movement to reclaim America for Americans is a noble one, one patriots hope the Supreme Court will affirm in its pending sessions.

So the problem, as I am coming to understand it, is that Elon Musk is really only interested in obtaining private information on citizens in order to turn these over to the dark web to associates and like-minded bad actors can use these data to hack into bank accounts and steal identities. This is Musk’s motivation for taking over the agencies and departments of the federal government. That’s what I hear. Elon Musk is taking over the government.

Is that what people think is going on here? That the chief executive, Donald Trump, has no business determining what the agencies and departments under his authority are doing and the money they are spending and that he has no authority to determine the composition of the team that will determine this? What kind of chief executive has no fiduciary responsibility to his constituents? Isn’t that one of the most important functions of a chief executive?

Apparently not if it’s Donald Trump. Special case. Obviously. Trump has to be stopped from the doing the job he was elected by the majority of the nation to do. The people shouldn’t know how the government spends their money and what it spends it on.

But to get serious for a moment, on the information gathering front, I suggest that folks might consider the fact that the corporate state, in its vast array of agencies and departments, has been collecting data on all of them for decades.

Where is the flipping out over the National Security Agency (NSA)? Have folks not heard of SIGINT? No? It gathers information by monitoring a myriad of communications—emails, internet activity, phone calls—to establish “total situational awareness,” ostensibly for national security purposes. It’s a giant broom that sweeps up all your data.

Under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSA collected (past tense?) bulk phone metadata (who called whom, when, and for how long) from US telecom providers. We know this because Edward Snowden, who Democrat Senators recently called a “traitor,” blew the whistle on the practice in 2013. Now the government says it isn’t doing this anymore. Unless it needs to.

Trump didn’t do that. That program was established by the man who crudely paints, needs help putting on a raincoat, and gets hugs from Michelle Obama. Still, as adorable as he is, given the vast amount of data the NSA collects, the agency’s surveillance practices and the significant threat these pose to privacy, those concerned about matters of privacy might put the NSA on their list. Maybe gather in the streets with signs and slogans and demand the government take down that agency and its programs. Maybe get a Democrat delegation to march on the NSA headquarters and demand to speak to the administrative assistant at the welcome desk.

If they’re serious about privacy, of course.

Did readers know that government agencies, businesses, medical facilities, and educational institutions routinely require your Social Security number (SSN) for identification and record-keeping? The Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) use SSNs to manage their records. The SSA assigns and manages SSNs for tracking earnings and benefits. The IRS requires SSNs for tax reporting and processing. Other government agencies—Medicare, state DMVs, welfare programs—use SSNs for identification and benefits administration. Financial institutions (banks, credit bureaus, lenders) use SSNs to verify identity and credit history. Medical facilities use SSNs for insurance and billing purposes. Educational institutions use SSNs for financial aid and student records.

Then there are Employer Identification Numbers (EINs). Corporations, LLCs, partnerships, non-profits, estates, and trusts rely on EINs for tracking financial, tax, and legal matters, similar to how SSNs are used for individuals. Your identification is strew across the United States, likely across the world. This is because, without proper identification numbers, essential functions like banking, healthcare, legal transactions, taxation, etc., would become inefficient or chaotic. The Executive has access to these data, by the way. Now Elon Musk does.

Did readers know that Franklin Roosevelt implemented audits of government agencies and financial oversight as part of the New Deal to ensure federal programs were running efficiently? He didn’t do this himself, of course. He used teams of auditors. In 1939, he created the Bureau of the Budget, now part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to provide financial oversight. His administration also strengthened the General Accounting Office (GAO) to audit federal spending. There were no lawsuits filed to attempt to stop him. Not that I know of anyway.

Among the departments Roosevelt closely examined was the US Treasury. He audited the Treasury to determine its finances. That’s because Roosevelt, as President, was the chief executive, and the Treasury Department is under his authority. Because Roosevelt implemented large-scale government spending programs, he closely monitored Treasury finances to fund relief, recovery, and reform efforts. He worked with Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. to determine finances. See, like Trump, Roosevelt was a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility. (See what else Roosevelt did here: Bold Executive Action: A Historical Note.)

But then Trump doesn’t really care about fiscal responsibility. He only cares about letting crackerjacks like Big Balls see your personal data for nefarious reasons.

Now Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has the Jerusalem Cross tattooed on this chest, said yesterday that he is committed to getting the Pentagon to pass a clean audit within four years. The Defense Department has failed several audits in a row. Pete is messing with the DoD’s record. Unfair.

Could it get any worse? Yep. Forbes is reporting that DOGE’s Gavin Kliger (not Big Balls) posted a “problematic” social media post in which he called Hillary Clinton “retarded.”

Let’s call off the Trump presidency. This is unbearable.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I have written extensively on Freedom and Reason on matters of religious liberty and freedom of speech. In this essay, I focus on the Free Press Clause considering revelations that various government agencies in the executive branch of the federal government have been subsiding partisan media. 

Just as Elon Musk performed a great service to the nation by releasing of the Twitter Files—internal company documents discovered after taking ownership of the platform, now X, revealing government influence in the manipulation of information—in the employ of President Donald Trump, the man has drawn the nation’s attention to another very serious problem in the realm of mass media: the government subsidizing partisan press outlets, such as Politico. Government subsidies to the media present the same problem identified in the Establishment Clause—to wit, the government cannot endorse, favor, or fund any religion. This principle is meant to prevent government entanglement in religious affairs. Likewise, press freedom requires independence from government influence to avoid conflicts of interest and undue state control of information and opinion.

The Twitter Files signaled the problem of undue state control, exposing biased content moderation at a major social media platform. Especially troubling in the Twitter case (and this is true also of Facebook and other social media platforms) was the level of direct government intervention. The files revealed coordination between Twitter executives and government agencies on issues like COVID-19 and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, as well as progressives agenda such as antiracism and gender ideology. Musk framed the disclosures as a victory for transparency and free speech, and he was right about that. Critics point to Musk’s own influence over platform policies that raised questions about his commitment to neutrality. But this is a commitment attributed to him and an impossible ideal to achieve, nor is it desirable. Neutrality isn’t the issue. Independence is.   

Neutrality in media has always been a myth. Speech has content. The goal is diversity of content, not an impossible standard. One cannot imagine neutral content because neutrality is unobtainable. Any content claiming to be neutral could only be propaganda wrapping around itself such rhetoric. A free press is about something else: freedom from the government and an open system permitting viewpoint diversity. If we were to appeal to any sort of neutrality at all, it could only be a euphemism for the situation secured by the firewall between government and the press. Just as state-sponsored religion undermines religious independence, state-funded media compromises journalistic independence. In both cases, financial dependence on the government creates a conflict of interest, making it harder for institutions to remain in any sense autonomous and free to serve their respective audiences.

This is the heart of the problem with the government funding media organizations, whether the outlet is national or local. Yes, that means that media without sufficient income from non-government sources risk failure, but this is not a reason for the government to subsidize the media. The Free Press Clause serves to protect the freedom of the press from government interference, and that precludes government subsidies even at the risk of failure in the market. The clause is there to ensure that journalists and media organizations can operate independently, publish information, and, crucially, report on government actions without fear of censorship, suppression, or retaliation. Whatever the inherent problems of the media in a capitalist society, this protection is essential for maintaining an informed public, holding those in power accountable, and fostering open debate in a democratic society. 

We call the media the Fourth Estate to underscore its role as an independent check on power. As such, it sits alongside the other three branches (or estates) of government—the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The free press functions as an external and unofficial watchdog, ensuring transparency, exposing corruption, and fostering considered debate—whatever party is in power, whatever ideology is in vogue. A free press is therefore an essential pillar of democracy, responsible for holding those in power accountable and informing the public. 

In decrying the cutting of funding to media organization, selective or generally, progressives are defending another estate, the Administrative State (and the technocratic apparatus), an unelected and unaccountable estate operating inside the Executive, a vast army of federal bureaucrats comprising a permanent Washington establishment, with all the interests bound up in it: the Pharmaceutical-Medical Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. This establishment, captured by corporate power and progressive ideology—this is who is subsidizing the partisan media to manipulate public opinion into supporting the narrow corporate interests and goals of the transnational corporate class. The same forces that corrupted social media, have long corrupted the traditional media. 

When the role of the Fourth Estate is compromised by financial dependence on the government, it comes under the sway of the very power it is meant to scrutinize. To be sure, existing in a corporate capitalist environment, it is already compromised by the interests of the social classes it serves. But, again, these interests do not speak with one voice. The problem of corporate power is thus amplified when channeled through the administrative state, which can then be used to advance the agenda of the most powerful actors. The joining of a government subservient to corporate interests functions to concentrate and focus those interests. As Karl Marx famously noted in the Communist Manifesto, “the state is the executive committee of the whole bourgeoisie.” By that he meant that the state serves the interests of the capitalist class rather than the general population. The state—through its institutions and laws functions to maintain the economic power of the bourgeoisie, protecting their property and interests. Even in democratic societies, the state is not neutral but rather exists as a tool of the wealthy and a system of inequalities. Government funding of the press on worsens the situation: the state, already organized to manifest the interests of the bourgeoisie in law and policy, makes the nominally free press even more of an instrument of corporate power, undermining its role as an independent check on authority. To be sure, this role is an ideal, but when under the employ of the government, the ideal has no chance of serving its purpose. 

This is why press freedom and independence—whether from government control or corporate interests, albeit not fully obtainable in the latter because of the fact of the capitalist mode of production—are fundamental to its function as the Fourth Estate. Just as we have the separation of church and state, we must have the separation of the press and state; the only way to dilute corporate power is with media diversity, and that can only be achieved, if only by degrees, by keeping separate the executive committee and the free press. By guaranteeing freedom of the press, the First Amendment helps prevent government overreach, allows for investigative journalism, and enables the dissemination of diverse viewpoints, functions fundamental to any sort of democracy. Despite corporate power, systems are complex, and democracy, liberties, and rights remain present. We erase their presence when the corporate state controls the press. At that point, it becomes only propaganda. 

Even if government funding of the press is structured to be at arm’s length—i.e., through public media organizations like NPR, PBS, or the BBC (the US government also gave money to the BBC)—there remains the risk that government officials will use financial leverage to shape coverage overtly or subtly. This can manifest in direct interference (e.g., pressuring editors and journalists) or indirect self-censorship, where journalists avoid reporting too aggressively on government failures for funding restrictions. If a society is to achieve total separation of press and state, then the practice of state-run media must also be abolished. 

Even if a publicly funded outlet operates with integrity, itself a problematic claim, there’s a public perception problem. Critics can claim it is biased in favor of the government and thereby undermine trust (in any case, trust must be earned, not conferred). To be sure, commercial media—while independent of government—faces pressures from corporate advertisers and interests, which introduces its own set of biases. Indeed, in many cases, the press is itself a mouthpiece for the corporation. But since the free press in a capitalist society is also a business enterprise, one dependent on advertisers and customers and shaped by market dynamics, there can in the end be no firewall between the press and corporate power. Nowhere in the First Amendment will one find language suggesting there should be. The First Amendment deals with the power of government. It separates the government from religion, speech, and the press. These firewalls are obtainable in the democratic sphere.

A common misconception, particularly among those unfamiliar with Marx’s critique of the state and capitalism, is that government power acts as a counterbalance to corporate power. In fact, they are intertwined. Many people view public or government-funded media as an antidote to the influence of privately owned corporate media, assuming that the former serves a democratic function by providing unbiased information in opposition to the interests of big business. However, Marx argued that the state is not a neutral actor standing apart from the influence of capitalism; rather, it functions as the executive committee of the capitalist class. This means that the state—through its laws, institutions, and financial systems—ultimately serves the interests of the capitalist elite, even when it appears to be acting on behalf of the public.

When government funding supports media outlets, it reinforces this relationship, as media organizations become financially dependent on the state, thus compromising their independence. In this context, whether media is privately owned or government-subsidized or is itself a public entity, the end result is the same: both are shaped by the broader capitalist system and the interests of those in power. This creates an illusion of democratic oversight, where government is perceived as a check on corporate power, when in fact both are interlinked in sustaining the capitalist order. By obscuring this connection, the distinction between public and private media appears more significant than it truly is, thus masking the deeper, undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of the corporate state.

It should be obvious to readers that a truly free press must be both editorially and financially independent of the government, for it cannot be the one without the other. As I have argued, ad I want to emphasize this point, this goes for the rebuttal that government funding can be useful in supporting public interest journalism, particularly in areas underserved by the market. One might propose strict safeguards to emplace to prevent political influence from corrupting the mission of the press, but this is unworkable in practice. In the end, the very institution meant to check power becomes compromised by it. This is under the control of the people. The people elected Donald Trump to check the undue power of corporate media and the administrative state that serves its interests, to check the progressive agenda and the project of big intrusive government which it by and large opposes. They elected Trump to rein in the bureaucracy and technocratic control. And they elected him knowing that Elon Musk would be appointed to carry out their desire. 

The rise of new media—digital journalism, social media, and independent content creators—has transformed how information is produced and consumed. Unlike traditional media, which operates through established institutions with at least ostensive editorial oversight, new media allows for decentralized and immediate dissemination of news, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. Social media platforms enable anyone to share news, shaping public discourse in real time. The desire of elites to continue traditional media, captured by corporate state power, is manifest in their desire to save traditional media from demise.

Legacy media is how the corporate state established and perpetuated the hegemonic power of the oligarchy. The oligarchy thus suffered a massive blow to its power when Musk reformed Twitter, with other social media platforms following suit. The power elite is now frantically trying to keep alive the legacy media; its needs a bulwark against the rise of citizen journalism. But the free press project is about citizen journalism. That is the purpose of the Fourth Estate. The democratization of information has expanded access to diverse perspectives and that terrifies the oligarchy. They need the legacy media, and the assistance of government, to tell the public that the new media is problematic. They depict algorithm biases, echo chambers, misinformation, etc., which, to be sure, are problems, as threats to democracy, while defending the threat to democracy posed by government-funding of legacy media. They are themselves fighting to keep alive bias, echo chambers, and misinformation. 

To be sure, the new media platforms are owned by private corporations, and because of this they hold immense power over public discourse; the concerns about censorship, political influence, and corporate control over what information is amplified or suppressed is warranted. This evolution in media complicates the traditional notion of press freedom, as the watchdog role of journalism is now entangled with tech companies, user-generated content, and government pressures to regulate digital spaces. But that is why the presence of Elon Musk on the media landscape, and Donald Trump on the political one, are such significant developments. Thanks to the populist-nationalist movement, the people are now able to reclaim their democracy, and vital to reclamation is sharply limiting corporate state power in matters of the Fourth Estate. It will be by raising up the democratic attributes in a civilization rooted in democratic republican values and liberal principles that we can, at least to a substantial degree, counteract the problem Marx identified in his writings. At the very least, by restoring the free market, we can make our capitalist system more democratic and responsive to the popular will.

After Musk obtained Twitter, he didn’t keep the corporate-government collusion he discovered going. He exposed it. He showed America how the administrative state directed Twitter to lie to Americans about the origins of the weaponized coronavirus and the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. He ended the practice of censoring and deplatforming users for correcting the falsehood that men can be women. The Twitter Files told us why the company kicked the President of the United States off the platform—and a myriad of other authoritarian actions. The revelations told us that what we had been told was “conspiracy theory” was instead pattern recognition.

Now, thanks to the installation of DOGE in the Executive, Musk has scaled up the project to expose corporate-government collusion to disseminate ideology detrimental to truth and normality (Victims of Their Own Design: DOGE and Progressive Panic). Elon’s “goon squad” is showing the world what I have known for years, that the corporate media is a propaganda organ of the project of managed decline of the American Republic and to advance the transnationalization of corporate power. Musk knows that if the light of America goes out, then the world loses the greatest beacon for freedom it has ever known. Trump knows this, too. The cavalry has arrived and progressives are in full meltdown over it.

Last night on Facebook, I posted that elites are terrified at the prospect of their schemes seeing the light of day and the public understanding how the system works. I wasn’t speculating. You might have wondered why the mainstream media is so drenched in gender ideology, globalism, identity politics, and open borders. Why it’s so anti-American and anti-family. Now you know. It’s because, in part, the administrative state, long ago captured by progressives, gives pipers like Politico millions of tax dollars to play their tune.

When Trump called the apparatus “fake news” establishment pundits said he was undermining the legitimacy of the Fourth Estate. No, the Fourth Estate delegitimized itself. It is likely that it was never legitimate. Trump hit the nail on the head, and he wanted to make sure Americans know this because, as an outsider to establishment power, but one who had as a celebrity been allowed to see the apparatus from the inside, he knew how and why the power elite works the levers of mass consciousness and would undermine the populist-nationalist movement—the movement to reclaim and restore the American Republic, to wake us from a long national nightmare.

Opposing the practice of government agencies using our tax dollars to fund the propaganda that undermines our families and our nation for the sake of the transnationalist agenda, that portrays white working class Americans as oppressors, and casts the West and normality as the root cause of the world’s problems is a natural reaction, but people can only fully have their natural reactions if they know what’s going on. The power elites have had us paying for our own demise and progressives are desperate to keep that fact from the public. They know that it’s only going to get uglier the more rocks Musk turns over.

The corporate state has now moved aggressively to thwart the awakening. In a late Wednesday filing, Justice Department lawyers agreed to a proposed order that would largely prevent the Treasury Department from sharing sensitive financial data with DOGE. Under the agreement, two individuals linked to Musk, employed by the Treasury Department, will retain access to sensitive information, but on a “read-only” basis. If approved by the district judge overseeing the case, the agreement will remain in effect until February 24, when both sides will return to court to argue over a longer-term preliminary injunction. Earlier, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had issued an ultimatum following arguments over DOGE’s access to sensitive Treasury records: either the DOJ and the federal unions that filed the lawsuit agree to a temporary injunction blocking DOGE’s access, or the court would reconvene on Friday to determine whether to issue a temporary restraining order.

In a rear-guard action, exploiting panel rules to delay the vote, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee postponed its consideration of Kash Patel’s nomination to lead the FBI until next week. Patel’s nomination was on the committee’s agenda today. Democrats exercised their right to request a one-time, one-week delay. A similar move was made last month regarding Attorney General Pam Bondi’s nomination. Democrats stall nominees for time to build faux-popular resistance to the confirmation process. Don’t fret too much. Patel is expected to receive a committee vote from Republicans next Thursday, as well as the floor vote. But don’t take anything for granted. Here’s how to contact your Senators: Contacting U.S. Senators.

My social media feeds—especially Facebook and X—are nonstop pandemonium from freaked out rank-and-file progressives who sit at the terminal watching their hegemony fracturing. No doubt they are buoyed by the lawfare action—there are many more to come—by federal bureaucrat to retain their power. I get why losing their power must feel like an existential crisis. Technocrats depend on keeping democracy at bay. It’s not just that their power is evaporating; their entire worldview is being shattered by the truth. They have no real legitimacy—and without legitimacy, authority is exposed as naked power. However, even if progressives retake that power, tens of millions of more Americans now know what going on. The people see the plans progressives have for America. They see that the populists and their leaders have been right all along They now see that the plans of the power elite will end the republic they love.

The Trump administration cannot allow lawfare to stymy their work. I suspect the concession is strategic. I hope it is, because they need to find all the pools of money scattered across the agencies they’ve secretly used to fund the propaganda apparatus. They must defund that apparatus and deconstruct the administrative state and dismantle the technocracy. While they’re at it, cut loose NPR and PBS. No more state-run media. That’s just to beginning. They have to go after the Department of Education and the other agencies and departments that are scrambling the public mind. They need to make this the beginning of the end of the corporate state. Trump only has four years. The blitzkrieg is necessary. Contact the White House and tell them to not let up. Not that I think they will, but President Trump needs to know that the nation is behind the project to make America great again.

“For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.” —Matthew 13:17

I want to tell you a story that gets to the heart of why so much organized energy is devoted to silencing certain views at universities across the West.

Once upon a time, there was an emperor who loved new clothes more than anything. He spent all his money on fine garments and enjoyed parading through the city to show off his latest outfits. One day, two swindlers arrived at the palace claiming to be master weavers who could make the most magnificent fabric in the world. Their cloth, they said, had a magical property: it would be invisible to anyone who was unfit for their position or hopelessly stupid. Intrigued by this promise, the emperor ordered them to weave a set of clothes for him. 

The swindlers set up looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on them. Ministers and officials, sent to inspect the work, saw nothing but, fearing they would be thought unfit or foolish, they praised the fabric’s nonexistent beauty. When the suit was “finished,” the swindlers presented it to the emperor. Although he saw nothing, he too pretended to admire it, not wanting to appear unworthy. He put on the invisible garments and went out to parade before his subjects. 

The townspeople, not wanting to seem stupid, pretended to admire his fine clothes. But a small child in the crowd spoke up: “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” At first, the crowd was silent, but soon they began whispering and laughing, realizing the truth. “But he has nothing at all on!” at last they cried out. The emperor was upset, for he knew that the people were right. But, though embarrassed, he continued walking proudly, unwilling to admit his nakedness.

Obviously, this is not an original story. You knew that already. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is a classic fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen. The typical interpretation of Andersen’s tale is that it highlights the dangers of the power of social pressure, pride, and vanity. It’s a parable that reflects real-life situations where people go along with falsehoods to avoid looking bigoted, foolish, and mean—because they know that is how they will be portrayed if they don’t. It also teaches that truth, even when spoken by a child, has the power to break illusions. 

All these are indeed among the lessons of the parable, but I see something else in Andersen’s tale: the importance of mutual knowledge. Until the kid speaks up, everybody knows that the emperor is naked, but they don’t know that everybody else knows that the emperor is naked. The small child has not yet been socialized in civil inattention—or indoctrinated to withhold truths offensive to the emperor (this is why totalitarian desires command of early childhood education). That a child sees what a man sees gives the man confidence to publicly acknowledge the truth of what everybody sees: the emperor is naked.

Andersen’s parable applies to our universities under the hegemony of woke progressivism. Being called to account these days in public universities occurs when one’s pronouncements contradict the prevailing ideology. The demand that professors uphold a particular ideology by professing it, or at least by not openly criticizing it, is to deny the presence of a naked emperor; only by preventing mutual knowledge around the truth of things can fictions be sustained. When myths fall, actions lose their cloak of justice. The righteous become a mob.

Perpetuating fiction is what lies behind the demand, albeit often subtle, that professors engage in newspeak, Orwell’s term for a neurolinguistic project to change cognition. Manufacturing an illusion takes a great deal of effort, but illusions are always fragile, because they are just that: illusions. Therefore rule-following is crucial and the targeting of those who do not follow the rules necessary.

But whose rules? The rules humans have operated by for millennia? The rules that come with instinct? Rules based on reality and reason? Or the rules of a new minority demanding conformity to its ideology in order to sustain necessary illusions? In the case of new rules, it is particularly helpful to those wishing to impose them on others that the institutions and organizations in which they move demand that everybody follow them. It is moreover understandable that those who call the new rules into question make those who require them to feel unsafe.

Whether they think the new rules are good, every professor and student who reads this essay knows the rules and the pressure to follow them. Trepidation at violating them is palpable. The earnest professor who slips up and violates a rule feels terrible guilt and apologizes a second time after a sleepless night. Professors and graduate students talk about the tyranny of the rules in hushed voices at academic conferences. They’re talking about the emperor and they don’t want the emperor to overhear.

This is a bad place for the Enlightenment project. Open and free spaces are unsafe because they allow the truth to be spoken aloud and for mutual knowledge to be formed. They should therefore be unsafe in the sense rendered here. If we make them safe in that sense, we cancel the project. For if we are forced to appreciate the emperor’s new clothes when there are none (or even when the emperor is fully dressed, for that matter), then we live in an unfree society—at least not as free as we should have it. We must therefore secure those spaces with a different sense of safety.

Freedom requires more than reminding people about the right to free speech and the value of academic freedom. A man often needs to feel free to tell the truth. To be sure, that free feeling is only potentially obtainable when he is not told what to say or punished for saying what he is told not to. But some men need beyond reassurance that they may safely speak their mind encouragement to say the things that others wish they wouldn’t in an environment free of retribution. Finding that free feeling requires the active promotion by those in authority of the values that are central to the Enlightenment project, chief among them critique of all things existing.

Maybe a man will never find his courage. But other men will. Courage is contagious. And this is why so much organized energy is devoted to silencing certain views at universities across the West.