<p>Josh,</p>
<p>I'm able to write for and put my name on the Review because it's the courageous thing to do. I concede that sometimes in the pursuit of a better world, dirty tactics have to be used. However, I will not stand by and allow the system that, though not without flaws, is ultimately capable of making a near-perfect world be eroded from the inside. I sincerely believe that a capitalist liberal democratic society that adheres to the classical Western tradition of liberty ultimately has the potential within it to fix all of the problems the world faces today. I am committed to defending that system and thereby defending the potential for progress and a better future.</p>
<p>I am convinced that my thoughts, words, and actions are not only incredibly good, but also undeniably just. This includes, but is not limited to, my advocacy for the Review. This is not to say that I am so arrogant as to suggest that I think every individual action I and the Review take is ethical, nor is it to suggest that I believe that I am infallible. What I'm saying is that I believe that our fight against anti-liberal, anti-capitalist, and anti-Western forces is both a pure and ethical struggle; it is very regrettable, in my mind, that sometimes we have to stoop to using the base, crude tactics often employed by our enemies. I want to emphasize that I really do feel regret for some of the things that have to be done when considered in isolation; however, when I weigh the negative consequences of these actions against the positive outgrowths that result, I'm content. A prime example is the recent cover of the Review. While it is undeniable in my mind that what we did was an offensive shock tactic, the result was positive. The Review baited several of the groups that it is critical of into organizing and protesting free speech: there were a group of protestors on the green doing the equivalent of burning books and calling for the blood of the royal family. They staged a Stalinist mock trial in order to extract a false confession to all manner of wrongdoings. I cannot say how happy I am, though, that the Review refused to recant. You've already made it your Emmanuel Goldstein; it will never, however, be your Winston Smith - we are not the dead.</p>
<p>In the end, like it or not, the Review won. The arguments that have been made by the paper about the disproportionate amount of power and consideration that is granted to vocal minority groups came to life that day when a mob assembled outside of Dartmouth Hall to call for an end to not only free speech, but free thought. The result was that those who were either moderates or previously politically apathetic were disgusted by what they saw and were forced to acknowledge that the Review was right after all. It wasn't just a bunch of conservatives sitting around bi tching. There might actually be a rollback of the foundations Western civil society in favor of pandering to every "disenfranchised" group; it might actually be time to stand up and speak out against that trend.</p>
<p>In an ideal world, I would be able to agitate for change while taking only the purest of ethical actions. However, the price that people like you and I pay for rejecting political apathy is that we're forced to get our hands dirty. In this way, I can both understand and empathize with why the NADs and other groups argued during the protest that those who write for the Review should be penalized for their actions. I'd like to think that you're not actually against free speech, just as I hope you realize that I'm not a racist. I'm a person of color myself and have been subjected to prejudice and bigotry as a result. However, I sincerely believe that my vision of the world has a better shot at fixing those problems than yours does.</p>
<p>I think that political efficacy and awareness confers a large amount of responsibility upon those who possess it. Think of it this way: everyone can agree that killing is wrong, but some people have to be soldiers who go out and do the fighting. Without them, the rest of us would have nothing. In a similar way, I think that 100% purity of conscience is a luxury of the meek and ignorant; I am neither. There are things that need to be done, written, and said that are not pretty. However, if I don't do it, who will? I do these things in the name of progress, and in the name of a better society for everyone. I think that being intimidated and beaten into submission in the face of resistance and criticism, as some Reviewers did in the wake of the protest, is cowardly. It's times like these that separate the true believers from the fairweather activists. I am neither a coward nor have I ever been afraid of a little bit of rain and thunder. The whole point of having genuine beliefs, and not simply being an opportunist, is that you always fight for what you believe in, not just it's when convenient.</p>
<p>I realize that all of this makes me sound like a really radical idealist conservative, and I'd say that's probably a fair characterization of me. I see myself as a defender of the West. I see myself as part of the vanguard against shortsightedness and the easy way out. I refuse to allow yet another well-intentioned, ill-fated idea add another cinderblock in American society's road to hell. I write for The Dartmouth Review because I'm convinced that it's the right thing to do.</p>