Caution: To paraphrase Orwell, some things are true, even though the Internet says they are true.
Caution: To paraphrase Orwell, some things are true, even though the Internet says they are true.
Sam Harris and Milo Yiannopoulos are well-known on Youtube defending freedom of speech against social justice warriors. But on one issue, they get a bit “SJW” themselves. That’s the holocaust.
Normally, Harris, an American, defends freedom of speech on principle. But in the case of laws against “holocaust denial”, in an interview with Dave Rubin, he argues more pragmatically: “I think the holocaust denial laws in Europe are absurd and counterproductive“.
Pragmatic and principled positions are incompatible, even when they’re the same. You have to ask yourself “were they different, which would I defend, the principled or the pragmatic position?”
Gay gadfly Milo Yiannopoulos responds to the question of “holocaust denial” in a more defensive fashion. In the middle of a valuable eight-hour “Tubeathon” to support Gregory Allen Elliot, a Canadian victim of anti-free-speech laws, he lets this out, in response to another participant complaining about Canada’s holocaust denial law:
I mean normally I would be relatively unsympathetic to people asking questions, sort of questioning the holocaust, so unpack that for us, ‘cos I know that’s not quite what you mean… I think we can all agree that this is somewhere the state should… the proper mechanism for that is social censure…
A review of Alice Dreger’s “Galileo’s Middle Finger” (Penguin, March 2015)
Alice Dreger would not approve of my proposed subtitle for her book: “One woman’s journey from feminism to reason”. The reason is, she hasn’t completed that journey yet. But her book reveals, even in its mistakes, how far she has traveled.
First, terminology. By “Feminism” I mean the latest incarnation of what used to be a campaign for equality for women and girls.
By “Social Justice”, I mean the aim of the modern left, with its Oppression Olympics, its hierarchies of “privilege”, and its hostility to freedom of speech. It includes feminists and gays supporting Muslims disrupting a talk, and academics being forced to resign because of their views on Halloween costumes.
More seriously, it contains a social work department which, when told by a whistle-blower that most of the child-molesters in the Rotherham area are of Pakistani descent, sent her on a diversity course, threatened her with being fired, and told her “never, ever” to mention it again: Rotherham Whistleblower ‘Sent On Diversity Training For Saying Most Abusers Were Asian’, Huffington Post, September 2nd, 2014.
The people who enable this kind of thing are called “social justice warriors”, or SJWs.
Alice Dreger writes in a racy, populist, humorous style, not fearing to boldly split infinitives. I was reading another critique of Social Justice called “The Closing of the Liberal Mind” by Kim Holmes, but I abandoned this turgid tome for Dreger’s, which I read from cover to cover without stopping.
Her early work was on “intersex” individuals. In a nutshell, she campaigned against the medical tradition of surgery on babies whose sex organs were a combination of male and female. There are many of these combinations, and most of us have never heard of them.
Because she challenged a medical establishment which tried to force intersex individuals into binary male and female identities, she became part of the LGBT movement. This influence shows throughout the book. She liberally uses words from the SJW dictionary, such as “privilege”, “heterosexism” etc., which imply the narrative of victimology.
But she constantly undermines this narrative, with stories of white male academics suffering unconscionable attacks on their careers and their sanity from self-righteous SJWs. She has also suffered slanders from the hate-groups of the left. She describes all of this in painstaking, documented detail.
She relates several stories of the SJW assault on science and reason, but the main one, the one in which she is most invested, is the attempt by SJWs to destroy the careers of two scientists, Ray Blanchard and Michael Bailey, who research various forms of transgenderism – the desire for one’s body to be the opposite sex to the one it actually is.
The Social Justice persecutors of Blanchard and Bailey exhibited the symptoms of the variant of transexuality they described, and they wished to deny – a classic case of “SJWs Always Project” (the third rule of Social Justice, Vox Day: SJWs Always Lie, Castalia House, October 13th, 2015).
This variant is called “amour de soi en femme”, or “autogynephilia”. Are you a man who is turned on by imagining yourself as a woman? You got it. The SJWs didn’t like hearing about this because they wanted to stick to the simple argument that transexuality is simply a case of a person being born in the “wrong” body. This might be more socially acceptable than autogynephilia, so they wanted to suppress information about this condition.
The tactics of the SJWs included falsely claiming Michael Bailey had sex with a research subject, publishing pictures of his children, and claiming he’d had sex with them too. They managed to turn some of his research subjects against him, persuading them to lie that he’d “outed” them. Dreger proves this.
These SJWs know Search Engine Optimisation. I googled “autogynephilia”, and the top result was the claim that the condition “is a sex-fueled mental illness made up by Ray Blanchard”. But the second result is the Wikipedia page, and, surprisingly, it’s even-handed in its description of the controversy. It is possible to use the internet to fight back.
As Dreger says, if you google “prenatal dexamethasone for cah”, her paper explaining what she thinks is wrong with it comes up first. Her main opponents on this issue are an octogenarian doctor and her bureaucrats, rather than internet-savvy SJWs.
But the author does outline many problems which the internet has enabled. The ability of activists to manipulate public opinion on a large scale overnight is one. The weakening of serious print journalism, because there’s no money in it, is another.
She admits she’d never have imagined, as a p.c. feminist, she’d go to a meeting of Evolutionary Psychologists. But her search for truth leads her to just such a meeting, with scientists trying to use Darwin’s theory to understand people.
Dreger describes an interview with Darwinian anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who was slandered by an SJW called Patrick Tierney, who claimed Chagnon and his colleague James Neel had caused an epidemic of measles in the Amazon as part of their research, which Tierney claims was based on racialist pseudo-eugenics. I can confirm Dreger’s account of the American Anthropological Association’s show-trial of Chagnon in absentia at its 2000 meeting in San Francisco – I was there.
More importantly, on page 122, she explains how a feminist dogma (“rape is about power”) hindered an investigation of an actual rape in Arizona.
Her concern with the corruption of science and truth is not limited to the influence of the left. She also singles out right-wing Christians and corporate interests. Her description of the difficulty she had in exposing what she claims is the danger of treating pregnant women with a drug called prenatal dexamethasone had nothing to do with SJWs.
As I said, her journey is incomplete. The book contains contradictions – the exposure of Social Justice combined with defences of it. A clear example of this is Dreger’s remarks on the late Stephen Jay Gould.
Early in the book, she claims
Meanwhile, Hubbard’s Harvard colleague Stephen Jay Gould had scrutinized ‘scientific’ studies purporting to show important racial differences in skull size and IQ and had shown them to be hopelessly riddled with racist bias.
This refers to Gould’s 1981 “The Mismeasure of Man”.
Note she says Gould had “shown” that these studies were “racist”. “Shown” is a strong word in science. It means “proven”.
But Gould was lying: Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim – Wade, N., New York Times, June 13th, 2011.
Later in the book, helped by her friendly contacts with several leading scientists, such as Edward Wilson, she is surprised to discover how much even this great man suffered from the lies of Gould and his comrade, Richard Lewontin.
These contradictions notwithstanding, this book is an armoured division in the battle against Social Justice, and the fact that it is commanded by a decorated deserter from the enemy camp gives it extra firepower.
One can only hope Dreger continues her journey to its logical conclusion. Her recent talk at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is a good sign.
Footnote, September 14th 2016:
A clear example of Dreger’s contradictory attitude toward Social Justice is a post on her blog, “Wondering If I’m the Next Tim Hunt” from June last year. She’s aware of the danger of an innocent person getting fired because he or she has annoyed an SJW or feminist, but still says
On the one hand, I’m glad Hunt was called out
“Calling out” is SJW jargon for “disagreeing with his opinion”. She then says that she once “called out” another Nobel Laureate, James Watson, for “sexist remarks”. She doesn’t mention that James Watson was subsequently sacked for breaking another SJW taboo, “racism”.
Yet she sympathises with Tim Hunt, who was fired for “sexism”, quotes a defiant stand against Social Justice from the University of Chicago, and says she wishes she works there, because she could be “the next Tim Hunt”.
Make your mind up! You can’t cherry-pick when to apply Social Justice and when not to. If they can fire one Nobel Prize-winner for thought-crimes, they can fire any. If you want to stand for academic freedom, as the University of Chicago has done, you have to actively oppose Social Justice.
“The fact that hundreds of years later children still celebrate foiling the ‘Gunpowder Plot’ by burning effigies of Guy Fawkes on a bonfire proves how we are conditioned from childhood to dehumanise enemies of the Government” – Laura Stuart
Laura Stuart is a convert to Islam who was arrested [i] on a “fishing expedition” last year on Guy Fawkes’ day, November 5. There was no evidence – three months later, the case was dropped. She is active in the Palestine solidarity movement. Perhaps this is why she was harassed by the police.
Several left-wing activists, including the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour, who were imprisoned for participating in various protests, were interviewed by the Guardian [ii].
It is instructive to contrast their experience, and Stuart’s, with that of Tommy Robinson, Britain’s second best-known critic of Islam, after Richard Dawkins. His recent biography is entitled Enemy of the State [iii].
Stuart was treated relatively well. She wasn’t threatened – the police just used standard “hard cop, soft cop” techniques to try to get her to talk, and examined the contents of her computer and mobile phone. It’s worth reading her account if you don’t have any experience with the police.
Charlie Gilmour was pleasantly surprised to be looked after by older inmates, most of whom admired his participation in a protest/riot outside No. 10 Downing St..
When Jonnie Marbles was seen on TV throwing a pie in the face of Rupert Murdoch, the inmates at HMP Wandsworth cheered. When he was sent to the same prison, “he was treated like a minor celebrity”.
20-year-old Chelsea Stafford had it worse. She was evicted from a squat in Liverpool and sent to HMP Styal, where the screws refused to respect her vegan diet. She slashed herself with a knife – a common female reaction to prison.
But on the whole, because left-wing activists have a lot of support from outside, the Guardian article says “Prison wasn’t exactly a cakewalk, but it’s clear that these activists can enjoy a privileged status within the system.”
This was not Tommy Robinson’s experience. He too had lots of support from outside – from his organisation the English Defence League, and numerous other people concerned about “Islamification”. But, if there’s any truth in his biography, he was treated much worse than the Muslim and left-wing activists listed above.
Although the government has helped protect him and his family against murderous assaults by Muslims by installing “panic buttons”, in their home, etc., it has also deliberately put him in danger many times.
Robinson usually does his prison time in solitary, to avoid Muslim gangs, but sometimes, the authorities force him into the proximity of people who want to kill him. In 2012, warders locked him in a cell with three violent Muslims, who kicked him unconscious.
Robinson has never been convicted of a violent offence. In July 2015, he was recalled to prison for lending money to someone who exaggerated their earnings on a mortgage application. Despite knowing that Muslim extremists wanted him killed, the authorities put him on a wing two cells away from a Somali murderer serving 28 years. He offered money to anyone who would pour boiling water mixed with sugar over Robinson’s head. The sugar would make it stick, and cause permanent damage. Robinson pre-emptively attacked the guy, and ended up being charged for this act of self-defence.
The aim of the authorities’ collusion with Muslim extremists is to silence criticism of Islam, as Robinson explains a recent Rubin Report interview [iv]. Part of his bail conditions, for a non-political, white-collar crime, included not being involved in politics. Frequently, when he is about to speak to a large audience, e.g. the Oxford Union, he gets recalled to prison. The government also made an amateurish attempt to turn him into a “grass”, thinking he could give them information about violent right-wing extremists. However, as he explains, one of his most onerous political activities has been keeping such extremists at arm’s length, and out of the EDL.
Why would the state treat a critic of Islam much worse than its defenders? The contrast between the treatment of Stuart and the treatment of Robinson undermines the notion that the British state is “Islamophobic”. The difference between his experience and that of Gilmour and comrades leads to questioning why the “capitalist state” would treat anti-capitalists much better than someone campaigning against Muslim rape gangs [v].
At the time of writing, Robinson is still in danger of being put back in prison with Muslims who want to murder him. There is a fund for his legal defence [vi].
i Laura Stuart, My arrest: it could happen to you, April 2016 – http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/4/3/my-arrest-it-could-happen-to-you
ii ‘It makes you want to fight back’: activists on life after prison, the Guardian, 28 May 2016 – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/28/activists-life-after-prison-charlie-gilmour
iii Tommy Robinson, Enemy of the State, December 2015 – http://www.amazon.com/Tommy-Robinson-Enemy-State/dp/0957096496
iv Dave Rubin, the Rubin Report interview with Tommy Robinson, February 5, 2016 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQOkrwJXRFQ
v Jay Knott, How Anti-Fascists Helped Muslim Grooming Gangs in the UK, September 2014 – https://thejayreport.com/2014/09/18/how-anti-fascists-helped-muslim-grooming-gangs
vi Liam Deacon, Tommy Robinson defence fund, Breitbart News, 13 April 2016 – http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/13/tommy-robinson-supporters-raise-24000-for-top-defence-qc
The British Labour Party has been under a lot of pressure from Jewish racial supremacists recently, to purge all critics of Israel from its ranks. In particular, those who somehow can’t see the “legitimacy” of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, on which the Jewish state’s existence depends. If those driven out of their homeland in 1948, plus their descendants, were allowed back into Israel, they would outnumber the Jews.
This pressure has taken the familiar form of allegations of “anti-semitism”. This includes what I just said above – denying the “legitimacy” of Israel.
It even includes pointing out that the Nazis and the Zionists collaborated before World War II. This is what veteran leftist leader Ken Livingstone has been suspended for. There is overwhelming evidence of this collaboration. Before they decided to try to kill them, the Nazis were in favour of the Jews moving somewhere outside Europe – Palestine, for example. This coincided with the aim of the Zionists, so they worked together.
One example of this co-operation was the Havara Agreement , signed in August 1933 by the Nazi government and the Zionist Federation of Germany, to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.
Zionists were still collaborating with the Nazi government in 1944, when the attempted genocide of the Jews was in top gear, arguing against resistance. They allowed the murder of 450,000 Hungarian Jews in return for a few hundred being allowed to escape to Palestine, according to chapter twenty-five of Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (PDF) , “Hungary, the Crime Within a Crime”. This is just one example from many of Nazi/Zionist collaboration from Brenner’s detailed historical masterpiece.
Labour has responded exactly as I predicted – by capitulating. It is expelling long-standing comrades for telling the truth, and they are apologising. They don’t seem to realise that throwing scraps of food to the wolves at the door only encourages them. The Labour Party is Israeli-occupied territory.
Gad Saad is one of the “vloggers” (Youtube bloggers) who defends good stuff like freedom of speech and evolutionary psychology, and opposes bad stuff like radical feminism. He’s in roughly the same league as Lauren Southern and Milo Yiannopoulos.
Among the illusions these “cultural libertarians” are trying to dispel is the usefulness of the term “Islamophobia”. In a recent interview with Irish atheist Michael Nugent, Saad agrees with Nugent’s statement that rational people should give up “the silencing word ‘Islamophobia'”. Nugent goes on to argue that the word
conflates bigotry against Muslims as people, which is a bad thing, with criticism of Islam, which is a good thing
But Saad, who is Jewish, takes a completely different view of the phrase “anti-semitism”. In another recent video, instead of denouncing it as a political tool, as he does with the term “Islamophobia”, he uncritically accepts a report by the Anti-Defamation League, on “Global Indices of Anti-Semitism“.
He gives examples of the questions the Anti-Defamation League asks to establish if someone is “anti-semitic”. One of them is
Do you think it’s probably true that Jews have too much control over the US government?
Without irony, Saad lists the West Bank and the Gaza strip, which are either occupied by the Israeli army, or regularly bombed by planes bearing the star of David, as having the highest rate of “anti-semitism” in the world. He then goes on to list all the other countries with a high rate of “anti-semitism”, and they’re all Muslim.
It’s unfortunate that someone so clear on the political use of words like “Islamophobia” and other nonsense-terms invented by social justice warriors, should be so blind to the obvious analogy with the use of the phrase “anti-semitism”. It’s a clear example of Jewish double-standards. But we know what the Anti-Defamation League would call that observation.
Famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz was in the forefront of critics of the left-wing attacks on freedom of speech which spread across US campuses during 2015. But he and other Zionists use the same techniques as the totalitarian left to try to censor campus critics of Israel.
When two moderate critics of Israeli policies, Omar Barghouti and Judith Butler, were invited to speak at Brooklyn College in February 2013, in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, Dershowitz called it a “hate orgy”, and some Jewish students used the argument that the discussion would “contribute significantly to a hostile environment for Jewish students on our campus” i.
If you google the phrase “hostile environment for Jewish students”, you can find other examples of Jews trying to use politically-correct language to undermine the freedom of campus critics of Israel. These critics are often part of the p.c. left, so it becomes a competition to see who can use crybaby tactics most effectively.
At the time of writing, Canadian graphics designer Gregory Alan Elliott is being threatened with prison for criticising feminists iii. He’s also been banned from the internet, which means he has no income. His crime was to defend, on Twitter, a man who created a video game in which you could punch a feminist in the face. Another feminist accused him of “criminal harassment”, and he was arrested, although the arresting officer said in court his tweets were not threatening. A typical example: “Methinks the lady doth snark too much“.
In 2012, a member of a bike co-op in Portland, Oregon, whom I call “comrade X”, was driven out of his job by a group called “Anti-Racist Action”, ostensibly because he had contacts with so-called “white supremacists”, but in reality, because he campaigned for a boycott of Israeli goods. I describe their campaign in my article “Zionist Bullying in the West Coast Co-op Movement” iv. I don’t defend every aspect of the article today – for example, I no longer condemn “Islamophobia”.
But I was right to call the persecutors of comrade X “Zionists”,
This is good for Israel, whose influence in the USA depends on people being afraid of talking about this issue.
However, as well as being, consciously or otherwise, friends of Israel, they are part of a wider movement which is not subordinate to Jewish supremacy. Its members are known to their detractors as “social justice warriors”, or SJWs.
Anti-Racist Action’s SJW credentials can be seen in their language and behaviour:
They called for
X did in fact publicly apologise, but of course, this only encouraged the SJW bullies.
In August last year, a man who has also experienced a SJW hate campaign, but who has beaten it, Vox Day, published a book which examines the issue of Social Justice in great detail. It’s called “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police” (Castalia House, August 2015) v.
He sums up the fight against Social Justice as follows: it’s the Western ideals Truth, Liberty and Justice versus the SJW notions Equality, Diversity, Tolerance and Progress. He deconstructs each of these four fine-sounding slogans.
He goes into some recent examples of Social Justice in action.
The book explains #GamerGate, a phrase I’d heard a lot, but didn’t know what it was about. It’s a successful campaign against a feminist attack on the freedom of video game writers. One of its consequences was the ouster of SJW Ellen Pao as CEO of Reddit.
The example I found most comprehensible, because I know a lot about the subject, is the section about the Ruby Programming Language Users Group at Barclays Bank in London. It quotes an SJW in Human Resources explaining how they changed the recruitment process so they don’t review the software written by a potential recruit on github.com, because most of it is written by “cis white men”! (‘Cis’ means ‘cisexual’ – the opposite of transexual).
I’ve written software at Barclays, I program in Ruby, and I have a Github account which I use to demonstrate my skill to potential employers. As Vox Day relates in great detail, similar things happen at Google and other US corporations. I knew universities, most of the media, and government are deeply infested with SJWs, but I didn’t realise they had actually made “the long march through the institutions” (see below).
For good measure, Vox Day throws in an introduction to Logic and Rhetoric, showing how to apply Aristotle’s 2400-year-old insights to combatting Social Justice today.
Toward the end of 2015, Social Justice exploded in universities on both sides of the Atlantic. Among the incidents:
Here’s why. At the same university, professor Tim Hunt was fired after a feminist denounced him. Muslims at another branch of the university tried to censor an ex-Muslim, claiming the woman’s views would violate their “safe space”. These are further examples of the same tactic, feelings-based politics, used to suppress academic freedom, but neither of them are examples of Jewish power. As the examples with which I began this article show, Social Justice can be used either to defend, or oppose, the Jewish state – the phenomenon is independent of Jewish power.
However, there is a good case that Jewish intellectuals were overrepresented among the originators of Social Justice. Kevin MacDonald’s “The Culture of Critique” (Praeger, 1998) xiii gives a survey of intellectual movements dominated by self-identified Jews, who explicitly recognized that the ideas they promoted would serve Jewish ethnic interests, by undermining the self-confidence of the white European nations. Among these are Boasian anthropology, the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, and some left-wing political organisations.
Another popular collective term for what these movements have in common is “Cultural Marxism”. It’s not an entirely satisfactory phrase, but it has stuck, so I’ll try to explain what it means. The idea is, communist intellectuals were disappointed in the failure of the proletariat to overthrow Western civilisation.
Some of them claimed the reason had something to do with psychology, and produced books like “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” (Wilhelm Reich, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1933) xiv and “The Authoritarian Personality” (Theodor Adorno et al, Harper and Row, 1950) xv. This contributed to the emergence of the feelings-based politics which dominates modern leftism, especially in the USA. They looked for alternative groups of oppressed people to combat the worst (and best) aspects of Western civilisation. They chose third-world peasants, members of minorities such as gay and black people, and women. They substituted these groups for the working class.
Cultural Marxism encourages
The critics of Cultural Marxism also seized on a phrase by German student activist Rudi Dutschke, “the long march through the institutions”, attributed it to Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, and amalgamated it into the concept “Cultural Marxism”. The idea is, if the major organisations of the West cannot be overthrown, they can be undermined from within.
Cultural Marxism began its life as a primarily Jewish creation. But the monster has left the lab, and its creators no longer control it. To give a concrete example, perhaps, as Kevin MacDonald argues, American Jewish organisations have promoted mass immigration from non-white countries in order to undermine white dominance. But Muslim immigration is not in Jewish interests. Neither do Jews benefit from black activism today – Jews may have been overrepresented in the Civil Rights movement, but they didn’t foresee hate groups like the New Black Panthers – in fact, Jewish organisations condemn them.
Change is in the air. The contemptuous phrase “social justice warrior” has gained much traction since #GamerGate. Anti-feminists like Lauren Southern effortlessly and humorously demolish SJW lies, for example, gaining widespread publicity for holding up a sign in the middle of a feminist rally saying “There Is No Rape Culture In The West” xvi – a triply offensive slogan, because
The SJWs’ Islamist allies are also helping the coming downfall of Social Justice. By trafficking underage girls in Britain xvii, murdering cartoonists in France xviii, and organising gangs to sexually assault women in Germany xix, to mention a few recent incidents, some (not most) Western-born Muslims, and some of the recent arrivals, are making their co-religionists unpopular.
The SJW response continues to encourage Muslim bad behaviour, by claiming “Islamophobia” is as bad as that behaviour. For example, Ralf Jaeger, the interior minister for the area including Cologne, said, of the New Year’s Eve 2015/16 outbreak of assault, rape and robbery by Muslims, that freedom of speech is at least as bad as sexual assault:
“What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women,” he said. “This is poisoning the climate of our society.” (BBC News, 7 January 2016) xx.
Muslim sex crimes, media cover-ups, and the inadequate response of politicians, police, and social workers, leads more and more decent people to question mass immigration. This is not the result that SJWs want.
The opponents of Social Justice are confident the rebound will continue. 2016 will be a good year for truth, liberty and justice, and a bad year for equality, diversity, tolerance and progress.