The high-water mark of anti-fascism

When I wrote “The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism” in 2008, anti-fascism was a thriving movement in the UK, the USA and Germany. On the surface, at present, it’s doing even better. It has managed to prevent several meetings by so-called holocaust deniers, and more recently, by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British comedian who winds up humourless American leftists. The zenith of this assault on freedom happened at the University of California at Berkeley on February 1st, when the police stood back and allowed “antifa” to assault anyone they thought disagreed with them, start fires and smash windows. The police then canceled the event.

The police hid inside a building watching while gangs of SJWs pepper-sprayed women, kicked men on the ground, set fires and broke windows. When Katrina (see YouTube video above) asked to be let into the building to wash the pepper spray out of her eyes, the police wouldn’t allow it. Her husband got his ribs broken. It’s funny to hear a conservative say “fuck the police”.

Scary though this experience was, over sixty million households in the USA have firearms, and the vast majority of them are not sympathetic to terrorists who suppress freedom of speech.

Openly assaulting America’s most important value – freedom of expression – is a disastrous tactic. Almost everyone is against the anti-fascists. They have dug their own grave.

As I predicted, 2016 was a good year for liberty, and a bad year for equality, diversity, tolerance and progress. This year will be even better.



Legislation Against Criticism of Israel Enabled by Anti-Racism Moral Panic

The UK government is considering making certain criticisms of Israel illegal [1] (PDF).

The “Home Affairs Committee” recommends making illegal, among other things,

—Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

—Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

—Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

—Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

—Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

A similar law, but applying only to colleges and universities, the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act”, is being considered in the USA, but is widely regarded as unconstitutional, thus unenforceable [2].

The UK report refers to the Macpherson report on the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993:

The Macpherson report, published in 1999 as a result of the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, recommended that the definition of a racist incident should be “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”…

This entirely subjective definition was enshrined into law [3]. In tune with the Macpherson report, the Home Affairs Committee report considers denial of the problem of antisemitism to be evidence of it. As this 2000 report by “Civitas” explains [4], the Macpherson report considered that a police officer denying he is racist is evidence that he is.

Clearly, many people “perceive” various criticisms of Israel as a form of racism called “antisemitism”. However, the Committee generously accepts that “for a perpetrator to be prosecuted for a criminal offence that was motivated or aggravated by antisemitism”, requires evidence, and someone other than the victim to make an “objective interpretation of that evidence”. The broad definitions of “antisemitism” in this report give an idea of what the Committee considers to be “objective”. For example, it argues that “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is objectively antisemitic. In other words, opposing racism is objectively racist.

The Committee also wants to prosecute criticism of Zionism within Britain:

Referring to Birmingham University as a “Zionist outpost” (and similar comments) smacks of outright racism…

it claims, on page 35, discussing the views of the president of the National Union of Students [1].

This assault on freedom cannot be reduced to Jewish power in British society, because it has so much in common with anti-racism in general. It’s the irrational moral panic about “racism” that enables these reports, together with a lack of understanding of the value of freedom of expression. This weakness, and this misunderstanding, need to be highlighted and challenged.

[1] Antisemitism in the UK, House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, retrieved December 24, 2016:

[2] The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would damage free speech rights on campus, Liz Jackson, Los Angeles Times, December 6, 2016, retrieved December 24, 2016:

[3] Hate Crime and Crimes Against Older People, Crown Prosecution Service, retrieved December 24, 2016:

[4] Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics, Civitas, September 2000, retrieved December 24, 2016:

Free-speech advocates get cold feet when it comes to the holocaust

auschwitz-entrance.jpgSam 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…

One woman’s journey from feminism to reason

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.

Enemies of the State

“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]. 


Charlie Gilmour


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. 


Tommy Robinson

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 –


ii ‘It makes you want to fight back’: activists on life after prison, the Guardian, 28 May 2016 –


iii Tommy Robinson, Enemy of the State, December 2015 –


iv Dave Rubin, the Rubin Report interview with Tommy Robinson, February 5, 2016 –


v Jay Knott, How Anti-Fascists Helped Muslim Grooming Gangs in the UK, September 2014 –


vi Liam Deacon, Tommy Robinson defence fund, Breitbart News, 13 April 2016 –


The Labour Party: Israeli-occupied territory


Ken Livingstone under siege, after accurately commenting on Nazi/Zionist co-operation

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 [1], 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) [2], “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.

  1. The Havara Agreement, Wikipedia, retrieved April 29, 2016:
  2. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Lenni Brenner, Lawrence Hill publishing, 1983. Retrieved as a PDF file April 29: