Three academics rewrote parts of Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf,” infused it with far-left buzzwords, and made it a major part of an intentionally absurd “research paper.” And a notable feminist-oriented journal accepted it for publication.
The paper was a part of a broader effort by academics James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose to expose political bias in humanities research fields such as race, gender, and sexuality, according to a press release.
Recently I woke up to what might be considered the biggest-ever prank perpetrated by three Anglo-American academics in an attempt to showcase the fraudulent, cancerous disciplines that are spreading within the Western academy. In a course of one year, they came out with seven peer-reviewed hoax papers, all in feminist, post-modernist, gender and race studies, and sociology journals. One is quite literally a paraphrase of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” garbed in a feminist language.
A trio of writers who describe themselves as left-leaning but decry the academic influence of political correctness, identity politics, and what they call “grievance studies” conducted an experiment: Could they fool scholarly journals into publishing hoax papers masquerading as legitimate scholarship?
The answer, it turns out, was yes. Seven journals accepted the fake papers, which were written by James Lindsay, a mathematician; Helen Pluckrose, editor of Areo; and Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University.
Four of the papers have been published, according to The Wall Street Journal
Twats Call Everyone a Nazi to Justify Violence… Because They’re Ignorant and Have No Arguments.
There’s an amateurish comic book project on KickStarter that is calling for violence against anyone who is “far right” “alt right” white or Christian… for being Nazis.
They say that doing this will…
“make the world a better and less hateful place.”
KickStarter has chosen to keep the project up even though it violates their terms of service by calling for violence based on political views, race and religion.
“Sometimes they’re called Nazis. Other times, they’re the “far right” or “alt right.” White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies. Screw that. Always Punch Nazis.”
It’s funny that even though I have classical Liberal and Libertarian views, these days I have often been accused of being, far-right, alt-right and a Nazi just because I disagree with globalism, socialism and Marxist/Maoist collectivism.
This is why I understand… When these people use the word “Nazi,” they’re trying to shut down debate, villainize anyone with different political views, and justify using violence against them.
People have become so ignorant and misguided that they can’t see this as a naked political ploy to create division, violence and chaos.
Their views are so weak that they can’t have a conversation and have to go immediately to insults, intimidation and violence to justify their views.
They include a diagram of YouTube personalities and connect them with a bunch of red lines, claiming to map out all of their guest appearances on each other’s shows.
They don’t mention that many of these YouTubers and personalities are usually opposing each other.
They don’t mention that many of these guest appearances were to have a debate between opposing ideas. Very few of these people agree about everything.
Apparently it’s “extremist” to invite people onto each other’s shows… and debate any views differing from the corporate mainstream.
“the problem is fundamentally linked to the social network of political influencers on the platform and how, like other YouTube influencers, they invite one another on to their shows.”
Apparently, these “influencers” have a wide range of positions, including just plain old conservatism… so they’re not all “dangerous extremists,” but they’re dangerous because they’ve debated with “extremists” on their show.
Or does having any non-liberal viewpoint make someone an extremist?
“promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism.”
How are they “overt” white nationalists? Did they say something good about white people? How can you be an “overt” white nationalist, or is the author just throwing out highly emotional, negative words hoping it sticks?
This is propaganda, pure and simple. This is a hit piece against the competition in media and the competition of ideas.
Remember these YouTubers have won in the ratings war, especially since they claim Joe Rogan is one of these dangerous influencers.
And non-leftist and non-globalist views are making a comeback as people realize the lies behind multicultural globalism as an ideology.
Any view advocating people’s rights is called “Nationalism” and any view against demographic warfare through mass immigration is called “White Nationalism” or “White Supremacy.”
When did people lose the right to free speech and association?
This is Nineteen-Eighty-Four-level stuff. This is the real world example of Orwell’s Newspeak. They are trying to rewrite reason and logic and debate to all mean dangerous and subversive because it doesn’t agree with their ideology and agenda.
YouTube provides a breeding ground for far-right radicalisation, where people interested in conservative and libertarian ideas are quickly exposed to white nationalist ones, according to a report from Data & Society.
The report describes an “alternative influence network” of about 65 scholars, media pundits and internet celebrities promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism. They are broadly united by their reactionary position: an opposition to feminism, social justice and leftwing politics and present themselves as an underdog alternative to the mainstream media.
The report, for those who have not read it yet, is as exactly what you would expect from an establishment stenography institution like The Guardian: The so-called “Syrian Civil Defence,” aka the White Helmets, are pure and virtuous; anyone who questions them is an anti-imperialist activist/conspiracy theorist/troll with support from the Russian government; no criticisms of the group are valid and they’ve all been refuted by reputable fact-checkers like Snopes; blah blah blah, etc., etc. As I say, you know exactly how the story goes…but you should read it anyway. It really is a perfect snapshot of the template that the MSM uses to discredit any and all opposition, and it would have been incredible effective…in the 1950s, when people still trusted the mainstream media. (Protip: no one trusts the MSM anymore!)
This being the age of the internet, though, it’s impossible for fake news stories like this to fly with an increasingly informed and connected public. When The Guardian ran its hit piece on the independent researchers like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett and Tim Anderson, all of whom are countering the mainstream White Helmets / Syria narrative, they simply responded on their own websites and social media and in interviews on independent media sites, probably reaching more people in the process.
I find this meme to be very divisive and disingenuous.
I believe that there have been thousands of children sexually abused, both male and female… but their gender shouldn’t matter. They’re innocent children. Innocent children being systematically preyed upon by adults in positions of power is a pretty bad thing, should it be used in this way?
I also believe that for decades (centuries?) the victims of priest abuse were not believed, or, if they were believed it didn’t matter because they were silenced and shamed.
Victims of abuse need to be supported in any case, but evidence and due process and protections for the accused should remain in place, as is our tradition of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
Christine B Ford has our support, but given the culture of her high school, her own admissions about her lifestyle during that time and the lack of solid evidence, willing witnesses, or even memory of time and place, makes it seem like the Democrats brought forward fairly unprovable accusations about an extremely unfortunate event at the most politically opportune time to stall the Kavanaugh vote until after the midterms and next SCOTUS session.
No, I Don’t Believe Christine Blasey Ford, Here’s Why
by Ann McCormack September 19, 201829
Only yesterday, we found out that the ‘victim’s’ lawyer Debra Katz — a major Democrat donor — is Vice Chair of a partially Soros-funded organization that opposes Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Ms. Katz is vice chair of the board of the Project on Government Oversight [POGO]. POGO is one of the many leftist groups demanding Kavanaugh’s records.
Christine Blasey Ford, the ‘victim’, has a brother — Ralph Blasey — and he has close financial ties to Fusion GPS. [Update: This has been disputed. Fusion denies any direct connection]
Katz at first said ‘victim’ Christine Blasey was willing to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then she said it had to be an open session. Then it was closed session. Now she will only testify after an FBI probe.
They keep moving the goalposts over a claim that can never be disproven.
The FBI said they already did their investigation of Kavanaugh and will not do another. A 36-year-old case of two alcohol-imbibing teens without evidence cannot be probed, and, if it could be, which it can’t, it would be the police, not the FBI who would do it.
Ford, I think, has this problem. She says it was so traumatic that it took her years to get beyond it but she can’t tell us where she was, when it happened, or how she got home. She’s saying it changed her life and at the same time, she’s telling us that she can’t recall anything about it.
“I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” one of those friends, Jim Gensheimer, recalled Blasey Ford saying that summer day while watching her kids participate in a Junior Lifeguard program. “They’re going to be all over me.”
This, of course, is a misrepresentation. No one is demanding “every little detail.” But we do have a right to expect any allegation that seems to have as its objective the sandbagging of a Supreme Court nominee have some verifiable details, like whose house it was.
Why are these guys the ones who are trusted to “fact check” social media?
Co-Founder of SPLC Allegedly Blackmailed, Beat Ex-Wife into Signing Separation Agreement. Tried to molest step daughter with vibrator
A recently-uncovered court document from the divorce proceedings of a prominent Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) figure alleges horrific conduct on behalf of one of the most influential lawyers in America.
Maureene Dees, ex-wife of SPLC co-founder Morris Dees filed for divorce on March 8, 1979 after a decade-long marriage marred by difficulties, according to an appellant brief obtained by Big League Politics. The brief was filed by Maury Smith, Julia S. Waters and Charles M. Crook, attorneys for Maureene, in the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals:
What prompted the 16,000 primary voters (out of 292,000 eligible in the Queens/Bronx 14th district) to vote for Ocasio-Cortez over her competitor, who only got 11,800 votes? Free stuff and anti-Trump rhetoric. Free education, medical care and a federal jobs guarantee (free stuff), as well as the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE (anti-Trump).
“I understand the economic crises people are facing in New York City; we can’t afford to live in the neighborhoods that our families have called home for generations, including my own family,” she told Vice News.
But her own family background is far from “working class” as she describes on her campaign page, as the Daily Mail reports. Although Cortez was born in the Bronx and lived there until age 5, her father—an architect who ran his own business—moved the family to posh Westchester County, where she attended Yorktown high school. Cortez, who attended Boston University, only moved back to the Bronx after her father died, making money as a waitress and bartender—working class after all.
Either way, for her and her family, the days of not being able to afford to live in the Bronx, or anywhere else for that matter are most likely over. If elected representative, Cortez will enjoy the benefits of “earning” $174,000 base pay for 120-150 days of “work,” a budget of $1.2 million for staff and travel expenses, as well as insider trading privileges.
If she is smart, she can use some of that free time to take lessons from Democratic Rep. Judy Chu from California, who built up a net worth of more than $3 million day-trading the S&P 500 with call and put options since her first election in 2009.
Not bad for 16,000 votes; and at least one Bronx family won’t have economic issues again for the near future. Of course, it remains to be seen how many people turn out for her in this year’s midterm election.
As for her politics, Cortez demonstrates the same delusional lack of understanding of history and economics that other socialists exhibit, most recently and notably Bernie Sanders.
“I don’t believe that in a moral and wealthy America, people should be too poor to live,” she told Qatari-funded AJ+.
This is why she promises the free stuff to poor people, as well as government job guarantees. “I will not compromise on the future that I think is best for this country,” she tells Vice. Given these statements, it sounds awfully like she thinks she is the wise central planner who knows what’s best for everybody. The wise central planner who so far has never materialized for all socialist and communist societies and has brought about misery and death. That this lesson of history is lost on Cortez and her backers of the Democratic Socialists who openly state that “communism is good,” is sad but hardly surprising.
New York Socialism
It is more surprising Cortez hasn’t noticed that the city of New York, where all those poor people who can’t afford to live in the houses they wish to live in, has mostly been ruled by democratic mayors since the 1850s, with the occasional Republican in between, —mayor Bloomberg notwithstanding. It is similar though less clear cut for New York State.
Or may we say she hasn’t noticed because she lived most of her life in Westchester County rather than the Bronx?
Either way, her policies reflect the same socialist delusion, whether it’s on the local or federal level: The problems of poverty and unaffordable housing, according to Cortez, don’t exist because of the thousands of failed government initiatives but because there hasn’t been enough of them.
Of course, the subtleties of supply and demand, as well as investment and production, are probably lost on Cortez, but let’s go through the example of real estate, which is a good one.
Let’s start with the basics. Real estate prices are high because of a corrupt monetary system, supported and sanctioned by the state. The Fed and private banks print money out of nothing which goes to them and their cronies first. They buy up assets like stocks and real estate on the cheap while the working man’s wages go up last, if at all.
Because money can be created out of thin air by private banks, and the state accepts it as payment for taxes, this is not free-market banking, but rather a corrupt private-public hybrid more akin to Marx’s centralization of money and credit than to Rothbardian free and fully-reserved banking.
In case something goes wrong in this operation, like it did in 2008, the state stands ready to bail out the private banking system with taxpayer money voted for by Democrats and Republicans alike. Although Cortez is critical of Wall Street, her vision of the banking system probably will eliminate private banks altogether and fuse them with the state. The outcome of that operation certainly won’t be pretty either.
Second, decades of city interference in the housing market has punished private developers who want to build affordable housing of lower quality. Why? Because the city, through rent controls, sets prices too low which always and by definition leads to shortages in supply of the desired product. Let’s say to recoup investment and make a modest profit, a developer needs $100 in rent per month from an affordable housing unit. If the city says the maximum he can charge is $50, there won’t be any development of affordable housing.
Since the developer doesn’t want to give up his job, there will be more development of real estate where the regulations don’t apply, like the thousands of luxury condos currently under construction in Manhattan funded by money created out of nothing in the state-sanctioned, fractional-reserve banking system.
More people need to start suing the SPLC for their own defamatory, hate speech, because many of their claims are politically-motivated slander.
Southern Poverty Law Center Pays $3.4M to Resolve Defamation Case
Notching a win for Kirkland & Ellis expatriates now at litigation boutique Clare Locke, a well-known civil rights group also agreed to apologize for a report that listed a Muslim activist as an anti-Islamic extremist.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, the advocacy organization known for exposing hate groups and fighting for civil rights, has agreed to pay $3.38 million and issue public apologies to an activist who challenged his inclusion in a 2016 SPLC publication that labeled him and several others “anti-Muslim extremists.”
Maybe the Japanese should give their island back to the Ezo people… Or the Russians should give Russia back to the Yakuts…. Or South Africa should give their land back to the Khwe, etc, etc, etc… but no, only white Americans deserve to be guilted and shamed for what we now consider historic wrongs…
Well it is that time of year again. The time when “progressives” nation wide start sharing memes about Europeans being “Illegal Aliens” and Native Americans were kind enough to let us into “their” country…
We see this all the time from the ignorant fools, but more so around Thanksgiving. They fail to realize that, if anything, their arguments promote stricter immigration polices, not laxer.
What we see here is a prime example of what is called “presentism” . Presentism is when historical accounts are judged by the standards of the present. Most scholars will agree that it is a rather ignorant way to look at the past.
It would be improper to claim that George Washington was an evil man because he owned slaves simply because during his life, the majority opinion was that owning slaves was not evil. As a better example, let’s say that in 100 years, we discover that plants have advanced consciousness. It would be ignorant for people of that time to say that everyone alive today is evil for eating plants, because in todays standards, eating plants is not only acceptable, but encouraged.
So let’s instead look at what was acceptable, and encouraged during the time of colonial America. Throughout much of history (including the 1600’s) it was normal for a conquering army to claim the lands of their defeated foe. This is a practice that goes back into antiquity with the Persian, Greeks Romans, Egyptian, Israelis, Chinese and many other cultures taking part.
Taking land by conquest was also a part of Native American culture. Creek Indians conquered land from Choctaws and Chickasaws and the Creeks. Comanches came in and took the land from the Apaches by war, Aztecs, Incas and Mayans all grew their empires by conquering lands from other tribes. The Tainos and Canib tribes fought over land. When Spain Defeated the Aztec empire, the did so with an army of 1,000 Spanish soldiers and 75,000 soldiers from the Tlaxcallans, Choulatecs and Totonac tribes..
The practice of claiming the land of conquered enemies extended well past the colonization of America. It wasn’t until the conclusion of World War II in 1945 that western culture shunned the practice (and even then, the Soviet Union claimed Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, and many other territories as part of their victory spoils).
To claim “white Europeans” “stole” America from the native tribes is to force the cultural norms of the past 50 years (that white Europeans created) on events that happened hundreds of years earlier. That is just ignorant.