Over on X, Colin Rugg has identified five big lies that the media is telling in a comprehensive effort to rewrite history. These are worth sharing and elaborating with facts, which I will add here. There are more lies than these five, and there will be more lies forthcoming, so we need to become hyperaware of the Democratic Party-corporate media fog machine. Here’s Rugg’s tweet:
REPORT: The media is currently rewriting history in an effort to help the Harris campaign.
Here are 5 hoaxes the media has launched in the past week.
5. CBS claims Trump is lying by saying Harris donated to Minnesota Freedom Fund, bailing out “dangerous criminals” during the… pic.twitter.com/HEjlJnE8Kx
The first big lie is that Kamala Harris was never border czar. What is happening here is a paradigm of historical revisionism and memory-holing. The media spent the past week scrubbing and revising their own reports since 2021 that Kamala was in charge of the border. I have already shared with you clear evidence that makes it absolutely clear that Harris was the border czar—still is, as far as I now. Obviously, she has utterly failed in her assigned task. At one point, Harris even admitted never going to border. Her rationalization? “I haven’t been to Europe, either.” Way to bolster one’s bona fides.
Here Harris confirms that President Biden asked her to be the Border Czar
The second big lie is that Harris was not a DEI pick for Vice President. I went back through the record this morning. The record makes clear that Harris was absolutely a DEI pick. In March 2020, President Biden vowed that he would pick a woman. By at least June, those around Biden were pressuring him to make that woman a black woman. In July, Biden said he had a group of four black women from which he would make his pick. In August, he picked Harris. This is what DEI is: choosing people not based on the accomplishments, qualifications, and talents, but on the basis of gender and race. (Biden did the same thing with Ketanji Jackson for the Supreme Court.)
Here’s what I don’t understand (I do understand, but for rhetorical effect…). If DEI is so great, if this is why it exists, then why would anybody deny that a person is a DEI pick or hire? Wouldn’t they celebrate the success of the project? This is a common tactic with progressives. They want DEI, the practical expression of their identitarian worldview, but if you talk about what DEI actually involves, then they accuse of you of “racism.” They do the same thing on the trans issue. They talk about the importance of trans rights, but when you talk about what that actually entails, for example, transgressing child safeguarding norms, or, for another example, the trampling of women’s rights, they accuse you of “transphobia.” These are thought-stopping cliches. They smear you to silence you. I get it all the time and they can just fuck off with that shit.
Third, JD Vance had sex with a couch. Have you heard this one? (I will spare you the details, but if you are interested, go here.) Bizarre, I know, but there are no depths to which Democrats and progressives won’t sink. The rumor was that Vance told the story in his 2016 memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. There is no such story in the book. This didn’t happen. To be honest, I am not sure it matters if it had. Puberty is hard. The struggle is real. Some boys will fuck anything. But Vance isn’t a couch-fucker, so if you accuse him of it, you would be wrong. However, it’s a weird rumor for progressives to spread given that they insist on curating obscene children’s books for public school libraries that go well beyond couch-fucking. Indeed, had Vance been a Democrat, his couch-fucking technique might have been included in sex education curriculum (maybe add a butt plug to the story).
Jill Biden on the cover of Vogue
Fourth, President Biden dropped out of the race to save democracy. We all watched this unfold in real time. That’s not what happened. It is well known that Biden refused to drop out of the race. Like many Democrats, Biden doesn’t know how bad off he is. His wife, Jill, who serves as his nurse and minder, has been his enabler-in-chief (she is on the cover of Vogue). The reality is that Biden was forced out by top Democrats and donors who threaten to withhold money from the campaign and even invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. What we witnessed was a coup that replaced Biden with a DEI pick. Turns out, the Democratic Party is not very democratic (of course, we knew that from the 2008 and 2016 primaries).
Fifth, CBS claims Trump is lying by saying Harris donated to Minnesota Freedom Fund, a fund that was bailing out individuals accused of serious crimes during the George Floyd riots. The fact is that Harris promoted the fund on X and encouraged people to donate. She did a lot more than that, as you will remember. She encouraged the rioters on many occasions. She even called Jacob Blake, a Kenosha man who tried to knife police officers during a crime in progress, and praised him (Unacceptable: Evers and Biden Inflame Insurrectionist Passions). The crime? He was kidnapping children.
An update on the attempt to revise the history of the assassination attempt on Trump (see FBI Director Feeds Narrative Questioning True Facts About Assassination Attempt), The New York Times published an article today reporting that “a detailed analysis of bullet trajectories, footage, photos and audio by The New York Times strongly suggests Mr. Trump was grazed by the first of eight bullets fired by the gunman, Thomas Crooks. Subsequent bullets wounded two rally goers and killed a third.” That’s what I said from the beginning (see They Tried to Kill Donald Trump Yesterday).
Kamala Harris proposes a regime of "equity" based on a simple principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This should sound familiar.pic.twitter.com/PO6vUSrJ5m
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) July 25, 2024
Christopher Rufo deals in oversimplifications (he’s not dimwitted like James Lindsay, though), but he gets shit done and there’s a very real problem here. If you want to understand Harris’ worldview, then watch this collection of video clips Rufo shares in the above tweet (original to End Wokeness, an X profile I recommend you follow). Harris is telling you what’s in store for you and your family in these clips. She defines “equity” not as accounting for difference for equal opportunity’s sake (for example, keeping women’s sports for women). She means making everybody equal in outcome—despite the obvious fact that we are all different.
AI generated
Harris wants to be your Handicapper General. Have you heard that name before? I am about to arm you with some potent weaponry against the collectivists if you haven’t. Find Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.’s 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron” and read it. Here, I will make it easy for you—just follow the link. I will also tell you about F.A. Hayek’s 1944 The Road to Serfdom and his 1960 The Constitution of Liberty. We have to make sure to use our vote in the most effective way to keep this woman out of office. You think Biden was bad; this woman will be an unmitigated disaster for free people everywhere.
In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argues that central economic planning and government control over the economy inevitably lead to totalitarianism and the erosion, even erasure of individual freedoms. He warns that well intentioned efforts to achieve economic equality and social justice through extensive state intervention result in a loss of democracy and personal liberty. Have you heard? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hayek contends that economic freedom is the foundation of personal and political freedom, and that decentralized decision making and open markets are the best safeguards against the dangers of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Hayek doesn’t object to social security and other interventions and programs to help and protect the vulnerable. He rejects the centralization of power in the hands of the corporate state, in administrative rule, and technocratic control—the very things Harris and her ilk seek. In other words, Hayek foresaw the emergence of the high-tech estate system of the coming neo-feudalism (hence the book’s name). No doubt Hayek’s book influenced Vonneguts’ 1961 story.
I assign my students a summary of The Road to Serfdom to read in my Freedom and Social Control class. It’s the second thing I ask them to put their eyes on—right after “Harrison Bergeron.” I also assign a chapter from Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty. Perhaps it is this book that really got Vonnegut thinking (probably both). (After those three words, I have them read Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto, the forward to which was penned by yours truly.)
Whereas The Road to Serfdom is a polemic, The Constitution of Liberty is Hayek’s comprehensive treatise on the principles of a free society. He emphasizes the importance of the individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law, with an emphasis on equal treatment.
Hayek argues that real liberty is freedom from coercion and that it is best preserved through a system of general rules that apply equally to all individuals. He critiques collectivist and interventionist policies, advocating instead for a framework where individuals are free to pursue their own goals within the parameters of a legal structure that protects private property and voluntary exchange. The book emphasizes the value of classical liberalism in fostering human flourishing. He’s right.
See, when you’re told that these leftwing maniacs are liberals, they are misdirecting you by misusing words. They want you to think that liberalism is a form of collectivism. Then you won’t want it and, by rejecting it, you reject the very thing that will liberate you and your family. Harris is not a liberal. She is in fact profoundly illiberal. Harris is a progressive. Progressivism is the authoritarian ideology of the corporate state, what Sheldon Wolin called “inverted totalitarianism,” which operates via a mass control strategy called “managed democracy.”
Which reminds me. There is one more Hayek book that should be on your “must read” list: The Fatal Conceit, published in 1988. Here, Hayek critiques the fundamental assumptions and ideological foundations of socialism, arguing that the hubris of socialist thinkers lies in their belief that they can design and control complex societies through centralized planning and the command economy. By dismissing the importance of culture and tradition, and the decentralized nature of knowledge, socialism inevitably leads to inefficiencies and the erosion of individual liberties. Once more, Hayek provides us with a powerful defense of classical liberalism and a warning against the dangers of collectivist praxis.
Democrats and the corporate media go on about “the threat to democracy” presented by Donald Trump and the “MAGA extremists” who represent the second coming of fascism. In fact, it’s the other way around. Kamala Harris and the progressive left, if allowed to prevail in November, will continued the managed decline of the American republic and the consolidation of political and economic power in the hands of the transnational corporate elite. They are building a world neofeudal order and your role is to be that of a serf. We have to stop it at the ballot box. Talk to your friends and family. Make sure they understand what’s at stake. Then vote like your life depended on it. Because it does. For without freedom, there is no life worth living.
* * *
In local news (the authoritarian rot is at all levels): “Mayor [Eric] Genrich broke state and federal laws and violated the Constitutional rights of numerous citizens. His actions were so egregious that a federal court took the rare step of stripping Mayor Genrich of qualified immunity,” Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said in a statement.
A statement from LeMahieu says the settlement includes a payment of 200 thousand dollars from the City to cover legal fees and a public statement from Mayor Genrich indicating that he will not illegally record citizens in City Hall again. LeMahieu says the Mayor’s actions have cost the City of Green Bay more than 500 thousand dollars.
What an authoritarian little shit this mayor is. On top of his violation of the privacy rights of those he claims to represent, he flies the Pride Progress flag over City Hall in clear violation of the First Amendment (see City of Green Bay Violates the First Amendment and Flying Pride Again—Or Are They?). Democrats have no respect for civil liberties. At all.
I will be brief. Christopher Wray, director of the FBI, is feeding the narrative questioning elements of the attempt on President Donald Trump’s life. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, under questioning from Congressman Jim Jordan, Wray said, “I think with respect to the former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear.” For those readers who may not have been paying attention, there was an attempt made on President Trump’s life on July 13 during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Had he not turned his head to refer to a chart behind him he would have been struck in the temple by an assassin’s bullet. Now the director of the FBI is raising doubts that the President was struck by a bullet.
It was surprising to hear Wray say this in light of the fact that The New York Times published a photograph of the bullet and the sequence of events documenting the fact of that bullet passing the President in the exact trajectory of the wound, the President’s reaction to being struck thus confirming the timing, and his hand with blood on it in the immediate aftermath confirming the presence of a wound—all of this occurring before quickly dropping to the ground to avoid being struck by more bullets. As the Timesreported, Michael Harrigan, a retired FBI special agent, said the image captured by Doug Mills, a New York Times photographer, seems to show a bullet streaking past former Trump. Indeed.
Doug Mills, a New York Times photographer, captures the bullet that struck President Trump on July 13, 2024 at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.Mills captures the sequence of events establishing the fact that the president was struck by a bullet.
Wray confirmed what I already told readers about the number of shots Crooks fired in the span of six seconds. Eight cartridges were recovered from the roof from where the sniper fired the bullets. There were other details readers might find interesting (such as the ladder Crooks purchased that was not recovered from the scene and the presence of three explosive devices and a remote detonator). I may return over the news several weeks with an essay about the shooting, but I am waiting for more details. (See They Tried to Kill Donald Trump Yesterday.)
I want to close here with a few observations. First, whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel, or whether he was struck at all, doesn’t change the reality that an attempt was made on his life and the significance of Crooks actions and the failures of the Secret Service and local police. It doesn’t change the fact that a man was murdered and two others seriously injured. It is concerning that a narrative raising doubts about what hit the president is being used to raise doubts about the event itself and that Wray is feeding the narrative by using the weight of his authority to echo the doubts.
Because Democrats have suddenly rediscovered their love for law enforcement, they believe Wray’s questioning legitimizes their narrative about the event. If one is objective, then he knows that Wray is part of the Deep State, an apparatus that has been hellbent on delegitimizing Trump for eight years. Many of you are familiar with the many elements of the campaign: Trump is a Putin agent. Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation. The 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in history. Joe Biden is sharp as a tack. And so on. That we don’t know what hit Trump’s ear is yet another establishment attempt gaslight the public. (See The Lies of the Corporate State Are Functional to Its Ends. See also Progressives Losing Their Shit Over the Attempt on Trump’s Life.)
Second, polls indicate that a third of Democrats wish the shooter hadn’t missed, while another third believe the shooting was staged. Supposing these two-thirds are not significantly overlapping, that means that a large majority of Democrats are either extremists or crazy.
Finally, I find suspicious the change in norm in how to address a former President where now a former president is referred to as such. It used to be that those who achieved the highest office in the federal government were referred to as “President” regardless of whether they currently serve in that position or not. This is a general rule and applies to other offices as well. It is convention is to refer to a dignitary by the last or highest office achieved. This tradition stems from a sense of respect and recognition of their service. This practice honors the significant role they played as the nation’s leader. For example, Bill Clinton is still commonly referred to as “President Clinton” or “Mister President” even though he is no longer in office. Similarly, individuals who have held other high offices, such as governors, senators, or ambassadors, are often addressed by their last or highest title. For instance, a former governor is often called “Governor [Last Name]” rather than “former governor” or “ex-governor.” Nikki Haley is referred to as “Ambassador Haley.” Etcetera.
I have followed convention whether I like the dignitary or not, and it strikes me that the deviation from the convention in this case is to manufacture the reflex that Trump is a lesser former President than other former Presidents. You may believe Trump to be a lesser figure, but it is not appropriate for the FBI director to engage in the partisan politics this deviation indicates.
The construct “transphobia,” like “Islamophobia,” is a propaganda term and ad hominem tactic designed to delegitimize criticisms of an ideology, in the case of transphobia, trans activism and so-called gender affirming care or GAC. While “homophobia” is itself an objectionable term because, like all constructions of its sort, it pathologizes antigay bigotry, it is not a propaganda term in the same sense, albeit a much better term for this phenomenon exists, namely heterosexism, better since antigay discrimination operates much the same way as does sexism.*
By hitching its wagon to the gay and lesbian rights movement, trans activists accuse those critical of the doctrine and the destructive practices of the medical-industrial complex not only of “transphobia,” but also of “homophobia.” I have been hit with this smear despite a lifetime of advocacy for gay and lesbian rights. For this reason, that smear concerns me more than the smear of transphobia. In fact, the latter smear doesn’t really concern me much at all, certainly no more than the smear of Islamophobia, which I have also experienced given my strident opposition to Islamic doctrine and practices. I make no apologies for my criticisms of gender ideology (or Islam). And the smear of homophobia (like the smear of racism), cannot be reasonably applied to me.
Beyond term quibbling and pedanticism (while recognizing their importance in clarity of conveyances), it needs to be said loudly and often that gay and trans are qualitatively different things. Gay is behavioral, an objective relation between individuals of the same gender. A man, i.e., an adult male human, is attracted to other men. A woman (an adult female human) is attracted to other women. Such a woman is a lesbian. Trans, on the other hand, is a self-identification indicated by the subjective claims of individual who assert that he is another gender, more than one gender, or no gender at all. All of these claims refer to impossibilities. As a scientific matter, gender is binary and immutable. Even in the case of intersex, or disorders of sexual development, the individual can be only one of two possible genders. A trans woman cannot be lesbian since lesbians are women who are attracted to women and men cannot be women (see Lesbians Don’t Like Penises, So Our Definitions Must Change).
The opinion that gay people should be discriminated against for their behavior is heterosexist, or homophobic. There is no rational reason for restricting sexual behavior between consenting adults whatever their gender. To be sure, there are religious prohibitions, but these should have no purchase in a secular society. Moreover, homosexuality, while not normative, is natural, occurring across mammalian species. However, while a man can engage in sexual relations with another man, a man cannot be or become a woman. No mammal can change genders. If a man believes this about himself, then he wrong. If somebody believes that men should not enter women’s spaces or that doctors should not chemically or surgically modify individuals without valid medical reasons, there is no valid term analogous to heterosexism or homophobia to apply to him. He is not “phobic.” He does not fear and loathe trans identifying persons. He merely accepts reality. He is not a “bigot.” He does not hate or seek to oppress trans identifying persons. He’s may not even be necessarily opposed to a man believing he is a woman. He recognizes that people believe all sorts of things about themselves and about the world that are not true. He himself may believe in gods and devils. Rather, he is critical of the doctrine of gender identity and its harmful results in a way similar to his criticism of Islam or any other religious or quasi-religious system.
The gender critical man is certainly not automatically homophobic. On the contrary. Those who are gender critical are safeguarding gay and lesbian children by criticizing queer doctrine and medical industry practices that groom vulnerable members of society for chemical and surgical alteration of their bodies, to induce them into undertaking at great expense a form of conversion therapy that in the end can only simulate the gender stereotypes others believe the patient’s attitudes and behavior convey (Simulated Sexual Identities: Trans as Bad Copy). What is more, trans activists use deceptive mimicry to trespass upon occupations and spaces exclusive to females; queer praxis is not only about transgressing the norms that safeguard children; trans activists work to transgress the norms that safeguard women, as well (The Queer Project and the Practice of Deceptive Mimicry; Magical Thinking and Perception Management in Gender Ideology’s Imperial Ambitions).
Endnote
* Sexism is the attitude that individuals are validly subject to discrimination, prejudice, and unequal treatment based gender. It manifests in biases, stereotypes, and social norms that perpetuate gender inequalities. These discriminatory practices occur in education, employment, politics, and personal relationships, leading to systemic disadvantages for the affected gender. Likewise, heterosexism is the attitude that individuals are validly subject to discrimination, prejudice, and unequal treatment based on their sexual orientation. It manifests in biases, stereotypes, and social norms that perpetuate sexual orientation inequalities. These discriminatory practices occur in many areas of life, such as employment, education, politics, and personal relationships, leading to systemic disadvantages for those who are not heterosexual.
Gender roles are influenced by the natural sexual division of labor, rooted in biological differences and reproductive necessity. Roles have traditionally been organized around sexual dimorphism, which means that males and females have phenotypic differences that organize themselves into overlapping trait distributions, with men typically undertaking tasks requiring greater physical strength and endurance, such as defense, heavy labor, and hunting, while women often assume roles linked to childbearing and nurturing, such as caregiving, domestic duties, and gathering. This division stems partly from practical considerations of reproductive capacities, as women’s childbearing and breastfeeding functions necessitate proximity to home and offspring.
Stereotypes, the result of typification—the process of categorizing and generalizing (abstracting) individual experiences or entities into broader types based on shared characteristics—is innate and often advantageous. From an evolutionary perspective, the human brain has developed the ability to categorize and simplify complex information as a survival mechanism. This cognitive shortcut, known as heuristics, enables humans to make rapid decisions about resources and social interactions, enhancing their chances of survival, both individually and as a species. By grouping individuals and situations into broad categories, stereotypes reduce cognitive load and allow for more efficient processing of information and a greater likelihood of correct action. To be sure, there is considerable error, for example the risk of type I error. Nonetheless, it is better to presume that the rustling in the bush one hears behind him is an approaching apex predator. Likewise, humans are not always correct about the gender of others; for the most part, the gender detection module is quite reliable and advantageous.
Gender roles in primitive society
While these roles were practical in early human societies, and to in many ways continue to be in modernity, they have also often been rigidly codified into social norms and expectations that lead to gender stereotypes that can limit individual potential and reproduce inequities. Modern societies increasingly recognize the flexibility and shared capabilities of all individuals, regardless of gender, and thus promote a more equitable distribution of social roles and responsibilities. There has been much progress in these efforts.
At the same time, the intrinsic differences that result from natural history remain relevant, as men often exhibit greater athletic prowess due to higher levels of testosterone, muscle mass, and physical strength. This biological predisposition contributes to the overrepresentation of men in physically demanding activities. Additionally, evolutionary factors and social conditioning have led to a higher prevalence of men in violent behaviors and roles associated with aggression and defense, reflecting both historical survival strategies and ongoing societal influences issuing from the sexual dimorphism inherent in the species.
Gender stereotypes vary significantly across cultures and historical periods, shaped by diverse social norms and situations. In the past, culture was predominantly shaped by collective beliefs and practices, reflecting shared values and social organization. Gender stereotypes served as a system of beliefs and practices that helped communities maintain cohesion and stability, emerging from roles individuals assumed based on biological differences and practical needs. Cultural norms surrounding gender roles evolved through consensus and adaptation to local conditions, fostering a diversity of gender expressions across societies.
However, the rise of the culture industry has seen corporations exert significant influence over cultural production, shaping gender stereotypes and societal norms to align with commercial interests rather than community values. This industrial-strength influence, encompassing advertising, entertainment, and media, often perpetuates narrow and superficial portrayals of gender, embedding oversimplified images in societal norms and reinforcing them through repetition. This continuous exposure to stereotypical representations can lead to their internalization, making them seem natural and eternal despite their inaccuracies and irrelevancies. (See Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s 1967 The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge for a comprehensive treatment of this dynamic.)
Robert Plant
The freedom for individuals to express themselves in any manner they choose, regardless of gender, is fundamental to human dignity and well-being. Gender expression encompasses behavior, clothing, hairstyle, voice, and other characteristics traditionally associated with masculinity or femininity. Allowing individuals to explore and present themselves authentically fosters a more tolerant and diverse society, challenging outdated elements of gender roles and enriching our cultural landscape. As I have revealed here on Freedom and Reason, coming of age in the 1970s (I graduated high school in 1980), the practice of so called “gender bending” was common place and I participated in it. Moreover, as a rock musician on the 1980s, makeup and traditional women’s clothing were a major element in stage presentation. I participated in that as well.
Beyond the queer politics of gender expression understood in terms of “identity,” the evolution of gender expression more broadly in modern societies reflects a dynamic shift towards greater individual freedom and diversity. Today, women comfortably embrace fashion traditionally associated with masculinity, such as wearing pants, minimal makeup, and sporting short hair, challenging old stereotypes and asserting their right to express themselves however they wish. Similarly, men’s fashion has also seen significant transformation, influenced by popular culture movements since the 1960s, again, seen in music genres like hard rock, where long hair, makeup, and more effeminate clothing remain commonplace. This cultural evolution underscores a broader acceptance of fluidity and diversity in gender presentation, breaking away from rigid norms imposed by traditional gender roles.
Source: iStock
Perhaps, like me, the reader sees a paradox in all this. How is it that talk about fashion in terms gender presentation confuses gender in terms of biology with the social roles organized around it, as well as with the expression of gender stereotypes? This confusion is intentional. Consider the trans woman who presents in a stereotypically feminine manner to pass socially (if this is the intent rather than autogynephilic desire)? Is this not a limiting construct, one reinforcing narrow definitions of womanhood? Why should the man who wishes to be woman look like exaggerated culture industry expression of femininity? These expectations have been subject of feminist critique, which advocates for freedom from restrictive gender norms and the right of individuals to define their gender identity and expression on their own terms, free from the pressures of societal stereotypes.
From the gender critical standpoint, one of the primary critiques of gender ideology and gender-affirming care is that it reinforces gender stereotypes rather than liberates individuals from them. Feminism has long fought for the recognition that a woman’s worth and identity are not defined by traditional markers of femininity such as wearing makeup, donning dresses, or possessing certain physical attributes like large breasts. The biological reality of being a woman, feminists argue, does not necessitate adherence to culturally and historically contingent standards of femininity. Therefore, a woman can express herself in a myriad of ways that do not conform to stereotypical gender norms, yet she remains unequivocally a woman due to her biology.
In contrast, the gender critical perspective views trans women’s pursuit of traditionally feminine appearances—such as wearing makeup, dresses, seeking feminized facial features, and enhanced breasts—as an embodiment of traditionally stereotypical femininity or stereotypes constructed by the culture industry. This reliance on external markers of gender identity contradicts the feminist objective of detaching womanhood from these very stereotypes. Furthermore, the assertion that gender identity is valid regardless of anatomy introduces a paradox: if a woman can have a penis, as gender ideology claims, why must a trans woman adopt stereotypically feminine traits to be recognized as a woman?
Beyond the fallacy of gender identity as an innate and internal subjective sense of one’s gender, focus on external transformation to align with gender identity reinforces of the very stereotypes that feminists have sought to dismantle. In this view, gender affirming care, which includes medical and surgical interventions to achieve a more traditionally feminine or masculine appearance, perpetuates the notion that adhering to these stereotypes is necessary for one’s “true gender identity” to be recognized and validated (affirmed). Since the many and most fundamental differences between men and women cannot be erased through gender affirming care, the practices associated with the practice result not in an actual transition to different genders but in simulated sexual identities that reify gender stereotypes.
Seeking feminized or masculinized features through gender affirming care perpetuates culturally, historically, and commercially bound notions of what it means to be a woman or a man. By emphasizing external markers of gender, such as fashion, makeup, or physical traits like breasts, gender-affirming care realizes these stereotypes in the form of an altered body. This, from the gender critical perspective, is contrary to feminist aims of liberating individuals from restrictive gender norms imposed by the patriarchy. The practice of aligning one’s external appearance with their imagined gender identity (imagined because identity is not what a thing thinks of itself but what it is in fact) is viewed as a reification of gender stereotypes, solidifying abstract and arbitrary things as concrete and necessary components of one’s gender identity.
“I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.” —William Tyler Page, The American Creed
The bureaucracies of secular institutions are not obliged to provide for their employees moral instruction. This role properly belongs to familial and religious institutions. In public institutions in America, employers are prohibited from requiring their employees to undergo moral instruction. This is because, believing that in a free society matters of conscience should be freely chosen, the Founders of the American Republic institutionalized the separation of church and state.
The United States Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens freedom of religion, i.e., conscience, speech and press, which allow for the free expression of opinion and sharing of information, assembly and association, privacy, and the presumption of innocence. An American citizen is free to believe or not believe in moral doctrines adopted by administrators and managers; administrators and managers are allow to personally hold and express any doctrine; they’re not allow to compel others to hold and express the same. A man is free to utter or not utter moral slogans. He is free to attend or not attend courses of moral instruction—whatever the content. However, secular institution should take care not to make employees feel compelled to attend any such course of instruction due to peer pressure. And, following from principle, such courses should not exist in public institutions. A man has a right to keep his views to himself; he should never be questioned about his beliefs. He is presumed innocent of whatever offense administrators suppose he committed unless they have evidence and the inquisition is legitimate; to compel him to receive moral instruction on the grounds that he is a priori guilty of not subscribing to the moral code his employers wish he did is contrary to the principles of a free society. So is the act of compelling him to think and speak in the language of a code—whether he subscribes to it or not.
American society has allowed the tyranny of moral instruction in public institutions to occur for far too long. Today, and for some time now, secular institutions and organizations in the West have imposed upon their employees a moral code known as diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI. DEI seeks a normative framework ostensibly designed to foster a more diverse, inclusive, and fair environment within organizations and society’s institutions. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing and valuing diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, aiming to create an environment where everyone feels respected and has equal opportunities. DEI initiatives purport to address systemic biases and inequities, promoting equitable access to resources and opportunities while fostering a sense of belonging for all individuals, which it does by excluding opinions and viewpoints it claims undermine that sense of belonging. DEI encompass policies, practices, and programs that support underrepresented or marginalized groups, aiming to dismantle barriers to inclusion and ensure fair treatment for all. You may find all this appealing. You may have a moral argument about why this is important. Others may not. They may reject the premise of the argument.
DEI is diametrically opposed to the American creed of colorblindness and the foundational ethic of individuality set down by the framers of the Republic; DEI demands instead that employees engage with others in ways that acknowledge and respect their unique identities rather than disregarding them. At the heart of this moral philosophy, what is known as identitarianism, DEI requires employees to recognize that each individual’s background, culture, and experiences shape their perspective and sense of self. By interacting with others in terms of their identity, employees are conscripted into a project of validating the lived experiences of others and affirm their value within the community. DEI asks employees to move beyond superficial acceptance and actively engage with and appreciate the diverse characteristics each person brings, the focus being not what a person brings to the enterprise, not on merit or talent, but who they are and how they feel. The goal is to foster deeper understanding, mutual respect, and a more inclusive environment where everyone feels seen and valued for who they “truly” are, for their “authentic self,” and make them “feel welcome”—and “safe.” In other words, DEI is a moral system, a system very much akin to religion, clashes with the American creed. Employees are conscripted into project to negate the American creed through the practice of the identitarian creed.
Because people often find paradoxes when there are none, I want to stress that the argument here is not about advocating for the teaching of the American creed, but rather recognizing it as an ethical and legal framework presumed to be in force within public institutions. This framework, grounded in principles of colorblindness and equality, is a settled matter—unless the Bill of Rights is repealed. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that in a society shaped by a long history of immigration, numerous creeds coexist but in the ideologically-neutral sphere of the American creed. The American creed operates by ensuring equal treatment for all individuals, regardless of race, religion, or personal belief systems. This foundational principle is what enables diverse creeds to be respected and upheld. It is precisely through the application of the American creed that individuals are treated equally, irrespective of their distinct identities. Far from being a paradox, this reflects the American creed in action.
The American creed functions as a negative force in institutions, acting as a safeguard that prevents employees from being indoctrinated by the positive force of other ideologies. The creed is assumed in the operational framework of public institutions, ensuring that individuals are free from the imposition of any particular moral or ideological system. Similar to the distinction between “negative liberty,” which refers to the freedoms individuals enjoy from government interference, and “positive liberty,” which encompasses the conditions necessary for personal success, the American creed ensures freedom from the arbitrary moral systems imposed by public employers. It protects individuals by maintaining a framework where personal beliefs and identities are respected without mandating conformity to specific ideologies. This negative liberty inherent in the American creed upholds the principle that public institutions should not impose particular ideological views on their employees, thereby preserving individual autonomy and freedom. Upon reflection, it may seem bizarre that DEI was ever allowed in the first place. However, what lies behind the systematic violation of basic rights DEI represents is the emergence of the corporate state and the progressive negation of democratic-republicanism and classical liberal principle.
Therefore, in the context of enhanced political consciousness, this is an ideal moment to time to remember what the American creed entails. The American creed refers to the set of core values and beliefs that define the national identity and ethos of the United States. It encompasses principles such as equality, individualism, initiative, liberty, meritocracy, representative democracy, and the rule of law, with emphasis of equality before the law and equity where there are actual group differences. Rooted in foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (with its Bill of Rights), the American Creed emphasizes the inherent rights of individuals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It underscores the idea that all people are created equal and should have equal opportunities to succeed. It does not, however, guarantee equal outcomes; nor does it treat individuals as concrete personifications of abstract demographic categories.
The creed serves as a guiding framework for American society, promoting the ideals of justice, freedom, and civic responsibility. Everything about DEI flies in the face of the values of the American creed. In contrast, DEI focuses on recognizing and valuing the unique backgrounds, experiences, and identities of individuals within a community or organization, and even beyond this, as employers concern themselves with the moral lives of their employees out in the world. When a public institution disciplines or punishes an employee for a comment on social media, this is an instantiation of imposition of a moral framework the First Amendment prohibits. DEI ostensibly seeks to address and dismantle implicit biases and systemic inequities that allegedly harm marginalize or underrepresented groups. It presumes that such implicit biases and systemic inequities exist, and it needs all employees to agree that the premise necessitating intervention is true. In other words, you are not only required to participate in the ritual, you must accept the truth of the doctrine.
Crucially, then, for DEI to exist as an industry, it must imagine the problems it means to solve. It must imagine that the world is organized around a hierarchy that lifts cis-gendered, heterosexual, male, white Christians and Jews to the top of the pyramid, while putting and keeping queer, homosexual, Muslim, nonwhite, and female persons, at a disadvantage. If an employee doesn’t believe the imagined hierarchy of oppression, then he is a heretic, a status labeled variously “bigot,”“homophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “racist,” “sexist,” “transphobe,” etc. The side that labels him these things is presumed to be the legitimate side. Without any democratic process and in the face of individual right, an ideology became institutionalized, enforced by an army of bureaucrats and clerics. Those who work in the DEI industry exclusively train for their roles in the administration of the doctrine. They have careers they expect to work at over their lifetimes. Because they have the training, they have the wisdom; they are the righteous who tell others what to believe and punish them when they don’t accept the doctrine or practice the ritual.
Just like the church that must always exist to save the wretched from their transgression, identified by the terms of the doctrine, since the raison d’être of DEI is solving the problems of various original sins, i.e., the legacies of chattel slavery, compulsory heterosexuality, patriarchy, and so on, the resolution of which, falling under the purview of representative government having been substantively addressed, albeit denied by doctrine, DEI will always find problems to solve by defining problems into existence, problems that will by said to issue from the imagined hierarchy of oppression. Thus, at the core of the project is the belief that the problems DEI is charged with solving have no ultimate solutions. These problems can’t have solutions, since that would mean the industry goes away. The personal investment in doctrine is obvious; one’s career is advanced by “identifying” problems, i.e., by manufacturing them. We see this also in the area of Pride, where, having achieved the goals of the gay and lesbian rights movement, those same organizations (for example, in the United States, the Human Rights Campaign) perpetuated themselves into the future by manufacturing the trans rights cause.
To be sure, we need a new government in Washington DC that move to make the incorporation of the Bill of Rights even more robust. We will need new governments at the state level, as well. But the imposition of doctrine on public employees won’t finally go away until we resist the very premise upon which it moves: the imagined hierarchy of oppression grifters encourage people to step into. We have to reassert the American creed as our guide and insist on all the protections of the constitutional republic. We need to demand a society that recognizes across its institutions the foundational principles of democracy, equality, individualism, initiative, liberty, meritocracy, and equality before the law as articulated in the nation’s founding documents and in judicial rulings. We have to demand recognition of the inherent rights of individuals, the notion that all people are created equal, and insure equal opportunities for success.
Whereas the rhetoric of social justice is the illiberal expression of the corporate state, the American Creed promotes civic responsibility, freedom, and justice, universal principles that apply to all citizens, without explicitly addressing the specific needs and identities of diverse groups—and even more than this: prohibiting the fetishization of identity from affecting the advancement of any given individual. In short, the managed decline of the American Republic must be stopped.
My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best… pic.twitter.com/x8DnvuImJV
After sustained and vigorous pressure from his party, Joe Biden, the greatest vote-getter in US electoral history, the “sharp as a tack” octogenarian, the winner of the 2024 primary season, will neither accept the nomination of his party nor seek re-election in 2024. He has endorsed Vice-President Kamala Harris to be the party’s new standard-bearer. Biden will finish his term, though, which raises an important question to my mind: if Biden is not fit to run (or stand trial), how is he fit to remain president?
Joe Biden leaves the race
I want to take a moment to reflect on Biden’s historic 2020 election. His record 81.3 million votes was especially astonishing given that he was obviously senile and rarely left his basement to campaign. To put those 81.3 million votes in perspective, George Bush won 62 million votes in 2004; Barack Obama won 69.5 million votes on 2008 and 66 million in 2012. Trump won 63 million votes in 2016. Biden won 81.3 million votes. Right. That happened.
In 2020, Trump received 74 million votes—the most legitimate votes of any president in history (maybe more, if machine vote flipping occurred). But he’s not popular, we’re told. Look at the suppression polls. How did Trump ever win in the first place? How will he ever win again (presuming he will make it to Election Day alive)?
If it’s Hillary Clinton again she, then will need more than the 66 million votes she won in 2016. And she will have to figure out a way to carry the states she lost in that election (because Biden didn’t win them). But, for now, Clinton has endorsed Kamala Harris (so has her husband, the former two-term president). So has Biden. Will Obama? Or will whomever is the Democrat nominee get 80-plus million votes this time?
Imagine our situation today had Trump been reelected in 2020 with his mandate of 74 million votes. We’d be entering the homestretch of his presidency. He’d be a young 78 years old. No war in Ukraine. Peace in the Middle East. A weakened China. A pacified Iran. Secure borders. A booming economy with low inflation and interest rates and rising wages. Strong public safety. All those who hate all those things would be looking at only a few more months of Trump (and Mike Pence would not be the successor). Now they’re looking at four more years of Trump.
In some ways, it’s better Trump lost in 2020. In the meantime, a plan has been developed that takes advantage of the opportunity created by the Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron deference (Celebrating the End of Chevron). The project is Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and it is a highly detailed plan to deconstruction the unconstitutional, unelected, and unaccountable administrative state and return to full capacity the original scheme of the Founders (Project 2025: The Boogeyman of the Wonkish; Attempt at an Albatross: The Manufactured Hysteria Over Agenda 2025). The Trump team wasn’t ready for this in 2020. They’re ready now.
And the public should get ready now. With a straight face, the domestic security apparatus reports that the greatest threat of violence comes from the people who are least involved in violence. The people with the most guns (aside from the government) are not the people committing the violence. The greatest threat of violence is from the groups that have committed the most violence over the last many years: Antifa, BLM, Islamophiles, and trans activists, as well as the street gangs of our central cities. These are the groups whom the Democrats encourage and enable. They are the shock-troops of the corporate state.
If the nation doesn’t experience violence during the run-up to the election, it will when Trump is elected 47th President of the United States. Not from MAGA. From the other side. The Democrats will encourage it. The police will be smeared as racists and ordered to stand down. White people who take to the streets to stand up for their republic will be branded “fascists” (they already are). Defending his country makes a white man a white supremacist because his country was founded on it—and thrives on it. Our educational institutions will mobilize armies of counselors to help the triggered through their trauma (that is, trigger the trauma they manufactured). I shutter contemplating the fate of free thinkers in the academy. I have cause to worry for my safety.
We might even get some election denial from the left. It wouldn’t be the first time Democrats disputed an election (2000, 2004, and 2016 are ready examples). Marc Elias and his ilk are already telling us that election integrity is Republican code for rigging. The hypocrisy on the left will be ignored by the corporate media, just as it ignores the hypocrisy of decrying the age of Donald Trump after having lied about Joe Biden’s health for years. Yes, Trump will be like Biden an octogenarian when he leaves office. But, unlike Biden, Trump is a young 78 years old.
The progressive penchant for historical revisionism may be at peak absurdity. Then again, you can never know with progressives. These are people who euphemism the mutilation of children’s genitals as “health care” and anti-white bigotry as “diversity” and “equity.” We’re told that Biden is a patriot who put country before self. The fact is that Biden was forced out the race by his own party. (Putting country before self might look something like sacrificing life and livelihood to represent your country when it needs you.)
Remember the line from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” New examples of doublethink and the manipulation of historical facts by the regime abound. “Kamala Harris was the Democrat candidate. Kamala Harris has always been the Democrat candidate.” It was a coup. Because that term might feel overused, let me define it for you: A coup involves the overthrow of an existing government or leadership by a small group, often from within the military or other segments of the state apparatus, and is usually carried out with the intent to install a new ruling authority. While coups may not be violent nor involve violations of the law, they do violate democratic norms. In this case, the candidate elected during the primary is no longer the candidate running for office.
But Trump is a threat to Democracy.
Democrats have been telling us that they aren’t voting for a president—they are voting for an administration (now they may be voting for a DEI hire). This was certainly true given that it was obvious that Biden wasn’t actually running the country. However, Republicans can say some similar, for the Republican Party is democratic-republican in character now, which opens the party to liberals, as well as conservatives who are not pro-life and warmongering. It’s a movement. The transformation of the party from a globalist and military project that stitched onto itself Christian conservatism for votes to a big tent populist-nationalist party is nothing less than astonishing.
In a USA Todayop-ed yesterday, on National Ice Cream Day, conservative Dace Potas wrote about how sad he is as he watches other conservatives sacrifice “meaningful stances, such as being anti-abortion, opposing sexual promiscuity and opposing union strangleholds on our economy in the name of winning the election.” Take a moment and savor that. The Republican Party is no longer stridently pro-life, prudish to a fault, and anti-labor. And that’s a bad thing. Where do the busybodies go now? (There are analogs for true believers in the woke-scolding Democratic Party, so conservatives might check that out. See what they can live with.)
Potas is also sad because the Republican Party is going to eschew or at least moderate destructive free market policies and hawkish foreign policy. We are seeing the end of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Democrats are sad to see this, as well. Of course. After all, neoliberalism and neoconservatism were originally their projects. The Uniparty is collapsing.
We are living through a remarkable historical moment. Now if those around Trump can keep him safe. I suggest he stop shaking hands with people and get a food taster. Maybe avoid crowds, albeit these public events are a barometer of the man’s mass support (whatever you think of him, the man is a rock star). The globalists and warmongers are not just going to stand by and watch as they lose their projects. It’s going to get very dangerous now, not only for the president, but for the country.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. [Winton’s] heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre.”
These words are George Orwell’s. Carry them with you as you go forward in a world where the sense-making institutions of society are determined to gaslight you over the most obvious of truths. Orwell gave you a North Star. You will need rely upon it now more than ever. It is otherwise know as common sense.
Contemporary America—and she is hardly alone—is awash in lies and obfuscations perpetrated by society’s most powerful institutions, public and private. “This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore,” writes Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). “A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies.” She concludes, “With such a people, you can do whatever you want.”
Hannah Arendt
Totalitarian regimes do not simply disseminate falsehoods to deceive the public about specific issues or policies. Their propaganda is designed to create a pervasive atmosphere of distrust and uncertainty. By constantly lying, these regimes aim to erode the very concept of objective truth. In doing so, they foster a climate where individuals become skeptical of all information, rendering them more susceptible to manipulation and social control. The incessant flow of contradictory and false information confuses people, making it difficult for them to discern reality from fabrication. Even the faculty available to all of, common sense, becomes disordered under the welter of lies and distortions.
Contemporary examples of manufactured uncertainty abound: the Putin-Trump nexus hoax, the portrayal of Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation by high-ranking intelligence officials, arbitrary coronavirus pandemic protocols (lockdowns, masks, social distancing, vaccines), the queer project to transgress child safeguarding norms by denying the immutability of the gender binary—all these if not by design at least function to prepare the people to accept authoritarian arrangements, or at least to be equanimous towards them, by undermining their capacity to tell truth from lies and right from wrong. The corruption of our sense-making institutions is in any case intentional because the embrace of the post-truth (dis)order is a choice made by operatives of the corporate state. Disinformation by the intelligence community about the Biden laptop, and the Iraq War before it, gaslighting the public about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline—these were not errors of analysis or judgment. They were and are instances of purposeful deception.
The deliberate erosion of truth has profound implications for critical thinking and public trust. In a landscape where facts are constantly in question, individuals struggle to form coherent and informed opinions. The capacity for critical analysis is diminished when the baseline of factual information is rendered unstable by propaganda. Totalitarian regimes, including the inverted ones Freedom and Reason has devoted itself to exposing, exploit this vulnerability to maintain control, as a populace that cannot think critically is less likely to challenge authority or recognize oppressive practices. When people can no longer trust the information they receive, they become cynical and disengaged. Cynicism undermines the social fabric, as trust is a fundamental component of healthy interpersonal and societal relationships. In such an environment, individuals may withdraw from civic engagement and political participation, disillusioned, disaffected, and disempowered.
Arendt’s insights highlight the danger of allowing truth to be a casualty in political discourse by falling to challenge falsehoods. Democratic societies rely on informed citizens to function effectively. The deliberate or intentional spread of lies by totalitarian regimes undermines the democratic process by making informed decision-making difficult if not impossible. In democracies, the free exchange of ideas and information is essential for the formulation of sound policies and the election of competent leaders. When truth and its pursuit are compromised, the foundation of democracy is weakened. In contemporary contexts, we see this with the rise of “fake news” that those who are often the victims of, most prominently Donald Trump, have warned the public about for years. The spread of false information polarizes societies, fuels conflict, and destabilizes democratic institutions.
That combating fake news often exacerbates these problems is yet another one of its consequences. But we have to challenge lies. To counteract the erosion of truth, it is crucial to hold those in power accountable for their words and actions. This accountability must extend to politicians, media outlets, and any individuals or institutions that have significant influence over public opinion. Upholding standards of honesty and transparency is essential to preserving the integrity of public discourse and maintaining a healthy democracy. Mechanisms for accountability include robust independent fact-checking and transparent communication practices. Fostering media literacy among the public can empower individuals to critically assess the information they encounter and resist manipulation. I established Freedom and Reason for this purpose.
But be wary. Because totalitarian regimes use the cover of accountability to censor and marginalize dissenting views, it’s crucial to take care that the fact-checking is not another manifestation of totalitarian control. When the lines between preventing harm, even if we accept that on principle, and controlling narratives blur, the mechanisms designed to hold entities accountable can be used to silence dissenting voices and unpopular opinions. This danger becomes particularly pronounced in highly polarized environments, where the power to define “misinformation” may be wielded by those with vested interests in suppressing opposing viewpoints. This is why it is so important to correctly identify the character and source of power. The pursuit of truth and transparency must be balanced with robust protections for free expression, ensuring that efforts to combat misinformation do not devolve into tools of authoritarian control. Crucially, legal frameworks that penalize deliberate misinformation must be regarded with suspicion, since the suppression of dissent may and often does encompass lawfare by the corporate state.
Hannah Arendt’s analysis of the intent and function of totalitarian propaganda underscores the insidious nature of constant lying and its devastating impact on society. By ensuring that no one believes anything anymore, totalitarian regimes aim to create a disoriented and pliable populace. This erosion of truth undermines critical thinking, democratic integrity, and public trust. To safeguard against these dangers, it is imperative to uphold accountability without government and corporate censorship and promote a culture of honesty and transparency. That means it’s on us, and in meeting the challenge, indeed the obligation, was can resist or at least slow the slide into authoritarianism and preserve the democratic values that hinge on the existence of objective truth and its open pursuit.
President Trump gave his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention of the day before yesterday. He spent several minutes at the outset talking about the attempt on his life. Between the day a sniper’s bullet pierced his ear (on Saturday a week ago) and his speech on Thursday, a massive doxxing campaign emerged, with pro-Trump forces, most prominently Chaya Raichik, who runs Libs of TikTok, calling out those who publicly expressed regret that the shooter, identified by the FBI as Thomas Matthew Crook, missed his target. Many people have expressed that sentiment on social media and in street interviews. Some of them have been fired from their jobs for expressing it.
The assassination attempt on President Trump is a logical consequence of repeatedly comparing him to Adolf Hitler. After all, if Trump truly was another Hitler, wouldn’t it be their moral duty to assassinate him?
I oppose the doxxing and firings for the expression of opinions. I condemn what Raichik and others are doing. US citizens should be free to express their point of view, and given what they believe about Trump, their opinion is reasonable. Don’t misunderstand. What those who wish Trump dead believe is not true. But if it were, then their wish is understandable. Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard put it well when she tweeted “The assassination attempt on President Trump is a logical consequence of repeatedly comparing him to Adolf Hitler. After all, if Trump truly was another Hitler, wouldn’t it be their moral duty to assassinate him?” Moreover, wouldn’t it follow that there would be many people who would celebrate the assassins and regret their failures?
If one could go back in time and kill Hitler, would the assassin be a hero or a villain? The answer is obvious. In 1939, Georg Elser, a German carpenter, planted a bomb in the Bürgerbräukeller beer hall in Munich where Hitler was giving a speech. The bomb exploded, but Hitler had left the venue early, narrowly escaping the assassination. In an assassination attempt orchestrated by a group of German military officers led by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Operation Valkyrie) in 1944, conspirators planted a bomb in Hitler’s Wolf’s Lair headquarters. The bomb exploded, killing four people and injuring others, including Hitler. Colonel von Stauffenberg, along with Henning von Tresckow, Hans Oster, and Ludwig Beck, are celebrated today as anti-fascist heroes.
To be sure, the vast majority of those wishing Trump dead would never take it upon themselves to do what Crooks did. They have others do their dirty work. But the fact that they wish Crooks hadn’t missed reveals the effect of the steady diet of anti-Trump rhetoric comparing the president to Hitler and warning that a second Trump term would be the end of democracy. The problem here isn’t the desire itself. It’s the historical comparison. Trump is not Hitler. Indeed, he is the opposite. Whereas Hitler dismantled democratic-republican structures and put in their stead a corporate state and technocratic rule, Trump campaigns on deconstructing the administrative state and reclaiming the classical liberal values that underpin the constitutional republic the Founders envisioned. Hitler sought perpetual war. Trump seeks peace. Etcetera. The danger isn’t individuals prepared to act patriotically. The danger is false narratives that feeds stochastic terrorism. To be sure, the free speech right protects such narratives. But those who weave them bear moral responsibility for their consequences.
George W. Bush as Hitler
This is not the first time we have been through something like this, that is suggestions that the problems of the police state and warmongering can be solved with a bullet. During George W. Bush’s presidency there were numerous demonstrations and protests where comparisons were drawn between Bush and Hitler. This juxtaposition was used by opponents of Bush’s policies, particularly in relation to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.
I opposed both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act (taking to the streets to protest, participating in teach-ins at my university, and publishing essays and book chapters highly critical of the neoconservative consensus), but the comparison of Bush to Hitler represented a bad analogy, since fascism had by that time had taken the form of inverted totalitarianism wherein there was no need for dictatorship. Sheldon Wolin made the compelling case for the new totalitarianism in Democracy, Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, published in 2008. Wolin has long warned about democracy’s vulnerability to being subverted by the increasing intertwining of corporate and state power. (For more about Wolin’s thesis, as well as other work concerning the enduring attributes of fascism see my July 6 essay Celebrating the End of Chevron: How to See the New Fascism.)
In 2005, the Lawton Gallery at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, the university where I teach, featured an art exhibition by graphic artist Al Brandtner titled Axis of Evil: The Secret History of Sin. The ideas were conveyed in the form of US postage stamps. One notable piece depicted the burning World Trade Center with the caption “Blame God.” But that’s not the piece that got the attention of the Secret Service. The artwork in question featured a page of stamps portraying President George W. Bush. The background displayed the red-and-white stripes of the American flag, while a hand with a gun pointed at Bush’s temple emerged from the right border. The bottom of the stamps read “Patriot Act.” Brandtner’s attorney was questioned by Secret Service agents when the piece was included in a traveling exhibit of more than a hundred mock postage stamps.
“Patriot Act” by Al Brandtner, sheet of 42 mock 37-cent stamps depicting President Bush with a revolver pointed to his head.
The chancellor of UW-Green Bay at the time, Bruce Shepard, censored that artwork. the Secret Service had gotten to him. A book in which the piece appeared, along with other items from the exhibit, was made available to the public, on a stand, opened to the page, but the piece itself was not allowed to hang on the wall with the others. In an email, Shepard expressed his concerns, stating, “The advocacy of assassination is something I view as neither abstract nor theoretical. It happens, it is real. I further believe that the one piece of concern very reasonably can be seen as expressing advocacy of assassination.” Shepard elaborated on his decision in the email, saying that not censoring Brandtner’s work would mean using taxpayer money to potentially encourage the assassination of President Bush. “It is a question of whether this campus will use publicly provided resources for what, very reasonably and by many, will be construed as advocacy of a most violent and unlawful act,” Shepard explained.
For his part, Brandtner tried to have it both ways. He claimed that his artwork was not intended to promote assassination, but his explanation under questioning by The Badger Herald indicated otherwise. “The chancellor was taking the point of view that it’s advocating assassination. I didn’t see it myself as I was threatening, and I really didn’t see it as a real scenario. I don’t expect people to heed the call and do something so crazy.” The phrase “heed the call” makes the point rather dramatically—so what is the call? He explained that the provocative nature of his work was encouraged by the curator of the exhibit, Michael Hernandez de Luna, who, Brandtner said “was flat-out adamant that the work we or anyone submitted to him was hard-hitting and ball-busting, that kind of stuff.” Brandtner continued: “I was just trying to use Bush as sort of a target. I was trying to define that Patriot Act somewhere and turn that around and redefine it.”
Brandtner bragged that the censorship had unintentionally increased interest and publicity for his work. Brandtner said that the controversy had unexpectedly given him a significant political voice. “I’ve never been able to express my political views in a very coherent way,” he said. “I’m a guy that’s just trying to make a living as a graphic artist and all of a sudden some artwork that I’ve done has propelled me into the middle of an argument.” He stated that his artwork was an extreme illustration of his frustration with the Bush administration, referencing political assassinations by self-proclaimed patriots throughout history. The stamps, according to Brandtner, represented “sort of a wishful thinking about the Bush Administration in general that they would just be gone.” In other words, Brandtner’s Patriot Act was a death wish.
Al Brandtner
Shepard’s actions sparked protests and a panel discussion on what free speech, academic freedom, and censorship mean on a college campus. My colleague Carol Emmons, a well-respected installation artist, participated and sobbed as she reflected on the state of freedom on our campus. This was the same chancellor who not only failed to defend me from efforts to derail my tenure but who wrote me one of the nastiest letters I have ever received from an administrator. And here he was censoring an artist at a public university. He defended himself by saying that the piece was viewable, as he could not bring himself to remove the book. But in the end he bent to the government censor in the form of the Secret Service.
As I watched Carol regain her composure, my mind went to Stephen King’s The Dead Zone. Johnny Smith awakens from a five-year coma with psychic abilities—he can touch objects or people and see into their past or future. Dr. Sam Weizak, a Holocaust survivor, is the neurologist who treats Smith after he awakens from his coma. Weizak contemplates what he would have done if he had the chance to assassinate Adolf Hitler before World War II. Their discussion explores the ethical dilemmas Smith faces as he grapples with his powers of insight, highlighting the complexities of intervening in history.
Smith meets Greg Stillson, an ambitious politician campaigning for a seat in the US House of Representatives. Shaking hands, Smith foresees Stillson becoming a dictator and instigating a nuclear war. Smith makes an attempt on Stillson’s life during a political rally. The assassination attempt fails. However, Smith’s actions inadvertently lead to Stillson’s downfall. In the process of defending himself, Stillson grabs a child to use as a human shield, and a photographer captures this moment. The resulting public outrage over Stillson’s cowardice and lack of integrity destroys his political career. Smith is mortally wounded. He dies satisfied that he changed the course of history.
When my recollection of King’s novel began, I had thought about using it as a preface to a question inspired by it. But I realized that it would take too long to set up the question without looking like I agreed with the sentiment expressed by Brandtner’s artwork. Although I loathed George Bush, I did not agree that assassinating him would solve any problems.
We may never know whether Crooks believed he was solving a problem. We will never know whether he knew he had failed at his task if indeed that’s what it was. We do know two things, however. Unlike Stillson, Trump rose courageously from the deck and led the crowd in a chant of “Fight! Fight! Fight!” If Crook’s goal was to stop what he believed was the second coming of Hitler, then he failed spectacularly. Secondly, if Crook believed that Trump represented the second coming of Hitler (we know millions Democrats do), then he was moved by a false narrative, a narrative that endangers the life of a man whose patriotism is fearless.
Experiencing attempted cancellation at a public university highlights the troubling reality of authoritarian impulses in contemporary discourse. I know. It happened to me—twice (see The Snitchy Dolls Return.) The desire to see someone fired for their opinion undermines the foundational principles of academic freedom and open dialogue (see Republicanism, Free Speech, and the Illiberal Impulse). In an environment meant to foster diverse perspectives and critical thinking, such attempts at silencing dissent and opinion not only threaten individual livelihoods but also erode the intellectual rigor and democratic ethos that universities should uphold. This experience underscores the urgent need to defend free expression and resist authoritarian tendencies that seek to stifle debate and diversity of thought in academic institutions.
Meet Jennifer Collins. She is a professor in the American Studies department at the @UofAlabama.
She describes the Pennsylvania assassin as "a really lousy shot" who not only missed Trump but also the people behind him. She then suggests that Trump fake his own assassination and… pic.twitter.com/EzYGAJofDG
I disagree with Jennifer Collins’ opinion, but I defend her right to express it—and condemn those who are attempting to get her because they disagree with her. The free speech right must include the freedom to express regret that an assassination attempt failed. Wishing somebody were dead is not an uncommon wish. Others have the right to criticize somebody who expresses such regret (or any other). But to want to see the speaker/writer fired for having expressed it is an authoritarian impulse. To be sure, the authoritarian has the right to express his desires to see people cancelled. Likewise, the rest of us also have the right to criticize him for it. If we are not authoritarians, then we criticize him, but we do not contact his place of employment and attempt to get him cancelled. This is the difference between authoritarians and liberals, the latter doesn’t seek to harm a person with disagreeable opinions.
I have published several essays on the medical scandal of our time, so called gender affirming care, or GAC, which involves social identification and representation of a gender as the gender it is not (and cannot be), often associated with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and radical cosmetic surgeries, which include double mastectomy, facial feminization/masculinization, phalloplasty, and vaginoplasty. GAC is backed by a junk science supposing, to put the matter in the simplest terms, that people are sometimes born into the wrong bodies. There are clinics across the nation that administer GAC, and all the major medical associations legitimize the procedure. Whether medical professionals do so because of the enormous profits GAC generates, or because they believe that gender identity is akin to sexual preference, is a matter of debate.
As I showed in a recent essay, we have been here before with the lobotomy (The Persistence of Medical Atrocities: Lobotomy, Nazi Doctors, and Gender Affirming Care). A lobotomy, also known as a leukotomy, is a psychosurgical procedure that involves intentionally damaging connections in the brain’s prefrontal cortex ostensibly to treat mental disorders by altering the brain’s function. In the case of GAC, the ostensible purpose is to treat mental disorders (gender dysphoria) by altering the physiology and physical appearance of the subject. The lobotomy doesn’t exhaust the universe of junk science. Nor do the instances of social contagion covered on Freedom and Reason exhaust the universe of mass hysteria and moral panic (Why Aren’t We Talking More About Social Contagion?). We find in the recovered memory scandal at the end of the twentieth century another high profile example of pseudoscientific accounting and manufacture of mass psychogenic illness.
During the 1980s and 1990s, numerous individuals, primarily women, began to “recall” previously forgotten memories of childhood abuse, often “revealed” through therapy. These memories, referred to as “recovered memories,” were “discovered” using various therapeutic techniques, such as hypnosis, guided imagery, and other suggestive methods. The recovered memory movement gained significant momentum during the period, leading to a wave of accusations and legal actions against alleged abusers. Many lives were ruined. (Perhaps the most notorious case was the McMartin Preschool, Exhibit A in the satanic panic episode. See Believing Women and Children and Forgetting History.)
Many of these cases involved accusations of sexual abuse, often against family members or authority figures. The sensational nature of the accusations and the emotional weight of the testimonies led to widespread media coverage and a surge in public concern about hidden abuse. Like the trajectory of genderism, as the recovered memory movement grew, so did controversy and skepticism. Critics argued that the techniques used to recover these memories were not scientifically validated and that they could lead to the creation of false memories. Research indicated that memory is not a perfect recording of events and can be influenced and distorted by suggestion, leading to the phenomenon known as “false memory syndrome.”
High-profile cases and legal battles brought the issue to the forefront of public debate, with some accused individuals being convicted and later exonerated when evidence of memory contamination emerged. Professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), issued statements cautioning against the uncritical acceptance of recovered memories in therapeutic and legal contexts. The APA established the Working Group on Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse in 1993 to review the available evidence and provide guidance. The APA released a report in 1998 that stated that, while it is possible for memories of childhood abuse to be forgotten and later remembered, it is also possible for people to develop false memories of events that never occurred. The report emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence when assessing the accuracy of such memories and urged caution in both accepting memories without further evidence.
Elizabeth Loftus
During this period, American cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus became well known for her work on the malleability and reliability of memory, particularly in the context of eyewitness testimony and recovered memories. Loftus’ research has demonstrated how easily human memory can be influenced and altered by suggestion. She is best known for her documentation of the “misinformation effect,” in which the memories of subjects are altered by exposure to incorrect information. Although false memories are the result of the inherent way brains function, she found that a significant proportion of the population are especially vulnerable to techniques producing false memories. Loftus’ work led to significant reform in the criminal justice process as academics and therapists who theorize that memory repression is a natural survival technique had their beliefs called into question and their legitimacy as expert witnesses against those accused of child sexual abuse challenged. (For a comprehensive overview of Loftus’ work, see her 1994 The Myth of Repressed Memory.)
Despite facing significant criticism and controversy, particularly from advocates of recovered memory therapy and those who believe they were victims of sexual abuse, Loftus’ work continues to be a cornerstone in the field of cognitive psychology and legal studies (I teach her work in my criminal justice courses). There are many experts today who find themselves in Loftus’ situation, skeptics who will (hopefully) change the way people think about GAC but will have to endure the hate and vitriol Loftus suffered (she had been assaulted, sued, and threatened with death). The recovered memory scandal highlights the need for rigorous scientific standards in therapeutic practices and the potential harm of suggestive techniques. More generally, it highlights the ethical responsibilities of mental health and medical professionals, responsibilities corrupted by profit and ideology. It also shows us how bad ideas can sweep through a population with harmful consequences.
