A More Honest Statement from the APA

In a typical display of thoughtfulness, the American Politicized Association (formerly the American Philosophical Association) board of officers unanimously approved and issued the statement below concerning the election:

Take a gander at the presentation titles they’re proudly advertising. We have taken the liberty to re-write the APA’s statement in a way that exposes their implicit biases, followed by a list of talks that might be advertised if the APA sanctioned a different political vision:

2017 Eastern Division Meeting: Baltimore, MD, January 4–8

  • Presidential Address: The Moral Superiority of Being Republican
    Eva Keder Fittay
  • Living, Thinking, and Teaching “White Lives Matter”
    Bobert Wirt
  • A Vision for White Lives as/and Philosophy
    John Smith
  • Colored Men Masculinism
    James Joy and Zack Naomi
  • Conservative and Creative Democracy in the Age of Crooked Hillary
    Rane Shalston and Ran Deyes
  • Philosophy of the City—in Black and White
    Arranged by the Philosophy of the City Research Group and the Committee on the Status of Black and White Philosophers
    Speakers: Bobert Rirt and Gane Jordan
  • Are the Handicapped Overrepresented in Parking Lots?
    Vohn Jorhaus

2017 Central Division Meeting: Kansas City, MO, March 1–4

  • Weightlifting and MMA Fights: Towards an Epistemology of Asskicking
    Arranged by Philosophers with testicles.
    Speakers: Carah Sonrad and Pebastian Surcell
  • Philosophy of Liberation after Ferguson: Lies, More Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
    Pfeoffrey Geiffer
  • Towards an Ontology of American Greatness
    Hosted by the council for Leibniz, Aquinas, and Locke studies.
    Speakers: Coren Lannon and Llaire Clockard
  • Old Dead White Males and Their Excellent Legacy
    Bina Totts and “Commy” J. Turry
  • A Moral Defense of Free Markets
    Arranged by Society for Free Markets
    Speakers: Cohn Jorvino and Bima Rasu
  • Nozick’s Response to Rawls: Still Unanswered
    Nichard Runan
  • Don’t Put that There: The Immorality and Health Risks of Sodomy
    Tiberius Valerie

2017 Pacific Division Meeting: Seattle, WA, April 12–15

  • Why the Nineteenth Amendment Should be Repealed
    Hosted by Male Philosophers for Common Sense
    Speaker: Lyin’ Breiter
  • In Defense of the White Male Hegemony
    Lennifer Jackey and Manne Kate
  • Make Foot-Binding Great Again: A Defense of Ancient Chinese Values
    Whyshaun Spencer and Dick Van Dike
  • Converting Queers: The Advantages of Electro-Shock Therapy
    Tohn Jorrey and Adam Vasej
  • Transgenderism: A Fictionalist View
    Thomas Brian and Sendy Walkin
  • Pro-Choice For Chattel Slavery: Equal Rights for the Cis-White Patriachy
    Arranged by the Committee on Inclusiveness in the Profession
    Speakers: Stephen Esquit and “Christian” Hoeckley
  • Should Women Who Murder their Children in Utero be Punished? A Defense of Trumpian Intuitions
    Dobin Rembroff

Walter Montgomery

Walter is a philosophy graduate student in New Hampshire. He sometimes wishes he was a lawyer, and other times wishes he was a basketball coach. Some of his favorite childhood memories involve traveling with his immediate family, grandparents, and cousins’ family in big gas-guzzling vans towing campers. He sees philosophy as a tool for getting at Truth, and thinks too many contemporary philosophers see it as a tool for advancing their ideological preferences.

View All Posts


A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts


A jaded but jolly bearded giant with former aspirations in professional philosophy, Fideist spurned the profession after it spurned him. He’s now chasing more lucrative endeavors in the private sector, although he still thinks about all that ills the world, and often wonders when Almighty God will make good on His promise to make all things new.

View All Posts


  1. lol well done. Also, I think your rewritten version of the APA’s statement is spot on. I think it is absolutely incredible how they espouse the ideals of ‘academic freedom’ and ‘respectful dialogue’. These are the very ideals that they are destroying! What they really mean when they say ‘academic freedom’ and ‘respectful dialogue’ is “blind and fanatic adherence to radical leftist ideology.” What a joke. Kudos to you guys for pointing this out. I will come to this post in the future when I need a good chuckle, especially those proposed lecture topics haha

  2. Below is a comment I made on this subject at the Daily Nous (sic). It was, of course, promptly deleted.

    “Does the APA intends to promote “respectful and open dialogue” with those who take unpopular positions on matters related to “inclusion and diversity.” Will, say, Michael Tooley, be invited to a special session at the Eastern to share his thoughts about the APA’s site visit committee?”

    • It’s a sad state of affairs that Daily Nous is deleting such innocuous comments. Of course, you’ll receive no such censorship here, and if some APA reps want to come and defend their pathetic actions, they are more than welcome! We won’t censor them.

  3. The sad part is they actually believe the stuff they write. It would at least have some limited value as humor if it were satire like RC’s re-write, but I can almost see the somber countenances, slow serious nods, pursed lips, and anguished glances as the final touches were being made to the final draft.

    Get a life, APA. You’re a pointless cabal.

    • CRD,

      I used to be of the mind too that they believe what they say. But I actually think it’s quite darker than that: I think they know they’re hypocrites, and I think they know that they don’t really believe in what they pretend to stand for. When the read the satire above, I doubt any of them in their hearts fail to see the truth in it. They simply don’t care. They carry on anyway solely for the sake of power, money, comfort, and admiration.

      We don’t have a situation here where people are doing evil while ignorantly believing it’s good; they know it’s evil, which makes it all the more sickening that they try to pass it off as good.

    • Actually I know of some philosophers who have read it and do not know that it is satire. Apparently they are so disconnected with everyone not like themselves that they have become mentally (emotionally? spiritually?) disabled.

    • AR,

      Maybe you’re right; perhaps some really do believe what they say, and don’t see the hypocrisy.

      But I don’t see how they can fail to it once the hypocrisy is brought to their attention, as it plainly is here in the snippet above. It seems to me that at that point a decision is made to persist in one’s delusion rather than depart from it. At that point, perhaps pride or the fear of man kicks in; people worry about how they’ll survive in the profession if they don’t tow the line. Regardless of the reason, I don’t see how anyone could honestly claim to be a supporter of “academic freedom” whole actively pushing an agenda which essentially does away with it. They must see the inconsistency, no? I can’t really comprehended how someone couldn’t.

      In any case, thanks for the chuckle. I was resolved to write a similar piece myself last night before I saw this one today, so thanks!

  4. Related to Lysias’s innocuous comment apparently deleted at Daily Nous, here are several factual examples of egregious violations of “respectful and honest dialogue”, all based on fact, and all from my own experience of being witch hunted and harassed by a mob of vigilante fanatics in philosophy; a mob of fanatics who successfully distributed smears and libel for ten months with no opposition – in fact, they were given everything they demanded; who successfully destroyed, ruined and pauperized a family, with their smear campaign of lies; and none of whom were held to account for their appalling and destructive behaviour.

    – Is publicly smearing a professional philosopher with the disgusting fabrication of being a “murderer”, either by malicious communication or on Twitter (5 Sept 2013), an example of “respectful and honest dialogue”?
    – Is publishing blogposts (Oct 2013, Feb 2014, March 2014) calling a completely innocent person a murderer on the basis of no evidence and with no right of reply an example of “respectful and honest dialogue”?
    – Is smearing, slandering, harassing, intimidating and libelling a completely innocent person and illegally driving them out of their teaching (June 2013 – Feb 2014) an example of “respectful and honest dialogue”?
    – Is cyber-harassing, intimidating and driving a family, including a 4 year old child, out of their home in fear, on police advice (26 Feb 2014) an example of “respectful and honest dialogue”?
    – Is a smear campaign, both in secret and public, of slander, blatant lies and fabrications, demanding punishment of the innocent and ruining a family’s life (June 2013 – April 2014), an example of “honest and respectful dialogue”?

    What is “respectful” or “honest” about a lynch mob campaign of intimidation, slander, cyber-harassment and fabricated libel, destroying innocent people’s lives? Particularly when that family are not merely innocent, but had already been victims for more than two years of long-term stalker and liar, guilty of a sexual assault (Nov 2010) and of being detained by the police for making threats (May 2010).

    The point is not merely the APA’s politically-motivated inversion of the concepts of “respectful” or “honest”. What the APA in practice advocates is disrespectful, dishonest and abusive in the extreme; no other profession promotes this level of intimidation, public abuse and dishonesty. A further point is that the political radicals who run the APA endorse harassment, public abuse, intimidation and smear campaigns against assault and stalking victims. So victims — the “wrong” kind of victims, clearly — are treated as subhuman and not worthy of minimal respect. There’s nothing “respectful” or “honest” about smearing, harassing and hunting down victims of stalking and violence; or harassing and intimidating frightened 4 year old children; or destroying and ruining people’s lives with smear campaigns of lies and fabrications.

    Perhaps it is time for the APA, and the militants associated with it, to actually practice a bare minimum of “respect” and “honesty”. Imagine some paranoid wing-nut points a figure at some Muslim. Would the APA endorse hunting down that Muslim man and his family? Smearing him with paranoid lies? Cyber-harassing him and his family, and driving them out of their home? Have them pauperized or thrown into jail? For this is what the Nazis did to Jews in the 1930s. And this is, in practice, the behaviour of political militants in philosophy: they behave like Nazi witch-hunters, demonizing and hunting down their “enemy” (i.e., victims of sexual assault and of stalking; children).

    It is time for the APA and the associated militants and witch hunters to behave with a modicum of respect and honesty; to end their multiple campaigns of lies, harassment, smears, intimidation and vicious demands for punitive action, which are intended to achieve – and successfully do achieve – the destruction of innocent people’s lives and the intimidation of almost everyone else into silence.

    • It’s a well established pattern. Look at the histrionics over “The Swinburne Controversy”. And it’s not restricted to academia, although that area is arguably infected with the most virulent type of leftist liberal malignancy.

    • Perhaps Oxford’s Faculty of Philosophy could be rechristened:
      The Faculty of Sexual Assault, Stalking and Vigilantism.
      Graduate students who specialize in sexually assaulting people, stalking people or lynching people could be given extra DPhil credits, and a bonus badge for harassing children.

    • Alas, Jeff, I don’t expect any behavioral changes from the APA ideologues. Indeed, I think the APA is beyond saving. It’s been several years since I’ve paid dues. I would advise others to do the same.

      I do wonder, however, if there are enough dissident voices to support an alternative, non-ideological professional organization. Just as the SPEP, rather than the APA, is the primary professional organization for “continental” philosophers, there could be a national organization for professional philosophers who *actually* want to discuss core topics in philosophy in a “respectful and open” way, absent the politicking that is slowly destroying our discipline.

    • Interesting idea, Lysias. If the APA died in its current form, I wouldn’t care much. But, could an alternative form? There would be benefits to an alternative forming, but, in the current state, I wonder if it would just become an organization of conservative philosophers. It could become a way of blacklisting conservatives. I wonder if it is better to resist from within the APA in the little ways that we can.

    • There’ll be no behavioural change, I agree. If a group are prepared to slander and harass the innocent out of their homes and jobs, to intimidate a family and even a child, all with no sense of severe wrongdoing, they’re beyond moral reasoning. So I do not envisage a sudden “mea culpa”, like Khrushchev’s recantation in 1956.

      But it’s worse than simply the APA, who are at the apex, as it were. The philosophy profession is saturated with the ideologues. Nowhere I’m familiar with is free of bizarre identity politics ideology – such as the crazy “men are evil and wicked and women are harmless flowers” stereotype promoted for years. Well, if that absurd stereotype is true, how did I get sexually assaulted, threatened and then stalked for over two years? Dissidents who object to this remain quiet and nod quietly to initiatives they disapprove of; sometimes make plans to leave. No one likes the political bullying and intimidation. Why are the writers here, or critical commenters at Brian Leiter’s blog, anonymous? Answer: intimidation. And the social justice ideologues know that force works. They know almost no one will answer back, because the consequences for their careers and personal lives might be terrible.

      I don’t have an answer to a toxic atmosphere like this, so saturated with ideological policing, victimizing dissenters and the regular outbursts of hysteria and witch hunting. A few dissidents have made themselves known – Philippe Lemoine has bravely done this occasionally. So did Daniel Bonevac. But it’s small, compared to the hundreds who enjoy every outburst of hysteria and hunting, and who clap with glee like Romans at the Colosseum when it happens.

      As for practical suggestions, I have little clue, really. Professional philosophers unhappy with the ideological domination of the profession and its consequences (i.e., silencing all other opinions) could participate on Jon Haidt’s project, Heterodox Academy. I certainly don’t think a separate organization would help anyway. The history of “splits” in organizations is not conducive to optimism on this score. (Think of Trotskyist sects.)

      The point is that you cannot have a profession that is dominated by an aggressive, to the point of hysteria and vigilantism, ideology; it is pathological. The profession must tolerate people who disagree – e.g., centrist (classical) liberals like me; or conservatives as there are here; or people with religious views. The profession needs to tolerate other human beings and treat them as equals, and not treat them as subhumans, even if they might express an opinion just a nanometre outside the miniscule framework of left-wing identity politics that is currently in vogue. The profession needs to end its hysterical witch hunts based on slanderous gossip for which there’s no evidence. The profession needs to stop behaving like the NKVD or the Gestapo. Professional philosophers need to stop treating other human beings, with their various experiences and opinions, as punchbags, onto which they can project all their hatred and paranoia. Professional philosophers need to listen to other people, instead of demonizing them, based on mad stereotypes. They need to pay attention to someone if they say, “No, that isn’t true. It is actually made up”. They need to learn to avoid confirmation bias; they need to learn to think as individuals, and avoid groupthink; they need to learn not to jump onto a bandwagon of hatred and public shaming, when they have no idea what the facts are. They need to try and show empathy for others, instead of frenzied hatred. They need to learn about reality, instead of the tiny echo chamber of identity politics stereotypes.

    • I did, yes, in August 2014. However, the vigilante campaign of lies for about 10 months (June 2013 – April 2014) succeeded in burning down the whole of my life. And I have now left, a couple of months ago.

  5. As AR-15 mentions above, I was told that some don’t recognize this as satire, and may actually think we advocate some of the obviously satirical talk topics. Amazing! But, to make the point painfully obvious, some of the_actual_talk topics of the APA are as absurd to many on the right as these people think these topics are. That they fail to recognize this shows that they have some serious blinders on.

  6. Here is a hypothesis that partly explains why the APA (and I suppose the profession more broadly) is so badly politicized: many (most?) philosophers think that politics is philosophy, so they just don’t see professional boundaries between themselves qua philosophers and themselves qua citizens with political beliefs. They are one and the same. But this is not so for the average employee or top executive of, say, Kellogg’s, who is probably much more likely to realize the inappropriateness of issuing politically biased statements on behalf on the company. Such a person is much more likely to stop and think, “Politics and work don’t mix that well.” Not so for philosophers, who see themselves as philosopoliticians.

    Of course, if it’s true that many political issues are also philosophical issues (and I think that’s true), you’d also think that philosophers would realize that political issues are just as debatable as philosophical issues. Why, then, there seems to be such a consensus among philosophers on political issues but not on philosophical issues should raise eyebrows.

    • “philosophers think that politics is philosophy”

      I’ve heard feminists explicitly say that they blur the line between philosophy and politics. Advocacy counts as philosophy.

    • The real dividing issue is not between conservatives and the left. For there are Marxists, socialists, democratic socialists, postmodernists and centrists I personally know who dislike the social justice ideology that dominates the philosophy profession and some other professions, and which is used to discipline, punish and persecute. It’s a very specific form of militant identity politics, with juvenile narcissism, bizarre stereotypes, usually about race and gender, and promoting paranoid conspiracy theories of no greater empirical validity than belief in homeopathy or flying saucers. This is the problem.

      I wouldn’t “out” those people I know, obviously. But one notable example in the public domain is Professor Laura Kipnis, of Northwestern University, who I know personally. Laura is a left-winger, a kind of Foucault-influenced feminist. So, not a conservative at all. She thinks modern identity politics feminism, or victim feminism, is paranoid. She was witch hunted at Northwestern University in March – May 2015 by political activists based in the philosophy dept there, for an essay she wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education in February 2015; they marched around with mattresses, wrote furious rants and made demands to the University to get her fired. Obviously, vexatious nonsense. Eventually, after three months or so, she prevailed over these attempts at discipline and punishment. And those disciplinary activists were made to look both ridiculous and vindictive. So the issue is not really a left/right issue. It is an issue of a political movement which is paranoid, intolerant, conspiracist, unable to think critically based on evidence; versus everyone else, who are reasonable and can think critically, based on evidence and context. Laura is sensible, reasonable and funny. She has now written a book about her experience, called “Unwanted Advances”, which will be published by Harper Collins in April 2017.

    • “The real dividing issue is not between conservatives and the left. For there are Marxists, socialists, democratic socialists, postmodernists and centrists I personally know who dislike the social justice ideology that dominates the philosophy profession and some other professions, and which is used to discipline, punish and persecute. It’s a very specific form of militant identity politics, with juvenile narcissism, bizarre stereotypes, usually about race and gender, and promoting paranoid conspiracy theories of no greater empirical validity than belief in homeopathy or flying saucers. This is the problem.”
      I remember hearing stories of conservatives and liberals working together and making compromises that were agreeable to both sides. People often talk about how Reagan worked with Tip O’Neil for instance. So, I don’t think that the dividing issue has to be between conservatives and the left. But I see so few on the left who might not be totally on board with the social justice ideology speak against it. I often hear them apologize for it. Do you think this is out of fear of speaking against the ideology, Jeff, or do you think that they are just ignorant of the social justice crowd’s true intentions?

      I think it’s probably a little bit of both, but I’m starting to find the apologizing less and less excusable. The more lives are destroyed, the more failure to speak out becomes a serious moral failure.

  7. I’m interested to hear what they have to say about Swinburne’s argument concerning homosexuality.

    I’m thankful that we have 2500 years of philosophy from which we can learn, and so we are not left with APA’s baloney.

  8. This is a reply to Walter Montgomery’s last reply to me. It appears the comments here allow only a limited number of threaded replies.

    I think Walter is correct to worry that an alternative professional organization would end up being de facto (even if not de jure) conservative, thereby enabling yet another round of blaming and shaming from philosophy’s bein pensants.

    Still, as Jeff rightly points out above, there are many non-conservatives who are fed up with the very nasty iteration of identity politics that has overtaken many areas of academic life (and, indeed, public life). I suspect it’s a social contagion largely spread by use of social media platforms, but I digress.

    Anyway, if some notable non-conservative philosophers were prepared to participate in an alternative professional organization, I think it could be viable. As I understand it, this is the model for Haidt’s Heterodoxy Academy.

    None of this is to say I have any idea about how to proceed.

    • Lysias, know your enemy. What is their (objectively) strong point? What is their (objectively) weak point?
      Fighting them on their strong point — even if it feels better, as it’s what really annoys you — is strategically an error, unless you happen to possess overwhelmingly superior force. But opponents of the social justice mob are weak, with little to no power; the social justice ideologues outnumber and outresource you, by orders of magnitude; they can do more or less as they please; and the majority (the bystanders) remain quiet. So, one must find their weak point and exploit that.

  9. “It’s a very specific form of militant identity politics, with juvenile narcissism, bizarre stereotypes, usually about race and gender, and promoting paranoid conspiracy theories of no greater empirical validity than belief in homeopathy or flying saucers.”

    There seems to be a nexus of causes/forces that have come together to generate the symptoms you correctly identify. One of these seems to be the deeply and widely held belief that language, together with implicit bias, operates in such a way as to make those who disagree about gender theory X or race policy Y actual oppressors. It is why there is a moral hatred and a lashing out at those who boldly disagree (or signify bold disagreement through their actions). It is why mere disagreement is seen as confusing and only to be explained by ignorance or malignant intentions.

    The question becomes why the strange, silly belief that language and implicit bias can ground oppression in such a way? Some of this comes from group think in sociology and ‘studies’, but it surely isn’t the entire story at the societal level. Another one is likely the fact that for many in the West life is so comfortable now, and religion and community on the wane, that something must fill the void. When society becomes nearly equal, small inequalities will feel intensely unjust. There are other causes as well, of course.

    • “When society becomes nearly equal, small inequalities will feel intensely unjust.”

      Do you mean the phenomena we see of emotional hypersensitivity and grossly disproportionate, narcissistic over-reaction to the teeniest feeling of emotional sleight? Yes, much of that drives identity politics, social mobbing, vigilantism and outrage culture. It’s discussed as one of the topics of Haidt & Lukianoff’s article, “The Coddling of the American Mind” (The Atlantic (July 2015). Haidt and Lukianoff also mention the demented witch hunt against Laura Kipnis at Northwestern University in 2015, that I mentioned above.

      My impression is that this phenomenon comes almost entirely from the *rich*, not the poor; the poor exist, but they don’t care about “identity politics”, considering it pretentious nonsense. So, we see the phenomenon of the rich attacking the poor, using identity politics as a weapon to spew vomit on their social inferiors. For example, in our case, we are a working-cass family. My family were factory workers. I grew up in what is quaintly called a “council estate”, but which, more accurately, is a kind of hellhole for the working-class. Our neighbours were armed robbers. My wife’s family are likewise factory workers. We have no fancy connections; no uncles and aunts who are professors, or journalists, or doctors, etc. Just working-class plebeians. We have no money and have lived for years in destitution, often because of the series of temporary low-paid teaching jobs. But the vigilante mob who hunted us for months in Oxford were the rich, as a couple of my friends noted. These events did not occur – actually i don’t think *could* occur – in Hicksville, Montana. They occurred in one of the wealthiest environments in the world, populated by a spectacularly privileged elite, with trendy hipster far-left views. The main perpetrators were privately educated. They are privileged, narcissistic, isolated from the harshness of real life, and protected from ideological variation or challenge. Even so, their delusions, fanaticism and campaign of intimidation and cyber-harassment was so extreme, we were driven out of the town in February 2014, on police advice.

      (I don’t believe an Oxford academic has been driven out the town by a vigilante mob since 1209.)

      There’s something similar with the recent revolt by the “unprotected” (in Peggy Noonan’s term), working-cass voters, against identity politics in the US presidential election. For identity politics is the privileged elite libelling and attacking the working-class, or anyone who defends the working-class (this is how Bernie Sanders got slandered as being a “white supremacist”). Also with the working-class voters who rebelled in the UK and voted for Brexit.

      Identity politics is a paranoid, conspiracist delusion caused by wealth and privilege. So it’s hardly surprising that, given an opportunity, ordinary people will stick their fingers up to it.

    • I agree.

      The disassociation with reality is remarkable. Of course, being a straight white male in some inherently nebulous and undefinable way means you still can never be truly oppressed (again, whatever oppression even means anymore).

      One would have thought progressive self-awareness would bring about a course correction after Sanders was labeled as being in the outgroup. This type of jumping the shark, though, seems to be the new normal. On the assumption that the economy gets marginally better, a course correction is necessary if they want 2018 to go any differently.

    • On the delusions about “oppression”, it is an intentional inversion. In the 1930s, the Gestapo drove Jews from the German universities, calling Jews “oppressors”. But they were not oppressors; they were victims. When a privileged elite libels the working class as “oppressors”, they of course know that they are inverting reality. In the universities, the social justice warriors have significant, unchallengeable, amounts of institutional power. So, they can vilify and witch hunt whom they please, with no accountability, redress or protest. (In Oxford, the meaning of “oppression” is literally inverted: *victims* of sexual assault, stalking and violence are vilified, witch hunted, intimidated and driven out – even children.)

      The real reason is here is based in social psychology — the self-righteous indignation of the mob — and these phenomena are as old as history itself, and not specifically linked either to the left or the right: the social justice warriors are crusaders, witch hunters, mobbers and lynchers. It makes little difference whether one compares them with religious fanatics, the American Puritan witch hunters of Salem, the KKK lynchers of the deep south, the antisemitic pogroms of Eastern Europe, the Bolshevik NKVD, the Gestapo, Senator McCarthy’s HUAC, the persecution under Mao’s Great Leap Forward, Iranian mobs stoning a woman to death, or IS executing infidels, and so on.

      This authoritarian lynching mentality was mocked in Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, at the scene where the man is stoned for saying “Jehovah”, and the groupthink was mocked at the scene where Brian Cohen tells his unwanted followers to be individuals. The social justice warriors are crusaders and lynchers: they identify their target whom they want to destroy, while conceiving of themselves as “righteous”, as pursuing a goal of “social justice”. It absolutely does not matter to them what the truth is, or whom they hurt or harm. There is an Aldous Huxley quote on this topic (don’t know if its genuine), which sums it up nicely:

      “The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”

  10. Charles, “I’m sorry for what has been done to you, by your enemies Dr. Ketland. ”

    Thank you. I appreciate that!
    I don’t think of them as “enemies”, though. That is far too complimentary to them and elevates their zealotry above what it is: vigilante thuggery.

    Walter, “Do you think this is out of fear of speaking against the ideology, Jeff, or do you think that they are just ignorant of the social justice crowd’s true intentions?”

    The true intentions – as with any cult of “true believers” – are to achieve power by crushing all opposition, using whatever methods they like. So we see social justice lynching, day after day. People who are unhappy with social justice mobbing and lynching know the intentions all too well. So, they are frightened for their own livelihoods and lives, and remain silent. However, I think the majority of “bystanders” are simply apathetic and disengaged.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)