I need your help: I’m seeking rare, hard-to-find intactivist materials—PDFs of books, articles, or resources that are print-only or not online—to build a specialized AI knowledge base for accurate academic citations.

Why I need this: AI can access all public online content, but offline or obscure items like full books, out-of-print pamphlets, or rare historical journals will add depth and accuracy not available in other AI models.

How to contribute: If you have a digital library (or know someone who does), share PDFs or scans. Hit reply to this email or use WeTranfer.com to send your files directly to the email you got this article from.

For authors and creators: If you contribute your original work, you have my word that I won’t share or distribute it publicly. It will only be for use in my AI training and knowledge base.

Deadline: I will begin building the knowledge base in one week. Reach out immediately if you have something.

Share

Subscribe now

For years, Jewish organizations and media outlets have targeted Intactivists with false claims of antisemitism. News documentaries and articles describe the movement as “alt right”1 and “a breeding ground for antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and misinformation.”2 These accusations were not presented by news organizations as opinion, but fact, and used to dismiss human rights and children’s activists.

Beyond being false, these claims share another problem: the activist who made those claims that the media elevated as their expert on antisemitism and Intactivism is involved in the Palestinian movement. That activist, Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, directed a feature-length documentary on the Israel-Palestine issue, the same way I made a documentary about the issue of circumcision.3 After the October 7th attacks in Israel, he posted an article describing claims of antisemitism in the Palestinian movement as slander.4

The Palestinian movement has been described by many of the same Jewish and media organizations that have attacked the Inactivist movement as the primary source of rising antisemitism in the world. Yet, the individual elevated by the media as an authority on antisemitism and the Intactivist movement was demanding the Intactivist movement model themselves after the Palestinian movement and adopt “woke” social justice politics. The past ten years of attacks against Intactivism made the the Palestinian movement central to their accusations.

Media attacks on the Intactivist movement prioritized those who were most prominent: myself, Georganne Chapin, and Eric Clopper. Despite there being an activist with a comparable social media following, who self-identified with far-right labels and published a book on the Intactivist movement,5 media articles claiming to fight the “alt right” or “antisemitism” avoided mentioning him, instead focusing on the leadership of the movement. This pattern suggests that destroying the movement, not fighting “extremism,” was the real opposition goal.

When I filed a defamation lawsuit against those making accusations, instead of attempting to prove them as factual, the defendants claimed they were merely making “statements of opinion.” Though this legal strategy helped them avoid accountability, it carries implications for media organizations who have a professional and ethical standard to distinguish between opinion and news. Media organizations that presented attacks on the movement as fact were lying and engaged in political activism, not journalism.

Attacks on the movement crossed the line of public debate into harassment. Jewish activists working against the movement contacted people in my personal and professional life, attempted to turn them against me, and spent years trying to socially isolate me. Those contacted were told not alert me to their behind the scenes campaign or seek to hear my side of the story.

To this day, no Jewish person has ever directly asked me to change my views. Instead, Jewish people have run secret campaigns against me, contacted people in my personal and professional life, and written more hit pieces on me than I’ve written articles about the Jewish issues. Many involved in hate campaigns against myself and the Intactivist movement had my personal contact information and could have contacted me directly. That they felt the need to hide their actions shows they knew they were doing something wrong.

What is odd about these attacks is that if Jewish organizations had sat down with myself and other leaders of the movement to dialogue, although there might have some statements they considered “over the line” that we found legitimate, I would have been willing to avoid those statements if it allowed both sides to engage peacefully. Instead, they made diplomacy impossible.

When I attempted to address their demand that the movement become more like the social justice and Palestinian movement by writing Children’s Justice, their attacks escalated. Missing from their hit pieces was that the intellectual foundations of the book were what they were pressuring the movement to adopt. Children’s Justice took their ideas seriously and intellectually engaged with them. The book was an olive branch and an attempt to give them was they said they wanted. Their response suggests their demands were never sincere, but merely a tool to stop criticism of circumcision.

In police work, demanding someone take an action and then prosecuting them for it is known as entrapment. In their attempts to police the movement, Jewish organizations and their media allies employed a similar tactic. They applied political pressure for the movement to adopt social justice and Palestinian movement politics and then attacked those who gave them what they asked for. Their reaction made it clear that there was no safe choice but to fight back. I responded: This is what your ordered. Eat it.

When those who claim to fight antisemitism elevate and collaborate with same people they describe as responsible for a rise in antisemitism and a threat to the safety of Jewish people, while attacking those who engage in good-faith criticism of circumcision, it reveals their priorities. Some Palestinian groups might kill Jewish people, but in death, they are still Jewish. Ending circumcision, in their view, ends Jewish identity. Jewish identity is a higher value to them than Jewish people. Their actions show that they would rather have their people dead than intact.

Through their hypocrisy and bad-faith attacks, Jewish organizations have fostered the radicalization they claim to oppose. When I talk to younger activists now, they engage with more extreme ideas, because they’ve watched how I and others who acted in good-faith were treated and concluded that moderation and compliance carries a higher cost than open conflict. If any criticism of circumcision is treated as antisemitism, then there is no political reason for activists to avoid “crossing the line,” because the movement is already treated as if it has crossed it. Despite being moderate, movement has paid the price for “extremism.”

Opposition groups have removed any incentive for the movement to moderate its speech, behavior, or associations to avoid pejorative labels. I’m certain that they’ll attempt to frame the consequences of their actions as “proof” that the movement has “always” been some caricature they constructed. Instead, the behavior of myself and other activists going forward can only be understood if we acknowledge how opposition groups changed the cost for such actions and created a precedent that collaborating with extremist figures and movements is acceptable. If opposition groups treat their own lines as meaningless, then others are free to do the same.

Share

Subscribe now

Before publishing this article I spoke with my wife about it. She was concerned for my safety, because she knows that I have been targeted by the same labels that Charlie Kirk was before his murder. We have children the same age as Charlie Kirk’s and she fears the same happening to us. She also knows that there were people who we thought were friends who participated in the stochastic terrorism against me. Yet, we also know that these behaviors will only end if we speak about them.

Stochastic terrorism is the indirect incitement of violence against a person or group using rhetoric that suggests violence against that person is acceptable or desirable.1 When someone calls another a “Nazi,” “white nationalist,” or “alt right,” they are engaged in stochastic terrorism, since major political factions, non-profit organizations, and mainstream publications condone violence against those they attack with these labels.

In 2016, prior to the release of my film American Circumcision, activists with close family connections to the Anti-Defamation League met with leaders in the intactivist movement and falsely called me a “white nationalist.”2 These individuals and organizations did not alert me to the risks to my safety caused by these accusations or attempt to verify them in any way. Some repeated those accusations to personal and professional associations of mine.

Later, these same activists reached out to journalists, including those at major publications like The Guardian and The Atlantic.34 These journalists also did not inform me that activists were engaged in false claims about me or engaged in a behind the scenes campaign that could put my safety in jeopardy. In my view, these journalists behaved like accomplices to those attempting to silence children’s activists.

This behavior is not unique to them. Many of the same people and organizations that engaged in stochastic terrorism against Charlie Kirk have also attacked children’s advocates. The same Anti-Defamation League that claimed that Kirk “promotes Christian nationalism,” TPUSA “attract racists,” and “white nationalists have attended TPUSA events,” has also repeatedly attacked efforts to protect children as “antisemitic.”56

There are ties between the activists who attempted to harm me and pro-circumcision organizations like the ADL. In the acknowledgements of his book, ADL CEO Jonathon Greenblatt personally thanks Batya Ungar-Sargon, a family member of those involved in the campaign.7 Many of the journalists involved have personal connections to Batya Ungar-Sargon.89 While the extent of her involvement is unknown, it is reasonable to conclude that her brother’s ability to reach and influence those journalists may have depended on her connections and assistance.

Batya Ungar-Sargon claims to have shifted from far-left to MAGA around "five or six years ago,” after any participation in her brother’s smear campaign would have taken place.10 Now she writes in The New York Post that “the left is gaslighting us about the truth” that “the vast majority of the political violence in this country is coming from their side.”11 She writes that “when you call your political opponents Hitler enough times, you’ve signed their death warrant,” yet this is the kind of rhetoric her own family used against me.12

If this is true, Batya Ungar-Sargon should start with her own house. She must publicly disavow her brother’s accusations, take public accountability for any role she might have played in the campaign against myself and other activists, and disclose the names and actions of all others involved. If she really believes that “this only stops when they take responsibility for their actions” and “confess that their rhetoric has led to the murder of innocents,” then she must lead by example, not merely use the issue when it benefits her career.13

It is time for activists to take a look at the stochastic terrorism and controlled opposition organizations they have enabled as well. During their campaign, activists pressured those I knew into signing a statement on antisemitism that rewrote the definition to target political enemies. Under the legal definition used by Congress, the Palestinian activists who authored the statement would be considered antisemitic.14 Under their invented definition, anyone who calls adults that put their mouths on children’s genitals “pedophiles” is considered “antisemitic.”15

Many who signed the statement privately admitted real views that contradicted the public statement they put their names on and indicated they felt pressured to sign it, fearing of similar campaigns like the one waged against me. Yet, they stilled signed it. Their actions betrayed the people they were supposed to defend and contributed to the kind of rhetoric that has lead to political violence. No activist whose name remains on that list can be trusted.

One of the lessons from both Charlie Kirk’s death and my own experience with stochastic terrorism is that we cannot debate those who want us dead. When I tried to engage in good-faith with the ideas activists were pressuring me to accept by writing a book called Children’s Justice, they escalated their attacks. When I pursued legal action, the public attacks stopped.16 The lesson is clear: dialogue does not work. Legal consequences do.

As many call to tone down the rhetoric, it is worth remembering that what these groups targeted me for was asking them to tone down their rhetoric. In their attacks, the article they cite was one that specifically said “avoid inciting violence” and explained how when they “attempt to frame survivors as ‘Nazis’ they are suggesting it would be okay to engage in violence against survivors.”1718 These people and organizations were warned their actions could lead to violence and chose to escalate.

When I and many Americans look at the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk, we think: that could have been me. When we see others celebrate his death, we know that they would celebrate ours just as easily. Even on my page and the page for my documentary American Circumcision, there are who responded to our condolences for Kirk’s family and a video of him respectfully engaging on the issue of the film with statements I would consider stochastic terrorism against me and my family.1920

While I will work with anyone who wishes to protect children, I will never work with those who engage in violence, enable it through their rhetoric, or collude with those who do. In my view, every person and organization whose rhetoric contributed to the death of Charlie Kirk should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I will use everything in my power to ensure there are legal consequences for those who engage in stochastic terrorism. We stand only with those who uphold our safety and the safety of our families.

Subscribe now

Share

P.S. Follow Brendon Marotta on X for more here.

From DeepNewz:

Elon Musk has made headlines by mocking the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) circumcision policy, which has been funded by taxpayer dollars. Musk stated that USAID was offering free circumcisions globally while charging U.S. taxpayers high prices. He claimed he would compete for this business. Over the past decade, USAID has spent millions on circumcision programs abroad, particularly in Africa, under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which aims to combat HIV. Critics have highlighted that these programs reportedly reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission by nearly two-thirds. Musk's comments have sparked debate about the effectiveness and funding of such health interventions, with some defending the program as a cost-effective measure against HIV transmission, while others question the allocation of taxpayer funds for these services.

My response: Cut government waste, not children.

Prior to his name change, I publicly supported the decision to end these programs. Many of us were messaging him, saying that DOGE should defund circumcision. It looks like he got the message. Musk changed his name on X to “Harry Bōlz” to joke about ending those programs.

Now, I’ve written an open response to Elon Musk regarding the issue of circumcision, which you can view on his platform X here:

https://x.com/bdmarotta/status/1889751748564099452

I appreciate @elonmusk bringing attention to the issue of circumcision through Harry Bōlz, but one aspect of taxpayer-funded foreign circumcision programs lost amidst the jokes is the scale of fraud and harm.

The scam run was simple: Often, the person writing pro-circumcision policy also runs a company that manufactures circumcision devices, which they award a multi-million dollar contract at the taxpayers’ expense. Years later, after they’d taken taxpayer money, many of these programs were quietly shut down due to the staggering rates of harm inflicted on children.

The true cost of these programs was paid by unconsenting children. PEPFAR’s infant circumcision program had to be shut down due to its high botch rate. American-funded circumcisers were using the Mogen clamp, a circumcision device known to cause botches after the manufacturer was sued out of business after it removed the glans of a child. PEPFAR did not release data on what they considered a high enough botch rate to end the program. By now, they say they have done 35 million circumcisions and spent between 500 million and 1.5 billion American dollars.

These authors knew their devices would sexually harm children. In the case of the ShangRing, another device known to cause botches, PEPFAR wrote that the only way to find out if the device was safe was to test it on “sufficient volumes” of “immature genitalia.” In other words, medical trials on unconsenting children. Because these campaigns occur overseas, the perpetrators never face legal justice or medical malpractice lawsuits they would in America.

The fraud here isn’t merely monetary. These programs subjected millions of infants to botched surgeries, lifelong disfigurement, and loss of sexual function. This was a violation of basic human rights, inflicting irreversible harm on children who cannot consent. When a single infant is violated, it’s called sexual abuse. When millions are, we call it a public health initiative.

I am glad these programs are over. However, since the American government funded this, we have a moral obligation to repair the damage done. There are still millions of children who have lifelong sexual harm because of these programs, including botches that even those who led the programs acknowledge as harmful. There are still between 500 million and 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars in the pockets of those who harmed these children. We must pursue justice.

First, we must hold those responsible accountable. Every individual and organization that profited from these programs must face legal action and punitive damages intended to recover the taxpayer money wasted on these programs. This exploitation will end only if those who engaged in harm can no longer profit from it.

Second, we must heal those who have been harmed. At present, there is no way to restore the tissue and sexual function lost to circumcision. However, recent advances in regenerative medicine and limb regeneration make it possible to restore what was lost for the first time in human history. I have spoken with multiple researchers who have laid out a clear path to full foreskin regeneration using existing science.

One researcher I spoke with suggested it would take 100 million dollars to bring full limb regeneration to market. Given that at least five times that was spent harming children, if we recoup even a fifth of that money through legal damages, we have the funding to heal every person harmed by these programs. Instead of the taxpayers having to clean up another government mess, the perpetrators themselves would pay for the harm they caused.

That said, since Elon is a fan of Milton Friedman, let me propose a free-market solution: A preliminary survey showed that 9.1% of circumcised men would pay over $20,000 for full foreskin regeneration. Extrapolating from this, the potential U.S. market is $224 billion, with a trillion-dollar global market. If you reach even one percent of the US market, you would make 2 billion on a 100 million dollar investment or a 2000% return on investment. The first person to solve limb regeneration will make billions. Multiple teams have plans to get there. They just lack funding.

I want this issue solved. I want children to be safe. I want men to be healed. How we get there is up to you, whether through legal justice and public good or private profit and the next billion-dollar company. Both solutions lead to the same goal. No matter what solution you pick, we have a moral responsibility to act. The U.S. government funded this harm. Now, we must make it right.

Elon Musk has made decisions based on feedback he received on X. This is a unique opportunity to share this message and create once-in-a-lifetime change. Please share this message on X as much as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

The word “gaze” in social justice refers to a way of looking or perceiving that is influenced by socialization, culture, and power dynamics. For example, “the male gaze” refers to the way that men depict or perceive women as sexual objects for male gratification. In The Birth of the Clinic, Michel Foucault uses the phrase “the medical gaze” to refer to the way the medical system views people as individual body parts rather than a whole person. There are many other examples of this use of the word “gaze” in critical social justice, such as the “white gaze,” “colonial gaze,” “female gaze,” etc.

These uses of the word gaze often refer to the way a particular group is socialized into perceiving another group. For example, the “male gaze” does not just refer to the male perspective, but how that perspective specifically views women and the impact being perceived that way has on women. Even if a particular man does not view women through the “male gaze,” the concept still exists as a social construct and it is legitimate to refer to this gaze by the group socialized into, the perspective this gaze assumes, and the group whose power structure the gaze reinforces.

Often, the group best suited to understand a gaze is not the person gazing, but the object of their gaze. Many women intuitively understand the male gaze because they are viewed by it and regularly interact with it, while not perceiving the world from the perspective of that gaze. For many men, “the male gaze” is just their perspective. Since it is behind their eyes, it is not visible to them.

It takes an incredible amount of awareness for a person to separate their perspective of the world from how the world actually is. Even writing about the male gaze now, I notice the inclination to write “women are attractive” rather than “I find women attractive.” The first phrase removes me as the one making that judgment and presents attractiveness as an inherent quality of women. The second recognizes that judgment is a part of my perspective, that might not be shared by those who are not attracted to women. Though anyone can find women attractive, a woman reading the statement “women are attractive” would likely guess the writer was writing from a heterosexual male perspective.

Someone who is repeatedly perceived through a “gaze” will come to recognize it. A woman repeatedly objectified will recognize “the male gaze.” An Asian person repeatedly referred to as “exotic” will recognize “the Orientalist gaze” or “colonial gaze.” Some might not have the academic language to express these concepts, but they intuitively understand the experience and power dynamics these gazes refer to and their understanding is greater than those who gaze upon them.

Read more

In my earlier article, How Social Movements Die, I showed what factors lead to the death of a movement. I also showed how using those risk factors as a checklist, one could diagnose the dangers facing a movement and how applying their opposite could lead to a movement thriving.

Yet, the risk factors in How Social Movements Die: Repression and Demobilization of the Republic of New Africa by Christian Davenport could be used to destroy a movement instead of diagnosing and healing it. If someone wanted to deliberately destroy a movement, how would they do it?

Let’s look at the chart of risk factors again:

Read more

When attempting to persuade someone, it is wise to base your argument in shared values. If someone supports certain values, you argue that they should also support your cause according to those values. However, there is one exception to this rule: If the values are merely an excuse for the behavior you are asking them to change, no persuasion from the values will work.

Read more

Read more

Originally published on BrendonMarotta.com on September 28, 2020 here.

A reader asks:

If parents regret having their sons circumcised, and would like to address it earlier in their life or speak with them openly about it, what should they do? Are there any modalities you’ve seen people try?

Great question.

First, anything you do as a parent must be centered on the needs of the child.

If parents feel guilty about a decision they made, talking to their kids could become about fixing the parent’s guilt rather than meeting the needs of the child. If you as a parent have feelings about something you did or allowed to happen, make sure you take care of those feelings as an adult, rather than unloading them on your child. Children aren’t responsible for processing their parent’s feelings, and learning about this issue will likely bring up feelings of their own they might need to process. In other words, secure your own healing first before trying to fix someone else.

Second, allow your child to have whatever feelings come up.

This is essential if you want to maintain your relationship with your child. Think about how you would feel if your spouse or partner allowed something similar to happen to you. You might be furious, sad, or even want a divorce. Children feel all the same things when their parents wrong them, but they cannot leave the relationship because of their dependent status. When children aren’t allowed to have certain feelings in relationship with their parents they either bury those feelings in their unconscious to come out in future relationships or break their relationship with their parents around those parts of themselves. Either way, if you want a relationship with your children, you have to make it safe for them to have all their feelings, including feelings of anger or upset directed at you.

What would you do if you wronged your spouse in a similar way? If you wanted to keep that relationship, you’d have to allow them to be mad at you or upset for as long as they need to be. If you allow the people in your life to have their feelings even when those feelings are not convenient or comfortable for you, then your relationships will grow stronger, including with your children. If your children know it is safe to be mad at you, and you are the kind of person who admits when you are in the wrong, then they will feel safe sharing the other things in the relationship that bother them, or coming to you when they have a problem, rather than just cutting off the relationship when they have the freedom to do so.

Third, listen to them, and give them whatever support they need.

This is difficult and might require expansion and growth for both of you. Right now, we do not have a way to fully repair the damage of circumcision. We also have a larger culture that does not recognize the damage that comes from genital cutting or offers resources for men who are harmed by it. However, broadly speaking the principles and healing methods that apply around other healing methods apply here. Non-violent communication and peaceful parenting methods can be useful when talking to your kids. Healing methods that work on physical trauma, sexual abuse, or childhood trauma can all help with the feelings around circumcision.

However, I want to caution parents against pushing these on their children. When a parent offers therapy of any kind for their kids, it can make the child feel like there is something wrong with them and their parents are trying to fix them. There is a danger of making your kids feel broken when they do not see themselves that way. Often, the parents feel like they made a mistake, and are trying to fix themselves through their kids. This is using the child the fulfill the adult’s needs, rather than centering whatever healing takes place on the child’s needs.

Imagine how you would feel if your spouse wronged you, and then tried to push you into therapy when you were mad at them about it. Yes, you might need therapy after being wronged in your relationship, but you wouldn’t want them to try to “fix” you, when they were the one at fault. If you offer support, it has to come with the frame that they are okay, they have the right to feel whatever they are feeling, and it is up to them to decide what they need. You as a parent can offer resources, but you have to respect the child’s response, or else we’d be crossing their boundaries and telling them there is something wrong with them again.

This is why it’s crucial for parents to do their own healing work. If some part of you allowed this to happen, then we need to heal that and process the feelings of guilt and grief that came from that decision. If you think your kids need healing but you don’t, remember who it was that made the mistake. Doing your own healing work will allow you to know what works and frame healing as something people normally do, rather than something they have to do because there is something wrong with them. Kids learn by watching their parents. Asking a child “would you like to talk to someone like mom does?” is a very different frame than “do we need to find someone to fix you because we screwed up so bad?”

In my own life, I’ve found the Completion Process, NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), somatic therapy, family constellations, and having a good listener to all be effective healing methods. If you ask any person who has done healing what works, you’ll get different answers, and almost all of them are valid for someone. However, any effective healing method will begin by validating the feelings of the person being healing, which is why it is so important to allow your kids to feel whatever they are feeling. If a healer invalidates your perspective or downplays this issue, they are not a healer and you should avoid them. Healing might reveal a new perspective, but it will meet you where you are at.

Keep in mind, your child might not feel they need anything. When I did my own healing work, I didn’t go looking for circumcision trauma. I had anger. I stayed with that anger until I found the source. So if your child doesn’t feel like talking about this issue, that’s okay. Support their healing where they decide to do it. That healing might lead to feelings around this issue, or it might not. It would be a mistake to treat this issue as a separate issue you can fix and be done with, rather than part of the relationship as a whole. Circumcision is based in thinking that you can “fix” one “separate” part of the body and it won’t impact the whole. Avoiding the same mistake will require shifting your thinking from trying to “fix” parts of your child to looking holistically at the whole relationship.

Hope that helps.

Subscribe now

Share

When I was working on my documentary American Circumcision, those triggered by the issue of circumcision would tell those speaking about it to “get over it.”

“Get over it” is actually good advice. If you have trauma, you should seek to get over it. However, these people were not suggesting that I do a process of healing and integration because they were concerned for my emotional well-being. They were saying “get over it” because they were uncomfortable and wanted me to stop expressing my views and feelings so they could more easily bury their feelings of unease.

My response to “get over it” has become: “No, I’m not doing to do that for you.” This framing often produces an uncomfortable laugh, especially when said calmly with a smile. It reveals that their request wasn’t for my benefit, but theirs. It shows that I have boundaries around my own emotions and won’t silence or change them for the benefit of others. It sometimes leads to a deeper conversation, because I’m also not attempting to silence or change their feelings of discomfort. For some, it acts as a pattern interruption, causing a confused mouth-open stare as they find themselves with no programming or social script. Confusion can be a hypnotic induction, so if immediately followed with calm new programming, change is possible.

“Get over it” can take more insidious and hidden forms. One I have seen emerge in the popular culture is the suggestion that others “should do therapy.” Like the phrase “get over it,” these calls for public figures or social groups to do therapy aren’t because the person suggesting it deeply loves them and want to see them thrive, but because their behavior makes them uncomfortable and afraid.

I’ve done therapy. I’ve done many different healing methods. I recommend many of them. However, if you are suggesting that someone else “needs” therapy because their behavior makes you uncomfortable, consider that your discomfort might be your problem, not theirs, and you are the one with healing work to do.

If I had seen “therapy” used in public discourse the way it is now, I would have actively avoided it. When therapy was presented to me years ago, it was framed as a option one could chose to better understand your own feelings. The vision of therapy presented in these calls for others to get therapy isn’t about understanding, but social control. Therapy is seen as a tool to modify behavior that threatens social systems. This discourse fits philosopher Michel Foucault’s critique of psychology, where he argues hat psychology is not about self-exploration, but policing social norms and enforcing discipline and punishment on unacceptable forms of behavior and thought.

It might be that the person you are suggesting “needs therapy” would benefit from healing work. My perspective is that the majority of the planet would benefit from healing work. However, the results of healing work will be different than you expect. Someone acting in a way that others dislike is likely doing so because of their beliefs and feelings. If they become more in touch with those feelings, they might become more aligned to the behavior you dislike, not less. In my case, the more I “got over” traumas, the more confidently I could speak about them. I became more out-spoken, not less. If others experienced the same, I doubt those saying they “need therapy” would be happy with this outcome.

The question to ask around any call for healing work is: who is this for? If someone believes they have a problem and seeks help for that problem, it is for them. If the “therapy” is for the benefit of others, it is social control. The reason many avoid therapy is that they accurately recognize that therapy is used as a tool of social control in public discourse and have a need for freedom. If you want healing work to appeal to them, it must be done in a way that respects their autonomy and self-determination, rather than impose the therapist or societies vision of who they should be.

If you are someone who has previously avoided healing work due to the popular discourse around therapy, consider that it could make you more of who you are rather than less. “Getting over it” might mean that you can now advocate for what is important to you without any emotional charge or residual pain. Healing work won’t make you someone else. It will remove the impediments to your authentic self so you can become more of who you are. If a particular form of advocacy or self-expression is a part of your truth, healing will strengthen it.

Subscribe now

Share

The biggest shift in my understanding of parenting since having kids is that now I understand that parenting decisions are often made under stress and time constraints.

When you aren’t a parent, parenting is something you can think about in your free time while relaxed. When you are a parent, parenting decisions often have to be made in the moment, while someone is upset, stressed, or sleep deprived.

Many non-parents takes on parenting are correct, but they miss the pressure parents are under. It is a bit like someone sitting on their couch watching a sports game and saying, “that athlete should have caught the ball.” Yes, but also try doing that after sprinting for forty-five minutes straight.

This explains why parents often become defensive when non-parents offer them advice, even when that advice is correct. Those parents feel the stress and pressure they are under is not seen by the person giving advice. They may also know they could do better, but feel shame or guilt for not being able to accomplish everything they wish they could.

If you’re not a parent, an apt comparison is the difference between what people say their “standards” are in a relationship vs. who they actually date. Someone who rants about how they “need” their partner to be high status, devoted, accomplished, etc. doesn’t always live up to their own words when they meet an attractive red flag. Many of the “standards” from which people give advice are more aspirational than practical.

This difference between what people know they should do and what they actually do is true in all domains. We all know we should eat healthy, yet people still reach for junk food when tired. We all know we should be kind to others, yet people often lash out when feeling upset. We all know we should be a good parent, yet sometimes behave reactively rather than proactively.

If you’re not a parent, you should still research parenting issues. I’m glad I learned as much as I did before becoming a parent, because it meant in those moments where there was urgency or stress, I already knew my values. Just be aware that no matter how much you research, there will be times where you are presented with a blind spot and must make the a decision without the benefit of long intellectual inquiry.

If we want parents to do better, the best way to accomplish that is by supporting them. Most criticism demoralizes more than it improves. Parents who want to do their best will be better able to make good choices when they feel relaxed and happy. This can be accomplished on the individual level through acts of kindness and service and on the societal level through changes in cultural norms and laws. Simply understanding that your new parent friends are going through a lot will ensure that whatever else you’d like to offer them is better received.

Share

Subscribe now

If you’re involved in the issue of circumcision, you’ve probably seen a gish gallop.

A gish gallop is when someone floods the debate with weak claims that take far longer to debunk than they do to make.

Here is what a gish gallop looks like on the issue of circumcision:

“Circumcision prevents [bad study], [false claim], and [claim even doctors don't believe]. It also [religious concept from a completely different discourse]. It's [platitude like "cleaner" or "healthier" with no explanation for what this means] and [cultural myth with zero studies]. Plus, [claim based on their personal subjective preferences]."

Debunking each of those claims would require a paragraph each.

In some cases, I've interviewed the author of the study they're citing after a 2-second Google search. While I could take them through that study, it would not change their mind, because they don't actually care, and would immediately move on to the next baseless claim.

In these cases, it's better to reframe. For example, if you reply: "Would those be reasons to circumcise women too?" they'll immediately start making intactivist arguments for you.

Depending on where you want to take the conversation, you can try different reframes. A reply like: "Wow, it sure seems like you've spent a lot of time thinking about reasons to touch babies' genitals" will likely be met with anger and fragility, since you’ve shifted the conversation to their underlying motivation for making those claims.

The purpose of a gish gallop is to flood the conservation with surface-level nonsense so the speaker doesn’t have to examine the issue. Gish gallops are often full of thought-terminating cliches. The points are being brought up to end discussion, not invite deeper exploration.

If you spend time debunking an individual claim in a gish gallop, the person will often ignore that one of their points has been disproven and immediately move on to the next. Rather than accept their frame, call out the tactic they are using and set your own frame.

Share

Subscribe now

Every movement I've seen or been a part of has been concerned with optics. Optics are how the group is perceived. While there are endless discussions in movements about optics, it is less common for any group to have open honest discussions about power. Yet power is the more important goal for a political movement.

No amount of optics alone will give a movement political power. Even if you look perfect, the dominant system won’t hand over power simply because of your pristine image. While activists obsess over their image, many in power look awful yet face no consequences.

When someone has bad optics but remains in power, their bad optics are a flex. They can look bad, while the rest have to watch how they behave. Their bad behavior serves as a status marker. The rules don’t apply to them. They’re above it all. You’re not.

If that optics aren’t necessary for power, why do movements care about them? Bad optics are often paired with disempowerment. When a dominant power wants to abuse an incumbent movement, they will justify their actions with the movement’s bad optics, digging through everything the movement has done to find out-of-context distortions to justify abuse. If no justification exists, bad optics are manufactured through hit pieces and lies.

Movements that suffer this abuse sometimes mistakenly believe that the abuse occurred because of their bad optics. In reality, their opposition wanted to harm them and then found justification for their abuse, not the other way around. Like a battered wife who thinks if she could always obey her husband he’d stop hitting her, optics-obsessed movements think that if they could always act perfect no one would ever write a hit piece on them or try to hurt them.

In other words, obsession with optics is a cope. Those who don’t have power always have to be on their best behavior. Those that have power can do whatever they want. The better situation for any movement would be if they could have bad optics without consequence. In that situation, whether or not a movement avoids “bad optics” actions would be due to personal preference rather than fear of external punishment.

If the goal of a movement is change, they should optimize for power rather than optics. Those goals often overlap, but if the two come into conflict, movements should choose the action that increases power even if it causes some people to claim it makes them “look bad.”

If someone claims a person or action makes a movement “look bad,” the question to ask is “to whom?” Whose approval does it lose? Do we care about their approval? What are the consequences of not having their approval? What power or support does it gain or lose? Analyze the optics of the situation through the lens of power rather than image.

There might still be situations where optics matter for a particular goal. In those situations, questions about power will lead the movement to become clear about whose approval they need and why, rather than having a generalized concern for “optics.”

This also prevents enemies from shutting down winning actions through claims about optics. There is a saying that “if you’re taking flack, you’re over the target.” The phrase suggests that the opposition will increase their attacks as you approach your goal. The more effective a leader is the more opposition will claim they “look bad.”

Those who do not want a movement to succeed will always claim that winning actions are bad optics. From their perspective, they are correct. It doesn’t look good when a movement gains power — for them. From the perspective of the movement itself, nothing looks better than winning.

Share

Subscribe now

In 2018, my documentary American Circumcision trended on Netflix. It was on the platform for 1.5 years. Netflix does not release viewership data, so I never knew exactly how many people saw it, but based on the amount I saw on social media and the fact Netflix had 139 million subscribers in 2018 I knew it was a lot.

Since 2018, Netflix has released more data for its trending films — data that an AI could use to estimate the likely viewership of a previous trending film. To get an estimate for how many saw the documentary, I asked ChatGPT “How many views would a film have needed to trend on Netflix in 2018?” It wrote:

In 2018, a film needed around 10-15 million views within its first week to trend on Netflix, based on viewership patterns and competition at the time.

When I followed up with the question: “If a documentary film trended in 2018 and was on the platform for 1.5 years, how many likely saw it?” it replied:

If a documentary trended in 2018 and was on Netflix for 1.5 years, it likely received 50-100 million views, considering its initial popularity and continued accessibility on the platform.

American Circumcision likely received 10-15 million views in the first week and 50-100 million during its run on Netflix.

Of course, this is just according to AI. Only Netflix has exact numbers.

P.S. You can watch the film for free when you subscribe here.

Subscribe now

Share

“The purpose of a system is what it does” is a phrase used to emphasize that the true purpose of any system is understood by observing its outcomes, not its stated intentions. This phrase cuts through the lies used to hide outcomes. If the purpose of a system is harmful, public understanding of this purpose would lead to opposition to the system. Intended or stated purpose acts as a mass psychological defense against seeing harmful outcomes as the true purpose of systems.

As an example, the stated intention of a company might be to produce food products, but if the system is designed to maximize profit and reduce costs more than health, the real purpose of the system might be to poison consumers with chemical additives. If we were to say “The purpose of the food industry is to poison consumers,” executives in those companies would object that they don’t intend to poison anyone, despite their actions regularly producing this outcome.

Outcomes can be produced whether or not anyone in the system consciously intends them. When those in a system say that they don’t intend to produce an outcome, they are being honest. However, their intention is irrelevant. When we describe the purpose of a system, we are not describing the intentions of anyone in that system, but the outcomes that system produces. An evil villain trying to poison America’s food supply would be less effective at harming the health of consumers than a harmful system in which no one has bad intentions, but in which everyone participates.

A system might have multiple outcomes. The stated purpose of schools is to teach students, yet compulsory schooling produces many other outcomes. It uses force to coerce students. It segregates them from society. It ensures children have somewhere to go so parents can earn capital during the day. Children are regularly abused physically, emotionally, and sexually in the school system. All of these could be described as the purpose of the school system more than “teaching.”

The stated purpose is the least accurate description of the system. If the stated purpose of the school system is “teaching,” but teaching is measured through standardized tests, then it is possible that no real learning is occurring. The purpose of the school system would be better described as generating test scores. If those test scores secure funding for the school which pays administrators six-figure salaries, then we could say that the purpose of the school system is to use child labor to produce funding for school administrators.

All of these descriptions produce significant fragility and defensiveness on the part of those who participate in these systems. If you were to tell a school employee that they were benefiting from child labor and participating in a system that harms children, they would react negatively. They might scream at you, laugh at you, or say you are making a bad “argument.” However, this framing is not an “argument.” It’s a description. The purpose of this framing is not to persuade anyone, but to better understand the system.

One of the mistakes some make when applying systems thinking is to attempt to convince those in the system of this framing. Even if you were to persuade those in the system of your perspective, the intentions of those in the system do not matter. A person who participates in the system will produce its outcome whether or not they believe that the system is good or bad. The only choice is whether or not to participate in the system in the first place. If one person quits, the system can replace them. The only way to create real change is to dismantle the system or produce a new one.

Systems understanding produces a new focus for change. If your goal is to change a system, persuading individuals might not be the path to success. One can achieve change faster through direct focus on the system itself, rather than individual participants. Systems already produce outcomes the majority of Americans oppose. If public opinion is irrelevant to systems that produce bad outcomes, why should it matter if the same method is used to produce good outcomes? The opinions of those in the system are irrelevant. They will go along with the system whether or not the outcomes are those they support. It’s what they’ve always done.

The reason I use the phrase systemic pedophilia to describe systems that harm children is that this phrase describes what the system does rather than its stated intention. Those who participate in this system do not intend to harm children. Many might even be pleasant people. However, the outcome of their actions and participation in this system is harm. Their intention is irrelevant because the purpose of a system is what it does — not what they “intend” to do.

Using the term “systemic pedophilia” removes the gaslighting of claimed intention. If someone knows a system produces a particular outcome and they choose to participate in that system, that is their purpose, whether or not it matches their stated intention. The fragility they respond to this truth with is a psychological defense to avoid accountability. Acknowledging the system would remove the story they have about themselves and their intentions.

Directly attacking someone’s psychological defenses triggers them and often causes them to become defensive. It is not a persuasion strategy, but persuading those in the system doesn’t matter, because their opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is the outcome of the system. I have spoken to teachers who acknowledge the school system causes harm, doctors who acknowledge the medical system causes harm, and police who acknowledge the criminal justice system causes harm. They still did their job. Staying in the system was comfortable.

Talking about how “the purpose of a system is what it does” makes those in the system uncomfortable. That’s the point. Only when the pain of participating in the system is greater than the pain of change will they behave differently. I continue my work even when challenged because I believe in it. Those in the system don’t believe in anything. They’re just doing a job. When participation in the system becomes uncomfortable, they will leave. If the purpose of a system is what it does, then only a change in outcomes matters.

Share

Subscribe now

Non-violent communication can be revealing when applied to political discussions. In non-violent communication, instead of violently thrusting labels upon another person — “You are a bad person!” — one describes their feelings without labeling the other — “When you do that, I feel hurt and upset.” This style of communication allows the other person to understand the impact of their actions without having to accept shaming labels. However, politics often involves placing labels on the other side — racist, sexist, antisemitic, and perhaps the most insidious of all: “controversial.”

Labeling a person or issue “controversial” removes the person speaking and makes their target the focus. “Controversial” — according to who? If we rewrite this claim in the language of non-violent communication, it would read: “When this subject comes up, I feel uncomfortable,” which tells a different story. A neutral observation absent the speaker’s feelings would read “Others have strong opinions on this subject.” However, the subject itself is not “controversial.” The person calling it that is “uncomfortable.” Likewise, most political accusations if voiced in non-violent communication would read “When you voice those opinions, I feel hurt, angry, threatened, etc.”

The reason political attackers do not use non-violent communication is because this language would reveal whether or not there is fragility behind their accusations. It might reveal that they are the ones creating controversy, not their intended targets. It might also reveal the violent intent behind their actions. In many cases, accurate non-violent communication would read “When you say that, I want to kill you.” When someone wants to enact violence on another, they won’t communicate non-violently. If politics is war by other means and every system of power rests on a system of language, then those who want to go to war must use violent language.

Underneath violent communication is often hurt. If someone doesn’t feel safe exploring the hurt and anger that arises in response to a subject, it’s easier for them to hurl judgment at what triggered them. Emotionally violent language allows hurt people to deflect their feelings at the expense of another. Hurt people hurt people and those who feel unsafe exploring a subject will try to make it unsafe for others to do the same. Violent language serves the function of making it unsafe for others to discuss a subject or associate with a person.

Creating safety first requires changing the language. If we want it to be safe to have certain discussions, we must name them correctly. When someone preemptively labels themselves or what they are about to discuss as “controversial,” they are engaged in a sort of self-harm. They are internalizing and repeating others’ judgments about them, instead of defining themselves by their own actions and feelings. No one is controversial. Other people are triggered. Let that be their problem and define yourself by the truth of who you are rather than other’s reactions.

Subscribe now

Share

Two-caveats:

Read more

The Circumcision Decision - Birth, Baby!

Link to the podcast version and their site here.

Subscribe now

Share

In response to my article Bad People Have Human Rights Or No One Does someone replied that they didn’t think people who advocate for genocide have human rights. To answer this question: Yes, those who support the state of Israel have human rights.

While this commenter might have been thinking they were stopping “nazis” when they made this exception, there is a large mainstream progressive movement that believes the state of Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza. This movement has called the CEO of the ADL a “nazi.” If we were to create a “people who support genocide don’t have human rights” rule, it would be applied here.

Both major political parties have supported the state of Israel. By this rule, we could say that anyone who has voted Democrat or Republican does not have human rights, since their representatives have “supported genocide.” What might sound like a “reasonable” rule could be used to deny all Americans their rights, rendering the concept of rights meaningless.

What Is A State of Exception?

State of exception is a political concept whereby a government creates an “exception” to human rights and its own rules due to a crisis or emergency. Once a government is given an “exception” where it can violate its citizens’ freedoms in an “emergency,” all it has to do is claim that every time it wants to violate those freedoms there is an “emergency.” State of exception describes a state where the daily operations of the government are run through this “exception.”

A state of exception is what Hitler used to take power. After the “emergency” of the Reichstag Fire, the German government suspended regular freedoms and ruled from this “exception” until the end of World War II. Modern examples of a state of exception include the Patriot Act which created an exception to regular rules around spying on Americans due to the “emergency” of terrorism and the COVID-19 lockdowns which created an exception to regular everyday freedoms due to the “emergency” of a pandemic.

While the original commentator might have thought they were fighting “nazis,” they were actually supporting the mechanism by which Hitler rose to power and promoting a rule that could be used in modern contexts to take away the rights of Jewish people.

The Exception As A Legal Rule

Suppose we did pass a law that "no one can support genocide.” Who defines what supporting genocide is? If someone doesn’t support transgender issues, are they engaged in “transgender genocide?” If someone supports open immigration, are they engaged in “white genocide?” If someone wants to cure deafness, are they engaged in “cultural genocide?”

You might find these ideas absurd, but there are political movements that believe them. Once an exception to universal rights is created, the political battle becomes over who controls the exception. Anyone who does can simply declare their political opponents “genocide supporters” and have them arrested.

Once an exception is created, seizing power doesn’t require convincing the majority of the population. A determined fringe can seize the mechanisms of the state that determine who is engaged in a rights-denying exception. Once they do, the majority will fall into line. Most don’t care enough about political issues to risk arrest for it. Some might, but they’ll be deemed “genocide supporters” and no one wants to stand by that.

Who Enforces The Exception

How would you enforce a “no one can support genocide” rule? You’d have to have courts that determine when someone is “supporting genocide.” (You’re not going to give unelected secret police the ability to arrest people without a fair trial, are you?)

Think about what sort of person would be attracted to a job where they get to deny others their rights. A human rights activist might take the job out of civic duty, but the kind of person who would delight in denying others their rights is an authoritarian personality — in other words, a fascist.

To quote Dune author Frank Herbert, “Power attracts pathological personalities… it is magnetic to the corruptible.” The moment a rights-denying court of exceptions is created, it will be overrun by evil people.

The Exception As A Moral Rule

Suppose instead of passing a law that “no one can support genocide,” we just make it a moral principle. Everyone is free to believe what they want, but our movement or organization won’t work with people who “support genocide.”

While this might sound better, it just decentralized the problem. Each person or organization must make their own ruling on whether or not opposing gender surgeries on minors is “trans genocide” or supporting the state of Israel is participating in a “genocide.” Before organizations could say that everyone has human rights regardless of their background or beliefs. Now, they must take a stance on every political issue.

In a diverse movement, this will inevitably descend into disagreement and infighting. Before, everyone could work together to secure human rights for all. Now, your opinion on unrelated political issues could result in your allies working against you. Unless a strong leader can enforce total conformity, the movement will fracture into factions.

Who Benefits From The Exception

A decentralized state of exception is less safe for the accused. Instead of a centralized court with due process where defendants have the right to legal counsel, those accused must now contend with a court of public opinion, where “rulings” are made by gossip and those attacked cannot face their accusers.

A decentralized state of exception is less safe for bystanders. With a law, rulings are made by judges. Now, every individual must make their own “ruling” on whether or not they can “associate” with the accused, since no court will decide for them. Instead of each side presenting evidence in a court of law, they only have what they’d heard second-hand to make a ruling. If activists disagree on what “ruling” to make, more infighting ensues.

A decentralized state of exception is great for controlled opposition and those who want to deny others their rights. Just as rights-denying courts attract fascists, the ability to deny other activists their rights through rumors will attract petty personalities, gossips, and social fascists. All someone who wants to destroy a movement to do is make a rumor.

Exceptions Make Infighting Inevitable

If a human rights movement descends into infighting because they embraced exceptions to human rights, they deserve it because they stopped supporting human rights. These problems are only possible in movements dedicated to suppressing the rights of those they deem “bad.” Once that occurs, we’re just debating whose rights should be suppressed.

Unity can only be maintained in this situation through a strong centralized leader who enforces total conformity on every issue or possible interpretation of the exception — in other words, a fascist dictator. It isn’t just that a state of exception has been used by fascists to rise to power. A state of exception creates power that both attracts and can only be wielded by dictators.

In a centralized legal state of exception, it is easier for a leader to hold power. In a decentralized movement, this is less likely. It is unlikely that in a network of non-profits and unpaid activists, one person can force total conformity. Once a state of exception has been created, conflict is inevitable. Whatever happens, the movement loses the mandate of heaven.

The Exception Is A Tool For Abuse

The exception creates incentives for people with no ideology or interest in the exception to use the exception against their enemies. Since the exception creates a mechanism to deny others their rights, anyone who hates another will claim they belong to the exception. The exception is designed to be abused.

This occurred frequently in the Soviet Union when neighbors and rivals reported one another for fictional violations. These anonymous reports were not about protecting communism but weaponizing the state against personal enemies. In modern society “cancel culture” can function the same way.

The result is that the exception is unequally enforced. Since ethical issues are decided through power struggles, blatant violations the exception go unpunished while others are attacked on mere rumors. Whether or not a person’s rights are denied depends on personal politics rather than moral principles.

How To Oppose The Exception

Suppose you support human rights, but you also don’t want others to “support genocide.” What should you do? Simple: If you want others to support human rights and oppose genocide, you should support human rights, oppose genocide, and encourage others to do the same — through persuasion, rather than pressure.

In a state of exception, accusations are a threat. If someone accuses another of “supporting genocide” in a society where that is illegal, they are not merely inviting them to reconsider their beliefs. They are threatening their rights. That person will not react with self-reflection, but like they have been threatened — which they have.

In any relationship where you want genuine change, you must first create safety for the other person. Self-reflection is only possible when the other person is not in a fight-or-flight state. Ironically, if you want people to reconsider their beliefs, you must first make it safe to have those beliefs.

If you tell someone that you will support their rights no matter what they believe — and mean it, even if they never change their mind — then that creates the safety for them to have an open honest discussion. If there are consequences for disagreement, then the discussion is closer to a cop interrogating someone for a crime. No one talks to the cops.

Some might object that they don’t feel safe if others hold bad beliefs. Yet, that is what universal human rights are intended to prevent. If you secure human rights, it doesn’t matter what anyone else believes. You’ve still got your rights. If you want human rights, you must first respect others’ rights.

What To Do Under An Exception

What should you do if living under a state of exception, where those in power can deny your rights? In this scenario, the only political battle that matters is to seize the exception. Whoever defines the exception has a hegemony over everyone else.

In a state of exception, all anyone has to do to seize power is define the exception. If there is a law that no one can “support genocide,” all one has to do to take power is define all their enemies as genocide supporters. You don’t even have to pass any new laws. You just have to redefine language such that the existing rules produce the desired results.

Even if you oppose genocide and are not interested in denying anyone else their rights, you must seize control of the exception, because other groups in society might use it against you. Even if you understand the good intentions behind the rule, you must redefine the exception to oppose those who would take your rights.

The exception creates a prisoner’s dilemma, where anyone who defects benefits. By creating an exception, the other side has already shown they will defect. If we all defect, human rights are dead. Yet once the exception is created this is inevitable. The exception creates power that in turn creates power struggle.

How To End The Power Struggle

There are two ways to end the power struggle:

First, end the exception. Support everyone’s rights and right to secure those rights, regardless of what they believe on other issues. If an exception exists, it is in everyone’s interest to seize the exception.

This will mean giving rights to people who fit the exception, without any caveats or attempts to change them. You can disagree. You can not like them. Yet you must still unequivocally support their rights and allow them to advocate for those rights.

Second, win the power struggle. Win so decisively that no one else can have a different interpretation of the exception. From there, you can just decide who does and does not have rights. A power ruling over all others is known as a hegemony.

Ironically, you cannot end the exception unless you have power. Even if you would prefer the first option, if the ruling power does not recognize your rights, power struggle is required to secure them. If there is no singular ruler, ending the exception requires everyone’s mutual agreement.

When people create an exception, they feel they are stopping something bad. Yet human rights function like a treaty. I agree to respect your rights if you respect mine. An exception breaks that treaty. Once rights can be denied, conflict is inevitable. Instead of stopping violations, an exception ensures they will occur.

Subscribe now

Refer a friend

Share

Patrick Smith (whose podcast I was on) responded to my article Bad People Have Human Rights Or No One Does by saying that the main assertion of the article “would seem to be disproven by thinking of a simple self-defense scenario. Bad person attacks someone. Good person denies bad person their human rights by restraining, or shooting them.”

This response collapses the distinction between bad people and bad actions. The original article discusses people and attempts to deny people their rights based on who they are or what they believe, not what they do. There are actions that could cause someone to lose their rights, like murder. This is different from simply being a bad person, like wishing others die in your heart.

Often what occurs in political discussions is that these distinctions are collapsed. It is assumed that because someone believes something they will act a certain way, and their “hateful” beliefs are used as a sort of “pre-crime” evidence that “hate crimes” are just around the corner. Once this distinction is erased, it’s possible to project any crimes onto an opponent’s beliefs.

There is a reason that most scenarios where a person is denied their rights require a trial. Beliefs are subjective. If you put someone on trial for believing the wrong things, they can say they don’t and the prosecution can say they secretly do. If someone believes something in their heart, yet takes no action from it, where is the harm? Plus, as anyone who meditates will tell you, the mind produces all sorts of thoughts that a person may or may not hold on to.

Actions have a concrete verifiable quality. Either they happened or they didn’t. One can produce material evidence for them and their harm. From this perspective, you couldn’t deny someone their rights for being an “extremist,” but you could if they blew up a building. Labels are subjective claims and actions objectively verifiable.

Subscribe now

Share

P.S. If you ever sue someone for defamation, watch how fast they turn around and say that every argument they tried to use to deny your rights was just a “statement of opinion” and not factual claims.

P.P.S. Patrick wrote something interesting on rights and consent. Read it here.

P.P.P.S. Subscribe.

Refer a friend

In his book It Could Happen Here: Why America Is Tipping from Hate to the Unthinkable-and How We Can Stop It, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt acknowledges that calling someone a nazi puts their safety at risk.

He writes:

“Certainly the demonization of Zionism and the efforts to equate Zionists with Nazis bodes ill for the safety of American Jews. I say this because virtually nobody in any segment of society believes that Nazis have a place in public life. Society does not condemn those who oppose Nazis. If the notion that Zionists are Nazis goes mainstream, given that the overwhelming majority of American Jews believe in Zionism, the danger will be profound.”1

In other words, Greenblatt believes that calling someone a “nazi” puts their physical safety at risk. Mainstream news articles support this claim when they suggest that violence against those called nazis is okay with headlines like “Is It Okay To Punch a Nazi?”2 If someone believes it is okay to “punch a nazi,” then suggesting that someone is a nazi implies that the speaker is telling others that it is okay to punch that person.

The irony is lost on Greenblatt that one of the primary functions of his organization is to compare political opponents to nazis. If Greenblatt is right that calling someone a nazi puts their safety at risk, then his organization has repeatedly threatened the safety of their enemies, including survivors of genital cutting. If Greenblatt understands the implications of his actions, either he doesn’t believe his own rhetoric, or he does and he wants his enemies dead.

Some suggest that false political accusations like calling someone a “nazi” should be laughed off. While false accusations deserve mockery, those who make them believe that if they make them loud enough and frequently enough it will result in violence against their intended targets. One of the ADL’s primary political concepts is the “Pyramid of Hate,” which suggests that when hateful language reaches a certain level it will manifest as discrimination or violence. From their perspective, when they call a person or group a “nazi” they are engaged in stochastic terrorism.

Before determining how to respond to these accusations, we must be aware of the intentions of those who make these accusations. In his book, Greenblatt makes those intentions clear. Most believe that when someone wants you dead and takes action towards that end, you should engage in whatever legal measures are necessary to ensure your safety. I want everyone to remain safe. How do respond?

Subscribe now

Share