Jews Against Zionism

By Stephen Lendman

Herzl: “It is essential that the suffering of Jews….becomes worse….this will assist in (the) realization of our plans….I have an excellent idea….I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth….The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews…”

advocates “a political and military end to the Jewish exile;”
• fosters “pseudo-Judaism” based on secular nationalism;
• coercively seeks “armed materialism” in place of “a Divine and Torah centered understanding;”
• endangers all Jews worldwide;
• wants to disassociate Jews and traditional Judaism from ideological Zionism;
and
They:

—cite their concern for “peace and safety of all people throughout the world including those living in the Zionist state” and in Occupied Palestine;

—say from ancient times until 100 years ago, Jews and Arabs lived in peace and friendship until Zionism changed the relationship;

—believe Zionists abandoned the Torah and traditional Judaism, demanded political sovereignty over the Holy Land, and aroused anger in the Arab world; and

—Torah Jewry doesn’t recognize or support a Zionist state; nor do they represent world Jews; even the name “Israel” is a “forgery,” they believe, because the Torah forbids violence in the words of the prophet Isaiah who said:

“And they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. No nation will lift its sword against any other, nor will they learn warfare anymore.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]orah Jewry says that believing Zionism protects Jews is “probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People” and accuses Zionists of fostering global anti-Semitism. “Indeed, hatred of Jews and Jewish suffering is the oxygen of the Zionist movement, and from the very beginning has been (used) to deliberately incite hatred to justify the existence of the Zionist state – this is, of course, Machiavellianism raised to the highest order.”

Zionist founder Theodor Herzl (1860 – 1904) said:

“It is essential that the suffering of Jews….becomes worse….this will assist in (the) realization of our plans….I have an excellent idea….I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth….The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends.”

Israeli commemorative display.

In 1920, other Zionists voiced similar ideas, including Nahum Goldmann, later president of the World Zionist Organization and World Jewish Congress head. Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizman, said Germany had too many Jews. In 1921, Jacob Klatzkin called for German Jews to undermine Jewish communities as a way to acquire a future state.

In 1963, Moshe Sharett (Israel’s second prime minister from 1953 – 1955) told the 38th Scandinavian Youth Federation Annual Congress that Jewish freedom imperiled Zionism. Delegates at the 26th World Zionist Congress were told that easing US anti-Semitism and freedom endangered Jews.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]orah Jewry disagrees in affirming its desire to live in peace with their Arab and Palestinian neighbors and abide by sacred commandments “with a perfect heart and to delight in the radiance of the sanctity of the Land.”

They believe: “Zionists have no right of any sovereignty over even one inch of the Holy Land. They do not represent the Jewish people in any way whatsoever. They have no right to speak in the name of the Jewish people.” Their ideology is “antithetical to Jewish law,” and because they don’t behave like Jews, “they desecrate the sanctity of the land.” They feel that when Israel is recognized as a Zionist, not a Jewish, state, “Jews worldwide will be able to live in peace” and do it alongside Arabs in the Middle East.

“The Hidden History of Zionism”

In his 1988 book, Ralph Schoenman explained four Zionist myths:

It wasn’t just to colonize Palestine. It was also to exploit indigenous people as cheap labor, dispossess and disperse them, replace them with arriving Jews, legitimize ethnic cleansing, and remove Palestinians from their land and history. Historical records were falsified. “Palestinians were re-invented as a semi-savage, nomadic remnant.” Mass elimination methods were justified for a “people too many.”

In 1923, hard line revisionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky (left) argued that Arab nationalists opposed a Jewish state and wouldn’t accept one. Thus peaceful coexistence was unattainable, and Jews had to build “an iron wall of (superior) Jewish military force.” The idea was to discourage Arab hopes of destroying Israel followed by a negotiated settlement giving Israel the upper hand to dictate terms.

Terror was to be used the way Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, wrote in 1940:

“Between ourselves, it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to (get rid of) all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.”

The secret Koenig Report, later published in 1976, said:

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-Election of Tel Aviv mayor Shlomo Lahat (1974 – 1993) stated:

“We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.”

Former IDF Chief of Staff Raphael Eitan (1978 – 1983) said:

“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel….Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.”

“Jews are not allowed to dominate, kill, harm or demean another people and are not allowed to have anything to do with the Zionist enterprise, their political meddling and their wars.”—Neturei Karta

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]ther Israeli leaders voiced similar extremism, including David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, saying in 1937 that “We must expel the Arabs and take their place and if we have to use force, to guarantee our own right to settle in those places – then we have force at our disposal.”

At inception, Zionists like Herzl were pragmatic, yet devious, in believing imperial power backing was needed to establish a Jewish state. It could have been anywhere, but Palestine was chosen for its symbolic significance as the ancient Jewish homeland. Colonization began after the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. Herzl later wrote:

“At Basle, I founded the Jewish state….If not in five years, then certainly in fifty everyone will realize it.” It took 51 by dispossessing indigenous Palestinians and replacing them with Jews. Ever since, Zionism’s most effective legitimacy claim is the notion of preventing another “Holocaust.” It’s justified the most outrageous crimes, characterized as “self-defense” by a tiny Jewish minority surrounded by hordes of hostile Arabs. It seized Palestinian land, Judaized it, created a new nation for Jews alone – undemocratic, imperial, militant, violent, exploitive, oppressive, racist, and hostile to core Judaic dogma.

It’s why growing thousands of Jews globally oppose an ideology based on power, conquest, dispossession, and violation of the most fundamental Jewish ethical and moral teachings, ones Zionists disdain.

Not In My Name

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t calls itself a “predominantly Jewish organization deeply committed to a peaceful and just resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, a resolution that will provide safety, security and freedom for Jews, Palestinians, and all others living in this region.” It opposes:

—the illegal West Bank and Gaza occupations;
—the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements;
—Israel’s Separation Wall;
—the collective punishment of millions of Occupied Palestinians and Israeli Arabs;
and,
—Israeli human rights abuses, home demolitions, land seizures, arbitrary arrests, torture, travel and movement restrictions, and closure and encirclements of villages and communities.

It champions Palestinian self-determination, the right of return, and “full equality, civil rights and economic justice for all.” It’s for a shared Jerusalem and nuclear-free Middle East. It wants an end to violence and injustice and the equitable sharing of vital resources, including water, oil, gas, electric power, and all other essentials to life and well-being. It wants all US aid stopped until Israel ends its occupation and acts like a civilized state.

SHELDON ADELSON: A sinister hand behind an arrogant Zionism.

All these dedicated anti-Zionists groups and individuals

Dedicated anti-Zionists groups and individuals face the power of the whorish political establishment and media, and the sordid influence of single-minded tycoons like Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, who controls not only a shameful number of American politicos, but Israeli leaders like Netanyahu himself. (DonkeyHotey) CLICK IMAGE

It deplores Zionism and what it represents. It’s activists have chapters around the world. They organize protests and demonstrations, hold vigils and religious ceremonies, communicate with the media, foster dialogue between Jews and Palestinians, sponsor teach-ins, educational forums and study groups.

They believe that moral human beings are obligated “to speak out and take action.” They refuse to remain silent or accept Israeli crimes passively. They’re one among other like-minded organizations that say “Not In My Name.” Not now or ever.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP)

JVP is “a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights.” They support the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for security and self-determination. Their agenda mirrors Not In My Name and states that “We are among the many American Jews who say to the US and Israeli governments: “Not in our names!”

They call on America and the international community to end wars and violence and support Palestinian self-determination free from occupation and oppression. They headline: “Israelis and Palestinians. Two Peoples, One Future,” free from Zionist oppression.

It’s a Jewish Alliance for Justice & Peace calling itself “America’s largest grassroots Jewish organization dedicated to promoting a negotiated two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” With around 50,000 supporters, including over 1,000 rabbis, they educate and organize the US Jewish community for a US foreign policy supportive of Israelis and Palestinians alike. It conducts campaigns, holds conferences, sponsors tours, and engages in various other activist efforts.

Its founding principles include:

—evacuating Israeli settlements;
—non-violent solutions in place of state terrorism and “state-initiated violence;”
— “a complete end to the Israeli military occupation,” including over East Jerusalem;
—a viable Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders;
—Jerusalem as the capital of both states, free and open to all Muslims, Jews, Christians and others;
—”a just resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem;”

and
— “the recognition that (US) Jews….have a special responsibility to urge (their) government to pursue policies consistent with the requirements of a just peace for Israel and the Palestinian people.”

Tikkun

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t publishes articles on social theory, religion and spirituality, social change, contemporary American and global politics and economics, Israel/Palestine, and other topics. It features issues that “both advance the pursuit of tikkun olam – social justice and the repair of the world – and break down issues of contemporary concern in completely new and thoughtful ways.” It supports progressive spirituality and challenges established orthodoxies in all spheres of thought and politics. It’s “dedicated to healing and transforming (a troubled) world.”

Its editor is Rabbi Michael Lerner, author of “The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back from the Religious Right,” and “Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Transformation.” On May 8, 2008 on the HuffingtonPost.com, writing “On Zionism, Healing, and Israel’s 60th Anniversary,” he noted how Palestinians were dispossessed of their homes and villages by Jews “determined to be as ruthless towards others as others had been towards” them. “Yet, there are alternatives” not taken so conflict ever since has persisted.

As for Zionism, he described what emerged as “fundamentally incompatible with the highest values of the Jewish tradition, and must be rejected even as we develop a compassionate attitude toward the Jewish people of Israel.” To preserve Judaism, Lerner quotes the following Torah injunction:

“When you come into your land, do not oppress the stranger: remember that you were strangers in the land of Egypt. A Jewish state that has been unwilling or unable to live by that command has no religious foundation and can generate no lasting support from those committed to God and Torah.”

Doing it right requires abandoning “a naive utopian fantasy” and building a society based on “open-heartedness, compassion and caring for others….” Abandoning Zionist extremism for traditional Jewish moral values is essential.

Satmar

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hey’re “Jews Not Zionists” and quote Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum in 1958 speaking out against Zionist heresy:

“….if we place all the immodesty and promiscuity of the generation and the many sins of the world on one side of the scale, and the Zionist state on the other side of the scale by itself, it would outweigh them all. Zionism is the greatest form of spiritual impurity in the entire world. (It’s) polluting the entire world. (It’s) polluted the Jewish people with (its) heresy….Everything our blessed rabbis cried out about earlier in the century about the dangers of Zionism (have) been forgotten….It is impossible to describe to what extent the world has become sunken in such a falsehood which is destroying the entire Torah.”

Jews Not Zionists believe that Zionism is heresy, and “the existence of the so-called ‘State of Israel’ is illegitimate.” Zionism violated Torah doctrine, the very essence of Judaism. It believes that human life is sacred and human rights aren’t to be denied by those who would sacrifice them for national security or any other reason.

“Judaism and Zionism are by no means the same. Indeed they are incompatible and irreconcilable.” Good Jews can’t be Zionists, and Zionists can’t be good Jews. According to Jewish tradition, seven universal Noacide morality laws apply to everyone. Also the Ten Commandments for all monotheistic religions, and another 613 obligatory laws for traditional Jews.

They eschew violence, military power, and brute force. They’re about morality and spiritual purity. Zionists made belief in the Torah and fulfillment of religious obligations a private matter, not a common obligation for all Jews. They made Judaic dogma subject to party or parliamentary votes and set their own ethical and moral standards, suiting them alone.

Many times in Jewish history, an extremist minority misled the majority. Worshiping the golden calf happened earlier. Today it’s political Zionism. Before its emergence, piety, decency, learning, and belief in justice and mercy characterized most Jewish leaders. Now they’re the minority. It’s why they believe a good Jew can’t be a Zionist, and a Zionist can’t be a good Jew and aren’t the legitimate spokespersons for anyone but themselves. From a religious point of view, they’re heretics.

Jews Against Racist Zionism

They include distinguished figures who speak out for “anti-racist Jews and indeed all anti-racist humanitarians.” They decry “anti-Arab anti-Semitic racist Zionists running Apartheid Israel and their Western backers.” They’re appalled by the continuing Palestinian, Iraqi, and Afghan genocides that have killed and dispossessed millions. They see Zionism as a threat to all Jews and humanity unless something is done to stop it.

Neturei Karta International (NKI)

A Neturei Karta demonstrator flying the Palestinian flag at New York rally for Israel.

NKI is an Aramaic term for “Guardians of the City,” given to a group of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem who “opposed the establishment of and retain all opposition to the existence of the so-called ‘State of Israel!’ ” They demonstrate publicly and state their belief in the Torah and “authentic unadulterated Judaism.”

In 1938, NKI was founded in Jerusalem to struggle against Zionism. Most of its members now live outside Israel, many in New York where they’re prominent, vocal, and ignored by the dominant media.

For refusing to accept Zionism, they were harassed, incarcerated, and physically tortured by “Zionist police and agents.” As a result, they scattered internationally and established synagogues, educational institutions, publishing houses and organizations espousing their beliefs.

They’re orthodox, but not ultra-orthodox or extremist. They’ve “added nothing to nor have taken anything away from the written and oral law of the Torah as it is expressed in the Halacha (traditional Jewish law) and the Shulchan Aruch (codification of Jewish law).”

They’re allied with many thousands of other Jews sharing similar anti-Zionist views. They oppose the “State of Israel (because) the entire concept of a sovereign Jewish state is contrary to Jewish law.” It conflicts with traditional Judaism.

They quote Talmudic doctrine teaching that Jews are prohibited from using force to establish a Jewish state or to rebel against other nations. “Jews are not allowed to dominate, kill, harm or demean another people and are not allowed to have anything to do with the Zionist enterprise, their political meddling and their wars.”

“The true Jews remain faithful to Jewish belief and are not contaminated with Zionism. The true Jews are against dispossessing the Arabs of their land and homes. According to the Torah, the land should be returned to them….The world must know that the Zionists have illegitimately seized the name Israel and have no right to speak in the name of the Jewish people!”

NKI seeks peace and reconciliation with people of all faiths and nations. Of greatest concern is reconciling with the Muslim world after decades of Zionist abuses. They support peace, justice, and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.

They decry Zionist propaganda, bullying tactics, censorship and lies. Its weapon is state terror. Its dogma is a profound disregard for human life and moral values. Its false idol is a “lack of truth on its side.”

NKI notes how greater numbers of people now question Zionism, its version of history, and values. They blame it for massive bloodshed and suffering and believe they’ll be no Middle East peace until there’s no more State of Israel, at least under Zionism. They think that a coalition of anti-Zionist Jews and Palestinians can unite as a moral force for peace and good in the world. They welcome the abolition of Zionism “in a peaceful manner.”

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n a public April 30, 2008 petition, Harold Pinter was among 105 prominent Jews who said “we….will not be celebrating” Israel’s May 2008 60th anniversary. They noted the 1948 slaughter and dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, the destruction of their villages, their erasure from history, the 1967 occupation, the continued persecution for decades, the defiling of international law, and utter contempt for human rights and peaceful coexistence. They stated:

“We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land. We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state that even now engages in ethnic cleansing, that violates international law, that is inflicting a monstrous collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza and that continues to deny to Palestinians their human rights and national aspirations.”

“We will celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East,” something impossible under Zionism.

A Final Comment

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]t its core, Zionism is fundamentally racist, extremist, undemocratic, and militant:

—in espousing Jewish supremacy, exceptionalism, and uniqueness as God’s “chosen people;”

—in relying on occupation, oppression, violence and dispossession;

—in justifying a Jewish ethnocracy based on structural inequalities;

—in ruling by force, not coexistence;

—in choosing confrontation over diplomacy and the rule of law; and

—by denying Arabs and all others the same rights as Jews.

No ideology that destructive can endure. No regional peace and reconciliation is possible until it’s repudiated.

About the Author

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Lendman News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Is the real left ready to govern?*

O P • E D S
CONTROVERSY
JON HOCHSCHARTNER

What would the great Hellen Keller, one of the ACLU founders, have to say about the current trends in the PC left? Heller, by the way, was a socialist, one of the best kept secrets by the mainstream media, which have always preferred to focus on her heroic struggle to overcome deafblindness instead of her advanced political beliefs. Same can be said about Einstein and other widely admired figures.

There are many on the far left*, who, I suspect, don’t want to govern. But for those of us who actually want to institute progressive change, who do not enjoy the hipster’s satisfaction of existing on the periphery, governing is the eventual goal. And yet, looking at the far left today, are we actually ready for such a thing? Frequently, I’m forced to conclude we aren’t. For instance, there are significant portions of us, who, despite our support for police and penal reform, are suspicious, if not avowedly hostile, to due process and freedom of speech. This might come as something of a shock for those of us aware the American Civil Liberties Union was founded by socialists and feminists. But it’s true.

What is actually going on in the cases mentioned by the author? An instance of immature, kneejerk leftism? The overgrowth of the politically correct posture?

Take what’s happening at Wesleyan University. After the school paper published conservative criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement, the student government voted to consider cutting the publication’s funding. In response, the paper has been forced to appeal for donations so as to retain its editorial independence. Similarly, when Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis published an article criticizing “sexual paranoia” on college campuses, she was slapped with Title IX complaints. There are countless recent examples of left-wing students engaging in the no-platforming of potential speakers. Unfortunately, you can’t just chalk this up to youthful exuberance.

Socialist Worker is the publication of the International Socialist Organization, a group led by middle-aged people with children of their own. Prior to the summer of 2013, I was published on their website with some frequency. Every time I sent in an article or letter, it was generally posted. But after I mildly criticized the ISO’s slate-voting system in another outlet, their publication was suddenly closed to me. Over the past two years, I have probably sent the group an average of one letter or article a month. Nothing has shown up on their website.

[box]

The author is a social activist residing in Connecticut. He can be reached at jonhoch3@gmail.com .

The original title of this essay was “Is The Far Left Ready to Govern?”

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to
The Greanville Post–or

SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.

Speciesism: the oldest tyranny, toward some definitions

BE SURE TO CIRCULATE OUR ARTICLES. HELP NEUTRALIZE THE CORPORATE MEDIA LIES.

xamined, primitive fascism directed at nonhuman animals?

MAIN COVER IMAGE ABOVE: The dynamic of business is implacable and by definition amoral. Compassion or due respect for humans, nonhumans, and nature itself, seen as mere factors of production for profit do not enter the basic calculus. This is a downed cow, being dragged to slaughter. What kind of person can watch this and not feel empathy? (Farm Sanctuary, flickr)

The debate on speciesism is historically new but the term seeks to define perhaps the oldest form of tyranny exercised by humans on any category of sentient living creatures. In fact, many aspects of speciesism, if not its totality, resemble a primitive and pervasive form of fascism, rather than, as has been argued elsewhere (see below) mere racism or sexism.

Astute students of history will easily recognize the parallels with fascism, especially Nazism, whose ideology of the master race served to legitimate widespread persecution and annihilation of "inferior breeds"—from Jews to slavic peoples, the infamous "untermenschen".

The roots of speciesism sound innocuous enough. Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species. The term was coined by Richard D. Ryder in 1970 and is used to denote prejudice similar in kind to sexism and racism. The term has not entered everyday language.

The idea of speciesism is used mostly by advocates of animal rights, who believe that its practice is irrational or morally wrong.

He who says speciesism says fascism
By Patrice Greanville

The actual figure is incalculable, but responsible estimates assume that conservatively between 65 thousand million animals—yes, 65 billion creatures—and quite possibly as high as 100 billion or more die each year directly as a result of human activities ranging from factory farming to hunting, the fur garment trades, wildlife trade, commercial exploitation of various kinds, oceanic and waterways exploitation and destruction, and biomedical research. That's more than 273 million creatures every single day, including birds, cows, and hogs, many of them highly sociable animals. The way we go about killing animals, wherever they may be found or kept, land, sea or air—murdering and torturing are often better words—is astonishing. We do it with abandon and we do it in such institutionalized, "tradition" approved ways that only a minority ever realize the extent of the tragedy.

Since the era of modern fishing began 200 years ago we have decimated the oceans, ostensibly infinite reservoirs of life, converting many maritime regions into what Farley Mowat accurately decried as "seas of slaughter." In the USA alone, every year almost 50 million turkeys are killed just for Thanksgiving Day, to commemorate a date that is of questionable historical merit, and which, despite the fact that the sacrificial victims have grown from a symbolic handful to tens of millions, rarely stirs any introspection. Sadly, such incidents are but a mere drop in an invisible sea of monstrous abuse whose actual roots date back to our earliest times as a species with self-righteous "dominionistic" claims over nature endorsed by all major religions.

Indirect causes

One hundred billion animals is a stunning figure, yet this figure, does not include animals mistreated or dead as a result of habitat destruction, widespread pollution, apparently "harmless" recreational activities such as sport fishing and boating, and the collision of animals with "modernity" (up to 250 million animals die annually as roadkill on the American highways alone). All of these lethal vectors have acquired a greater magnitude with the anthropogenic release of hydrocarbons on the atmosphere which has detonated the climate change nightmare. We have become indeed not only the most appalling tyranny over every other sentient creature on this planet, including many segments of our own breed, but also a raging, self-righteous cancer extending itself with impunity to every corner of the earth.

Time to do some rethinking

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]oday, as a result of industrialism, ecological deterioration and other related issues, self-defined progressives can't afford to go on pretending that suffering on such egregious scale is just a peripheral issue, or the concern of affluent dilettantes with little interest in other social issues. Due to a deeply embedded and largely unexamined 18th Century heritage of philosophical "superhumanism" ("man is the measure of all things," and the rest of all that self-celebratory rubbish which, we should recall, arose as a response to a greater form of human obtuseness, the one granting God and King total control over human agency), the Left continues to endorse or acquiesce in human supremacist attitudes toward animals. This moral blindness is inexcusable for those who wish to be seen and who doubtless see themselves as the moral vanguard of humanity.

The bottom line is that speciesism—an underhanded and primitive form of fascism applied to animals and nature in general—is by far the oldest and most pervasive form of brutal tyrannization known on our planet. I don't use the word "fascism" as hyperbole in this context or for dramatic effect. I wish it were all just hyperbole. But the fact is that fascism is distinguished—inter alia—for its unilateral proclamations of superiority by a certain race or breed, with such spurious superiority endowing said race with the "right" to dominate, exploit, and annihilate at will any group deemed "inferior." If that pretty much doesn't describe eloquently our despicable behavior toward non-human animals, I don't know what does.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] realize quite well that to raise this topic is to ask for trouble. The fight to expand the realm of moral consideration to animals—to make such inclusion a matter of right—arouses deep animosities, including in the midst of many people who, as argued above, would otherwise define themselves as card-carrying progressives or, as our opponents across the political tracks like to say, "bleeding hearts." Well, I guess the bleeding does not suffice in many cases to include other sentient beings—especially those already dismissed by tradition as "raised for food" (as if such categorization in and of itself erased all trace of what is by any reckoning a truly nightmarish form of slavery).

Arguing for animal rights among "progressives" (no need to include here those who define themselves as diehard traditionalists and reactionaries) frequently strikes a vein of resentment, and invidious commentary. Many find it odious to classify animals as victims on the same footing as women or non-whites (whatever that is since there's no real scientific base for race distinctions), considering, reflexively, and, again from their own deeply embedded speciesist thinking, that such imputed equivalency is an insult to their status, or a call to divert scarce remedial energies away from their struggles. The upshot is usually a torrent of jealousy-tinged vituperation.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] know this from personal experience. I've been both an animal liberationist and a leftist all my adult life so I know the score, and what I'm saying here is that I am resigned, I expect to see sarcasm, derision, flippancy, intellectual laziness, and, why not, even intellectual dishonesty in the ranks of those who define themselves as progressives, for such is the deep reservoir of human chauvinism that afflicts so many in our species. And let me repeat it here, many of these people are indeed excellent human beings in just about every conceivable category.

The more creative will hide their prejudices by feigning alarm at my conflating the words "fascism" with "speciesism." Well, I have something to say to this easily offended crowd: You abuse a language when you turn it on its head, use the Orwellian formula to accomplish precisely the opposite of what the words originally denoted, or in furtherance of what would be, by fair evaluation, an obviously despicable pursuit.

George W Bush and his accomplices, as we all know, are a prime example of this: in The First Decider's lips the words freedom, democracy and justice, not to mention a fair shake for the disadvantaged, were but tools of manipulation to buttress the agenda of a deranged and criminal plutocracy driving the world ever closer to total war.

But what am I proposing here? Just think about it for a moment. Something that all of you should be for, an extension of compassion, or at least the benefit of the doubt when subjecting mind-boggling numbers of sentient creatures to the finality of death. In other words, I'm pleading for a reduction in the colossal amount of violence that this planet already sustains, the violence that at least our species is directly responsible for, a diminution in the sum total of unnecessary suffering inflicted across the globe...Where is the inversion of meaning here? The outrageous betrayal of the language? Or is it that by saying "fascism" and "speciesism" in one breath I manage to offend the sensibilities of too many purists who happen to land on this forsaken blog?

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ords change, expand, become obsolete, drop and add connotations and meanings, and sometimes die, like the things and realities they were initially created for. And besides, just like there are varieties of capitalism, socialism and communism, so you also have distinct varieties of fascism. In some, all the bells and whistles are found that connote "classical fascism" —the jackboots, the open corporatization of the state, and so on and so forth, as we have come to know it. In others, it's more of an all-encompassing worldview, a system of values, an ideology that justifies a malignant treatment code. But here's the crux of the question, as some might say. The boots, the marches, the endless wars, the nauseating violence, the paraphernalia of fascism and the fascination with death—all of that cannot happen in the absence of an ideology that starts by justifying the oppression of others by virtue of a self-serving, unilateral declaration of superiority. The concept is the same; the contexts vary. Regrettably, human chauvinism cuts very deep and pervades every nook and cranny of what we optimistically still call civilization, and has done so for millennia. As noted earlier, no one is immune to this infection, including many folks who regard themselves as impeccably "progressive". Indeed, it is from their ranks that you often hear some of the worst and most derisive epithets.

Scarce resources

A common argument is that progressives, always a thin line against barbarism, have better things to attend to than the fate of "mere" chickens and cows. While strategic considerations always play a role in the real world, and the argument, at least obliquely carries some worth, I suspect that compassion, to such individuals, has obviously left the building; it is fungible, divisible, and comfortably apportionable according to inclusion or exclusion in certain categories of privileged sentience. They obviously don't see—refuse to see—the parallels with so many other struggles they may have honored or participated in, nor do they see how the liberation of animals is an integral part of a serious environmentalist agenda. No, here they draw the line, and reason, kindness, and the most elementary fairness fly out the window.

Such narrow-minded and intellectually lazy positions may one day be exposed, moral awakenings are sometimes tardy but they do occur in many hearts and decent minds with encouraging regularity. Let us hope that such people see the light in time for the planet to contemplate at least a partial reprieve from the colossal abuse it is now experiencing, for now, in the age of an utterly deranged industrialism, and with a global system blatantly proclaiming as its organizing principle the pursuit at any cost of infinite growth in what any sensible person can see is a very finite and fragile planet, the tyranny of humans over nature has acquired monstruous proportions. The extraordinary dimensions of animal exploitation by the industrial method and the death of one species after another grimly attest to that.

In view of these incontestable facts, no one with a scintilla of decency should turn his or her back on such knowledge. It is the duty of all people who haven't yet done so, and especially of progressives, to re-examine their assumptions about animals, about their everyday conduct in choosing food and clothing and transportation modes, and to join the last struggle against the first tyranny. By doing so, they will re-invigorate the environmental movement, rendering it less abstract and more passionate, because while fighting for nature is a noble and urgent call, fighting for nature's oppressed creatures is a matter of long denied justice.

Other arguments

Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer have both criticized speciesism. Regan rejects it because it permits unjustified violations of animals' inherent rights; Singer, because it violates the principle of equal consideration of interests.

Speciesism can be defined as a prejudice against taking the interests of members of other species into account or not giving other species their due based simply on the fact that they belong to another species.

Great Ape personhood is a related concept, in which the various attributes of the Great Apes are deemed by some people, to merit recognition of their sentience and personhood within the law, as opposed to mere protection under animal cruelty legislation. This would cover matters such as their own best interest being taken into account in their treatment by people.

Some religions are less speciesist than others. While animists may believe in the equality of all sentient beings, monotheists tend to believe that human beings are superior to other lifeforms by divine intention. The teachings of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism emphasize ideals such as sarva jeeva sama bhava, that is, "all sentient beings are equal", and are examples of religions that tilt towards being less speciesist, though the extent to which this is reflected in daily life in countries where those religions are influential—as the Nepalese Gadhimai festival attests—depends on the local culture.

Gadhimai animal massacre. Finally suspended. But many other idiotic cruelties remain. And this practice may actually stage a comeback.

About the author

Patrice Greanville is TGP's founding editor and publisher. Besides being an anticapitalist/imperialist, Greanville is a lifetime advocate of animal rights.

Addendum
THE TOUGHEST FRONTIERS

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]nti-vivisectionists charge that animal experimenters are speciesists, people who unjustly discriminate against members of other species. Until recently most defenders of experimentation denied the charge. After the publication of Carl Cohen's `The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research' in the New England Journal of Medicine, experimenters had a more aggressive reply: `I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible, it is essential for right conduct...'1. Most researchers now embrace Cohen's response as part of their defense of animal experimentation. Cohen asserts that both rights and utilitarian arguments against the use of animals in research fail because they `refuse to recognize the moral differences among species'.2 If we appreciate the profound differences between humans and non-human animals, he says, we would understand why animals do not and could not have rights and why animal pain does not have as much moral weight as human pain. Animal liberationists think speciesism is immoral because they mistakenly equate it with racism and sexism. Cohen claims this equation is `unsound', `atrocious', `utterly specious', and `morally offensive'. Doubtless Cohen is right that the charge of speciesism is founded on an analogy with racism and sexism. He is mistaken, however, in asserting that the comparison is categorically illicit.

Animal liberationists compare speciesism with racism to focus our attention on the human tendency to unreflectively accept contemporary moral standards. We are fallible. Even our deeply held views may be wrong. Our ancestors forgot (or never knew) this important lesson. Thus, although most were not evil people, they indisputably did evil things. We must be leery less we likewise err in our treatment of animals. Of course these historical observations do not entail that our treatment of animals is morally unacceptable. It does, however, suggest we should critically examine our treatment of animals, especially when liberationists have offered arguments which are plausible, even if, in the end, people do not find them conclusive.

This is especially sage advice given the close historical connection between speciesism and racism. Historically the two are inextricably intertwined, the former being used to bolster, explain, and justify the latter.3 Of course, it does not follow that contemporary speciesists are racists or that all forms of speciesism are indefensible. It does show, however, that speciesism and racism are sufficiently similar so that analogies between them cannot be blithely dismissed as category mistakes.

Of course experimenters could argue that there are differences between speciesism and racism differences which make speciesism morally justified and racism morally objectionable. But that must be shown. To show that the comparison between racism and speciesism is specious, apologists must argue that although we cannot justify treating blacks and whites differently simply because they are members of different races, we can justify treating humans and non-human animals differently simply because we are members of different species.

How, though, can that be shown? Humans and non-human animals are biologically distinct.4 But the issue is not whether they are different, but whether they are different in morally relevant respects. Morality requires that we treat like cases alike. A teacher should give equal grades to students who perform equally; she should give unequal grades only if there is some general and relevant reason which justifies the difference in treatment. For instance, it is legitimate to give a better grade to a student who does superior work; it is illegitimate to give her a better grade because she is pretty, wears pink, or is named `Molly'.

Hence, to determine if speciesism is morally defensible, we must first determine if species differences are morally relevant. Speciesism, though, comes in either of two forms. The bare speciesist claims that the bare difference in species is morally relevant. The indirect speciesist claims that although bare species differences are not morally relevant, there are morally relevant differences typically associated with differences in species. We can illuminate that distinction by analogy: a bare sexist might claim that we should give men given certain jobs because they are men, while indirect sexists might contend men should be given certain jobs because they have certain traits which distinguish them from women.

In science fiction

Speciesism is a popular theme in science fiction, referring to a prejudice against other intelligent species, equivalent to racism. For example, during the reign of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars, many alien species were oppressed by the ruling government, which consisted mainly of humans. In this context, it is sometimes referred to as xenophobia.

NOW PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, properly footnoted, HERE.

<:>

About the author
Hugh LaFollette, Ph.D., teaches philosophy/ethics at the University of South Florida/St. Petersburg (USFSP). Niall Shanks (January 18, 1959—July 13, 2011), a native of Cheshire, England, was educated at Rossall School, and later at the University of Leeds and the University of Liverpool. Shanks left England for Canada in 1981 and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Alberta, Canada in 1987. Shanks moved to the United States in 1987. For a number of years Shanks was a member of the Department of Philosophy at East Tennessee State University, where he also held positions in the Department of Biological Sciences and the Department of Physics and Astronomy. He then moved to Wichita State University where he was the Curtis D. Gridley Professor in the History and Philosophy of Science.

The Greanville Post is the best edited political blog in the anglophone world. No one matches our standards.

We give you the unadulterated truths that affect your life and the lives of countless people around the world, and the destiny of the planet itself. Just think for a moment: an insignificant sum for you can mean whether we continue to publish or go under. Don’t take the citizens’ media—YOUR media—for granted. Sign up today for a simple, recurring donation of just $5. You can cancel anytime—and no hard feelings. That’s a promise.

Unanswered (marketing) prayers: Loyal reader gives New Statesman the boot

KULTURKAMPF

NS’s first issue, in 1913. (Click to expand.)

[box type=”info”] In the case of The News Statesman the displacement was not terribly dramatic, as the publication was at best a Fabian relic, although it once boasted the likes of HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and of course Sidney and Beatrice Web, who founded the mag in 1913, but the utter editorial degeneracy it has now embraced in the age of open and blatant imperial corporatism, has proven too much even for loyal and terribly patient readers, a flock that includes our own London correspondent and fellow editor Mike Faulkner. It was not surprising, therefore, that a recent invitation to renew his lapsed subscription prompted Mike to pen the letter we reproduce below. —P. Greanville[/box]

⁽¹⁾ A. Sullivan/Wiki

From: Mike Faulkner
To: New Statesman subscription department
Subject: RE: Your New Statesman subscription has expired

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015

Dear: (Name of subscription contact person withheld for obvious reasons, and sheer politesse.)

Thank you for your letter reminding me that my subscription has expired. It is with regret that I must inform you that I shall not be renewing it. I feel I need to tell you why.

So, with some sadness, after having been a reader all my adult life (and for more than half the lifetime of the New Statesman itself) I shall no longer be a subscriber. I shall transfer my subscription to The Nation, published in the United States, which has, unlike The New Statesman, remained true to its radical roots.

With kind regards,

Michael Faulkner

FACT TO REMEMBER:
IF THE WESTERN MEDIA HAD ITS PRIORITIES IN ORDER AND ACTUALLY INFORMED, EDUCATED AND UPLIFTED THE MASSES INSTEAD OF SHILLING FOR A GLOBAL EMPIRE OF ENDLESS WARS, OUTRAGEOUS ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, AND DEEPENING DEVASTATION OF NATURE AND THE ANIMAL WORLD, HORRORS LIKE THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED MANY YEARS, PERHAPS DECADES AGO. EVERY SINGLE DAY SOCIAL BACKWARDNESS COLLECTS ITS OWN INNUMERABLE VICTIMS.

[printfriendly]

REBLOGGERS NEEDED. APPLY HERE!

Get back at the lying, criminal mainstream media and its masters by reposting the truth about world events. If you like what you read on The Greanville Post help us extend its circulation by reposting this or any other article on a Facebook page or group page you belong to. Send a mail to Margo Stiles, letting her know what pages or sites you intend to cover. We MUST rely on each other to get the word out!

And remember: All captions and pullquotes are furnished by the editors, NOT the author(s).

What is $5 a month to support one of the greatest publications on the Left?

Liberals and the New McCarthyism

Derrick Jensen

Derrida

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t’s easy enough, some sixty years after the fact, for us to cluck our tongues at the cowardice and stupidity of those who went along with McCarthyism. It’s especially easy for liberals and academics to say that had they been alive back then, they would certainly have had the courage to stand up for discourse and to stand up for those being blacklisted. That’s partly because universities like to present themselves as bastions of free thought and discourse, where students, faculty, and guests discuss the most important issues of the day. Liberal academics especially like to present themselves as encouraging of these discussions.

Bullshit.

A new McCarthyism—complete with blacklisting—has overtaken universities, and discourse in general, and far from opposing it, liberal academics are its most active and ardent perpetrators, demanding a hegemony of thought and discourse that rivals the original.

For the past decade or so, deplatforming—the disinvitation of a speaker at the insistence of a special interest group—and blacklisting have been, to use the word of an organization that tracks the erosion of academic freedom through the increased use of deplatforming, “exploding.” Between 2002 and 2013, disinvitations from universities went up six times. And no longer are the primary blacklisters the capitalists (as was the case in the 1950s) or the pro-Israel lobby (as it has been for the past few decades). The pro-Israel lobby is still blacklisting like mad, but it’s been overtaken these days in the anti-free-speech sweepstakes by those who often consider themselves the brave heirs of Mario Savio: the liberals and leftists. And the targets of the liberals and leftists are not confined to the right (although they do certainly target right-wingers as well). Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges was recently deplatformed because he speaks out against prostitution as exploitative of women. Only outcry by women forced the college to reinstate him. Writer and activist Gail Dines was recently deplatformed because she speaks out against pornography. Last year an anarchist organization called “Civil Liberties Defense Center” lent its efforts to attempts to deplatform writer and activist Lierre Keith from the University of Oregon because she’s a radical feminist. The irony of an organization with “civil liberties” in its title attempting to deplatform someone because her ideology doesn’t fit its own doesn’t escape me, and probably won’t escape anyone outside of anarchist/liberal/leftist circles. Last year, female genital mutilation survivor, child bride survivor, and feminist activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited from receiving an honorary degree at Brandeis because she writes, from unspeakably painful experience, about how millions of women are treated under Islam.

Capitalists used the rhetoric of “communism” to blacklist. The pro-Israel lobby uses the rhetoric of “Anti-Semitism.” And the modern-day McCarthys use the rhetoric of “oppression” and “trauma.”

Michel Foucault: unclassifiable politics. Sometime communist, then anticommunist, but always weak in his allegiances to real leftism. Essentially, like his brethren a glorified bourgeois sensibility.

Things have gotten bad enough that comedians Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Larry the Cable Guy have all said they can’t or won’t play colleges any more. As fellow-comedian Bill Maher commented, “When Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, and Larry the Cable Guy say you have a stick up your ass, you don’t have to wait for the X-rays to come back. That’s right, a black, a Jew and a redneck all walk onto a college campus and they all can’t wait to leave.”

Things have gotten bad enough that this spring The Onion put out a satirical piece titled, “College Encourages Lively Exchange of Idea: Students, Faculty, Invited to Freely Express Single Viewpoint.” The article concludes with fictitious college President Kevin Abrams stating, “‘Whether it’s a discussion of a national political issue or a concern here on campus, an open forum in which one argument is uniformly reinforced is crucial for maintaining the exceptional learning environment we have cultivated here.’ Abrams told reporters that counseling resources were available for any student made uncomfortable by the viewpoint.”

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hings are much worse than I’ve so far made them seem. Brown University recently held a debate about sexual assault on campus. In response to the very existence of this debate—and this time it’s not The Onion reporting, but rather The New York Times—the college set up a “safe space” where those who might be made uncomfortable, or to use the politically correct parlance, “triggered,” by the debate could remove to relax with “cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma.” A student gave her reason for using the safe room: “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs.”

Silly me. I thought being challenged was a primary point of college.

Over the past few years I’ve talked to several university instructors (especially adjuncts) who’ve told me they’re afraid of their students. Not physically, as in their students killing them, but rather they fear that uttering any opinion that any of their students—either
conservative or liberal: it swings both ways—find objectionable will lead to that student complaining to the administration, after which the instructor may lose her or his classes, in effect be fired. And I just read an essay by an instructor in which he mentions an adjunct whose contract was not “renewed after students complained that he exposed them to ‘offensive’ texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students’ ire and sealed his fate.”

The political correctness posse has started coming after me. I’ve been deplatformed twice this year, by liberals at Appalachian State and Oregon State Universities. The logic behind the deplatformings makes an interesting case study in the McCarthyism and circular firing squad mentality of the liberal academic class.

Part of what’s interesting to me about these deplatformings is that given what I write about—my work more or less constantly calls for revolution—I always thought it was inevitable that I’d start getting deplatformed, just as I’m always detained when I cross international borders, but I thought this deplatforming would come from the right. Not so. It’s come from the left, and, well, to use a cliché, it’s come out of left field.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]o be clear, I’ve never been deplatformed because I’ve written scores of lines like, “Every morning when I wake up I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam.” I’ve never been deplatformed because I’ve written about the necessity of using any means necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet. I’ve never been deplatformed because I’ve written about taking down capitalism. I’ve never been deplatformed for making the satirical modest proposal that a way to stop environmental destruction is to attach remote controlled cigar cutters to the genitals of CEOs, politicians, and land managers who claim their decisions won’t harm the land (let them put their genitals where their mouths are, I say (which is something they’ve probably already tried to do)) and when their decisions harm the land, well, bzzzt, and I guarantee the next CEO, politician, or land manager won’t be quite so quick to make false promises. I’ve never been deplatformed for calling in all seriousness for Tony Hayward, ex-CEO of BP, to be tried and if found guilty executed for murdering workers in the Gulf of Mexico, and for murdering the Gulf itself. I can say all of those things, and not have the slightest fear of deplatforming.

Why was I deplatformed? In both cases because I hold the evidently politically incorrect position that women, including those who have been sexually assaulted by males, should not be forced—as in, against their will—to share their most intimate spaces with men. I’ve been deplatformed because I believe that women have the right to bathe, sleep, gather, and organize free from the presence of men.

That’s it.

Yes, I think it’s ridiculous, too.

Even though I wasn’t going to talk about this right of women at all, but rather the murder of the planet, a small group of students—in this case those who identify as transgender—at Applachian State was given veto power over whether I would speak at the university. They said that my mere presence on campus would be “an offense” to their community. Bingo: disinvitation. I was likewise deplatformed from Oregon State because, in the words of the professors who deplatformed me, my presence would “hurt the feelings” of the students who identify as transgender. Never mind, once again, that I wasn’t going to talk about them at all.

Do we all see what’s wrong with deplatforming someone because he or she may hurt someone’s feelings? Once again, silly me: I thought I’d been invited to speak at a university, not a day care center.

Jensen

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]y recollection of the universities I have attended or taught at is that a primary purpose was to foster critical thinking and the exploration of vital issues of the day, not to protect students from anything that might “hurt their feelings.” A purpose was to help them become functioning adults in a pluralistic society. Clearly, that’s gone by the boards. And I wasn’t even going to talk about transgender issues, which means it would be my mere presence that would hurt their feelings. Do we all see what is very wrong with basing campus and regional discourse on whether someone’s feelings will be hurt, and worse, on “hurt feelings” that won’t even be based on what the blacklisted speaker was actually going to talk about? What does it mean to our society and to discourse that one group of people—any group of people—is allowed to hold campus and regional discourse hostage by threatening that their feelings may be hurt? Should Christians be able to deplatform Richard Dawkins because he hurts their feelings? Should atheists be able to deplatform Christians because the Christians hurt their feelings? Capitalists are killing the planet. The murder of the planet certainly hurts my feelings. So let’s deplatform all the capitalists.

The kicker on me getting deplatformed because my presence would be an “offense” to, and “hurt the feelings” of, those students who identify as transgender, is that not only was I not going to talk about them, I barely even write about them. I’ve done the math, and out of the literally millions of words I’ve written for publication, only .14 percent (yes, that’s point 14 percent) of those words have to do with their issues: two short essays, only written after my female comrades began receiving a host of rape and death threats simply for wanting to sleep, bathe, gather, and organize free from the presence of males (and you’d think that rape and death threats by men who object to women wanting space away from men would be the end of the discussion: it is, but not in the way you think: it’s the end of the discussion because the men win and the women and their allies get deplatformed). .14 percent of my work is 1.4 words per every thousand. That’s the equivalent of five words in this entire essay. Even if it were worthwhile to deplatform me over the issue at all, they’re deplatforming me because they disagree with .14 percent of my work. Hell, I disagree with a lot more than that. The cult-like demand of loyalty on the part of the new McCarthyites is so rigid that 99.86 percent agreement does not suffice.

And the essays they object to weren’t even disrespectful (which is more than I can say for my treatment of, say, capitalists), just a political and philosophical disagreement.

Part of the problem is that a terrible (and manipulative) rhetorical coup has taken place in academia, where political and philosophical disagreement have been redefined as “disrespect” and “traumatizing” and “hurting their feelings,” such that the “victims” may have to dash off to a “safe space” to play with Play-Doh and watch videos of puppies. As the (highly problematical) professor and writer Laura Kipnis puts it, “Emotional discomfort is [now] regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have to be remediated.” A fearful college instructor observed, “Hurting a student’s feelings, even in the course of instruction that is absolutely appropriate and respectful, can now get a teacher into serious trouble.”

That is a rhetorical coup because it makes discourse impossible. Those who perpetuate or support this coup have made it impossible to talk about the subject (or, clearly, any subject, including the murder of the planet), because any disagreement on any “triggering” subject is immediately labeled as a lack of acceptance and as disrespect.

To be clear, if no one is allowed to disagree with any one particular group of people—whether they be Christians or Muslims or capitalists or those who support (or oppose) Israel or those who identify as transgender, or, for that matter, members of the chess club—for fear their feelings will be hurt, then there can be no reasonable discourse. And if the purpose of a college lecture series is to make sure that no one’s feelings will be hurt, there can be no speakers. Allowing any group to hold discourse hostage to their feelings is the death knell for pluralistic society. It leads to fundamentalism. It is a fundamentalism.

It’s a classic trick used by despots and pocket despots everywhere: to ensure agreement with your position, make certain that all other positions are literally unspeakable. For the religiously minded, the epithet of choice has often been blasphemy. For the patriot, it’s traitor. For the capitalist, it’s commie. And for the liberal/leftist/anarchist, it’s oppressor.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

When I was a sophomore in college, the Colorado School of Mines invited Edward Teller to speak. One of my classes required attendance. The lecture was precisely what one would expect from one of the worst human beings of the twentieth century. But some thirty-five years later, the only thing I remember of that year-long class consisted of the great classroom discussion the next day, with some students hating him and others defending him. The professors—no fans of Teller’s insanity—used this as an opportunity to teach their twenty-year-old charges to build and defend an argument. Why did you find his views so offensive? Defend your position. Convince us.

To my mind, that is the point of college.

I once asked my friend the Okanagan activist Jeannette Armstrong what she thought of an attack by another writer on Jerry Mander’s book In the Absence of the Sacred. Her answer has guided my life and career: if he didn’t like the book, he should have written his own damn book.

And that is the point of writing.

So, if you disagree with me, great! If you think women don’t have the right to gather free from the presence of males, then make your argument. If you feel Israel is not committing atrocities, then make your argument. If you feel capitalism is the most just and desirable social arrangement possible and that communism is the devil’s handiwork, then make your argument. In each case make the best argument you can. Show that your position is correct. Make your argument so sound that no sane person could disagree with you (and lots of people—sane or otherwise—will still disagree with you: that’s the fucking point of living in a pluralistic society). And when somebody doesn’t agree with you, don’t fucking whine that your feelings are hurt or that you’re offended by an opinion different than your own, but instead use that disagreement to hone your own arguments for future disagreement. Or change your perspective based on that disagreement.

That is the point of college.

We’re not all going to get along. But no one is saying you have to invite every speaker into your home. No one is saying you have to accept them into your internet- or face-to-face-discussion groups. No one is saying you have to like them. No one is saying you have to listen to them. Hell, no one is even saying you have to acknowledge their existence. But if you fear a certain discussion or lecture is going to traumatize you such that you need to go blow bubbles and watch videos of puppies, then maybe you should just not attend that discussion or lecture, and later on maybe you should discuss those feelings with a therapist. Don’t project your triggers onto your fellow students. Don’t deprive everyone else of something because you object or because it might trigger you. It is not everyone else’s—or the world’s—responsibility to never make you uncomfortable.

That’s the point of living in a pluralistic society.

I blame society for this mess. Every indicator is that people are becoming significantly more narcissistic and less empathetic: as Scientific American reported back in 2010, “A study of 14,000 college students found that today’s young people are 40 percent less empathetic than college kids from 30 years ago,” and noted that “the sharpest drop in empathy occurred in the last nine years.” The article reports that “today’s students are less likely to agree with statements like, ‘I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective’ and ‘I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me [sic].’” So it should not come as a surprise that these students demand and expect that public discourse be formed so as to not “hurt their feelings.” Pretty much everything in this society—from capitalism to consumerism to incessant advertising and corporate culture to the selfish gene theory to neoliberalism to postmodernism to the superficiality of Internet culture—reinforces this narcissism. How many decades ago was “The Me Decade”? And how much worse has it become since then? Well, about 40 percent.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] also blame liberals/leftists/anarchists, who are in some ways merely replicating the Stanford Prison Experiment, in that having gained some power in the Academy, they’re using that power the same way that capitalists or anybody else who gains power so often does, by denying voice to anyone who disagrees with them.

And I blame the groundlessness of postmodernism, with its assertion that meaning is not inherent in anything, that there are no truths, and that each person’s perception of reality is equally valid. As well as destroying class consciousness—which is one reason modern blacklisting is often based on claims of how some speaker will supposedly hurt or trigger the individual, rather than emphasizing harm or gain to society as a whole—postmodernism has led to much of the insanity we’re discussing. As philosopher Daniel Dennett commented, “Postmodernism, the school of ‘thought’ that proclaimed ‘There are no truths, only interpretations’ has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for ‘conversations’ in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.” And if all you’ve got is rhetoric, that is, “interpretations” and “assertions,” as opposed to, say, factual evidence, then the only way, or at least the most tempting way, to conclusively win an argument is through rhetorical manipulations. If you can’t say, “Your opinion is wrong, and here are facts showing your opinion is wrong,” you’re pretty much stuck with, “Your opinion is oppressing me, triggering me, hurting my feelings.” And that’s precisely what we see. And of course we can’t argue back, in part because nobody can verify or falsify your feelings, and in part because by then we’ve already been deplatformed.

Among other problems, this is all very bad thinking.

And finally I blame the professors themselves. The word education comes from the root e-ducere, and means “to lead forth” or “draw out.” Originally it was a Greek midwife’s term meaning “to be present at the birth of.” The implication is that the educator is an adult, who is helping to give birth to the student’s capacity for critical thinking, and to the student’s adult form. This is not accomplished by making certain that no one be allowed to speak who might “hurt their feelings.” This is not accomplished by protecting students from “viewpoints that go against . . . dearly and closely held beliefs.” It’s accomplished by challenging students at every moment to be better thinkers, challenging them to question their own assumptions, challenging them to defend their positions with far more intellectual rigor than merely stating, “That hurt my feelings.”

I blame the professors also for not standing up for discourse itself. If you’re going to be a professor, if you’re going to be a midwife present at the birth of the critical minds of your students, then defending free and open discourse should be a calling and a duty. It should be a passion. It takes no courage whatsoever to fail to stand up to attempts to destroy discourse, whether the blacklisters are capitalists, the pro-Israel lobby, leftists, liberals, or students who perceive themselves (and who are evidently perceived by professors) as so fragile their feelings will be hurt by dissenting opinions, their feelings which must be protected no matter the cost to society and to discourse. This failure of courage does great injury to everyone, including the students perceived as needing protection from disagreement. I wish the professors understood that their job is to be educators, not baby-sitters (and codependent baby-sitters, at that). I wish the professors were defenders of discourse.

Derrick Jensen is numerous books, including Endgame, Listening to the Land, Walking on Water: Reading, Writing and Revolution, and co-author of Deep Green Resistance.