Worse, she sent an email to university colleagues stating I was a Holocaust denier. As everyone knows, I have I never endorsed Holocaust denial or permitted Holocaust denial ideas to be published in outlets that I control. She is perfectly well aware of this (perhaps accounting for avoiding that charge in her article). As usual, it’s guilt by association. In the email she also called me a “White supremacist”—leftspeak for Whites who think that Whites, like all other human groups, have interests. I am waiting for a statement by the ADL and the Jewish Studies Department that Jews have no moral or practical reason to attempt to remain a demographic majority in Israel.
My blurb for Kyle Bristow’s book was confined to the main point of the book which is a fictional account of the Salutrean hypothesis (which has its scientific defenders) and the suppression of this idea by the forces of political correctness. Being a busy person, I did not read the passage she complains about and certainly don’t endorse violence against Mark Potok despite his evil behavior.
And if you look at Michael Colhaze’s article “Heidi goes to heaven,” Heidi’s death is simply a setup for the satire, nothing more. There is no plot in which she is assassinated because of her (loathsome) activities. Her death is the result of a defective bomb built by a “greasy wannabe terrorist … who asked the $PLC to lay out one hundred grand for a so far undisclosed false flagploy, but knew as much about building bombs as pigs about flying.”
In order for the satire to work, she had to die somehow; the accidental detonation of a bomb certainly didn’t raise any red flags with me.
However, we at TOO certainly don’t want to tread on the sensibilities of sensitive souls like Beirich. I am advised thatColhaze may bow to this pressure and revise the article to have her die of a surfeit of donuts—which somehow seems more plausible anyway and has the virtue of being self-induced.
It seems that the SPLC is going into overdrive these days attempting to produce negative consequences for people who have ideas they don’t like. Most egregiously, they do their best to make people lose their jobs, and have many successes in that area. Stop and think about what it would mean to have your life turned upside down simply for expressing ideas, no matter how factual and well-grounded.
The SPLC continues these campaigns while America and, in particular, my academic colleagues simply watch it happening when they aren’t actively complicit. Horrifying.
And the SPLC continues to rake in millions for doing so. They are not labeled the $PLC for nothing.
It’s a little hard to believe that this man regularly stands in front of a classroom filled with students of a wide variety of faiths, races and social backgrounds and instructs them on evolutionary psychology, the psychology of child and adolescent development, and social and personality development. Perhaps he should be the one taking the class on personality development. Clearly, in that department, Kevin MacDonald has some serious work to do.
Tell you what, Heidi. I’ll work on my personality if you work on your eating disorder. (Actually, if loving your own people and defending its culture is a sign of a personality disorder, Beirich and Potok have serious psychiatric issues.)
In any case, it’s pretty obvious that Heidi’s personality needs some work. As a personality psychologist, it seems to me that not being able to see the harmless humor in Colhaze’s piece is the sign of a very serious personality disorder. A diagnosis of paranoia comes to mind.
And don’t worry. I am not out to proselytize vulnerable college student minds—unlike pretty much the entire rest of the faculty in the humanities and social sciences. I guess if you were principled, you would worry about that too, but I won’t hold my breath.
Nor are you worried about the fact that typical faculty are a sure bet todiscriminate against conservatives when recruiting faculty or making decisions on tenure and promotion. When do I get a chance to do that?
In the 1950s, the left was at the forefront of free speech for professors and others, producing a well-developed high culture where dissent was prized (e.g., plays like Arthur Miller’s The Crucible andInherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin) (see discussion here in the context of Jason Richwine losing his position at The Heritage Foundation).
But that was when the left was under pressure from McCarthy and the general anti-communist climate of the era. Now that they are in power, the left—and certainly the organized Jewish community—strongly favors controls on speech. The SPLC, which depends on Jewish donors, is certainly no exception. For the SPLC and their ilk, the First Amendment is nothing but a hurdle to be overcome, as indeed it will be if the Democrats manage to replace one of the conservative-leaning justices on the Supreme Court. Theintellectual workis already in place.