Reading Time: 7 minutes

How Mein Kampf Represents Social Justice

Increasingly we see examples of the increasing prevalence of consequentalist idea laundering in academia, as popularly exposed by Dr. James Lindsay, Dr. Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose during the Grievance Studies hoax.

In essence, idea laundering works through systemic infiltration of ideological malfeasance in the peer-review process. The grievance studies showed how this works, so I won’t go into too much detail (all the professors involved are liberal; Dr. Boghossian wrote “A Manual for Creating Atheists, so their worldview is humanist), but I’ll break it down a bit.

  • 1.) Put ideologic consequentalism over accuracy of knowledge.
  • 2.) Obtain peer-reviewer status.
  • 3.) Fraudulently peer-review something. That is, if it fits in with your worldview, support it even if it’s complete nonsense. (The people mentioned in the paragraphs above even won an award for a paper that was entirely fabricated but too good in its social justice flavoring to be passed up by the peer reviewers.)

Once done, the item in question then becomes “credible knowledge.” It can be cited as a part of knowledge, or even science, even though it’s flawed or fraudulent.

This is becoming prevalent in academia with far-reaching effects. In fact, Berkeley is now screening professors based on diversity statements and history. This results in the adverse selection of professorship and further erodes the integrity of peer review. Here’s an example of how this can get nasty: The flagship feminist philosophy journal, Hypatia, accepted a paper (not yet published online) arguing that social justice advocates should be allowed to make fun of others, but no one should be permitted to make fun of them.

The same journal invited resubmission of a paper arguing that “privileged students shouldn’t be allowed to speak in class at all and should just listen and learn in silence,” and that they would benefit from “experiential reparations” that include “sitting on the floor, wearing chains, or intentionally being spoken over.” The reviewers complained that this hoax paper took an overly compassionate stance toward the “privileged” students who would be subjected to this humiliation, and recommended that they be subjected to harsher treatment. Is asking people of a certain race to sit on the floor in chains better than asking them to wear a yellow star? What exactly is this leading to? 

The grievance study papers themselves were very worrying in being accepted. Some examples include:

  • Helen Wilson (pseudonym) (2018). “Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon”. Gender, Place & Culture: 1–20.
  • Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity) (2018). “Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding”. Fat Studies. 7 (3): i–xiii.
  • M. Smith (pseudonym) (2018). “Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use”. Sexuality & Culture. 22 (4): 1542.

These fake studies argued that one could tell a person’s sexuality through examining the genitals of their dogs, that obesity is not a medical issue and should be celebrated, and, lastly, that making men be penetrated with sex toys in their anuses should be a method used to ensure that they are not transphobic.

These and worse were peer-reviewed “fact.” Why was it accepted, despite being a hoax? Because the people peer-reviewing it wanted it to be true. This is consequentialism. The ends justify the means. (And it’s happening in many areas of academia.) And how bad does it get?

They managed to get a large section of Mein Kampf peer-reviewed and published as intersectional feminism. They re-wrote 3,600 words of Hitler’s philosophy (Chapter 12, Volume 1, Mein Kampf) and got it published as knowledge about social justice. This should terrify us, and even more so given that students are being taught that this junk is legitimate science. You can even have a research professorship where you deny that being fat is a health problem, and even complain about the shame of being upgraded (for free) to first class due to your obesity.

Critical Social Theory: Example, White Fragility

The professors and academics who helped expose much of the rot in academia now have a site called “New Discourses” which helps laypeople understand both the source and meaning of new terms and interactions that they are witnessing. Science and reason have long held that seeking truth and fact is important, but racist literature, warmed over and repackaged by individuals like Robin DiAngelo, claims that there is no such thing as “fact.” Once you embrace that worldview, nothing matters other than rational egoism—that is, exploiting systems to one’s maximum, subjective advantage. As people are posting “allyship” links loaded with DiAngelo’s horrific work, and spreading that mental virus without realizing it, I felt it important to show at least one example of new terminology which is nothing more than a Kafkatrap. Read the below and ponder its wider impact.

White Fragility
Source: DiAngelo, Robin. “White Fragility.” International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3(3), 2011: 54–70, p. 54.

The state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves [in white people]. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. Racial stress results from an interruption to what is racially familiar.

New Discourses Commentary

White fragility,” invented by critical race educator Robin DiAngelo, is a contrivance of critical race Theory and critical whiteness studies that insists that white privilege has made white people too comfortable with the racial status quo to be comfortable having their unjustly advantaged position challenged. In practice, “white fragility” is a way to force white people into compliance with the tenets of critical race Theory and a demand for adopting an “antiracist” disposition. (DiAngelo instructs that antiracism is itself a “lifelong commitment to an ongoing process” of self-reflection, self-critique, and social activism—i.e., that requires constantly searching for one’s complicity with the allegedly racist system and the white supremacy it supports and seeking to do better, including by, in her own words, being “less white” – see also, critical consciousness and wokeness.)

Under the doctrine of “white fragility,” white people lack the “racial stamina” to endure the “racial stress” of being called a racist or being accused of being complicit in a system of white supremacy (see also, white complicity, white comfort, white equilibrium, and white innocence). As DiAngelo observes, white fragility manifests when white people, after being so accused, exhibit negative emotional reactions, argue, disagree, remain silent, or go away—rather than “engaging” fully, by which is meant agreeing and adopting the critical race mentality on these issues.

In actuality most white people (as well as most people who aren’t white – see also, people of color) understand terms like “racism” and “white supremacy” under common-parlance definitions as “prejudice on the grounds of race” and “a political goal to give all power and opportunity to white people.” These, DiAngelo specifically and explicitly rejects. Most people also understand racist ideas to be morally wrong and believe people who hold them to be bad people who do not warrant the respect of society. Thus, they are justifiably upset and unhappy about being branded with these terms, even though they don’t mean the same things in Critical Social Justice. DiAngelo also recognizes this. Indeed, she indicates in White Fragility that this awareness that these accusations are extremely morally and emotionally loaded is one of the reasons white people are so fragile and difficult to talk to about race and racism then accuses white people of possessing the resources, including racial humility and racial stamina, to endure necessarily challenging engagement about race and racism (see also, white woman tears).

The doctrine of white fragility gives white people so accused no options except to agree and take on a full critical antiracism stance or prove their racism by refusing to. In that sense, white fragility is perhaps the most sophisticated kafkatrap employed by Social Justice as an ideology. To explain, a kafkatrap is a situation in which one is accused of something in such a way that both one’s confession to it and denial of it are able to be interpreted as proof of one’s guilt (the term derives its name from Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial, in which the protagonist Josef K. is subjected to a series of these in a kangaroo court environment).

Of some interest, a more responsible concept relating “fragility” to being indoctrinated in an ideology could potentially carry merit, and for genuine ideologically committed white supremacists, under the real meaning of the term, “white supremacist fragility” might also be a worthwhile concept for study and application. That is, using the concept of “fragility” to describe the anxiety and anger people indoctrinated into an ideology experience when they encounter any dissent or counterargument could make of it a useful concept. (Indeed, a certain “woke fragility” would almost definitely make sense and describe a widely observed phenomenon.)

Unfortunately, the ideology of Social Justice assumes that “whiteness” itself is an ideological position of vested interest in maintaining and protecting its own privilege, social position, and systemic power (see also, racism), and then makes the further mistake of connecting having “white” skin to the alleged ideology of “whiteness.” It then commits the error of misinterpreting negative responses to unjust accusations of racism as proof not only of racism, but also of a deep-seated unwillingness to change (see also, white comfort, white equilibrium, internalized dominance, and status quo). In practice, then, even to the degree that white fragility has any merit as a concept, it has no viable utility in application because the definitions involved are too fraught and imprecise.

What does this mean for us? It means that people can claim that “math operates as whiteness.” In fact, this school of study—of making everything into nonsense social justice science—is called problematics and is part of “problematizing” life. It claims that you, as an individual, do not exist. Robin DiAngelo here comments,

“Remember that it isn’t actually possible to see everyone as an individual and thus to treat them as one. From a critical social justice perspective we understand that we are all socialized to see people from groups other than our own in particular and often problematic ways.”

When you deny individuality, you get everyone right back to Hitler’s mindset: this group is problematic. And because it’s infinitely easier to change the hearts and minds of individuals than of groups, you always end up looking at that tempting, tempting final solution. This is a way to destroy society and individuals by weaponizing good intentions with poison.

Winning Hearts and Minds

Many wargames (like Axis and Allies) are fun when you totally stomp the enemies. A recent wargame about Vietnam has a feature that’s a lot different than most wargames, because it requires you to win “hearts and minds” in order to ever actually win. Basically, it teaches the player about converting the enemy into an ally. God says beautifully:

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit.” (Pro 18:21)

We need to realize that our goal is to win hearts and minds—or rather, souls. It can be a difficult thing to “with gentleness correct those who are in opposition…that they may come to their senses.” (2 Timothy 2)

But that is what we must do, and it starts face-to-face, and person-to-person. Individual-to-individual. That’s where sincerity is found. That’s where teams are built. That’s where hearts are mended. Do not let anyone convince you that people are not individuals. Not Robin DiAngelo, not your best friend, not your family—not anyone. Do not let anyone weaponize your good intentions for a new form of racism. More people have died from having their individuality stripped than perhaps any other horror: Hitler, Stalin, Mao—it’s all the same tactic, and it’s appealing, but there’s no better way to kill millions at a time than by letting it creep in. You must NOT give in to it, no matter how desirable it seems.

And with that, I’d ask you to read: Do Better Than Critical Race Theory.

God bless, and let me know if I can help.

Share your comments, critiques, or criticisms here. [Please note that I alter most the hate comments to make them funnier for the other readers.]