Bookfair 2020: Trans Totalitarian Anarchism?

Editorial Note:

IN January 1946, George Orwell wrote an essay entitled 'The Prevention of Literature' in which he addressed the indifference of the public to the promotion of free expression and what Orwell calls 'the right to report contemporary events truthfully, or as truthfully as is consistent with ignorance, bias and self-deception from which every observer necessarily suffers'.

 The reader will observe the humility here in Orwell's tone and will no doubt contrast it with the self confidence and even arrogance of much contemporary  commentary.  

'If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.  In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.'

This lack of guts, this fear to challenge the latest orthodoxy still prevails in the anglo-saxon countries today.  But it's not the general public that are setting the agenda for acceptable opinions, it is a kind of fashionable elite view which bullies and bamboozles dissidents who either refuse, or are slow to swallow the latest flavour of the month.

2020 BOOKFAIR

The charming Tweets below from the proponents of the 2020 BOOKFAIR in London beautifully illustrate a naive mentality which is all too prevalent today.  In a way I feel sorry for the poor souls who churn out such stuff.  Do they really believe that they can silence criticism of Trans mania by such crude bans at Bookfairs?  All they have accomplished so far is to close down successful bookfairs as in London or to be forced to do deals as at the recent Manchester People's History Museum Bookfair.  Their every ban or censorious step tottering with the 'cocks in frocks' creates more opposition.

George Orwell, in the preface intended to accompany his book Animal Farm, which was not published in the first edition and remained undiscovered until 1971, wrote:
If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

The 2020 Bookfair organisers are desperately trying to keep the debate over the business of the Cocks in Frocks off the agenda.   It seems they can't cope with having to defend their curiosities of their position.  

Freedom & Professor Chomsky

When we had to take on Professor Chomsky in 2001, with our publication of the Alternative Raven, entitled 'Language, Mind & Society: Chomsky & His Critics' (2001)*, we were met with a more serious and subtle resistance.  In that case pressure was applied slyly through Milan Rai to get Freedom Press to block publication, after the great man Chomsky became aware that we were going to publish some essays challenging to his linguistic ideas on the universal grammar in what was then The Raven.  Milan Rai had been for a time closely associated with Chomsky and now edits Peace News. 
Milan worked behind the scenes on Professor Chomsky's behalf to get the then editor of Freedom to prevent the agreed publication of The Raven critical of his theory on language.   In the end a group of northern anarchists and academics brought out an Alternative Raven, which included the articles challenging Chomsky's theories.  Later Freedom even refused to review the Alternative Raven. when Donald Rooum over-ruled the then editor Toby Crowe.  Later in a letter to me, Chomsky came to admit that he had throughout been in touch with with Milan Rai over that issue, but in mitigation said he only contacted him as a friend.

None of the people involved in trying to suppress the criticism of Chomsky's linguistics at Freedom covered themselves with glory over this matter, and Freedom lost some of its integrity by first agreeing to publish The Raven on Chomsky's linguistics, and to later when Milan Rai got involved to withdraw its offer.  

Self-censorship & 'uncomfortable truths'

When Orwell writes about the 'discomfort' of intellectual honesty, he meant that even during the Second World War, with the Ministry of Information’s often ham-fisted attempts at press censorship, 'the sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.'   Self-censorship came down to matters of decorum, Orwell argues—or as we would put it today, 'civility.'   Obedience to 'an orthodoxy' meant that while 'it is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other… it is "not done" to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was "not done" to mention trousers in the presence of a lady.  Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness,' not by government agents, but by a critical backlash aimed at preserving a sense of 'normalcy' at all costs.


At stake for Orwell in the 1940s was no less than the fundamental liberal principle of free speech, in defense of which he invokes the famous quote from Voltaire as well as Rosa Luxembourg’s definition of freedom as 'freedom for the other fellow'.  'Liberty of speech and of the press,' Orwell writes, does not demand 'absolute liberty'—though he stops short of defining its limits.  But it does demand the courage to tell uncomfortable truths, even such truths as are, perhaps, politically inexpedient or detrimental to the prospects of a lucrative career.  'If liberty means anything at all,' Orwell concludes, 'it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'

Unlike in the 1940s, when Orwell was around trying to get Animal Farm published, we are not being nudged into a vulgar Marxist or pro-Soviet totalitarianism.  The kind of totalitarianism of the Trans mania we are now expected to civilly swallow is the decorum of the Cocks in Frocks.

*  http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/sites/default/files/pdf/class_text_117.pdf

 

Worrying Words of Doctor Rupert Read!

The Man who took on Freedom, Chomsky & the Transgender Politics

IN January, Rupert Read who is a Philosopher and Green councillor, had to apologise for some tweets in which he questioned the validity of trans people's gender, describing trans women as 'a sort of "opt-in" version of what it is to be a woman'.  His comments were condemned by the Green LGBTIQ group, and Sahar Brown, a former Cambridge councillor and trans activist, attacked him for 'endorsing a fringe form of feminism that portrays transgender women as dangerous sex pests and predators'.

Mr. Read has said:  'It is completely, 100% untrue, for instance to claim that I "portray transgender women as dangerous sex pests and predator".  On the contrary I reject transphobia completely.  But I also remain a very strong backer of feminism.  All that I have done is join many feminists in saying that it is up to women, not anyone else - and certainly not me - to decide who gets let into women-only spaces, such as women's toilets.  All women have a right to be involved in making those decisions.  I think that most Cambridge residents will see that as a not-unreasonable point of view, and will find it surprising that I have been told repeatedly on Twitter to "Go f*** myself (and much worse) for saying so, including by a handful of activists from certain other parties, who perhaps have been looking at this as an easy way to stick the boot into the Greens as we threaten them in the polls both nationally and here in Cambridge.'

Thus, Mr. Read believes, I think, that only 'real' women should have the right to decide who uses the 'Ladies' toilets.  That is according to Read the position of 'many feminists', and he says that they have the right to let women into women-only spaces. 

 

Elsewhere Rupert has claimed that Media Lens tends to talk up the numbers of victims from western actions but to minimise those of regimes in conflict with the west, such as those of Milošević and Bashar al-Assad in Syria.^[26]  He has accused them of using dubious source material on fatalities in the 2012 Syrian crisis from Aisling Byrne and Robert Dreyfuss.

Back in 2001, Rupert Read while then at the Manchester Met. University (MMU), wrote an essay in a publication titled  'Chomsky & his Critics'  and what was to become the Alternative Raven:  Language, Mind & Society, when the then managers of Freedom Press refused to publish Mr. Read's essay entitled 'What is "Chomskyism" or Chomsky Against Chomsky'.  The reason given by Donald Rooum, now one of the Friends of Freedom Press, was that the essay by Rupert Read was 'too academic' for anarchists in England to understand.  Others took the view that the real reason was because Professor Noam Chomsky himself had taken strong exception in a letter to me as editor to Mr. Read's essay; which while it praised Pro. Chomsky's politics it strongly criticised his linguistic theories.

At the time I, as editor of The Alternative Raven, wrote:

'The majority of articles in this Alternative Raven are concerned with the work of the leading linguist and political thinker, Noam Chomsky, the essays of Rupert Read ('What is "Chomskyism"?') and Wil Coleman ('Noam Chomsky & the Myth of the Generative Grammar') are both controversial critiques of the writings of Chomsky.  But Doctor Read's less technical cheeky polemic, perhaps because it is more lightweight has drawn blood.' 

 

I claimed that both Read and Chomsky 'recognise they are trying to tackle the job set by Orwell in his essay "Politics & the English Language".'   In that essay written for Horizon in 1946, Orwell claimed, 'In our time political speech is largely the defence of the indefensible'.

 

I continued:

'Naturally Rupert Read's attempt to extend this criticism of the misuse of words from the realm of politics to linguistics, cognitive science and philosophy as well as sociology and ethnomethodology is upsetting some people.' 

 

Hence, Mr. Read not only trod on the big toes of Professor Chomsky in 2001, but he caused some consternation among the Freedom Press anarchists such as Donald Rooum, who was desperate to insist that Freedom was not engaged in censorship in order to protect Noam Chomsky's feelings.  Professor Chomsky seemed to have a special relationship with Freedom through the good offices of Milan Rai (now the editor of Peace News).  Mr. Rai was formerly Professor Chomsky's political secretary, and had seemingly been putting pressure on Freedom not to publish Rupert Read's essay.

It was one of those moments when Freedom showed itself to be lacking the guts to take on Professor Chomsky and Milan Rai, who I believe is now editor of Peace News. 

At that time supporters of the Northern Anarchist Network like Harold Sculthorpe, at that time in 2000 the Secretary of the Friends of Freedom Press, fully supported Rupert Read's article and believed Freedom ought to publish it in the Raven.  Indeed, at that time, Harold Sculthorpe who went to many lectures on the Manchester Ethnography Group at both Manchester University and the MMU, thought the sun shone out of Rupert Read's arse.  On that occasion as on several occasions since Freedom lacked the nerve to challenge those like Professor Chomsky in powerful positions.

Since then the reputation of Freedom has declined considerably with each year of its fragile life in the 21st Century.  In 2010, Chris Knight and Milan Rai debated Noam Chomsky's science and politics at the London Anarchist Bookfair, and Chris Knight drew attention to the episode of Freedom's failure to publish the Rupert Read article and the other essays challenging Chomsky's linguistics.

The link to the Alternative Raven posted by Chris Knight on his site Radical Anthropology and containing Rupert Read's article is to be found on:

Language, Mind And Society: An Alternative Raven - Radical ...