politics Archives - Nina Paley

The War of Resistance

“Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”

In George Orwell’s 1984, the past is altered, but war is constant; the names of the combatants are changed retroactively, but combat is continuous.

Members of nations at war bond more tightly with their compatriots. War offers a shared dream of triumph over a common enemy. Thus, continual state of war is an effective means of social control. It doesn’t really matter who Oceania is at war with, as long as Oceania is, and always has been, at war.

1984 illustrates how supporting wars is a sucker’s game. War is a product of the Establishment — governments, the military-industrial complex, corporations — using us, the people, to maintain their power. Keeping us in line. Keeping us obedient with fear!

We the enlightened, who have read 1984, don’t get caught up in nationalism. Instead, we RESIST. We resist the war machine, the governments, the military-industrial complex. We don’t play their games. We organize a student protest! We build a shantytown on campus. We demand a ceasefire now!

Students have always joined such movements against the Establishment. “Revolution Now” has been chanted for centuries. There is always a revolution in progress, and there is always a power structure to be revolted against. There is always a dream of triumph over a common enemy.

While most revolutions fail, every once in a while one succeeds. Then what happens? The Resistance becomes the Establishment. The Resistance IS the Establishment. Just as the students making protest camps on the green lawns of universities ARE the upper middle class.

Who funds the Resistance? The Establishment.

Why would they do that? Because they want to be always at war. The same reason warring nations do. Social control, you dupes.

The Resistance has always been at war with the Establishment.

Mon Dec 12, 6pm ET: Dreger-Wright Debate!

LIVE on MONDAY Dec 12 at 6pm EST! Alice Dreger and Colin Wright (not pictured) will DEBATE whether “Biological sex is real, immutable, and binary” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aKX8Mcz9Q&ab_channel=CorinnaCohn

Tune in live to join us in the comments box!

Cowardice Calls to Cowardice Everywhere

Back when I was originally TERFened, I shared “If A Person Has A Penis He’s A Man” by Connie Bryson. I did not write those lyrics, and never claimed I did, but outrage compromises reading comprehension, so it’s been incorrectly attributed to me. Including by the man who wrote the letter below, whose identity I have concealed.

On yesterday’s International Gaslight Women Day, I was inspired to courage by JK Rowling to share this story on fecebook, and after the uncountable outraged responses urging me to cowardice, including from the author of the advice below, I decided to finally share it with the world.

If you stand up for anything, ever, expect this type of “support” from friends, family and loved ones. (Of course this is why few people stand up for anything.)

Nov 7, 2018

Nina–

I saw your post on Facebook this morning regarding whether you should post certain material that might feel risky, especially in light of the trans stuff. I’m not an artist and therefore I don’t–I can’t–have the same passion for needing to present art that you do. I can’t relate to that. But I think I understand something that I think got you to this place.

As an artist, you surely know that once you put your art out there, you can’t control how it is interpreted. When you wrote the poem with “If a person has a penis, it’s a man,” I don’t think you had any understanding of how it would be received. (Raedacted) and I had the same reaction to it: “What’s the point of this? Does she not understand that it looks like she is taunting a community of people? Why is she doing this?” Whether you were correct or not isn’t the point. What your intent was isn’t the point. The point is that the form which you chose in order to make your point made you look like a bully to a lot of people. It looked like taunting.

Since the poem was posted, you have been mistreated. I find the way you have been treated to be appalling. Deplatforming is beyond ugly. So, what to do?

I’ve asked myself what advice I could give you. I’ve felt like my advice wouldn’t matter to you. I thought about that when I was in (Redacted) this summer and I came to the conclusion that you wouldn’t listen to me or tell me I was wrong so I left it alone. The way you were choosing to express yourself made me feel like all I could do is upset you further. It may be that this email will indeed upset you further, but now I feel like I really should write given the level of despair you have been expressing publicly.

What I think would have helped after initial complaints about your poem would have been to write a post in every social media outlet you use, including your blog, including Facebok, saying something like:

“I realize that the poem I wrote came across in a very poor way. I did not mean to write something that offended so many. I meant to engage in a constructive discussion, but I now understand that it came across as mean-spirited and taunting. While that was not my intention, I apologize to those who were offended. It is never my intent to cause pain with my words.”

Leave it at that. Explaining yourself further may pour salt in wounds. An unconditional apology even if you are right is sometimes the best way to ameliorate pain.

A quick analogy… Consider the racist politician who panders by saying, “I have lots of black friends.” A black person may interpret that as, “We have been insulted and now I am told that we shouldn’t be insulted because that person knows a small number of us? What kind of person does that? That person has no idea what I live with. That person does not understand my world.”

Instead of apologizing for the poem, you doubled down, tripled down, and much more, by insisting that what you wrote wasn’t wrong, implying it shouldn’t offend people. It may have been made even worse by saying, “I have lots of trans friends.” I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that there are trans people who feel that you continue to pour salt into their wounds.

It was not your intent. But you now have a significant perception problem.

I don’t read every one of your blog entries or see every one of your Facebook posts. Maybe you have apologized for the poem in an unconditional manner. Maybe you no longer try to justify your poem. If so, that is probably the best you can do. It may be that, near-term, you are going to be stuck with the backlash. Even with an unconditional apology, there will be people who say, “She’s only saying that because we hurt her and she wants her film to do better.” I wouldn’t expect overnight improvement in perception. It’s going to take a while.

Again, there is no excuse for how you have been treated. It’s horrifying. That said, my advice, which you can discard if you disagree with me, is to stop doubling down on the poem, to issue that sincere apology, and do not tie that apology to any expected behavior by others. After that be very, very careful about how people may interpret your future words. It may be best simply not to engage the trans group even if you want to. Just ask the question, “What’s the upside?”

Love,

(Redacted)

Heterodorx

Hey TERFs and Trannies! That’s my signature greeting on Heterodorx, the new podcast I’m doing with Corinna Cohn. Our first episode was recorded Friday evening, after I’d biked 30 miles and hiked two, so I wasn’t at my most articulate. We had some technical issues, including my cat, Lola, rubbing her head against my mic, causing loud horrible noises we couldn’t remove due to recording everything on a single track. Our next episode should be better. Still, I like this first foray, and hope you listen.

Heterodorx podcast

Heterodorx web site

“What is the difference between virtue signaling and actually believing in something and wanting to spread the word about it?”

Last week, on various social media, I shared this brief thought:

I’m starting to find virtue signaling frightening, rather than just annoying, because virtue signalers are the same people who cancel (ie lie, denounce, and attack). Virtue signaling and cancel culture are two sides of the same increasingly troubling coin.

This led someone on fecebook to ask:

“What is the difference between virtue signalling and actually believing in something and wanting to spread the word about it? Asking seriously. I have only seen virtue signalling used as a phrase by Republicans who don’t believe in the cause being promoted.”

To which I replied:

That’s a great question! I am not a Republican, and I actually agree with the messages being used right now to signal tribal loyalty. Like a religious behavior – “praise Jesus!” – one can only ask oneself what one’s motives are.

The signaling happening at the moment has many layers. Yes, the messages are good. It’s also a “safe” time to share them. Suddenly it has become very important for white people to express their concern for black lives, when in fact we’ve been aware of police brutality for years or decades. It would have been much riskier to share these messages 60 years ago, but we weren’t alive then. (Funny, then, that expressing righteousness at that time was quite different, even though we are not inherently superior to our forebears.) It was not risky, say, last year, yet far fewer were doing that then, because there wasn’t a “movement” directing our attention.

It’s pretty clear that there are social rewards for white liberals to share BLM messages at the moment, and, increasingly, social punishments for not (“silence is violence!”), and most of us want to feel safe, so we know what to do. Even asking questions can get you publicly denounced right now. I do not expect people to deeply examine their motives, but I do examine mine, and when even a message I agree with is mixed with so much threat and reward, I pause. All mobs feel righteous. I am extremely wary of mobs and sensitive to mob behavior, and do not want to be part of them.

Another layer is White Guilt, which Shelby Steele wrote very eloquently about 20 years ago. White liberals are hungry to discharge guilt, and ironically use black people, and what should be a black liberation movement for black people, to do it. This isn’t all bad; white people can be useful to this movement, but the white liberal hunger is there, and it’s ruthless, and it causes problems. All we can do is examine our motives.

The social rewards for virtue signaling, and threats for not, come from other white people. White people use black people and a black movement to signal to other white people, and maintain or raise our status in white society. I have some black friends, but most of my social contacts are white. Like any good white liberal, I have anxiety about this. If only I could fix my society’s history of segregation by racially integrating my social life more! Like any good white liberal, I tried harder when I was younger, only to discover that most (healthy) black people don’t particularly like being used by white people this way, and that white hunger to discharge guilt is not a solid base for friendship.

But don’t we want to be “ALLIES”?? The best allies are like that asshole at your dinner party who tries to be “helpful” by getting in your way in the kitchen. (The worst allies are far worse.) I used to be a liberal feminist who thought we needed male “allies” to liberate women. Now I understand that women’s liberation is for and by women, and any man claiming to be a “feminist” is usually a misogynist using women to manage his male guilt. From the outside, it looks to me like a surplus of white “allies” has the same corrosive effect on any movement for black liberation, which should be for and by black people. Like that performative “helpful” dinner guest in your kitchen, like men claiming to be feminists, white liberals who want to help black liberation should just get out of the way.

Any involvement I have in black liberation is only going to come at the request of black people – specifically black women, specifically black radical feminists, whose narratives about current events differ from the mainstream and “alternative” media’s. Unsurprisingly, no one has asked me yet. I’m here if they do, but meanwhile my white guilt is my problem to deal with, not theirs.

THE AGE OF WHITE GUILT: AND THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE BLACK INDIVIDUAL by Shelby Steele

This is one of my favorite essays ever. I first read it when it was published in Harper’s Magazine, ~~November 30, 1999~~ 2002. I’m sharing the whole thing below because everyone should read it; if I get a copyright cease-and-desist, I’ll remove it. –NP

CLICK FOR FULL ESSAY