Main Edition
US
FR
December 30, 2022 - 11:40am
After software developer Travis Brown and Washington Post writer Taylor Lorenz combined to reveal the identity of — or “doxx” — Libs of TikTok account owner Chaya Raichik in April 2022, Raichik, an Orthodox Jew who worked in real estate in Brooklyn, found herself at a career crossroads. The account, which contextualised various oddball TikTok clips in the service of assorted Right-wing talking points, and which had already been promoted by the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Joe Rogan, saw both its fame and infamy increase exponentially, gaining 200,000 followers on Twitter in the 24-hour period after Lorenz published her exposé.
Now Raichik has relinquished the final trappings of her anonymity, appearing earlier this week on the Fox News streaming show Tucker Carlson Today. There, Raichik, whose brand has continued to grow significantly since her doxxing, explained that she was now ready to enter the political arena “to expose the Left and how to fight it.” She proudly described how she had contributed to the firings of more than a dozen teachers and couched her efforts in the language of moral binaries: “The simplest answer is they’re just evil.”
Setting aside the debatable rectitude of Raichik’s campaign, her decision to accept a public-facing role will undoubtedly deliver long-term benefit to her brand. She already has the ear of Ron DeSantis, who privately offered her shelter in his gubernatorial mansion after her doxxing, and her role as a Right-wing influencer will likely expand during the run-up to the 2024 presidential primaries. Prior to transitioning into her Libs of TikTok identity, Raichik had given credence to the idea that voter fraud cost Donald Trump the 2020 presidential election, so it will be interesting to see which of the Republican heavyweights, if any, she chooses to back in 2024.
That she, or more specifically her account, should carry so much political heft, and that she has received support from the man tipped to be the country’s next president, is a sign of how America’s online Right is increasingly blurring with more established Republicanism. Where Raichik’s identity was revealed by the Washington Post, some of these influential internet figures have willingly abandoned their prior anonymity in order to crack the mainstream.
Curtis Yarvin, who blogged for years as “Mencius Moldbug,” began writing under his own name on his Gray Mirror Substack page and has since made the rounds of various political podcasts, even appearing on Tucker Carlson Today. He has escaped the fringes of American political discourse, despite once observing that U.S. entitlement programs “applied to populations with recent hunter-gatherer ancestry and no great reputation for sturdy moral fiber” have resulted in “absolute garbage”. The various blurred-face Right-wing anons who populate Carlson’s End of Men special may one day follow suit.
In any case, Raichik is probably the best-positioned of all these anonymous figures to operate in the sunlight. She was doxxed in a public and humiliating way, by a reporter as disliked on the Right as Raichik is on the Left, so will no doubt be embraced by a wider Republican audience. The transgressive limits of the Libs of TikTok account have already been reached: her targets are commonly invoked issues related to pedophilic grooming and transgender activism, not comprehensively debunked claims about whether white and black people are different species. Indeed, Raichik’s favoured talking points are now at the centre of the red-blue battleground.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere are few things the partisan, left-liberal media loves to see more than a Conservative trying to tackle areas of “progressive” debate. The Conservative will almost always fall foul of the (unwritten but well understood by the Left) rules of engagement and, in the process of making their argument, say something deemed “problematic”. Immediately the Conservative can be accused of Racism, Misogyny, Transphobia, or some other thoughtcrime, which means their argument can be dismissed, without ever having to address it.
Thus any criticism of woke identitarian politics can be brushed off as reactionary and hopelessly out of touch with what is (oxymoronically) referred to as “The Liberal Consensus” – when there’s no consensus and it is the very antithesis of “liberal” thought. Seriously, what could possibly be more authoritarian than promoting a narrow worldview and punishing and shaming anyone who dares to think outside it?
Anyone who is not willing to go to war against the woke is compelled to agree with their nonsense, or at the very least stay silent on the matter, for fear that they too will be “cancelled” or face accusations of bigotry.
The genius of “Libs of TikTok” is that it offers no commentary, thus cannot misspeak, nor be accused of misrepresenting the argument put forward by “Liberals” – Ms Raichik copies and collates statements made willingly – and simply replays those comments to her audience, in all their outrageous excess. The audience is thus exposed to some of the most extreme positions the identitarian Left takes – completely unfiltered. The effect is profound.
Progressives cannot claim their views are being misrepresented- (they are being replayed verbatim) – so rather than attack the message they are forced to attack the messenger, thus the person behind the website is identified and the Twitter hate-campaign rolls into action.
If your ideas can’t stand up to a bit of debate then they’re probably not very sound ideas. But rather than debate honestly the progressive left instead tries to frighten and cancel any who would stand up to their silly yet dangerous agenda.
Taylor Lorenz, who bleated about suffering PTSD after she faced some push-back on her cancel-culture driven output, showed her true colours by going after and naming someone with whom she disagreed. Having cried about being the subject of online hate and insisting her life was under threat, she immediately visited the same on Chaya Raichik, doxxing someone who had chosen to post anonymously. That was indefensible and should frankly have ended Lorenz’s career as a journalist – though of course it didn’t. The Left absolve themselves of blame because they sincerely believe their opponents deserve it – so different rules apply.
You cannot lay claim to a principle and then apply that principle inconsistently. To do so is – by definition – hypocrisy.
This is where the current progressive left seems to come unstuck, simply down to their unquestioning belief that their point of view is intrinsically virtuous, thus everyone who thinks differently to them must be wrong. And not merely wrong, but somehow “Evil”.
This is their “Get out of jail free” card, at that point all bets are off, which allows them to do as they please. They can dox you, but cry foul if the same rules of the game are applied to them.
They appear willingly blind to the possibility that other, perfectly decent and thoughtful people might, quite justifiably, think differently to them. I think this is the fundamental cause of the pessimism and rancour that permeates almost all left-leaning discourse.
“Anyone who is not willing to go to war against the woke is compelled to agree with their nonsense, or at the very least stay silent on the matter, for fear that they too will be “cancelled” or face accusations of bigotry.”
This is how the Woking Class gain and maintain power. And they rely on the fact that most ordinary people (the ‘little people’, as David Cameron called them) are too busy with their lives and/or too frightened about being publicly shamed, cancelled out of jobs or hounded from social discourse to put their heads above the parapet. But unless we do so en masse and reaffirm basic values and fight untruth and public calumny, we relinquish the freedoms we’ve taken for granted in our former democratic era (‘former’ because it is over – but may yet be recoverable if people stand up to the evils of Postmodernism.
A really good exposition, Paddy Taylor! Thank you.
Your reply, better than the essay!
Agreed wholeheartedly, but honesty and truth do not matter at all when you are at war. The left is fighting a war and we are merely trying to win a debate. We are losing.
I wouldn’t make that assumption about losing. Hearing the voices which shout loudest doesn’t equate to victory, just greater noise. Institutions that’ve been captured by wokeism are being challenged, and media outlets which offer a range of views (Unherd, for instance) are gaining traction by the day.
The problem had to be identified before it could be challenged, and that’s now beginning to happen.
Like you, I’m quietly optimistic.
What gives me hope that common-sense will eventually prevail over the current woke ideology – not by virtue of persuading the woke-ists back to reason, – is simply that their ideas are manifestly contradictory. To fully support one facet of woke-dom puts you on the wrong side of another. If you stand up to support feminist rights you fall foul of trans-rights etc etc
Given the propensity of adherents to try and cancel any who dare to challenge their precepts, the whole movement becomes an Ouroboros – the mythical serpent that eats its own tail – though in the case of Guardianistas it would possibly be better to describe a variant on the Ouroboros – as a monster that disappears up its own backside.
An Ouroborarse, then?
An Ouroborarse, then?
Like you, I’m quietly optimistic.
What gives me hope that common-sense will eventually prevail over the current woke ideology – not by virtue of persuading the woke-ists back to reason, – is simply that their ideas are manifestly contradictory. To fully support one facet of woke-dom puts you on the wrong side of another. If you stand up to support feminist rights you fall foul of trans-rights etc etc
Given the propensity of adherents to try and cancel any who dare to challenge their precepts, the whole movement becomes an Ouroboros – the mythical serpent that eats its own tail – though in the case of Guardianistas it would possibly be better to describe a variant on the Ouroboros – as a monster that disappears up its own backside.
I wouldn’t make that assumption about losing. Hearing the voices which shout loudest doesn’t equate to victory, just greater noise. Institutions that’ve been captured by wokeism are being challenged, and media outlets which offer a range of views (Unherd, for instance) are gaining traction by the day.
The problem had to be identified before it could be challenged, and that’s now beginning to happen.
“referred to as “The Liberal Consensus” – when there’s no consensus and it is the very antithesis of “liberal” thought”
Hence my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism.
The solution to the problem you describe is to attack them not from the right, but from further left eg:
“Oh come on! If open borders meant collapsing property prices and rents and rising wages instead of the other way around you’d be down on the beach with a gun.” (This also has the huge merit of being entirely true).
“Anyone who is not willing to go to war against the woke is compelled to agree with their nonsense, or at the very least stay silent on the matter, for fear that they too will be “cancelled” or face accusations of bigotry.”
This is how the Woking Class gain and maintain power. And they rely on the fact that most ordinary people (the ‘little people’, as David Cameron called them) are too busy with their lives and/or too frightened about being publicly shamed, cancelled out of jobs or hounded from social discourse to put their heads above the parapet. But unless we do so en masse and reaffirm basic values and fight untruth and public calumny, we relinquish the freedoms we’ve taken for granted in our former democratic era (‘former’ because it is over – but may yet be recoverable if people stand up to the evils of Postmodernism.
A really good exposition, Paddy Taylor! Thank you.
Your reply, better than the essay!
Agreed wholeheartedly, but honesty and truth do not matter at all when you are at war. The left is fighting a war and we are merely trying to win a debate. We are losing.
“referred to as “The Liberal Consensus” – when there’s no consensus and it is the very antithesis of “liberal” thought”
Hence my definition of woke: the authoritarian pseudo-progressive usurpation of liberalism.
The solution to the problem you describe is to attack them not from the right, but from further left eg:
“Oh come on! If open borders meant collapsing property prices and rents and rising wages instead of the other way around you’d be down on the beach with a gun.” (This also has the huge merit of being entirely true).
There are few things the partisan, left-liberal media loves to see more than a Conservative trying to tackle areas of “progressive” debate. The Conservative will almost always fall foul of the (unwritten but well understood by the Left) rules of engagement and, in the process of making their argument, say something deemed “problematic”. Immediately the Conservative can be accused of Racism, Misogyny, Transphobia, or some other thoughtcrime, which means their argument can be dismissed, without ever having to address it.
Thus any criticism of woke identitarian politics can be brushed off as reactionary and hopelessly out of touch with what is (oxymoronically) referred to as “The Liberal Consensus” – when there’s no consensus and it is the very antithesis of “liberal” thought. Seriously, what could possibly be more authoritarian than promoting a narrow worldview and punishing and shaming anyone who dares to think outside it?
Anyone who is not willing to go to war against the woke is compelled to agree with their nonsense, or at the very least stay silent on the matter, for fear that they too will be “cancelled” or face accusations of bigotry.
The genius of “Libs of TikTok” is that it offers no commentary, thus cannot misspeak, nor be accused of misrepresenting the argument put forward by “Liberals” – Ms Raichik copies and collates statements made willingly – and simply replays those comments to her audience, in all their outrageous excess. The audience is thus exposed to some of the most extreme positions the identitarian Left takes – completely unfiltered. The effect is profound.
Progressives cannot claim their views are being misrepresented- (they are being replayed verbatim) – so rather than attack the message they are forced to attack the messenger, thus the person behind the website is identified and the Twitter hate-campaign rolls into action.
If your ideas can’t stand up to a bit of debate then they’re probably not very sound ideas. But rather than debate honestly the progressive left instead tries to frighten and cancel any who would stand up to their silly yet dangerous agenda.
Taylor Lorenz, who bleated about suffering PTSD after she faced some push-back on her cancel-culture driven output, showed her true colours by going after and naming someone with whom she disagreed. Having cried about being the subject of online hate and insisting her life was under threat, she immediately visited the same on Chaya Raichik, doxxing someone who had chosen to post anonymously. That was indefensible and should frankly have ended Lorenz’s career as a journalist – though of course it didn’t. The Left absolve themselves of blame because they sincerely believe their opponents deserve it – so different rules apply.
You cannot lay claim to a principle and then apply that principle inconsistently. To do so is – by definition – hypocrisy.
This is where the current progressive left seems to come unstuck, simply down to their unquestioning belief that their point of view is intrinsically virtuous, thus everyone who thinks differently to them must be wrong. And not merely wrong, but somehow “Evil”.
This is their “Get out of jail free” card, at that point all bets are off, which allows them to do as they please. They can dox you, but cry foul if the same rules of the game are applied to them.
They appear willingly blind to the possibility that other, perfectly decent and thoughtful people might, quite justifiably, think differently to them. I think this is the fundamental cause of the pessimism and rancour that permeates almost all left-leaning discourse.
After the author’s leftist hissy fit, perhaps some facts are in order.
Libs of TikTok simply collects together the self-posted public videos of leftists espousing their own thoughts and polical opinions. The author and other leftists are in a snit because letting these people speak for themselves reveals them to be deranged, angry, hateful, spiteful ideologues, whose absurd ideas make flat -Earthers look like respectable scientific commentators.
Previously, the game of the leftists was to falaciously claim that the things conservatives said were happening were right wing fantasies. Unfortunately the loose lipped woke could not resist telling the world about how they were indoctrinating children with CRT, white guilt, trans ideology, and every other woke obsession. Similarly, those running abortion and trans gender clinics got caught out bragging about how much money they make out of their “procedures”.
Having been exposed, instead of owning up to it, and either expressing disdain for what has been said or publically supporting it, the author pulls out the leftist classics: impugn the character and motives of the subject (some guilt by association is always helpful), deride their legitmate concerns as “right wing taking points”, and, finally, imply that some group is at threat (stochastic terrorism) and thereby set up the justification for censorship and state control. Seemlessly, focus is shifted from parents finding out what deranged leftists are up to when they hand their children over to them at the school gates, to the malign motives of a dangerous right wing ideologue. It’s all the most transparent dishonesty.
I had not heard the term “stochastic terrorism” before. Probably because is is unnecessary and just means demonisazion. The author wories about the threat to the leftists on Tik Tok giving the game away. My concern goes to those these people are themselves relentlessly demonising: police officers, the white race, Jews, in fact anyone who disagrees with or questions leftist dogma in any way.
“Stochastic terrorism”, or demonisation and intimidation, are now the primary weapons of lefists and their footsoldiers, the woke mob. Apparently with extrodinary lack of self-awareness, the author himself in the above article is attempting to dishonestly demonise, Chaya Raichik, which no doubt is done in the hope of imtimidating others in to silencing her exposure of the things he is too cowardly and dishonest to publically defend, and so instead attacks the messenger.
Excellent.
Hear, hear!!
Hear, hear!!
Excellent.
After the author’s leftist hissy fit, perhaps some facts are in order.
Libs of TikTok simply collects together the self-posted public videos of leftists espousing their own thoughts and polical opinions. The author and other leftists are in a snit because letting these people speak for themselves reveals them to be deranged, angry, hateful, spiteful ideologues, whose absurd ideas make flat -Earthers look like respectable scientific commentators.
Previously, the game of the leftists was to falaciously claim that the things conservatives said were happening were right wing fantasies. Unfortunately the loose lipped woke could not resist telling the world about how they were indoctrinating children with CRT, white guilt, trans ideology, and every other woke obsession. Similarly, those running abortion and trans gender clinics got caught out bragging about how much money they make out of their “procedures”.
Having been exposed, instead of owning up to it, and either expressing disdain for what has been said or publically supporting it, the author pulls out the leftist classics: impugn the character and motives of the subject (some guilt by association is always helpful), deride their legitmate concerns as “right wing taking points”, and, finally, imply that some group is at threat (stochastic terrorism) and thereby set up the justification for censorship and state control. Seemlessly, focus is shifted from parents finding out what deranged leftists are up to when they hand their children over to them at the school gates, to the malign motives of a dangerous right wing ideologue. It’s all the most transparent dishonesty.
I had not heard the term “stochastic terrorism” before. Probably because is is unnecessary and just means demonisazion. The author wories about the threat to the leftists on Tik Tok giving the game away. My concern goes to those these people are themselves relentlessly demonising: police officers, the white race, Jews, in fact anyone who disagrees with or questions leftist dogma in any way.
“Stochastic terrorism”, or demonisation and intimidation, are now the primary weapons of lefists and their footsoldiers, the woke mob. Apparently with extrodinary lack of self-awareness, the author himself in the above article is attempting to dishonestly demonise, Chaya Raichik, which no doubt is done in the hope of imtimidating others in to silencing her exposure of the things he is too cowardly and dishonest to publically defend, and so instead attacks the messenger.
“The account, which contextualised various oddball TikTok clips in the service of assorted Right-wing talking points”
The whole point of the account is to *not* contextualise. She merely posts content and lets others comment on it.
“Content” lol. On Thick-Tok
Yes – no contextualisation involved. The progressives are upset because the wrong kind of people are now listening in.
Yes, I even wonder if Oliver has ever seen a post from L.O.T.T. before writing his/her/its/their article.
Yes, I even wonder if Oliver has ever seen a post from L.O.T.T. before writing his/her/its/their article.
“Content” lol. On Thick-Tok
Yes – no contextualisation involved. The progressives are upset because the wrong kind of people are now listening in.
“The account, which contextualised various oddball TikTok clips in the service of assorted Right-wing talking points”
The whole point of the account is to *not* contextualise. She merely posts content and lets others comment on it.
Sorry, but this is just a dumb article.
I hardly see how REPOSTING stupid stuff that people said and did is “right wing”.
She does not create content, she just reshares what some idiot said.
Mostly, the stuff she reposts is funny because it is so whacko.
She does not investigate and expose people, she amplifies people who have exposed themselves.
It really is no different, and may even have started as, a group of friends sharing Tik Tok videos with each other.
Sorry, but this is just a dumb article.
I hardly see how REPOSTING stupid stuff that people said and did is “right wing”.
She does not create content, she just reshares what some idiot said.
Mostly, the stuff she reposts is funny because it is so whacko.
She does not investigate and expose people, she amplifies people who have exposed themselves.
It really is no different, and may even have started as, a group of friends sharing Tik Tok videos with each other.
The genius of Libs of TikTok is that she really doesn’t put her stamp on the narrative. She is not creating content. All she does is copy the bonkers videos from the progressive left – almost always gender material – and relays it under Libs of TikTok. And it is astonishing. She cannot be sued, it is not her take on anything, she is just giving a wider audience to these unholy people.
The genius of Libs of TikTok is that she really doesn’t put her stamp on the narrative. She is not creating content. All she does is copy the bonkers videos from the progressive left – almost always gender material – and relays it under Libs of TikTok. And it is astonishing. She cannot be sued, it is not her take on anything, she is just giving a wider audience to these unholy people.
Isn’t the point that Raichik did not abandon her prior anonymity to crack the mainstream? It was taken from her against her will by ideological enemies. This article seems unable to decide what its argument actually is – why would Raichik inspire anyone to go public when she clearly didn’t want to?
As for stochastic terrorism, um, OK, only if we also start imprisoning random academics anytime someone inspired by their claims glues their hands to the road and blocks an ambulance. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Any time I hear the term. ” stochastic terrorism”, I know I’m dealing with someone insufferably woke. It’s the shiny new toy that all the 12 year-olds calling themselves journalists use to try to control the speech and therefore the thoughts of others deemed to be ” harmful to marginalized groups.” I expect the term to be pounded into our heads relentlessly for the next year.
‘Stochastic terrorist’ was explained in an Unherd essay some time ago: I entered it into my glossary of looney-left yukspeak and its use here tells me … about the author.
Using words with only a hazy idea of what they mean is a reliable marker of dimnesx. That’s what I think when I hear the phrase.
‘Stochastic terrorist’ was explained in an Unherd essay some time ago: I entered it into my glossary of looney-left yukspeak and its use here tells me … about the author.
Using words with only a hazy idea of what they mean is a reliable marker of dimnesx. That’s what I think when I hear the phrase.
Any time I hear the term. ” stochastic terrorism”, I know I’m dealing with someone insufferably woke. It’s the shiny new toy that all the 12 year-olds calling themselves journalists use to try to control the speech and therefore the thoughts of others deemed to be ” harmful to marginalized groups.” I expect the term to be pounded into our heads relentlessly for the next year.
Isn’t the point that Raichik did not abandon her prior anonymity to crack the mainstream? It was taken from her against her will by ideological enemies. This article seems unable to decide what its argument actually is – why would Raichik inspire anyone to go public when she clearly didn’t want to?
As for stochastic terrorism, um, OK, only if we also start imprisoning random academics anytime someone inspired by their claims glues their hands to the road and blocks an ambulance. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
‘Debatable rectitude’? What exactly is debatable about letting people know what those teachers, who claim the right to educate the next generation in secret, actually think.
Perhaps next week, Oliver, you could write an article about the trauma paedophiles feel when confronted with their crimes.
‘Debatable rectitude’? What exactly is debatable about letting people know what those teachers, who claim the right to educate the next generation in secret, actually think.
Perhaps next week, Oliver, you could write an article about the trauma paedophiles feel when confronted with their crimes.
Oliver, if you want people to not make fun of or be shocked by insane or even creepy videos by left leaning groups then tell them to stop making the videos to be mocked.
NOBODY is out making content. All that is happening is that the content created and posted by people is being reposted for comment. Its just holding up a mirror.
You do not like it….well…then go do the same thing making fun of conservatives. Though I wonder how many conservatives make crazy Tik Toks, are on Tik Tok or even really know what it is.
Oliver, if you want people to not make fun of or be shocked by insane or even creepy videos by left leaning groups then tell them to stop making the videos to be mocked.
NOBODY is out making content. All that is happening is that the content created and posted by people is being reposted for comment. Its just holding up a mirror.
You do not like it….well…then go do the same thing making fun of conservatives. Though I wonder how many conservatives make crazy Tik Toks, are on Tik Tok or even really know what it is.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see. Except for Oliver Bateman who surely TRIES very, very hard not to see.
Does the truth come to you in a vision then? What on earth are you talking about, and who are these sloganeering dweebs?
One merely needs to open one’s eyes. <i>Libs of TikTok</i> simply reposts TikTok videos made by the radical left onto Twitter, where they are seen by a wider audience.
The author above is pretending it’s otherwise.
But that doesn’t align with the official narrative, you see? When all of the MSM says something/someone is bad, it/they must be bad, regardless. I would gamble that Frank has never actually viewed a Libs of TikTok post. Just like all those who had never, ever listened to Rush Limbaugh over the 30 years he broadcasted, but “knew” he was evil.
But that doesn’t align with the official narrative, you see? When all of the MSM says something/someone is bad, it/they must be bad, regardless. I would gamble that Frank has never actually viewed a Libs of TikTok post. Just like all those who had never, ever listened to Rush Limbaugh over the 30 years he broadcasted, but “knew” he was evil.
No, the truth comes mainly from extensive reading. You should try it. You might then understand why people like Bateman find it necessary to say strange things like : “Raichik, an Orthodox Jew…” as if there is some relevance in that description.
There is something very telling about the comment. It furthers the anti sematic narrative that is growing rapidly on the left. But it has as much relevance as mentioning what type of goldfish swims in her fish tank.
Yes, that leapt out at me, as well. I wonder how Oliver would feel if, whenever quoted, something like “Oliver Bateman, a purported Jew” was added to his ponderings.
There is something very telling about the comment. It furthers the anti sematic narrative that is growing rapidly on the left. But it has as much relevance as mentioning what type of goldfish swims in her fish tank.
Yes, that leapt out at me, as well. I wonder how Oliver would feel if, whenever quoted, something like “Oliver Bateman, a purported Jew” was added to his ponderings.
One merely needs to open one’s eyes. <i>Libs of TikTok</i> simply reposts TikTok videos made by the radical left onto Twitter, where they are seen by a wider audience.
The author above is pretending it’s otherwise.
No, the truth comes mainly from extensive reading. You should try it. You might then understand why people like Bateman find it necessary to say strange things like : “Raichik, an Orthodox Jew…” as if there is some relevance in that description.
Does the truth come to you in a vision then? What on earth are you talking about, and who are these sloganeering dweebs?
There are none so blind as those who cannot see. Except for Oliver Bateman who surely TRIES very, very hard not to see.
The bias is strong with this one. These aren’t the lib talking points you’re looking for, Oliver Bateman.
The bias is strong with this one. These aren’t the lib talking points you’re looking for, Oliver Bateman.
There was another similar account removed from Twitter – ‘Males of Reddit’ – which exposed trans-identifying men discussing, amongst other things, how they get erections after being referred to as ‘she’.
There was another similar account removed from Twitter – ‘Males of Reddit’ – which exposed trans-identifying men discussing, amongst other things, how they get erections after being referred to as ‘she’.
I have to wonder how this guy slipped through and got added to the list of writers.
AWFUL piece of whining and spin.
I was riveted by inciteful and erudite lines such as, “Raichik, an Orthodox Jew…”
He really is a stochastic anti-semite.
Yes all rather dog whistle stereotypes summoned up by the unnecessary reference to her religious background. He didn’t need to say “weird religious fanatic who wears a wig to cover her own hair working in a business with questionable morals” to get his point over to his fellow progressives.
He really is a stochastic anti-semite.
Yes all rather dog whistle stereotypes summoned up by the unnecessary reference to her religious background. He didn’t need to say “weird religious fanatic who wears a wig to cover her own hair working in a business with questionable morals” to get his point over to his fellow progressives.
I was riveted by inciteful and erudite lines such as, “Raichik, an Orthodox Jew…”
I have to wonder how this guy slipped through and got added to the list of writers.
AWFUL piece of whining and spin.
The incisive – erudite, effective, early critics of woke excess tend to be liberals – Jon McWhorter, Glen Loury, Bill Maher, Kathleen Stock, Richard Dawkins, The clever Hitchins (RIP), J K Rowling, arguably even Jorda Petersen.
It will pass soon enough, like every other cultural fad. In the meantime the woke and their mirror reactionaries will be at play.
The incisive – erudite, effective, early critics of woke excess tend to be liberals – Jon McWhorter, Glen Loury, Bill Maher, Kathleen Stock, Richard Dawkins, The clever Hitchins (RIP), J K Rowling, arguably even Jorda Petersen.
It will pass soon enough, like every other cultural fad. In the meantime the woke and their mirror reactionaries will be at play.
The saying: give them some rope and they will hang themselves, springs to mind. In the words of T S. Elliot: the wheel turns and is forever still.
The saying: give them some rope and they will hang themselves, springs to mind. In the words of T S. Elliot: the wheel turns and is forever still.
She’s a good person doing the right thing.
She’s a good person doing the right thing.
A snide sounding piece written by someone who appears to not know curtis yarvin has been interviewed and written for unherd as well.
A snide sounding piece written by someone who appears to not know curtis yarvin has been interviewed and written for unherd as well.
Picking up on this a bit late… my 2 cents:
I checked out LOTT a few months back (when it got airplay) and found videos of, how shall I put it, weirdos, spouting whatever nonesence. Nothing to see here.
An equivalent might be listening into the discussions of a low-life nazi/racist/supremist/whateveryou’rehavingyourself group having a stochastic moment.
Picking up on this a bit late… my 2 cents:
I checked out LOTT a few months back (when it got airplay) and found videos of, how shall I put it, weirdos, spouting whatever nonesence. Nothing to see here.
An equivalent might be listening into the discussions of a low-life nazi/racist/supremist/whateveryou’rehavingyourself group having a stochastic moment.
I agree with the writer. Raichik and Yarvin & Co. are not really out of the top drawer, old chap.
I mean, really. An Orthodox Jewish real-estate agent? Whatever.
I agree with the writer. Raichik and Yarvin & Co. are not really out of the top drawer, old chap.
I mean, really. An Orthodox Jewish real-estate agent? Whatever.