Anti-fascists love to intimidate others by claiming a moral high ground, even if that high ground is below sea-level. Anti-fascists promoted the destruction of minority-owned small businesses in the summer of 2020 in the name of fighting systemic racism, anti-fascists trampled the Bill of Rights during COVID lockdowns for the sake of public health, and anti-fascists hate Elon Musk’s desire to promote “Free Speech” on Twitter because speech (like silence, oddly enough) is violence.
One hotly contested battle between current anti-fascism and common sense is K-12 education. Anti-fascists paint parents and teachers concerned about pornographic books in school libraries as “literal Nazis.” Books like Gender Queer contain graphic pictures of sexual acts; however, according to the Left this book should remain in school libraries to champion Diversity and Inclusion. If a parent holds the opinion that the sexualized material might be too graphic for minors, that parent is a fascist on par with Mussolini.
But what happens when the anti-fascists want to ban books? Do they become fascist-anti-fascists or anti-anti-fascists?
Last week, the anti-fascist Twitter account “Silent Sam I Am” (named after Silent Sam, the confederate statue violently toppled at UNC-Chapel Hill) tweeted the following:
Anti-fascists want the book Johnny the Walrus by Matt Walsh removed from libraries. The story centers on a little boy, Johnny, who pretends to be a walrus. Johnny’s mother is bombarded with text messages that Johnny is not just pretending; he is a real walrus and denying his identity is “phobic.” She takes Johnny to a doctor who affirms Johnny is the tusked marine mammal. Johnny’s mother subsequently believes her child is a walrus until she takes him to a zoo, and a zookeeper points out that Johnny is just a boy with wooden spoons as tusks. Mom takes Johnny home, while Johnny pretends to be a bird.
A Look at America’s Crossroads Moment
Johnny the Walrus contains no graphic nudity, nor any description of sexual acts. Yet the anti-fascists want it banned not just from school libraries, but public community libraries. The book is certainly political satire, and not necessarily something I would read to my own children. But the book is no more political than Gender Queer or Pride: The Story of Harvey Milk and the Rainbow Flag -- books marketed towards minors that (graphically) address sexual politics. Walsh’s book is visibly less political as it speaks through allegory, rather than the literal “diverse” books like This Day in June, a book depicting gay pride parades with detailed descriptions of “dykes on bikes.”
Silent Sam I Am tweeted a follow-up message explaining that the walrus book’s removal is not hypocritical because… well… Silent Sam I Am says it isn’t. The anti-fascist account describes the walrus allegory as dehumanizing.
For anti-fascists, allowing books like Johnny the Walrus in libraries suggests more than one opinion on sexual politics exists. Multiple opinions are not allowed:
This hypocritical nature of the “tolerant” Left is no surprise. The Left manipulates words and bans ideas that do not suit its purpose. Nearly a year ago, I wrote about a local North Carolina school board meeting, at which a teacher discussed banning a classic children’s novel (The Indian in the Cupboard) from her school because of perceived negative Native American stereotypes. The teacher avoided the word “ban,” instead referring to the book as having been “weeded.” Later in that meeting, the district Equity Officer discussed a “culturally relevant” audit of the school libraries. An audit of materials -- determining which books stay and which must go -- is different from banning books apparently. If one suggests that the two concepts might be similar, the Left will scream, “But we must have Equity!”
The American Library Association (ALA) also has a history of marketing itself as a protector of books, while remaining silent behind the scenes when clear ideological censorship occurs. The ALA has a “Report Censorship Toolkit” on its website. It published a Bill of Rights for Schools and Minors that states, “Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights.” In 2006, however, when Cuba jailed 65 librarians who provided books not approved by the Cuban government, the ALA refused to publicly condemn the action despite several other countries doing so. The ALA values communism. This year the ALA elected self-proclaimed Marxist, Emily Drabinski, as its president.
In his book Lenin, Viktor Sebestyen describes Vladimir Lenin’s public comments regarding censorship shortly before the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 Russia:
…Lenin called censorship ‘feudal… Asiatic’ and praised free press ‘as much more democratic in principle than any alternative’. He promised ‘incomparably more press freedom’ if the Bolsheviks had their way.
Following his ascent to power and contrary to his public proclamations, Lenin sought to suppress ideas counter to his Bolshevik thinking:
Lenin did not hide his ambitions to close down the opposition press. A few weeks after the coup, at a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet, he complained about press criticism and a Menshevik stood up and heckled to loud applause: ‘What do you mean, criticism. Which papers? Where? You’ve closed them all.’
‘No not yet,’ Lenin replied. ‘But we soon will.’
Just like the Bolshevik leaders in 1917 Russia, current anti-fascists and their allies will promote themselves as tolerant while simultaneously calling upon the censorship of any criticism or differing ideas. The blatant hypocrisy is profound to the point of absurdity. Silent Sam I Am’s thread represents the social media phenomenon of the “self-own.” As much as we want to discount them, we cannot ignore these trivial minds. History has taught us where shameless hypocrisy can lead. As Elon Musk says, “The woke mind is either defeated or nothing else matters.”