SCALPED: The Daily Beast has begun to retract its false and defamatory claims against me. Fearing legal action, the publication deleted the story's headline, edited or added four full paragraphs, and appended multiple editor's notes to walk back its smear campaign.
This is a supremely embarassing retraction for the Daily Beast, which is notable, given the publication's long-standing lack of standards. Their smear backfired—discrediting them, not me. Let it serve as a warning to others. ⚔️
There are still some false and defamatory details in the body of the story, for which I have further requested correction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Last week, Vox's Zach Beauchamp published a spectacularly dishonest review of my book. It's worth debunking for its own sake, but also in order to expose the emptiness, manipulation, and fraud that constitutes "explanatory journalism."
Let me show you how the media lies. 🧵
Beauchamp's basic argument is that left-wing ideologies haven't conquered America's cultural institutions because there haven't been "accompanying radical shifts in policy." This is absurd: the institutionalization of CRT, BLM, DEI, and trans ideology are well-documented.
The second argument is even more ridiculous. Beauchamp claims that left-wing violence was "wiped out" after the 1980s. But this is brazenly and obviously manipulative: he completely ignores the carnage of 2020, the most destructive left-wing riots in American history!
The SPLC and the ADL do not command the kind of power they once did. The SPLC tried to destroy Moms for Liberty by labeling it an "extremist group" and the ADL tried to buckle Elon Musk using its typical pressure tactics—both campaigns failed.
Time to counter-attack.
Both organizations are going through a "boy who cried wolf" moment. They subordinated legitimate work to partisan smear campaigns and have abused the moral authority associated with the fight against racism and anti-semitism to advance unrelated, left-wing ideologies.
They are forfeiting decades of reputation-building and exposing themselves as partisan agents, rather than trusted authorities on moral causes. Greenblatt, in particular, has been nakedly partisan and heavy-handed in his tactics, coming across as an ideological bully.
The ADL, like the SPLC, uses the frame of identity and public goodwill to defame opponents of left-wing ideologies as a whole. The organization falsely marked me an "extremist" for the very obvious and factually accurate claims that queer theorists seek to disrupt "heteronormativity" and that DEI bureaucrats seek to replace words such as "man," "woman," "mom," and "dad" with vague, genderless terms such as "parent," "caregiver," "partner," and "adult."
This has nothing to do with fighting anti-semitism. The people who publish these baseless hit pieces are left-wing bullies, plain and simple. Their opinions on such matters should be assessed in the same category as Media Matters and other partisan oppo organizations.
They know that they're smearing and lying. They once published the false claim that I had accused "LGBTQ+ people" of "'grooming' children." After I pointed out that this was defamatory and considered filing a lawsuit, they quickly issued an evasive correction.
As I told the ADL: "I have never accused 'LGBTQ+ people' of 'grooming' children, nor called anyone a 'groomer.' I've been careful in my language—and explicitly stated that 'grooming' is a term that captures a spectrum of behavior and has nothing to do with sexual orientation—and I believe you have made an error." They could not substantiate their smear, so they tried to protect their legal liability while still attacking my reputation.
That's part of the game. They make wild accusations and attempt to destroy reputations. Luckily, because this tactic has been abused so flagrantly, it is not working as it once did. The public is increasingly seeing these outrageous enemies lists for what they are: politically motivated smear campaigns to protect left-wing ideologies as a whole, under the guise of fighting against discrimination, in this case, anti-semitism.
The SPLC runs the same playbook. They ran this absolutely vile smear piece attempting to somehow link my reporting on radical gender theory in public schools to the horrific shooting in Colorado.
They didn't substantiate any link whatsoever—obviously, as there was none—and neglected to mention crucial facts about the alleged perpetrator's psychology and potential motivation: he was arrested after threatening to kill his own grandparents the previous year; his parents divorced when he was a toddler; his father was a porn star, MMA fighter, and drug addict; his mother was an arsonist and petty criminal; he identified himself as "nonbinary" (which may or may not be authentic).
Needless to say, this also does not have anything to do with the South, with poverty, with race, or with law—the supposed rationale for the "Southern Poverty Law Center." It's just a left-wing smear machine ramping up against perceived enemies. Totally dishonest.
MSNBC released an 11-minute propaganda film about the reforms at New College of Florida that was filled with false and misleading statements. The left-wing network promoted two outright lies that must be corrected.
Let's debunk them one by one. 🧵
First, MSNBC claimed that New College recruited a large baseball team but "doesn’t have a baseball field for them to play on." This is false. The college has negotiated a deal for a Division I-level field. The MSNBC producers knew this and lied anyway.
Second, MSNBC advanced the narrative that there was "not one class for marine bio[logy] that was being offered" for a student, who then dropped out. This is false. There are multiple classes in marine biology offered this semester, as well as additional tutorial opportunities.
The Guardian accidentally reveals the stunning ignorance of its writers and editors, who think that "logos," one of the richest concepts in the history of the West, carries only the plain meaning of "word."
"It's unclear what these words are supposed to signify." 😭
She didn't even Google it. Neither did her editors. It's all right there.
Princeton professor calls my support for colorblind equality “venomous” and “insidious.”
But the choice is simple: we can have equality, in which individuals are held to a single standard; or we can have equity, in which individuals are rewarded or punished based on their race.
Segregation was, of course, an evil that was rightly abolished. But a DEI-style system of racial spoils, which punishes individuals from supposed “oppressor” groups, is not fair, just, or consonant with the principle of equality.
Even in deep blue California and Washington State, voters have rejected the system of racial discrimination known as “affirmative action.” Americans have a generous spirit and a genuine commitment to helping those who want to rise, but they demand a system of equal treatment.