THE BLOG

Hating Caitlyn: Brendan O'Neill's Latest Rant

06/03/2015 09:19 am ET | Updated Jun 02, 2016

Hating on the gays is no longer enough for Brendan O'Neill, the Marxist anti-gay, professional contrarian. (He is the former editor of the very misnamed Living Marxism, a publication now as dead as Marx and his ideas.)

O'Neill is broadening his hate from the gay community in general to include Caitlyn Jenner in particular, for the crime of being transgender.

O'Neill tells the right-wing readers at the U.K based Spectator that some people are now literally worshipping Jenner--nonsense of course, but O'Neill has been dealing in nonsense his entire life. Hating the capitalist used to be his thing, but the new hate of the day is the LGBT community and O'Neill isn't about to pass up a chance to spread a little venom, especially in paying venues.

O'Neill claims, "The [Jenner] photo is indeed iconic. And not just in the shallow celeb meaning of that word. It's iconic in the traditional sense, too, in that it's being venerated as an actual icon, a devotional image of an apparently holy human."

He claims "Jennermania confirms how weirdly authoritarian, even idolatrous, trans politics has become." To prove his point O'Neill "quotes" people being idolatrous. All his quotes are pretty much a few words long, or even less.

"Ellen DeGeneres says this goddess brings 'hope for the world', and we should all try to be 'as brave as Caitlyn.' Susan Sarandon celebrated Bruce/Caitlyn's mysterious 'rebirth' while Demi Moore thanked him/her for sharing with humanity 'the gift of your beautiful authentic self.' A writer for the Huff Post says the name Caitlyn means 'pure' - 'what a perfect meaning, right?' Truly, yes, for St Caitlyn, reborn to educate us all, is most pure."

This reminds me of those movie reviews that horrible films quote: "Stunning" the ad will say. The review, however, may say, "The most stunning thing about this film, is that it was even made." When someone strings a series of miscellaneous quotes together, but only tiny phrases from each, a whole lot of context is being dropped--usually on purpose. It is an intentional tactic meant to twist the meaning of the quote. When one word is used, they will they tell you a context for it which fits their theory, but often doesn't fit the original context at all.

Take the over-the-top quote from Ellen DeGeneres. Here is how O'Neill describes it: "Ellen DeGeneres says this goddess brings 'hope for the world'..." That's not actually what DeGeneres said. O'Neill twisted the full remark to make it fit his anti-trans theory.

What DeGeneres said was, "My hope for the world is that we can all be as brave as Caitlyn Jenner. Jenner wasn't the goddess bringing hope. It was Ellen expressing her own hope that all people could be this brave. That's very different from the lie O'Neill painted. Nothing DeGeneres said implies a "goddess."

The "mysterious" rebirth wasn't mysterious at all. There is no mention of mystery in Sarandon's comment. But, since O'Neill wanted to go with an idolatry theory, he had to force remarks into a religious-sounding context. All Sarandon said was "Congratulations on your rebirth. You've inspired so much intelligent dialogue and courage." "Mysterious" was only in O'Neill's head, not in the quote.

I should note, when Sarandon said Jenner inspired "intelligent dialogue" it was before O'Neill wrote his piece. While Jenner's public discussions has inspired some intelligent dialogue, it wasn't at the Spectator by any means.

O'Neil first invented a theory and then went cherry picking, but even the cherries weren't quite what he needed so he sliced them into tiny pieces, taking only those parts that fit his theory. Then he weaved these random phrases together--without the original context provided--and crammed them into his anti-trans theory. You'd think that even the Spectator would find that a bit embarrassing. Sadly truth is no longer a conservative value.

As for the ballyhooed authoritarianism? All that is about is people complaining about anti-trans comments. It seems that when O'Neil,l or individuals of a similar ilk, makes snide or nasty remarks about gays or transgenders they are engaging in free speech. If those insulted complain, they are stifling free speech. But, isn't their "stifling" just more speech?

It would appear O'Neill believes that free speech applies to him, and anyone who criticizes him is being authoritarian, not by actually banning his words, but by criticizing them. In other words, he has free speech, they don't.

He redefines free speech so that it only applies to those attacking gay or transgender individuals. It never applies to the victims of that vitriol. And, most assuredly, it doesn't apply to anyone attacked by Mr. O'Neill. Free speech for me, but not for thee. It's seems Mr. O'Neill's Marxist days aren't that far behind him after all.