Magical Thinking and the Narcissism of Small(ish) Differences: Fatal Flaws in the Regressive Left
Field researchers from another planet might be hard pressed to distinguish social justice warriors from their rational liberal counterparts in the wild. Often frequenting the same watering holes—and participating in the same conflicts—to the uninformed observer, they could easily be taken as a single species.
Indeed, if the wild is extended to include the parched plains of the mainstream media landscape, they are for all intents and purposes the same.
Despite the valuable work done by rational leftists, this conflation persists—maddeningly—in most publications and news programs. By means of frequently disingenuous argument and alarming bullying tactics, the social justice lexicon has come to dominate baseline perceptions of the modern liberal movement.
I’m hardly the first to observe that if one is on the left, one is now understood to be fluent in the language of oppression and versant in the gradations of privilege. As aggravating as it is, the failure to distinguish between the two brands of liberalism is understandable. Jingoistic and hysterical proclamations usually win out over subtlety and nuance.
The social justice cohort—hereafter, the regressive left—and the rational left do of course share a commitment to, among other things, the elimination of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and classism. The means by which they hope to achieve that, and their conceptualizations of the problems themselves, are where they diverge.
One might think that, in the face of a resurgent conservative movement that directly controverts these principles, the two groups might be willing to put aside their differences in the interests of practicality.
In contrast, the rational left treats the worst manifestations of social justice ideology with the exasperated remove of an adult waiting out a child’s tantrum. We acknowledge our common cause in spite of the taint that it carries as a result of SJW meddling. And we attempt, however haltingly and ineffectively, to diagnose and treat the fits of temper and the poorly conceived reasoning that
This relationship can be read as a warped and lopsided version of Freud’s narcissism of minor differences.
While rational leftists urge the social justice side of the movement to put aside their overwrought conceptualizations in
Though the ratio is unbalanced, Freud’s schema nonetheless provides a useful lens through which to observe these differences.
Take two of the most-cited large-scale illustrations of the narcissism of minor differences, both serious and deadly civil conflicts that occurred in the 1990s. To external observers, the striking similarities between the Hutu and Tutsi of Rwanda, who descended into a brutal civil war, outweighed the disparities between the two groups that caused the conflict. Perhaps an even better exemplar than the strife in Rwanda is that which occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In that case, a culturally cohesive group of people devolved into war and genocide partly over theological differences, to the horror and consternation of the rest of the world. Though less obviously cataclysmic, the current rift in the left—and, more specifically, the regressive insistence on maintaining it—has had a similar effect: the perception of the participants as irrational.
This had made it quite easy for the right to throw the baby out with the bathwater, solid liberal planks along with the nutty regressive ideology in which they are adrift. The arcane religious principles that precipitated the Bosnian conflict, in particular, parallel those that define the schism between rationalists and regressives.
Rational leftists are, well…rational. Our strength lies in our heterogeneity, our skepticism, our encouragement of dissent and debate, and our enthusiasm for empirical argument. We feel that these qualities best position us to address the social problems we are faced with. The regressive left, however, is largely premised upon a dogmatic strain of magical thinking that parallels the worst tendencies in theistic religion.
In this view of the world, conceptions of oppression and identity are sacred texts, the exegesis of which is restricted to those at the pinnacle of a mechanistically determined hierarchy based on an array of intersecting, immutable qualities—particularly those associated with oppression.
Those who are perceived as non-minorities, accurately or not, bear an indelible taint of original sin. Ritualistic prostration and self-abasement are the expected forms of penitence. Absolution—or at least a stay of execution—can only be granted by the hierophants. As in theistic religion, one need look no further than the sacred texts from which this power is derived, and how they are defended, to discern the illogically—magically— predicated foundations of the system.
Take, for example, the contention by many trans activists that trans women are not only gender-identified as women but are actually biologically female. In this view, there are few, if any, meaningful biological differences between a female-identified male and a natal female. And if there are, they ought not to be discussed. Any digression, how ever well supported by the available science, is heresy.
Even discussions of menstruation, child-bearing, and other biological functions unique to natal women are viewed as exclusionary in some circles. (Some have even maintained that trans women do in fact experience periods.)
While rational leftists, myself among them, are quite happy to acknowledge a widening gender spectrum and to define the word “woman” more capaciously than it has been defined previously, we stop short of defying biological reality. Are trans
But they aren’t biologically female or male, as some would like us to believe. Sex in humans is an immutably binary characteristic. Though a vanishingly small number of people, notably those who are conceived as a result of two zygotes fusing and creating a chimera, may possess both functional ovaries and testes, everyone else produces either one type of gamete or the other, thus placing them in one sex category or the other. Atypical sex chromosomes and ambiguous genitalia, as in the case of intersex people, are often cited as evidence against the sex binary. Even in these rare cases, most intersex people can produce only one type of functional gamete.
None of this, of course, ought to have any bearing on how trans people, intersex or otherwise, are treated by society at large. Equity and respect for trans people are admirable and necessary goals, ones that have admittedly yet to be achieved. But rather than focus on that, some trans activists have devolved into a form of magical thinking that demands the suspension of scientific knowledge.
This is classic instance of the phenomenon: believing that internal beliefs can actually influence material reality. We must believe that in every meaningful sense a trans person belongs not only the gender that they align with, but also the sex, regardless of primary and secondary sex characteristics.
As such, lesbians who prefer not to sleep with trans women, gay men who eschew sexual relations with trans men, and heterosexuals who do not sexually engage with trans people of either gender are deemed transphobes and TERFs because their inclinations directly contest this magical view of sex determination.
This has manifested as a virulent strain of homophobia in the LGBTQ community, facilitated by trans activists, and bizarrely, perpetuated by even some lesbians and gay men. “Genital preferences”—i.e., sexuality as conceived by both the scientific community and society—are now pathologized and stigmatized as transphobic. Any attempts to temper the discussion with biological facts and explanations of sexuality—namely, that it is not a choice—are deemed threats to the very existence of trans people.
Take the case of Arielle Scarcella, a lesbian YouTuber and sex commentator. One can scarcely imagine a more charming and fair-minded personality. Scarcella is warm and compassionate and curious about the experiences of those who are different than her.
Yet, despite regularly talking to trans people in detail about their sex lives and identities, and having expressed an openness to dating a trans woman who has undergone gender reassignment surgery, Scarcella has been lambasted publicly as a transphobe because she is unwilling to date a trans woman with a penis. Among the tenuous arguments leveled against her and other lesbians who feel similarly is the notion that there is no material difference between penetration by a dildo, often used in lesbian intercourse, and by an actual penis attached to a human being. For a group so concerned with the supposed erasure of their identities, this segment of the trans activist movement is awfully quick to erase the identities of those whose “lived experience” contradicts their magical self-concept.
In this view of the world, not only is male female, white (or olive) is also black. Some black activists, who also lean heavily on the argument that any dissent from their contentions constitutes erasure, have persisted in claiming that ancient Egyptians were black. (And they rarely appear to be referring to the period of Nubian incursion, when there were indeed black pharaohs.)
Presumably, by asserting that historical figures such as Nefertiti and Cleopatra were black, they hope to channel some of the mythological significance accorded them. Nevermind that tomb paintings and statuary depict Egyptians in realistic detail as olive skinned, often alongside [enslaved] dark-skinned Nubians from the south. Nevermind that realism in Egyptian art was at its height during Nefertiti’s reign alongside her husband
Nevermind that Cleopatra was Egyptian by birth alone and was of Greek ancestry, with an outside chance of possible admixture with Egyptian blood. (Evidently, the colonialist tendencies that resulted in Cleopatra’s reign are not worth examining.) And nevermind that recent DNA analysis has most closely linked ancient Egyptians to the olive-skinned people of the Levant. The numinous power of claiming descent from the pharaohs takes precedence over fact. One wonders why the Songhai Empire and the Kingdom of Kush, large and sophisticated civilizations of black Africans, are not of greater interest to these groups.
It is understandable and even laudable that a historically oppressed people might look to the past for examples of success and dominance. But then one realizes that these more-relevant histories do not possess nearly the magical significance of the Egyptians.
So, too, even the morbidly obese can be fit and healthy in this ever-expanding magical universe. Never mind that this is definitionally impossible. The “health at any size” movement has so distorted the concept of fitness as to render it essentially meaningless. Fashion models like Tess Holliday, who is morbidly obese by any objective measure, are not simply held up as facilitators for the acceptance of multiple body types and the humane and civil treatment of those with weight problems, which are worthy objectives.
They are characterized as fit and healthy, despite the overwhelming evidence that obesity is a predictor of numerous
Those within the movement who acknowledge the problems with this do so indirectly, claiming that the health of fat models is no one’s business. These are some of the same people, one assumes, who—rightly—criticized the glorification of skeletal clotheshorses in the recent past.
On a personal level, certainly, it is between an individual and their doctor to discuss such issues. But when people politicize their own bodies as fat activists do, and take a didactic public position on the issue, it does become a legitimate topic of debate.
Some scholars have even pointed to a strain of magical thinking in the current incarnation of affirmative action—likely not in the way that unreserved supporters might expect. In a June 2005 editorial, three professors, all concerned with equity issues and, in one way or another, advocates of campus diversity, said this:
…we believe the rationale, especially regarding the benefits of diversity equation, is limited by “magical thinking.” The rationale provides no guidance for campuses on assembling the appropriate means to create environments conducive to realization of the benefits of diversity or on employing the methods necessary to facilitate the educational process to achieve those benefits.
That is, they find fault with the notion that simple, mechanistic adjustments to campus racial demographics are sufficient to truly address inequality. The idea that such a system can work to achieve its goal of greater integration without any real effort to facilitate it beyond the admissions process is suggestive of the same strain of delusion that might be diagnosed in a cook who expects a souffle to rise from a bowl of flour and eggs, without stirring, seasoning, and baking.
As frustrating as these tendencies are and as easy as it is reject them logically, it is worth looking deeper in an effort to discern why they emerged in the first place. Most of the groups that exhibit them have in fact been subjected to some level of oppression and discrimination. Magical thinking is known in the psychological literature to emerge as an antidote to anxiety, an obvious and understandable consequence of oppression. So too, in an increasingly secularized world, it’s conceivable that the same evolutionary forces that led to the emergence of religion might manifest in other ways, particularly in groups that feel isolated from society at large.
The parallels between regressive leftist ideology and religious belief are the object of increasing scrutiny for good reason. In addition to facilitating group cohesion in the face of opposition, the magical self-conceptions of these groups serve the further function of setting the argument in terms of arcana, hermetically sealed to external logic.
Even the most measured and sympathetic interrogation of these ideas is frequently met with, at best, indifference, and at worst, disproportionate hostility. Conceptual and methodological critiques that come from a place closer on the ideological spectrum sting all the more both because they are likely to be more nuanced and thus difficult to dismiss, and because of the perception that this proximity ought to entail sympathy and agreement. When that sympathy and agreement is expressed with reservations, it then becomes easier to cast those who question certain orthodoxies as the enemy rather than as concerned but trepidatious allies.
As Freud says of the narcissism of small differences, “the inclination to aggression [is a] means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier.” By casting even the most carefully worded dissent as condemnation, group solidarity is further enhanced.
Luckily, apostates from nearly all of the groups whose interests are supposedly represented by the regressive left have begun making themselves known. The shoddily constructed foundations of these orthodoxies are, as expected, beginning to crack. And the rational left will be there to pull survivors from the rubble.
#MeToo had rules. At least we thought so. Culturally, societally, politically, we all tried to learn them, to internalize them, to understand just what types of incidents could get a person ejected from their life, tossed out of their social group, ostracized from friends, unemployable, unpersoned. The rules seemed almost clear—until suddenly those who seem to be in charge of them don’t even follow their own logic anymore.
Katie Hill had an affair with a junior staffer, another woman, who feels that she was victimized. By the rules of #MeToo, that would dictate that Hill loses it all, right? Only somehow, it’s being spun the other way, by the same publications that brought us diatribes against Al Franken. Hill, it turns out, can also claim victim status at the hands of her ex, who was the one who released the information about the affair. In her resignation speech, Hill echoed Franken’s sentiments, that it seems absurd that she should be resigning when a guy like Trump is in the White House.
To recap: the wronged party is not the spouse, not the junior staffer, but the powerful person at the center of it. While it is true that Hill was the victim of revenge porn, and that is not acceptable, the same principle did not apply to Anthony Weiner or Joe Barton. It does not immunize her from her own wrongdoing.
“The squad” of freshmen congresswomen supported her during her recent tribulation. Nancy Pelosi, and other senior members of Congress, apparently wished that “Hill had been more careful in transmitting her private photos.”
Hill was given far more leeway in terms of the vocal and press lashing that other members of Congress who have found themselves exposed for sexual misconduct have faced. It turns out that she is being supported, not harassed and harangued. A staffer for Rep Sylvia Garcia (D-TX 29th), said, “A lot of the show of support was done intimately and privately with Hill, out of respect for her. … People didn’t want to be adding to the noise. We didn’t want to make press out of the pain and suffering she’s been through. She had private images published without her consent that have caused incredible pain.” Weiner did too, but no one had any sympathy for him at all.
The thing is, and yeah, we hate to be those people, but we can so easily imagine the reverse scenario. Here it is: a dashing young first-term congressman has an affair with a staffer years younger. He takes drugs, advertises his sexual availability on dating apps, and drags his wife into a threesome with the junior staffer. When the marriage breaks up—perhaps as a result of this kind of rampant infidelity, after all, they weren’t openly poly or ethically non-monogamous—the wife releases the dirt on the congressman to the world. She wants people to know just what kind of guy this is, how he is a liar and a cheater, a womanizer, and abuser, unfit to be in Congress. What then? Why she’s a hero, of course, and he’s a villainous letch.
Haven’t we heard this story before? Why is it so different now? Is Hill really a victim of her own sexual dalliances? Are we to believe that a woman who is strong enough to run and win a congressional campaign is so easy to bully? Perhaps we’re looking at it all wrong, readers, perhaps we don’t truly understand the nature of abuse or something, but what we do understand, what is perfectly clear, is that we’re supposed to believe all women, even when she is the abuser. We’re supposed to imagine that there is some substantive difference in how the rules are to be applied to men and women in the same deleterious circumstances.
Now, we’re the first to admit that the rules are stupid. That this game of pointing fingers and shaming people is nonsensical and barbaric is not something we doubt. But if there are going to be rules that we are all expected to play by, ought they not be, well, adhered to?
If #MeToo is meant to be the new standard that we all must bow down to, and it’s a given that men and women are equal, then we must apply the rules fairly, and everyone who has a complicated sexual relationship that leads to grievances must be punished. Or, maybe, just maybe, we could do away with this nonsense and start to see the human beings for what they are: flawed, complicated, and capable of cruelty and kindness.
#MeToo may have been an effective corrective in some situations, but it should never have risen to the level of an era. As it stands now, we are living through a “cultural context where common vengeance writes the law,” and the hypocrisy is destroying us. If the rules don’t apply the same way for everyone, perhaps the rules are the problem.
An antifa activist with a history of violence and threatening behaviour across the Pacific Northwest has been arrested on a felony hate crime charge in Seattle for alleged anti-Semitic attacks.
Jamal Oscar Williams, 44, is accused by state prosecutors in Washington state of hate crimes and criminal harassment against Schmuel Levitin, a rabbi, and Ephriam Block. According to court documents, Williams “maliciously and intentionally” followed, threatened to kill and assaulted the men in multiple attacks in October because of their perceived religion.
Levitin and Block were operating a permitted religious booth for the Sukkot Jewish holiday in downtown Seattle on October 11 when Williams allegedly approached them and shouted: “Jews, Jews, Jews … give me your money!” He then said he had a gun and was going to kill them. Both Levitin and Block have beards and payots, or sideburns, and were wearing yarmulkes. Levitin is a rabbi at the Chabad of Downtown Seattle.
Three days later, Williams returned and made similar threats and demands for money. On October 15, the next day, Williams allegedly followed the men into the lobby of their apartment building. After making more demands for money, he allegedly hurled candy from the concierge’s desk at the men. Police later found and arrested Williams in a nearby-area. He was unarmed at the time.
Jamal Williams is known in the Pacific Northwest for his involvement in various antifa protests and his outspoken views on black nationalism. In August 2018, he was arrested in Seattle during a counter-protest against right-wing group Patriot Prayer. Last November, he threatened this journalist with death outside Seattle City Hall at a counter-demonstration against a conservative group.
More recently, Williams was in Portland, Oregon on August 17 where he was recorded accosting people aggressively during an antifa protest-turned-riot against the Proud Boys. He was also part of a group of people who surrounded and threatened to hurt a reporter with the Washington Examiner.
“He threatened me multiple times,” Julio Rosas said. “It spoke volumes when Portland Police pulled me away and said I was provoking Williams and others, when it was Williams who was acting in a very aggressive manner.”
Williams was later arrested by Portland Police for disorderly conduct. He did not show up to his court hearing in September and there is a bench warrant for his arrest.
In addition to Williams’ radical political activism with antifa, he has a long history of criminal and harassing behaviour. In Washington state, he was convicted in 2015 for felony harassment and domestic violence. He has multiple other convictions for assault and domestic violence going back years. He also has a long violent criminal record in Alaska, where he used to live.
Williams is currently incarcerated on a $100,000 bond in King County, Washington for the hate crime charge.
'They treat my autistic son like a caged animal': student takes college to court over Title IX ruling
Marcus Knight—a student with autism and cerebral palsy—will come face to face with the Title IX officer who found him guilty of two Title IX sexual misconduct violations later this month as he takes his college to court in an attempt to clear his name.
Knight first came to my attention in 2018 after his attempts to make friends landed him in the school’s Title IX office, not just once but twice. According to the lawsuit, Marcus Knight asked one female student for a fist-bump, and another for a selfie.
While these may seem trivial, two female students at Saddleback College were so uncomfortable with Knight’s attempts to make friends that they reported him to the Title IX office, with one student claiming Knight made her “uncomfortable.”
But what’s caused two years of “absolute heartbreak,” according to Knight’s mother, is how the Title IX officer handled the accusations.
Considering Knight’s disability, both students decided not to follow-through with any charges. After one female thought Knight was stalking her and was uncomfortable with fist-bumps, the school reported:
“She understands this is part of his disability and [that Marcus Knight] only wants to make friends and that no harm is intended.” In due course, her complaint was resolved by mediation between Knight, his mother, and the school’s Title IX office.
Later, student Naomi Bueno Rojo reported Knight for “following her around campus,” “[invading her] personal space,” and that he tried to “put her hand on [his] thigh.” It’s unclear why Rojo felt the need to involve the Title IX office.
She reportedly felt “no fear” from Knight, and did not request disciplinary action.
Student Melissa Gold also took Knight to the Title IX office.
Gold claimed Marcus took more than 300 photos with her. According to Aurora Knight, his mother, Marcus has a tic that caused him to press the camera button multiple times with burst mode on.
Later, Gold left Saddleback College. When the Title IX officer reacher her for comment, Gold said “This is irrelevant to my life right now. I don’t care what happens officially at this point.”
Again, this was another instance of Marcus Knight, who has autism, cerebral palsy, and multiple learning disabilities, simply trying to have some sort of semblance of friendship among his peers at college by taking selfies and trying to talk to people.
At the time, 2018, Juan Avalos was the school’s Title IX counsellor. Though Avalos does not seem to have formal as a Title IX law training, Avalos nonetheless investigated and adjudicated Knight’s case.
Despite that no students formally testified against Knight, he was still found guilty.
The Post Millennial asked the college, Juan Avalos, and the California Community College system if Avalos had training in adjudicating Title IX matters. We also asked if he had any training to deal with students with disabilities. No response.
According to the lawsuit, Knight was never offered a fair hearing, an opportunity to respond to the evidence, and Knight did not have enough time to gather information to defend himself.
Further, the school’s “single-investigator model,” during which Avalos collected evidence, interviewed students and subsequently disciplined Knight is unlawful under California code, according to the lawsuit.
In fact, it’s unsure why Avalos was even appointed to deal with Title IX cases. According to his online resume, he has no relevant experience in dealing with victims of sexual assault, Title IX training certifications, or any training to deal with students with disabilities.
He is simply the Vice President of Student Services. That department encompasses everything from financial aid to diversity programs.
While it’s understandable that admins of small colleges may wear multiple hats, it goes without saying that each person should be trained for their role, especially when they have the power to suspend and expel.
Going forward, Marcus and Aurora Knight have been “left in the dark.” by Saddleback. Knight will eventually apply to transfer to a four-year school, but it’s unclear how and if his record of sexual misconduct will follow him.
For now, Knight can only visit campus when supervised. This semester, Knight takes four classes, and will need to pass about six more to complete his associates degree. Despite his limited language abilities, Knight loves music and sings in his local church and school choir. His goal is a BA in Musical Theater.
The student’s mother says she’s “confused and frustrated.”
“I asked for papers from Saddleback multiple times asking if anything is removed [from his record] and I haven’t heard anything back yet,” Aurora Knight told The Post Millennial by phone.
“Why won’t they just be honest? They are treating my son like a caged animal. But he is utterly harmless.”
“He had no issues prior to college, at all,” his mother said.
Marcus Knight is represented by Mark Hathaway, a Title IX lawyer who has helped over 100 students fight for justice. The hearing is set for November 18, 2019.
“We believe that Saddleback College failed to comply with the law and their own policy in improperly disciplining Marcus Knight and no sanctions should ever have been imposed against him,” Hathaway told The Post Millennial.
Aurora—a single mother and immigrant from Italy—has created a GoFundMe to help cover her son’s legal expenses.
“My family has been robbed of two first years in college, my son’s dreams have crashed, his confidence is destroyed… Marcus has no idea who he can trust and who he must fear… he doesn’t know who is a friend or even how to make friends.”
“Marcus wants to face Juan Avalos in court. He wants the opportunity to state the facts and clear his name.”
The Post Millennial called Knight and asked what he thinks. He gave us three words: “I am innocent.”
This is an ongoing story. All parties named in the story were given multiple opportunities to provide comment but did not respond.
Toni Airaksinen is a Columnist at PJ Media, The Post Millennial, and a social media strategist for kosher restaurants in Brooklyn, NYC. She graduated from Barnard College in 2018. She has also been a contributor to USA TODAY College, Quillette Magazine, The Daily Caller and the NY Daily News. Follow her on Twitter: @Toni_Airaksinen.
Mikhaila Peterson and her father Dr. Jordan Peterson have a bestselling book on Amazon about the carnivore diet. The only problem, it’s not their book.
While Mikhaila has been vocal about her support for a thoroughly carnivorous diet, this book transcribes comments, interviews, and YouTube videos of the two Petersons and puts it together as a collection. It had no approval from either of the listed authors, no proceeds are heading their way, and fans have been fooled into buying the fake book with a horrendous, amateur photoshopped cover.
The guy who put the whole thing together is Johnny Rockermeier, a German YouTuber who has published one other book of Jordan Peterson transcriptions. His YouTube page is full of Peterson videos and interviews.
In fact, Rockermeier appears to be a fanboy. So why would he take it upon himself to attribute a book to Mikhaila and Jordan Peterson, hijacking and misappropriating their brand?
We reached out to Mikhaila who told us “[Rockermeier] did some German translations for my dad’s videos a number of years ago on YouTube. But he shouldn’t be publishing. We received an email and sent it to our lawyers and said, ‘No you can’t do that.’ That was two weeks ago. Our lawyers didn’t get on it fast enough. I don’t know why Amazon isn’t more on top of this kind of thing. It’s happened before.”
Disturbingly, a number of left-wing activist journalists and researchers have taken to Twitter to use the fake book as a line of attack against Mikhaila and her father. When put in their place by Mikhaila herself, they still haven’t corrected their false assertions.
Some of the activists include Nathan Bernard and Becca Lewis, a social justice researcher who falsely claimed that Peterson’s videos were part of an “alternative influence network” that led to the “alt-right” in a since-debunked study.
The Post Millennial was also able to connect with Rockermeier. When asked if he thought there might be a problem with publishing and selling a book without the authors’ consent, he told us, “well they could contact me so I guess they’re happy with it. In the book there’s nothing they didn’t say, and the pics are publicly available. [Mikhaila] even posted her mom in swimwear.” He then added a smiley face with a tongue sticking out.
When asked about the claim on Amazon that, “for every paperback sold, Mikhaila and her father Dr. Jordan Peterson will receive $1.00 directly,” Rockermeier said, “I will send their royalties when her Thinkspot is up. She’s off Patreon now. But honestly, they don’t need any more money.”
Mikhaila Peterson went on to tell us that she plans to look for a way to get the fraudulent books removed. “Normally it doesn’t bother me, yesterday I thought it was kind of funny. The cover is so cheesy that it’s kind of funny. But I’ve gotten emails about what a terrible person I am and what a terrible person my dad is. No matter how resilient you are, it’s tough reading a whole bunch of messages like that. People forget that anyone who has a platform is also a person.”
As of writing Amazon is still selling the fraudulent books. Amazon did not immediately respond to request for comment.