What do you think?
Rate this book
A Heretic's Manifesto: Essays on the Unsayable
Can a woman have a penis? Is the West forever stained by racism? Are we all going to die from climate change? To the liberal establishment of London, New York or Sydney, the answer to all of these questions is ‘Yes’. And anyone who disagrees is a racist, climate-change-denying transphobe. Our elites have become convinced of some very strange and extreme ideas. And yet there is precious little pushback against them. Critics are cowed by the threat of shaming, cancellation, even arrest. The new orthodoxies of our age are risible, and yet the space for dissent is shrinking. We need more heretics. Throughout history, it has been those brave enough to puncture the prevailing groupthink who have propelled society forward. But they are in shockingly short supply today. In this collection of original essays, Brendan O’Neill remakes the case for heresy – and commits a few heresies of his own along the way.
196 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 5, 2023
84 people are currently reading
377 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
July 20, 2023
A Heretics Manifesto: Essays on the Unsayable
Author: Brendan O`Neill
In his book, Brendan O`Neill states, “It is the thesis of this short book that the constant churn of political correctness–or cancel culture or wokeness or intolerance or whatever we’re calling it–represents not just an over-the-top clampdown on speech, but a crisis of Enlightenment.”
What’s a heretic you may ask? Let me tell you. A heretic is a person holding an opinion that is at odds with general acceptance. Years ago, we may have called witches the heretics of the age, but now we have a new breed. The new breed of heretics is anyone that dare go against the insanity of the modern world. J.K. Rowling stood up and fought for women’s rights. She was called an innumerable number of names and insults. Ms Rowling even had her home address posted online with death threats. There are many more, too numerous to mention.
Mr O`Neill offers the reader an analysis of the current worldwide mania of looking for ‘hate speech’ at every turn, as well as the victim-hood mentality that has begun to dominate in some areas. Those core issues are applied to several discussions through the book. From the first chapter entitled “Her p3n1s” through “C19 as Metaphor” finishing with “Words Wound”, Brendan O`Neill writes with a clarity, a literary freedom and an honesty that is refreshing to see.
The author examines how decades of progress on gay rights have been wound back by the transgender movement and discusses the concept of whether homosexuality is “transphobic bigotry”. His arguments are solid, and fact driven, presented well and backed up with his documented research. Brendan O’Neill also looks at the toxicity of our past, how the legacies and universal inheritances of our cultures are being dismissed and traduced. He dissects the suggestion that racial thinking has been resurrected. He examines the subject of media and censorship, how it’s an ominous attempt at thought control.
This book is a great read. It’s well presented with current issues. The research and reading done for each chapter, laid out for the reader to examine and follow up if they wish. This is the first book I have read of Mr O`Neill’s and it will not be the last. The language used is perfect for the style of writing. It is almost a conversation in some points particularly as our author discusses the attraction of cancel culture in today's world.
Throughout history, there have always been people pushing society forward, giving new ideas and thoughts. However, nowadays, these people are in short supply. Mr O`Neill reminds us through his words that we need to arm ourselves intellectually and morally for the battles ahead. This book does much more than look at issues in society, it also provides solutions and encourages a call to arms for everyone. All too often, we stand with the majority, to be part of the ‘in crowd’ and for fear of pressure from those around us. But now it is time to stand up for what is right and what you believe in, even if you are standing alone.
As he says, “the more we refuse to be censored and exercise our right to be offensive, to exercise free speech and independent thought, the better it will be for us all. This is a critical time in the world now”.
Author: Brendan O`Neill
In his book, Brendan O`Neill states, “It is the thesis of this short book that the constant churn of political correctness–or cancel culture or wokeness or intolerance or whatever we’re calling it–represents not just an over-the-top clampdown on speech, but a crisis of Enlightenment.”
What’s a heretic you may ask? Let me tell you. A heretic is a person holding an opinion that is at odds with general acceptance. Years ago, we may have called witches the heretics of the age, but now we have a new breed. The new breed of heretics is anyone that dare go against the insanity of the modern world. J.K. Rowling stood up and fought for women’s rights. She was called an innumerable number of names and insults. Ms Rowling even had her home address posted online with death threats. There are many more, too numerous to mention.
Mr O`Neill offers the reader an analysis of the current worldwide mania of looking for ‘hate speech’ at every turn, as well as the victim-hood mentality that has begun to dominate in some areas. Those core issues are applied to several discussions through the book. From the first chapter entitled “Her p3n1s” through “C19 as Metaphor” finishing with “Words Wound”, Brendan O`Neill writes with a clarity, a literary freedom and an honesty that is refreshing to see.
The author examines how decades of progress on gay rights have been wound back by the transgender movement and discusses the concept of whether homosexuality is “transphobic bigotry”. His arguments are solid, and fact driven, presented well and backed up with his documented research. Brendan O’Neill also looks at the toxicity of our past, how the legacies and universal inheritances of our cultures are being dismissed and traduced. He dissects the suggestion that racial thinking has been resurrected. He examines the subject of media and censorship, how it’s an ominous attempt at thought control.
This book is a great read. It’s well presented with current issues. The research and reading done for each chapter, laid out for the reader to examine and follow up if they wish. This is the first book I have read of Mr O`Neill’s and it will not be the last. The language used is perfect for the style of writing. It is almost a conversation in some points particularly as our author discusses the attraction of cancel culture in today's world.
Throughout history, there have always been people pushing society forward, giving new ideas and thoughts. However, nowadays, these people are in short supply. Mr O`Neill reminds us through his words that we need to arm ourselves intellectually and morally for the battles ahead. This book does much more than look at issues in society, it also provides solutions and encourages a call to arms for everyone. All too often, we stand with the majority, to be part of the ‘in crowd’ and for fear of pressure from those around us. But now it is time to stand up for what is right and what you believe in, even if you are standing alone.
As he says, “the more we refuse to be censored and exercise our right to be offensive, to exercise free speech and independent thought, the better it will be for us all. This is a critical time in the world now”.
August 25, 2023
I'm in two minds about this.
Sometimes when reading crazy conspiracy theories online I marvel at why some people seem to believe all the strange things together. This book edges towards an explanation:
> Make them tremble – that, often, is what the heretic must do. So let’s do it.
Some of the chapters here are excellent, but some left me scratching my head. I think it depends on which 'heresies' resonate and which don't.
At first I loved the way O'Neill cast back into history to show how these modern day heresies rested on historic precursors, but as the chapters went on I wanted more causal analysis: is the persecution of climate-change naysayers the same, in any way, as burning witches for changing the weather and causing crops to fail? Or is the use of weather in the two cases a coincidence?
I also didn't recognise some of the heresies as heresies. There's a chapter that is sort of about Brexit. The idea is that the powers that be ridicule brexit voters by likening them to ignorant pigs and question their right to vote. But where is the heresy? If I proclaim loudly on twitter that I believe in universal sufferage will I lose my job? No. Will I be cancelled? No. Sure, university towns had fewer Brexit voters, and those of us who want/wanted to remain in the EU were depressed and angry, but that falls way short of the idea that universal sufferage is a heresy.
Criticisms aside, the chapters on trans issues and on the power of words themselves are excellent, and the chapter on the right to criticise religions (and religious people) has made me stop and think about my own attitude to religious respect: we do need to pay more attention to this, and not allow our kindness to interfere with our ability to hear dissenting voices, even if those dissenting voices are angry, jeering, or poking fun.
Sometimes when reading crazy conspiracy theories online I marvel at why some people seem to believe all the strange things together. This book edges towards an explanation:
> Make them tremble – that, often, is what the heretic must do. So let’s do it.
Some of the chapters here are excellent, but some left me scratching my head. I think it depends on which 'heresies' resonate and which don't.
At first I loved the way O'Neill cast back into history to show how these modern day heresies rested on historic precursors, but as the chapters went on I wanted more causal analysis: is the persecution of climate-change naysayers the same, in any way, as burning witches for changing the weather and causing crops to fail? Or is the use of weather in the two cases a coincidence?
I also didn't recognise some of the heresies as heresies. There's a chapter that is sort of about Brexit. The idea is that the powers that be ridicule brexit voters by likening them to ignorant pigs and question their right to vote. But where is the heresy? If I proclaim loudly on twitter that I believe in universal sufferage will I lose my job? No. Will I be cancelled? No. Sure, university towns had fewer Brexit voters, and those of us who want/wanted to remain in the EU were depressed and angry, but that falls way short of the idea that universal sufferage is a heresy.
Criticisms aside, the chapters on trans issues and on the power of words themselves are excellent, and the chapter on the right to criticise religions (and religious people) has made me stop and think about my own attitude to religious respect: we do need to pay more attention to this, and not allow our kindness to interfere with our ability to hear dissenting voices, even if those dissenting voices are angry, jeering, or poking fun.
December 22, 2023
Thought provoking
The first few chapters were so riveting that I could hardly set it down. By the time I got to the Covid chapter, I realized we differ on many things, BUT not on his central idea: the right to and, indeed, the importance of expressing those disagreements!
The first few chapters were so riveting that I could hardly set it down. By the time I got to the Covid chapter, I realized we differ on many things, BUT not on his central idea: the right to and, indeed, the importance of expressing those disagreements!
November 26, 2023
في الآونة الأخيرة، وجدت نفسي أتفق مع الأشخاص الذين يقولون إن ثقافة الإلغاء هي أسطورة. ليس لأنني أشاركهم في إنكارهم للتهديد المميت الذي تواجهه حرية التعبير اليوم. ليس لأنني أعتقد أنهم على حق في كونهم غير مبالين بشأن مسيرة التعصب التي تمضي بها المؤسسات. ليس لأنني، مثل كثيرين منهم، استسلمت للإثارة الرخيصة المتمثلة في اللياقة السياسية، لتلك "النشوة البشعة من الخوف والانتقام"، إذا استخدمنا كلمات جورج أورويل، والتي تصاحب دائمًا محاولات الغوغاء لمنع الخطاب المسيء.
لا، ولكن لأن عبارة "ثقافة الإلغاء" لا تفي بالغرض. إنها لا تجسد ما نواجهه. إنها خفيفة جداً. غريبة جداً. لطيفة تقريبا. إنها مثل الإشارة إلى محاكم التفتيش على أنها مجرد إدارة للمعلومات ؛ ملطفة للغاية. ومثل كل العبارات الملطفة، مع ما تنطوي عليه من حرج بسبب الصراحة، وعدم ارتياحها تجاه مضايقات الحقيقة، فإنها تخفي أكثر مما تنير. هذه العبارة تجعل الأمر يبدو وكأننا نواجه مجرد إزعاج ... في حين أننا في الحقيقة نعيش في واحدة من أخطر الانتكاسات التي تعرض لها الفكر الحر والتنوير نفسه في العصر الحديث. أعتذر عن قولي ذلك بشكل غير ملطف.
.
Brendan O'Neill
A Heretic's Manifesto
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
لا، ولكن لأن عبارة "ثقافة الإلغاء" لا تفي بالغرض. إنها لا تجسد ما نواجهه. إنها خفيفة جداً. غريبة جداً. لطيفة تقريبا. إنها مثل الإشارة إلى محاكم التفتيش على أنها مجرد إدارة للمعلومات ؛ ملطفة للغاية. ومثل كل العبارات الملطفة، مع ما تنطوي عليه من حرج بسبب الصراحة، وعدم ارتياحها تجاه مضايقات الحقيقة، فإنها تخفي أكثر مما تنير. هذه العبارة تجعل الأمر يبدو وكأننا نواجه مجرد إزعاج ... في حين أننا في الحقيقة نعيش في واحدة من أخطر الانتكاسات التي تعرض لها الفكر الحر والتنوير نفسه في العصر الحديث. أعتذر عن قولي ذلك بشكل غير ملطف.
.
Brendan O'Neill
A Heretic's Manifesto
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
July 30, 2023
Common sense for an uhinged age!
O'Neill makes common sense arguments to counter the "woke" themes rocking our society today. It is not an arch-conservative screed, it is the reasoned thinking of a classical liberal mind.
O'Neill makes common sense arguments to counter the "woke" themes rocking our society today. It is not an arch-conservative screed, it is the reasoned thinking of a classical liberal mind.
June 30, 2024
If you are tired of the woke culture, political correctness and believe in free speech, this book is for you.
January 24, 2024
O'Neill argues from a thin pretext of supporting LGB people to get at the T people. We already know that part of his goal is to get at the LGB people too.
Relevant background:
In 2011, he published an essay claiming that "Homosexuality is not 'natural,'" in which he called it "backward" to compare human and non-human sexuality. He cited no gay people who agreed with him on this, and it seems he was just wanted to drop a few lines implying that gayness is unnatural.
In 2013, he testified at a government hearing against same-sex marriage. He fretted that straight people would “feel a corrosion of their identity” if gay people could marry too. His position was that no one really wants to be in a same-sex marriage, and that elites advocated for gay marriage as a form of virtue-signaling, for the sole purpose of silencing "rednecks" as "homophobic." Homophobia isn't real, he argued around that time; it's only a word with which people like him are told to shut up.
In 2017, he published an essay saying that gay marriage “infantilises” gay people by giving them "gracious recognition" and thus making them "slaves to the caring state." He suggested that the law shouldn't try to “empathise." (Shouldn't recognize nor empathize with gay people, right? But should recognize and empathize with straight people, because straight people's identity depends on that continued support, per his 2013 testimony?)
Today, it seems he hasn't changed his mind on gay marriage. But he's discovered it's boring to accuse nameless imaginary elites of being scolds and much more fun if he himself runs with his own playbook (the one he'd previously attributed to "the elites") of using the word "homophobic" to tell others to shut up. Therefore, in A Heretic's Manifesto, he gleefully accuses trans people and trans-inclusive cis people of being homophobic.
To back up a bit: In 2018, he published an essay, "A manifesto for heresy," centered on his belief that "a man can never become a woman" and that people like him were being "demonise[d]." There, he gave examples of four incidents that harmed anti-LGBTQ people (fined £500, punched in the face, academically criticized, politically reorganized) and zero example of any harm that any trans person ever suffered. To him, the significance of a word like "transphobia" isn't whether an actual trans person has suffered actual harm but whether the person who harmed them has hurt feelings about being called a name like "transphobe." He defined "transphobe" as a cruel epithet like sinner, blasphemer, heretic. He suggested that anti-trans people belong to a "trans-critical" identity and deserve protection for their beliefs. (Their identities, their feelings, their beliefs matter. Not LGBTQ people's.)
This 2023 book works by its demagogic element: You’re voiceless. Let me be your anti-LGBTQ voice.
He thinks he's found some way to be anti-queer while congratulating himself for being pro-queer. Such self-contradiction isn't original. We're so bored of it. Pointing at a trans person and saying “homophobe!” isn't an argument that works with me. That's a Swiss-cheese veil for homophobia and transphobia. It's meant to be seen through; he wants everyone to know what his agenda is. And he hopes that saying you're canceling me! This is an outright Inquisition! will fend off valid criticism. It won't.
Though the book is devoted to the metaphor of heresy, O'Neill spends no time discussing his experiences as an atheist nor his lack of religious belief. My guess is that he wants to avoid alienating the members of his audience who are religious. (Not very bravely heretical of him, but hey.)
The Enlightenment is not, in fact, being reversed. He admits "You won’t be set on fire, no," and neither are there "stakes" nor "pillories" in this modern Inquisition. It's just that you can be metaphorically burned, he says. He feels a witch-hunt "vibe." You'll have to take his word for it, which is to say, you'll have to believe that his feelings matter and his perceptions are accurate and that LGBTQ people's feelings don't and aren't.
Speaking of bravery, it doesn't seem he's made an effort to speak to, read, or otherwise learn from any trans or trans-inclusive people. Maybe he's scared to do so. I don't know.
Anti-transgender campaigners have published the same tired tropes for decades. Janice Raymond was doing it in the 1970s, for example. They always pretend that transgender people were invented last Tuesday. It's been a very long Tuesday.
These alleged "new orthodoxies"? I don't see where they exist at all. He doesn't name the "ideologues" who supposedly advocate them. Insofar as he's talking about basic tolerance (e.g., you can just accept that your neighbor belongs to the gender they say they do), yes, there is an ideal of tolerance, but it's not an "orthodoxy" and it isn't "new." Organizations and governments often seek to encourage politeness and legally recognize people's identities to protect the safety and dignity of minoritized people. That's about figuring out how people can live together in a practical way; it's not a dogma. He says that if you dare think he’s making this up, you’re engaged in “flagrant denialism.” Of course, saying no, you're the denialist! doesn't prove his claims.
Chapter 1 of A Heretic's Manifesto complains about “the female pronoun” applied to “the noun for the male genital organ.” Had O'Neill acknowledged that his complaint is language-dependent (specific to English, in this example), we'd have a hint that it might not be entirely science-driven. Anyway, when trans people use language, we do in fact make sense, and if O'Neill is genuinely worried that English doesn't reflect trans people, perhaps he could endorse progress toward gender-neutral Englishing, since it really isn't necessary for singular possessive pronouns to be gendered. He says that changing a gendered pronoun for someone is an “abandonment of reality," yet he has no interest in considering how a trans person's pronouns may be grounded in reality. For example, if others consistently perceive a certain person as a man or woman, those perceptions (and any resulting gendered language or behavior relating to that individual) are part of the shared reality of that person and everyone with whom they interact. We can't consistently use pronouns to describe someone's genitals; we wear pants, and we assume people's genders without seeing into their pants. He says trans people inhabit a “gender fantasy”; actually, all of us participate in shared social constructs, and he is blissfully unaware of whose constructs he's living in.
One of his arguments is that we say "an apple is an apple" (not a banana) so why can't we say a man is a man (not a woman)? Look here: This is the same guy who in 2011 argued that it's rude to discuss animal and human sexuality in the same breath. Yet here he is, 12 years later, analogizing discourses about fruit and humans. No, he cannot creep, crawl, flower, or fruit his way out of this messy root-bound den he's dug for himself.
He never considers that respect and privacy do serve a social purpose even when the beneficiary is trans. For example, when someone is spoken about in ways that reveal their transness against their wishes (or imply that they might be trans, even when it's not true), that person is experiencing a type of social compulsion exercised against them. O'Neill is completely unwilling to address the obvious fact that the trans person (or the suspected trans person) is a vulnerable minoritized person in this situation, not an "elite" nor an "ideologue," and that they have safety needs, which is why other people might take the extra time to guard their own speech so as not to reveal secrets or spread gossip that might hurt someone else. Refraining from hurting someone isn't best described as "compulsion." Let's take a more holistic look at the situation and see who is capable of compelling whom and what the costs and benefits are of using language when it affects others.
And while he dismisses the notion of "cultural appropriation" (Chapter 9) he implies that trans people are behaving badly by appropriating cis people's pronouns. Sorry, your next-door neighbor doesn’t "get your pronouns” when you talk about them in the third-person, nor do you steal their pronouns when they talk about you late at night with the door closed.
If a trans or nonbinary person firmly declares our personal identity and path, he refers to us as rigid ideologues and activists, but if we say we’re open-minded to how we might identify in the future, he calls us rootless and confused.
Speaking of denialism, he chooses the example of a trans person murdering a cis person, rather than the other way around (which absolutely happens). He just wants to portray trans people as hallucinating ax-murderers. He says that trans-exclusive cis people have been “threatened with violence, demonised as evil and sacked” without acknowledging that trans people are also threatened, vilified, and fired. He just has no interest in how any event impacts a trans person.
No, you aren't "compelled to convert to a new religion.” No, I'm not treating you as a leper. Your phrase "social leprosy" is a metaphor. Social leprosy doesn't exist, and here's a pro tip for heretics: You can’t make me believe in it.
This isn't the right way to help readers consider what it is to be trans, how much on this topic is knowable or learnable, what rights trans people need, what discrimination is avoidable, whether anyone is ever hateful, whether trans people can feel pain (yes), or why the word "transphobia" is comprehensible, flexible, and useful. O'Neill has no interest in increasing readers' understanding.
The rest of the book broadens his claim that unidentified elites are trying to mind-control the population, while he and his followers (whatever they may believe) are the true heretics, virtuous by believing whatever they believe (that is, by existing, especially as themselves, not having had the misfortune to be born as an LGBTQ person), in the face of certain persecution, despite the admission that nothing’s on fire.
In Chapters 2 and 3, when it comes to climate change and covid, the problem is now that the elites are trying to make him believe too much rather than too little science. In Chapter 4, on Islamophobia, he says that being suspended from a sport is "on the same spectrum of intolerance" as having acid thrown in your face. (What would O’Neill have made of that assertion if a trans person had said it?)
In Chapter 5, regarding Brexit and Trump in 2016, he laments that snobs on the losing sides crassly say that the main problem with democracy is that ignorant folk have equal votes. Well, he neglects to mention power dynamics that complicate that narrative, such as that in 2021 Trump led an insurrection. I do believe people are saying that that is a significant threat to democracy. He also tries to say that democracy is important because of the sheer act of "choosing," distinct from the impact those choices have on others. That's not going to be an A+ paper on ethics. But this is "a world we shape and own and govern"? Yes, and who is the "we"? In Chapter 6, about racist police violence, he portrays a certain democratic discourse he doesn’t like, namely anti-racism, as “conformism.” So, he seems to be saying: Choose, but don't choose that. Deeming others’ ideas to be the product of mere conformity is a convenient way for him to avoid listening or dialoguing with them.
In Chapter 7, he's back on the gay. He’d like you to believe that, in arguing against trans people, he's really defending gay people. In short, his assumption is that cis people can only be attracted to other cis people and are always trans-exclusive in their dating interests. If they weren't, you see, they'd be attracted to just “anyone” passing by. (He mentions an 1894 gay student magazine at Oxford University but quotes nothing whatsoever from it to demonstrate its trans-exclusivity.) He, and other transphobes who popularize this idea, are making this up. It's logically possible that someone could be attracted to some people (whether cis or trans) and not others. Indeed, some cis people do date trans people, and they're allowed to call themselves straight, gay, or bi. O'Neill's cruel joke amounts to: Trans people are phobic haters against everyone they try to date because they haven't considered that these people might not want to date them. After worrying that post-transition trans people are trying to insert themselves into gay dating scenes, he switches to a contradictory trope, which is that gender transition is a kind of conversion therapy to turn self-hating gay people into straight people. He doesn't address the obvious contradiction. Instead, he wails, “witness the extraordinary persecutions" an anti-transgender group has faced, as he names no such persecutions. As he has it, critics circulated petitions “to deprive it [the group] of Lottery funding, to demand that the UK Charity Commission rescind its charitable status," and one of its co-founders shed a tear over not getting to decide whether someone else was a lesbian, weeping: "We will not be erased." Extraordinary? Persecutions? The takeaway for gay cis people: As long as you oppose trans people, you’re O'Neill's kind of heretic. Otherwise, you’re just another queer person for whom he and his followers have no use.
In Chapter 8, he complains that his team gets accused of “hate speech.” He doesn't examine the arguments for why someone might not have appreciated any particular thing that was said. In Chapter 9, he implies that every young queer person should be treated with skepticism, since increasing numbers of young people are identifying as LGBTQ and they might be faking these identities for attention. In Chapter 10, he says that “where words hurt — and they do — censorship hurts more." When trans people say they feel "erased," they're pretending that others' words can genocide them, he says — forgetting that (as I pointed out) in a previous chapter he had lauded a cis lesbian for saying "We will not be erased." Yet another example of something that he finds good when cis people say it and bad when trans people say it. He goes on to make an analogy that, when trans people's feelings are wounded by anti-trans people, it's the same as when 16th-century "Catholic zealots" felt wounded by Protestant Reformers. Of course, there is no transgender Vatican.
This book is incorrect.
I wrote more in "The People Who Use LGB-Minus-T Are Homophobes" (12-min) and "Being Transgender is Homophobic? That’s Trope, Not Truth" (53-min). Beyond that, I have nothing more to say.
Relevant background:
In 2011, he published an essay claiming that "Homosexuality is not 'natural,'" in which he called it "backward" to compare human and non-human sexuality. He cited no gay people who agreed with him on this, and it seems he was just wanted to drop a few lines implying that gayness is unnatural.
In 2013, he testified at a government hearing against same-sex marriage. He fretted that straight people would “feel a corrosion of their identity” if gay people could marry too. His position was that no one really wants to be in a same-sex marriage, and that elites advocated for gay marriage as a form of virtue-signaling, for the sole purpose of silencing "rednecks" as "homophobic." Homophobia isn't real, he argued around that time; it's only a word with which people like him are told to shut up.
In 2017, he published an essay saying that gay marriage “infantilises” gay people by giving them "gracious recognition" and thus making them "slaves to the caring state." He suggested that the law shouldn't try to “empathise." (Shouldn't recognize nor empathize with gay people, right? But should recognize and empathize with straight people, because straight people's identity depends on that continued support, per his 2013 testimony?)
Today, it seems he hasn't changed his mind on gay marriage. But he's discovered it's boring to accuse nameless imaginary elites of being scolds and much more fun if he himself runs with his own playbook (the one he'd previously attributed to "the elites") of using the word "homophobic" to tell others to shut up. Therefore, in A Heretic's Manifesto, he gleefully accuses trans people and trans-inclusive cis people of being homophobic.
To back up a bit: In 2018, he published an essay, "A manifesto for heresy," centered on his belief that "a man can never become a woman" and that people like him were being "demonise[d]." There, he gave examples of four incidents that harmed anti-LGBTQ people (fined £500, punched in the face, academically criticized, politically reorganized) and zero example of any harm that any trans person ever suffered. To him, the significance of a word like "transphobia" isn't whether an actual trans person has suffered actual harm but whether the person who harmed them has hurt feelings about being called a name like "transphobe." He defined "transphobe" as a cruel epithet like sinner, blasphemer, heretic. He suggested that anti-trans people belong to a "trans-critical" identity and deserve protection for their beliefs. (Their identities, their feelings, their beliefs matter. Not LGBTQ people's.)
This 2023 book works by its demagogic element: You’re voiceless. Let me be your anti-LGBTQ voice.
He thinks he's found some way to be anti-queer while congratulating himself for being pro-queer. Such self-contradiction isn't original. We're so bored of it. Pointing at a trans person and saying “homophobe!” isn't an argument that works with me. That's a Swiss-cheese veil for homophobia and transphobia. It's meant to be seen through; he wants everyone to know what his agenda is. And he hopes that saying you're canceling me! This is an outright Inquisition! will fend off valid criticism. It won't.
Though the book is devoted to the metaphor of heresy, O'Neill spends no time discussing his experiences as an atheist nor his lack of religious belief. My guess is that he wants to avoid alienating the members of his audience who are religious. (Not very bravely heretical of him, but hey.)
The Enlightenment is not, in fact, being reversed. He admits "You won’t be set on fire, no," and neither are there "stakes" nor "pillories" in this modern Inquisition. It's just that you can be metaphorically burned, he says. He feels a witch-hunt "vibe." You'll have to take his word for it, which is to say, you'll have to believe that his feelings matter and his perceptions are accurate and that LGBTQ people's feelings don't and aren't.
Speaking of bravery, it doesn't seem he's made an effort to speak to, read, or otherwise learn from any trans or trans-inclusive people. Maybe he's scared to do so. I don't know.
Anti-transgender campaigners have published the same tired tropes for decades. Janice Raymond was doing it in the 1970s, for example. They always pretend that transgender people were invented last Tuesday. It's been a very long Tuesday.
These alleged "new orthodoxies"? I don't see where they exist at all. He doesn't name the "ideologues" who supposedly advocate them. Insofar as he's talking about basic tolerance (e.g., you can just accept that your neighbor belongs to the gender they say they do), yes, there is an ideal of tolerance, but it's not an "orthodoxy" and it isn't "new." Organizations and governments often seek to encourage politeness and legally recognize people's identities to protect the safety and dignity of minoritized people. That's about figuring out how people can live together in a practical way; it's not a dogma. He says that if you dare think he’s making this up, you’re engaged in “flagrant denialism.” Of course, saying no, you're the denialist! doesn't prove his claims.
Chapter 1 of A Heretic's Manifesto complains about “the female pronoun” applied to “the noun for the male genital organ.” Had O'Neill acknowledged that his complaint is language-dependent (specific to English, in this example), we'd have a hint that it might not be entirely science-driven. Anyway, when trans people use language, we do in fact make sense, and if O'Neill is genuinely worried that English doesn't reflect trans people, perhaps he could endorse progress toward gender-neutral Englishing, since it really isn't necessary for singular possessive pronouns to be gendered. He says that changing a gendered pronoun for someone is an “abandonment of reality," yet he has no interest in considering how a trans person's pronouns may be grounded in reality. For example, if others consistently perceive a certain person as a man or woman, those perceptions (and any resulting gendered language or behavior relating to that individual) are part of the shared reality of that person and everyone with whom they interact. We can't consistently use pronouns to describe someone's genitals; we wear pants, and we assume people's genders without seeing into their pants. He says trans people inhabit a “gender fantasy”; actually, all of us participate in shared social constructs, and he is blissfully unaware of whose constructs he's living in.
One of his arguments is that we say "an apple is an apple" (not a banana) so why can't we say a man is a man (not a woman)? Look here: This is the same guy who in 2011 argued that it's rude to discuss animal and human sexuality in the same breath. Yet here he is, 12 years later, analogizing discourses about fruit and humans. No, he cannot creep, crawl, flower, or fruit his way out of this messy root-bound den he's dug for himself.
He never considers that respect and privacy do serve a social purpose even when the beneficiary is trans. For example, when someone is spoken about in ways that reveal their transness against their wishes (or imply that they might be trans, even when it's not true), that person is experiencing a type of social compulsion exercised against them. O'Neill is completely unwilling to address the obvious fact that the trans person (or the suspected trans person) is a vulnerable minoritized person in this situation, not an "elite" nor an "ideologue," and that they have safety needs, which is why other people might take the extra time to guard their own speech so as not to reveal secrets or spread gossip that might hurt someone else. Refraining from hurting someone isn't best described as "compulsion." Let's take a more holistic look at the situation and see who is capable of compelling whom and what the costs and benefits are of using language when it affects others.
And while he dismisses the notion of "cultural appropriation" (Chapter 9) he implies that trans people are behaving badly by appropriating cis people's pronouns. Sorry, your next-door neighbor doesn’t "get your pronouns” when you talk about them in the third-person, nor do you steal their pronouns when they talk about you late at night with the door closed.
If a trans or nonbinary person firmly declares our personal identity and path, he refers to us as rigid ideologues and activists, but if we say we’re open-minded to how we might identify in the future, he calls us rootless and confused.
Speaking of denialism, he chooses the example of a trans person murdering a cis person, rather than the other way around (which absolutely happens). He just wants to portray trans people as hallucinating ax-murderers. He says that trans-exclusive cis people have been “threatened with violence, demonised as evil and sacked” without acknowledging that trans people are also threatened, vilified, and fired. He just has no interest in how any event impacts a trans person.
No, you aren't "compelled to convert to a new religion.” No, I'm not treating you as a leper. Your phrase "social leprosy" is a metaphor. Social leprosy doesn't exist, and here's a pro tip for heretics: You can’t make me believe in it.
This isn't the right way to help readers consider what it is to be trans, how much on this topic is knowable or learnable, what rights trans people need, what discrimination is avoidable, whether anyone is ever hateful, whether trans people can feel pain (yes), or why the word "transphobia" is comprehensible, flexible, and useful. O'Neill has no interest in increasing readers' understanding.
The rest of the book broadens his claim that unidentified elites are trying to mind-control the population, while he and his followers (whatever they may believe) are the true heretics, virtuous by believing whatever they believe (that is, by existing, especially as themselves, not having had the misfortune to be born as an LGBTQ person), in the face of certain persecution, despite the admission that nothing’s on fire.
In Chapters 2 and 3, when it comes to climate change and covid, the problem is now that the elites are trying to make him believe too much rather than too little science. In Chapter 4, on Islamophobia, he says that being suspended from a sport is "on the same spectrum of intolerance" as having acid thrown in your face. (What would O’Neill have made of that assertion if a trans person had said it?)
In Chapter 5, regarding Brexit and Trump in 2016, he laments that snobs on the losing sides crassly say that the main problem with democracy is that ignorant folk have equal votes. Well, he neglects to mention power dynamics that complicate that narrative, such as that in 2021 Trump led an insurrection. I do believe people are saying that that is a significant threat to democracy. He also tries to say that democracy is important because of the sheer act of "choosing," distinct from the impact those choices have on others. That's not going to be an A+ paper on ethics. But this is "a world we shape and own and govern"? Yes, and who is the "we"? In Chapter 6, about racist police violence, he portrays a certain democratic discourse he doesn’t like, namely anti-racism, as “conformism.” So, he seems to be saying: Choose, but don't choose that. Deeming others’ ideas to be the product of mere conformity is a convenient way for him to avoid listening or dialoguing with them.
In Chapter 7, he's back on the gay. He’d like you to believe that, in arguing against trans people, he's really defending gay people. In short, his assumption is that cis people can only be attracted to other cis people and are always trans-exclusive in their dating interests. If they weren't, you see, they'd be attracted to just “anyone” passing by. (He mentions an 1894 gay student magazine at Oxford University but quotes nothing whatsoever from it to demonstrate its trans-exclusivity.) He, and other transphobes who popularize this idea, are making this up. It's logically possible that someone could be attracted to some people (whether cis or trans) and not others. Indeed, some cis people do date trans people, and they're allowed to call themselves straight, gay, or bi. O'Neill's cruel joke amounts to: Trans people are phobic haters against everyone they try to date because they haven't considered that these people might not want to date them. After worrying that post-transition trans people are trying to insert themselves into gay dating scenes, he switches to a contradictory trope, which is that gender transition is a kind of conversion therapy to turn self-hating gay people into straight people. He doesn't address the obvious contradiction. Instead, he wails, “witness the extraordinary persecutions" an anti-transgender group has faced, as he names no such persecutions. As he has it, critics circulated petitions “to deprive it [the group] of Lottery funding, to demand that the UK Charity Commission rescind its charitable status," and one of its co-founders shed a tear over not getting to decide whether someone else was a lesbian, weeping: "We will not be erased." Extraordinary? Persecutions? The takeaway for gay cis people: As long as you oppose trans people, you’re O'Neill's kind of heretic. Otherwise, you’re just another queer person for whom he and his followers have no use.
In Chapter 8, he complains that his team gets accused of “hate speech.” He doesn't examine the arguments for why someone might not have appreciated any particular thing that was said. In Chapter 9, he implies that every young queer person should be treated with skepticism, since increasing numbers of young people are identifying as LGBTQ and they might be faking these identities for attention. In Chapter 10, he says that “where words hurt — and they do — censorship hurts more." When trans people say they feel "erased," they're pretending that others' words can genocide them, he says — forgetting that (as I pointed out) in a previous chapter he had lauded a cis lesbian for saying "We will not be erased." Yet another example of something that he finds good when cis people say it and bad when trans people say it. He goes on to make an analogy that, when trans people's feelings are wounded by anti-trans people, it's the same as when 16th-century "Catholic zealots" felt wounded by Protestant Reformers. Of course, there is no transgender Vatican.
This book is incorrect.
I wrote more in "The People Who Use LGB-Minus-T Are Homophobes" (12-min) and "Being Transgender is Homophobic? That’s Trope, Not Truth" (53-min). Beyond that, I have nothing more to say.
June 30, 2023
The New York Times often reverentially referred to as “The Newspaper of Record,” recently published a front-page story titled “When Students Change Gender Identity and Parents Don’t Know.” The story began by reporting the experience of a mother who learned that her biologically female teenager was, with the approval of her child’s school, using a male name and pronouns, a fact of which the mother had not been informed. Consistent with its use throughout the story of the words “he” and ‘his” in referring to the teenager, the article at one point noted that the student had requested “surgery to remove his breasts.”
Eye-catching, certainly, but not quite at the level of this classic in an earlier report about the issues faced by a biological girl when, in accordance with her gender identification, she used the boys’ bathroom: "There were practical issues. When he had his period, he wondered if he should revert to the girls’ bathroom, because there was no place to throw away his used tampons.”
At a time when a newspaper like the New York Times and many other mainstream institutions take a knee to this kind of insanity, we are in dire need of truth tellers to call them out. As shown in his new collection of essays, "A Heretic’s Manifesto," commonsense will find no more brilliant and cutting a champion in the face of such nonsense than Brendan O’Neil.
He begins by telling us that “[w]e need to talk about her penis.” Nothing, he says, better captures today’s irrationalism and its attendant authoritarianism than the commonplace use of this nonsensical phrase, not only in the fever swamps of the Internet but also in the respectable press. O’Neill cites multiple examples from the British press – and even from police reports and judicial proceedings -- that fully equal in their absurdity those that I have cited above. In several instances, they caused this reader to dissolve into laughter.
Although he is a very funny writer, O’Neill doesn’t think amusement is the right reaction to what he tells us. He recognizes, as did George Orwell, that language can be manipulated to limit and control thought. “Using people’s preferred pronouns, dutifully making a reference like her penis,” he writes, “are not mere acts of niceness but rather are signifiers of subservience to the disrupting ideology of transgenderism.” They sanctify “people’s subjective delusions over and above objective truth,” reflecting “the legion untruths we are all forced to labour under in this era of linguistic and moral tyranny.”
To those who might find this an overstatement of a peril imagined largely by conservatives, Mr. O’Neill counters that the ubiquity of a falsehood of such magnitude “confirms just how insidious the overhaul of speech and thought has become in our era.” He is correct. This is about more than “gender fluidity.”
It is the same post-modern malarkey that has caused the University of Arizona to issue a handbook titled “Diversity and Inclusiveness in the Classroom” asserting that classroom debate “must be an 'accessible space,'” and that “sharing should be based on one’s own feelings, experiences and perceptions.” The handbook discourages students from rebutting feelings that don’t jibe with verifiable reality. Should someone inadvertently challenge a student's feelings by citing factual evidence, the student whose emotions have thus been disrespected is encouraged to say “ouch.”
The same Wall Street Journal column reports that college debate competitions must now be preceded by a pre-debate "on the terms of engagement: whether students are required to cite proof or are free to argue wholly from their feelings and so-called “lived experience.”
Put aside that unless certain physical and mathematical truths are accepted, there will be no further progress in science and technology. How are we ever going to talk to each other about any public issue if we can't argue from evidence-based truth?
And beyond that, O’Neill says, requiring people to genuflect to such rubbish as the price of social acceptability is nothing less than totalitarian.
Early in "Nineteen Eighty-Four," Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, writes this heretical thought in his secret journal: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
And if that is denied – or if social pressure make us hesitant to say “he is he” and “she is she” – we are on the road to unfreedom.
O’Neill’s opening essay on ”Her Penis” is the best in "A Heretic’s Manifesto" and well reflects his view that such outlandish claptrap must be resisted, resolutely and unflinchingly, even if anodyne acceptance would be more socially convenient. But his eviscerations of climate catastrophizing, the Covid lockdown, white self-abnegation, unwarranted claims of “Islamophobia” and the hysterical reaction of transgender ideologues to feminists who stand up for women’s rights, are also bracing, and will delight at least those who share his outlook on these subjects.
Highly recommended.
Eye-catching, certainly, but not quite at the level of this classic in an earlier report about the issues faced by a biological girl when, in accordance with her gender identification, she used the boys’ bathroom: "There were practical issues. When he had his period, he wondered if he should revert to the girls’ bathroom, because there was no place to throw away his used tampons.”
At a time when a newspaper like the New York Times and many other mainstream institutions take a knee to this kind of insanity, we are in dire need of truth tellers to call them out. As shown in his new collection of essays, "A Heretic’s Manifesto," commonsense will find no more brilliant and cutting a champion in the face of such nonsense than Brendan O’Neil.
He begins by telling us that “[w]e need to talk about her penis.” Nothing, he says, better captures today’s irrationalism and its attendant authoritarianism than the commonplace use of this nonsensical phrase, not only in the fever swamps of the Internet but also in the respectable press. O’Neill cites multiple examples from the British press – and even from police reports and judicial proceedings -- that fully equal in their absurdity those that I have cited above. In several instances, they caused this reader to dissolve into laughter.
Although he is a very funny writer, O’Neill doesn’t think amusement is the right reaction to what he tells us. He recognizes, as did George Orwell, that language can be manipulated to limit and control thought. “Using people’s preferred pronouns, dutifully making a reference like her penis,” he writes, “are not mere acts of niceness but rather are signifiers of subservience to the disrupting ideology of transgenderism.” They sanctify “people’s subjective delusions over and above objective truth,” reflecting “the legion untruths we are all forced to labour under in this era of linguistic and moral tyranny.”
To those who might find this an overstatement of a peril imagined largely by conservatives, Mr. O’Neill counters that the ubiquity of a falsehood of such magnitude “confirms just how insidious the overhaul of speech and thought has become in our era.” He is correct. This is about more than “gender fluidity.”
It is the same post-modern malarkey that has caused the University of Arizona to issue a handbook titled “Diversity and Inclusiveness in the Classroom” asserting that classroom debate “must be an 'accessible space,'” and that “sharing should be based on one’s own feelings, experiences and perceptions.” The handbook discourages students from rebutting feelings that don’t jibe with verifiable reality. Should someone inadvertently challenge a student's feelings by citing factual evidence, the student whose emotions have thus been disrespected is encouraged to say “ouch.”
The same Wall Street Journal column reports that college debate competitions must now be preceded by a pre-debate "on the terms of engagement: whether students are required to cite proof or are free to argue wholly from their feelings and so-called “lived experience.”
Put aside that unless certain physical and mathematical truths are accepted, there will be no further progress in science and technology. How are we ever going to talk to each other about any public issue if we can't argue from evidence-based truth?
And beyond that, O’Neill says, requiring people to genuflect to such rubbish as the price of social acceptability is nothing less than totalitarian.
Early in "Nineteen Eighty-Four," Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, writes this heretical thought in his secret journal: “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
And if that is denied – or if social pressure make us hesitant to say “he is he” and “she is she” – we are on the road to unfreedom.
O’Neill’s opening essay on ”Her Penis” is the best in "A Heretic’s Manifesto" and well reflects his view that such outlandish claptrap must be resisted, resolutely and unflinchingly, even if anodyne acceptance would be more socially convenient. But his eviscerations of climate catastrophizing, the Covid lockdown, white self-abnegation, unwarranted claims of “Islamophobia” and the hysterical reaction of transgender ideologues to feminists who stand up for women’s rights, are also bracing, and will delight at least those who share his outlook on these subjects.
Highly recommended.
December 27, 2025
These types of books are often a mixed bag due to the perspectives, blindspots, and biases of the authors involved, and this case is no different.
For the positive, some of these chapters are quite good, with the ones on gender ideology probably being the best overall. The author’s insistence on free thought, free speech, and the power of heresy is vital and important.
However, some of the chapters are poorly written and poorly conceived and they illuminate the biases and blindspots of the author. The worst is the second chapter “Witch-Finding” wherein he bafflingly compares and equates the scapegoating of poor women in 16th century Europe for bad weather with the public and the scientific community in the 21st century correctly blaming the fossil fuel industries for global warming. The author equating these things merely because they both superficially involve changes in the weather is ludicrous and leaves a bad taste in the reader’s mouth for the rest of the book.
Likewise, you get the sense that the author really does hate Islam, and not just Islamism. To be clear, one can criticize both, but they are not the same thing. Too often the author seems to equate a 14 century old religious tradition with billions of adherents (past and present) with a modern 20th century political ideology. Again, people can and should criticize religions, but do so accurately. Part of the nobility of heresy is that you are speaking truth rather than spewing bigotry.
You also get the sense that there are topics for which the author does think people should be censored. Criticism of Israel is one, and in retrospect the nature and orientation of the author’s next book makes this sentiment all the more glaring. The author seems to also be opposed to any and all criticism of capitalism. These issues solidly place the author on the side of the orthodoxy and make his claims to be a heretic inconsistent at best.
For the positive, some of these chapters are quite good, with the ones on gender ideology probably being the best overall. The author’s insistence on free thought, free speech, and the power of heresy is vital and important.
However, some of the chapters are poorly written and poorly conceived and they illuminate the biases and blindspots of the author. The worst is the second chapter “Witch-Finding” wherein he bafflingly compares and equates the scapegoating of poor women in 16th century Europe for bad weather with the public and the scientific community in the 21st century correctly blaming the fossil fuel industries for global warming. The author equating these things merely because they both superficially involve changes in the weather is ludicrous and leaves a bad taste in the reader’s mouth for the rest of the book.
Likewise, you get the sense that the author really does hate Islam, and not just Islamism. To be clear, one can criticize both, but they are not the same thing. Too often the author seems to equate a 14 century old religious tradition with billions of adherents (past and present) with a modern 20th century political ideology. Again, people can and should criticize religions, but do so accurately. Part of the nobility of heresy is that you are speaking truth rather than spewing bigotry.
You also get the sense that there are topics for which the author does think people should be censored. Criticism of Israel is one, and in retrospect the nature and orientation of the author’s next book makes this sentiment all the more glaring. The author seems to also be opposed to any and all criticism of capitalism. These issues solidly place the author on the side of the orthodoxy and make his claims to be a heretic inconsistent at best.
July 13, 2024
A World Turned Upside Down
In his excellent book “A Heretic’s Manifesto”, political writer, commentator, and podcaster Brendan O’Neill examines some of the multitude of examples of our postmodern world turned upside down. Just when you might have thought you had heard everything, O’Neill offers astounding new examples of how groupthink, critical theory, culture cancelling, identity politics and other such phenomena have rapidly permeated western thinking, if “thinking” in fact is at work at all. He touches on how gender, sexuality, and white shaming, among other current ideologies have so successfully become mainstream so quickly in spite of the flaws inherent in them. In effect, these departures from basic reason and traditional values have become the new orthodoxy, and that which has been orthodox in most of western civilization has become the new heresy. Hence, “The Heretic’s Manifesto” turns heresy and orthodoxy upside down and defends the formerly orthodox, the new heresies, against the irrationality of the newly emerged (and largely untested) orthodoxy. Because the litany of irrationality becomes somewhat taxing as O’Neill develops his manifesto, it is a welcomed final chapter when he encourages the new heretics to speak up against the foolishness of postmodern irrationality that now is so prevalent. Read this excellent book to confirm that your thinking is sound and it is the timid world around us that has allowed orthodoxy (literally, “true thinking”) to be demoted to heresy. The truth will out.
In his excellent book “A Heretic’s Manifesto”, political writer, commentator, and podcaster Brendan O’Neill examines some of the multitude of examples of our postmodern world turned upside down. Just when you might have thought you had heard everything, O’Neill offers astounding new examples of how groupthink, critical theory, culture cancelling, identity politics and other such phenomena have rapidly permeated western thinking, if “thinking” in fact is at work at all. He touches on how gender, sexuality, and white shaming, among other current ideologies have so successfully become mainstream so quickly in spite of the flaws inherent in them. In effect, these departures from basic reason and traditional values have become the new orthodoxy, and that which has been orthodox in most of western civilization has become the new heresy. Hence, “The Heretic’s Manifesto” turns heresy and orthodoxy upside down and defends the formerly orthodox, the new heresies, against the irrationality of the newly emerged (and largely untested) orthodoxy. Because the litany of irrationality becomes somewhat taxing as O’Neill develops his manifesto, it is a welcomed final chapter when he encourages the new heretics to speak up against the foolishness of postmodern irrationality that now is so prevalent. Read this excellent book to confirm that your thinking is sound and it is the timid world around us that has allowed orthodoxy (literally, “true thinking”) to be demoted to heresy. The truth will out.
September 12, 2023
sadly, this book is preaching to the converted and we are already familiar with most of the material. a more cynical me might say it's an easy cash grab, but they are plenty of authors (and appetite) for what will be classified as anti-woke.
Ten chapters are devoted to specific subjects such as trans, Covid, Islam, white shame, and hate speech but, to be honest, most of these subjects bleed together (for example, the 'pretendians' chapter is an extension of white shame - O'Neill even says so. And, naturally, most chapters ended up referencing free speech.) My favourite takeaway was a new response to the concept of words hurting / words as weapons: yes, words have power; they can and do hurt. embrace that as a truth and a good thing. Words shake up the complacent, they upend the social order: don't censor the words that could bring a better tomorrow
Ten chapters are devoted to specific subjects such as trans, Covid, Islam, white shame, and hate speech but, to be honest, most of these subjects bleed together (for example, the 'pretendians' chapter is an extension of white shame - O'Neill even says so. And, naturally, most chapters ended up referencing free speech.) My favourite takeaway was a new response to the concept of words hurting / words as weapons: yes, words have power; they can and do hurt. embrace that as a truth and a good thing. Words shake up the complacent, they upend the social order: don't censor the words that could bring a better tomorrow
May 27, 2025
"One is reminded of the words of French film director Claire Denis when she was challenged for not being politically correct in her films: ‘What the f*ck? I’m not a social worker.’"
I like this one, a little trip into a minefield. There’s a central problem with this book though — he points at the problem and describe it with very well learned quotes, but he barely gives the counter argument.
When he talks about the climate change hysteria, he’s not talking about researches and evidence that show why that data might not back up the claims for a climate disaster. When he talks about Brexit, he’s talking about the political dynamics of the pro and con, not the actual reason why Brexit might actually have been a good idea.
I like this one, a little trip into a minefield. There’s a central problem with this book though — he points at the problem and describe it with very well learned quotes, but he barely gives the counter argument.
When he talks about the climate change hysteria, he’s not talking about researches and evidence that show why that data might not back up the claims for a climate disaster. When he talks about Brexit, he’s talking about the political dynamics of the pro and con, not the actual reason why Brexit might actually have been a good idea.
July 26, 2023
Generally quite a fan of Brendan O'Neill, but not quite sure what the point of this book was... It was a general update on the world over the past five or so years. If you already follow social commentary, then you would already know what's going on, if you don't then you wouldn't be interested anyway. Was hoping for a new insight into the origins or potential solutions to the problems, this book didn't really have anything new to say.
On the other hand, I suppose it would make for a good read for someone who was politically unengaged but has just become interested and needs catching up in the 5 years
On the other hand, I suppose it would make for a good read for someone who was politically unengaged but has just become interested and needs catching up in the 5 years
March 25, 2024
Focused on free speech.
A wonderful expose of the anti-liberal authoritarianism driving today's so-called culture wars. I love that O'Neill doesn't get sidetracked by the actual topics of culture-war debate. He doesn't try to convince the reader about anything - you won't find a discussion of whether or not trans women should be allowed in female changing rooms, or whether it is racist to be anti-white, etc - he just maintains a laser forms on one issue: free speech. An excellent read.
A wonderful expose of the anti-liberal authoritarianism driving today's so-called culture wars. I love that O'Neill doesn't get sidetracked by the actual topics of culture-war debate. He doesn't try to convince the reader about anything - you won't find a discussion of whether or not trans women should be allowed in female changing rooms, or whether it is racist to be anti-white, etc - he just maintains a laser forms on one issue: free speech. An excellent read.
August 14, 2023
I have to give this 3 stars as my own personal feelings towards this book, but I fully understand why some would give it 5. I gave it 3 because I think I'm not the intended target audience. Me reading this book felt very much like preaching to the converted. These are all great essays, well worth anyone time to read. But I found myself just agreeing with opinions I already held which is never very fun.
October 3, 2023
A tough book to read as it is almost incomprehensible to believe how far we have sunk into political correctness and wokeness over the last thirty years. With a few small exceptions, we have destroyed the university system and general education cannot be far behind. While I may not agree with everything that Brendan O’Neill does, I do believe in his right to say it.
November 20, 2024
Good on Brendan to write this book. I saw somewhere that Brendan could be the new Christopher Hitchens, and this book is definitely a step in the right direction. We need more of this to make the powerful tremble and become scared. We need more people to say”I don’t need a seconder. My own thoughts are enough for me. Anyone who disagrees can pick a number, stand in line and kiss my ass”. (CH)
April 27, 2025
Things that need to be said!
Terrific review of the risks of dogma and censorship. I wish every young person who is being indoctrinated into “Newspeak” would read this book. Alas, it is likely too late for their mentors but perhaps it would cultivate more free thinking “heretics” among the next generations
Terrific review of the risks of dogma and censorship. I wish every young person who is being indoctrinated into “Newspeak” would read this book. Alas, it is likely too late for their mentors but perhaps it would cultivate more free thinking “heretics” among the next generations
July 14, 2023
Know thyself and speak up.
Words can be hurtful. Words are our secret power as individuals. As our culture and politics demands linguistic limits, it also limits our expressions, which limit our self-knowledge. This self-knowledge that we lose, invites group think.
Words can be hurtful. Words are our secret power as individuals. As our culture and politics demands linguistic limits, it also limits our expressions, which limit our self-knowledge. This self-knowledge that we lose, invites group think.
May 24, 2024
Fantastic takedown of the lunacy of the western woke culture. You know he’s right judging by the way some leftists are writing extended reviews in a futile attempt to discredit this incredibly insightful book.
May 31, 2024
While I think this book raised some interesting points about the way debate is handled these days and the topics considered no-go, I found the writing rather turgid and strung out, which is likely to lessened any impact that may arise from the subject matter.
July 8, 2024
This enlightening book covers lots of current topics, from transgender issues, to words as weapons, Islamophobia, witch-hunts, COVID as metaphor, and white shame. I enjoyed the way it brought together the history of these themes, with current problems with them.
September 4, 2023
I can’t remember what got me to buy this book!
January 8, 2024
A bracing reminder of how far we've strayed from our most important beliefs. Essential reading.
April 1, 2024
Well researched and interesting
September 13, 2024
Brilliant. In defence of reason, free speech, and the right to challenge the divisive ideologies of our modern times. Highly recommended.
August 12, 2025
Meh, nothing new, but readable.
November 14, 2025
I enjoy his articles on the Spiked app. It was nice having a few in one place.
unfinished
February 4, 2025Unexpectedly insightful. Well worth reading. He gets it; the interpretation of current-day evildoing as anti-modernism: "Ours is an era of a great turn against modernity, of repulsion with industry, of an exhaustion of faith in the project of mastering nature to the economic and moral end of making a world that works for humankind."
I read a bit now and then, and got about half way through. This isn't really important or life-changing reading, so it's more for fun, and tends to have low priority in the reading pipeline.
I read a bit now and then, and got about half way through. This isn't really important or life-changing reading, so it's more for fun, and tends to have low priority in the reading pipeline.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews