Category Archives: Political Correctness

Image via Prime Video

It is rather ironic that mere decades after his death, J.R.R. Tolkiens worst fears about the unbridled evil of industrialization should come after his lifes work and set about the desolation of the impressive Arda legendarium, itself one of the greatest works of literary fiction in history and, dare we claim, the cornerstone of all modern speculative fiction.

While that statement might admittedly be a much too dramatic way of announcing a new Lord of the Rings adaptation is on the way, it perhaps underpins what most Tolkien fans fear these days after witnessing, over the past few years, the rapidly shifting landscape of entertainment, where the need for quantity to feed the furnace of the unruly content frenzy of the streaming age precedes quality and capitalizes on substance rather than value.

Perhaps thats also the reason why most Lord of the Rings fans were too quick to cheer on the licensing deal between Amazon Studios and the Tolkien Estate back in 2017, oblivious to impending industry standards for most adaptations that would attempt to succeed Game of Thrones as the next big fantasy series. Now, more than five years after the deal was struck, Amazon is preparing to introduce the world to The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, which they refer to not only as their most ambitious undertaking but factually as the most expensive production in the history of television.

The only catch is that while at first, it seemed like a brilliant idea to resurrect Middle-earth nearly two decades after Peter Jacksons highly acclaimed cinematic trilogy, fans are now showing an ill disposition towards The Rings of Power and anything it might have to say about their favorite work of genre fiction, even if theyve seen far too little to leave them with an unbiased impression.

Right now, the overwhelming majority of comments under anything related to The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power are negative and disparaging towards the companys perceived half-hearted attempt at playing in the grown-ups league of streaming giants such as Netflix and Disney Plus, and theres a good reason why.

Jeff Bezos might claim that this is a passion project for him, but the timing is way too convenient for anyone to believe that. It all goes back to what Tolkien intended with his creation and how it influenced speculative fiction, or more specifically, the high fantasy genre.

Tolkien is now widely regarded as the father of modern fantasy, influencing most of the works that succeeded it in the past several decades. The Linguist professor had sensed a lack of mythos in the British literary canon, and the only story that barely resembled anything of the sort he had in mind involved the Arthurian legend, which was largely developed in France when the two countries were at each others throats in the Middle Ages.

But Tolkiens work, especially through The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, blended mythology with the storytelling tropes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, spearheading a literary movement that would help define the entertainment industry as we know it today.

From the early days when dozens of creative writers tried to imitate the success of The Lord of the Rings by untastefully rehashing everything he had done in his story, to prominent Hollywood moguls cautiously dipping their toes into the untraveled waters of speculative fiction in search of gold, the world of Middle-earth has inspired artists and their patrons as usual driven mad by the greed of filling their coffers even more to take a crack at the seemingly impossible case of J.R.R. Tolkien.

I mean, if he could do it, if he could write one of the best-selling novels of all time and become a cultural sensation across the pond from where he lived, so could they, right? Whats more, Tolkien proved to the world that fantastical stories have the potential to be just as profound as what literary snobs refer to as serious literature, so theres no reason it could suddenly stop working or not yield as many fruitful results in other mediums.

And so began the nerd era. While J.R.R. Tolkien definitely wasnt the only creator to influence and inspire the rise of geekdom, he kickstarted the high fantasy movement, in whose shadow the bespoke Mount Tolkien many authors have risen to prominence and success, namely Robert Jordan with his Wheel of Time series and George R.R. Martin with A Song of Ice and Fire.

Of course, todays fantasy landscape bears the name of many acclaimed writers besides the most obvious and popular contenders, each contributing a novel note to this ever-expanding orchestra of imaginative brilliance. (Brandon Sanderson with Mistborn and The Stormlight Archive, Patrick Rothfuss with The Kingkiller Chronicle, Joe Abercrombie with The First Law, Robin Hobb with The Realm of Elderlings, etc.)

But no two names have managed to become so embedded into the public psyche as J.R.R. Tolkien and George R.R. Martin have across the years, and thats mostly thanks to the cinematic medium.

The release of Peter Jacksons The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and its subsequent box office success and critical acclaim, not only reinforced interest in Tolkiens work but also ruffled a few feathers in the speculative sphere of the entertainment industry. What predictably followed was a string of unsuccessful and half-hearted attempts at recapturing Jacksons magic, but lightning would refuse to strike twice until the time came for an unassuming new high fantasy adaptation by HBO to take the world by storm.

Game of Thrones becoming the most popular television series in the world coincided with the golden age of television, a perfect prologue to the age of streaming, by the grace of which were constantly, and perhaps too incessantly, entertained. But as HBOs hit fantasy series slowly crept up on an inevitable end and in hindsight, an altogether controversial and middling one industry moguls quickly got to work brainstorming about the next big fantasy series to take its place in the public psyche, and what better IP than the story that spawned this industry in the first place?

It might have taken them a long time to get here and make the series, but Amazon is in this for the numbers and people recognize it, or else theyd have tried their hand at adapting other novel fantasy stories floating on the edges of awareness, begging to be picked up by a producer.

Now, you might say that the entertainment industry isnt here for the sake of making great art at least not solely and youd be completely right. In any business, the idea is to always capitalize on returns, and Amazon is an absolute powerhouse in this regard. Things become problematic, however, when you factor in the companys track record and the overall trend of adaptations over the past several years, which brings us to our next point.

The Lord of the Rings took many years of Peter Jacksons life because it was an absolute behemoth of a story to spin into existence. But what you ever so subtly discern when watching those movies is the fact that a lot of effort and passion went into making sure that they would become timeless masterpieces. And even if you dont find the creative footprint of that effort tangible, the extensive behind-the-scenes footage left of the work on that trilogy will put any such doubt to rest.

That dedication and passion is something that a lot of adaptations are missing out on today. Because nowadays, when it comes to producing movies and TV shows, youre confronted with a checklist of ideas that come directly out of out-of-touch focus groups that care nothing more than to cater to the whims of their demographics or the so-called genre tropes that theyre certain will work.

Dont get me wrong; Im not talking about political correctness and the warring cultural fronts that have divided audiences right down the middle. The problem occurs when these established narratives and character tropes that must have no doubt yielded great results in the past become the golden foundation on which almost every studio builds its stories, resulting in a long list of adaptations that not only fail to capture the essence of their source material but fail to even work in their own mediums as decent works of entertainment art, being neither entertaining nor artistic.

Netflixs The Witcher, HBOs His Dark Materials, Amazons own The Wheel of Time, Apple TVs Foundation, and even inspired stories like Cursed are but a few contenders in this category. Some of these adaptations are decent enough, mind you, but when all is said and all is done, none have managed to highlight what makes their source material such a lasting work of art, not like The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones have.

And who is to blame them? For streaming giants, the most important thing is to pick up a culturally relevant and adequately popular story and churn it into content. More and more content, thats what we need. Its all about filling up that watchlist and keeping audiences engaged. Youre done with this fantasy series? Well, dont you worry, you can just hop into another world with a few clicks of your TV remote. And if that doesnt hook you, its no bother whatsoever, because there are dozens more to take its place. Youre eventually going to find what youre looking for, contented, and spend even more time on the platform, if for nothing else than the sheer frustration of going through those endless lists.

Suffice it to say, audiences have slowly recognized a pattern here, so its no wonder that theyre on the fence when it comes to The Lord of the Rings, a story that deeply resonates with them and brings to mind memories of much simpler times.

Consequently, there are many reasons why folks simply dont want to have anything to do with The Rings of Power, or even remotely acknowledge it at the edges of their conscious awareness, despite not having seen a single episode of the new series.

But what if there was a small chance, perhaps barely there, that could turn this reception narrative around on its head?

Because unlike all those other adaptations we talked about, and the general trend of the industry, Amazons adaptation has managed to get a few things right, things that actually go a long way in putting fan concerns to rest.

Perhaps chiefly among them, despite having every reason to not do so, Amazon decided to take their time with this adaption and do it justice. Instead of rushing a television production after acquiring the rights in November 2017, as any company would do especially if theirs was to spearhead a replacement for Game of Thrones Amazon took its time and realized that one does not simply make a Lord of the Rings television series.

Its been almost five years since the Tolkien Estate struck that deal, which means that the crew of The Rings of Power has spent years in pre-production, as Peter Jackson had done, to make sure that every piece of the puzzle falls seamlessly into place. Did they have to spend so much time? We know that a company of HBOs standing is perfectly capable of making a season of television in less than two years, so why take all of that time if all you care about is profit?

Another instance of this proposed hopeful outlook comes courtesy of several creatives whom Amazon has consulted or even contracted from The Lord of the Rings trilogy to help them realize this vision. The inclusion of Howard Shore as the composer for the main theme, and John Howe as the graphic artist for world building purposes, sends across a clear signal: We know how much the trilogy means to you. So, were going to make sure that the language of our world is synonymous with the Middle-earth youve grown to love.

And ultimately, wed be remiss to not mention the elephant in the room. Amazon has already spent something close to $500 million on the first season of The Rings of Power, making it, effectively, the most expensive television production in the history of this medium. While we all know that dedicating these egregious sums isnt necessarily going to put a dent in Amazons deepless purse, this pattern of behavior once again fails to correspond to the trend of the industry.

As stated earlier, the goal of this business is to capitalize on profits, which means that Amazon didnt have to go this big. Whether wed want to admit it or not, the company is taking a gamble here, one that they know wont pay off if the series is anything other than spectacular and immediately popular.

It would also do to note all the reassuring things showrunners J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay have repeatedly said over the past few months, but if youre already feeling skeptical of the series, nothing that they have to say is going to change your mind, which is why we decided to stick with an otherwise outside perspective for this piece.

Ultimately, The Lord of the Rings fans have every right to their misgivings about The Rings of Power. But at the same time, I dont think the franchise as a whole would benefit from any of us auguring its doom before the time has come.

I might live to regret these words, but perhaps, and against my better judgment, I should like to give the series a chance to prove its merit.

View post:

The Reason Why 'The Rings of Power' Is So Controversial - We Got This Covered

I was delighted to read that the Tavistock gender identity clinic will be shut down by the foundation after a review found it "not safe" for child patients

Much in the same way that political correctness meant that we ignored the stories of girls being raped by grooming gangs for fear of accusations of racism, we also missed the plight of vulnerable girls for fear of accusations of transphobia or bigotry.

Some of these girls were prescribed a diet of puberty blockers, hormone treatments and even surgical intervention.

These are the words of Keira Bell, who transitioned to a trans male as a teenager but came to regret it: There was no exploration of the feelings that I had, no psychiatric assessment it was very brief and based on my recent past.

"There was no in-depth discussion.

Keira made history in a landmark court case that exposed the gender identity development service at the Tavistock and portman clinic in London.

She was put on puberty blockers at age 16. A year later, she was receiving testosterone shots. When she was 20, she had a double mastectomy.

Keira is possibly unable to have children, has lost her breasts, and now has a changed voice and facial hair.

She regretted all of those things and said the clinic should have challenged her decision to go ahead with the treatment more robustly.

You may well think 'well, thats fine, Darren.' Sometimes people make mistakes and regret the decisions that theyve made.

I agree with that. The problem is that ideology has arguably been placed above protecting children, the most essential part of any decent society.

A fear of accusations of some-ism or -phobia, in my opinion, is preventing some professionals from pursuing therapeutic options.

The number of people seeking the clinic's help is 20 times higher than it was a decade ago, jumping from 250 to 5,000 referrals in 2021.

Why didnt such a jump trigger an immediate internal investigation?

In Keiras case, the court noted the practitioners at the Tavistock clinic didnt put forward any clinical explanation for the dramatic rise in girls.

They also expressed surprise at its failure to collate data on the age of patients when they began puberty blockers.

When the courts accepted the case, the NHS asserted that the effects of puberty blockers are fully reversible.

But the NHS then reversed that assertion, acknowledging that little is known about the long-term side-effects on a teenagers body or brain.

Thats why I was delighted to read that the Tavistock gender identity clinic will be shut down by the foundation after a review found it "not safe" for child patients.

A BBC Newsnight report claimed that some parents would take their child to the clinic and openly admit that theyd prefer a trans outcome over a gay outcome.

All the while, the NHS was pitching itself as progressive in its pursuit of puberty prevention.

Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust released a statement in response the clinic's closure, saying: "Their staff have worked tirelessly and under intense scrutiny in a difficult climate.

"We are proud and thankful for their extraordinary efforts."

I'm not sure those words will mean much to girls like Kiera Bell

NHS England rightly commissioned the Cass review in 2020 amid concerns that there was scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making, which saw children as young as 10 given puberty blockers.

Theres now going to be a review conducted into their effects of them. Dr Cass review is ongoing, and the final report is due in 2023 so folks who knows what else it might find.

I say that, in seeking to pander to whackery and wokery and identity politics, we've said to hell with the mental health support and ushered in an era of automatic affirmation of gender ID ideology.

Adolescence is difficult; for some, its hell.

It is said that 90 percent of children who start on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones, eventually getting surgeries like mastectomies.

To hell with political correctness. In my opinion Its an outrage that some adults have allowed this to happen and only now accepted the need for a review.

This is why free speech is so important. Why is an honest debate so important? So that we can reach the best possible conclusions about complex topics just like this one.

Read this article:

To hell with political correctness, it's an outrage adults missed the plight of vulnerable girls for fear of accusations of transphobia, says Darren...

Our obsession with political correctness has now led us to censorship of words. We now have to be diligent, almost paranoid, before we pen down a word or utter it. A Big-Brother-ish nightmare, where anything and everything we say is examined, dissected, evaluated, weighed, criticised, and we are rebuked and cancelled for it too.

I mean, have you ever thought who are these people who keep mucking about and changing the meanings of words? Is it the mischief of a single individual, or a secret society of wordsmiths who meet every 50 years, change the meanings of words, and giggle and die?

This week, a 50-page compilation of words was released by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, which certified certain words as unparliamentary. Words like jumlajeevi, Covid spreader, ashamed, abused, betrayed, hypocrisy, anarchist, corrupt, criminal, hooliganism, drama, eyewash, lie, and incompetent are among them.

While the honourable MPs rush and grab their copies of Wren & Martin to brush up on synonyms, here are a few to aid them in maintaining the sanctity and decorum of the temple of democracy. Duplicity and insincerity can be the new hypocrisy, while incapable, inefficient and inept substitute incompetent. How about replacing betrayed with fooled, gulled, bamboozled (this one I am sure Mr Tharoor will use), and duped.

A person with a criminal record can be described as a malefactor or lawbreaker. When MPs throw chairs in Parliament (we havent seen this in a long time) or party cadres resort to fisticuffs on the campaign trail, we can refer to the incident as disorderly behaviour instead of hooliganism. The word corrupt can be replaced with fraudulent, unethical and untrustworthy.

Taking the debate outside Parliament, we can also no longer use the word psycho. Even if the person has plunged a pencil right through your hand and is now threatening to pierce your eyeballs with a geometry compass remember society will shun you if you call them psycho! Instead, choose acceptable words like oddball, or even the fancy capricious as you sip on your Orange pekoe Darjeeling tea with a stiff upper lip while trying not to drool as the tea slips out from the corner of your mouth.

Some other words that we no longer can use are midget,retarded, and my favourite, homeless. Instead, say someone who is experiencing homelessness.' I am sure the person already knows that they are experiencing the phenomenon. Imaginegoing up to a homeless person and asking, Sir, are you lost or experiencing homelessness? What do you think the answer would be? Frankly, it is not an amusement park ride that they are experiencing!

In the US, a midget (now a derogatory slur) is called a little person or person of short stature.' Now if I was one, I would kick the shins of every person (unable to reach the persons face) who called me little.So remember, the next time you want to have a conversation with an elderly, alcoholic, homeless, crazy, fat person, you must refer to them as 'a senior, preposterous, adipose-harbouring person with a substance abuse disorder who is experiencing homelessness.'

Word!

AnirbanBhattacharyya

abcomedyshow@gmail.com

Author, actor and standup comic

Read more:

The politics of political correctness - The New Indian Express

The woke Left has a talent for taking anything and everything and turning it into something by which they can be offended.

Take, for example, a recent online interaction following President Joe Bidens COVID diagnosis last week. After announcing that Biden had tested positive for the virus, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre clarified that Biden is still putting in 8-plus hours of work a day. To the average person, the most offensive part of this statement is the pretense that Biden puts in 8-plus hours of work on any typical day, whether he has COVID-19 or not. But to Yale Medical School professor Dr. Kimberly Sue, Jean-Pierres statement wasnt just unbelievable, it was racist.

In a now-deleted tweet, the professor wrote, POTUS working while having COVID infection epitomizes white supremacy urgency in the workplace. Sets a bad example for everyone that he cannot rest. COVID infection is serious, symptoms debilitating for many, and ppl should take time off without working through it.

Only in Sues warped, hyperpartisan imagination could Bidens COVID diagnosis be connected to white supremacy. But this is what the Left does: They twist and distort even benign statements like Jean-Pierres in order to make themselves out to be the victims. And its time conservatives stopped playing along.

We might learn a thing or two from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who shut down a reporter earlier this week with just two words, cutting off all future debate.

Speaking at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Florida last weekend, Gaetz made some admittedly distasteful comments about pro-abortion women. Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb, he said, drawing laughter from the crowd.

Gaetz continued, These people are odious! Theyre like [5 feet, 2 inches tall], 350 pounds, and theyre like, Give me my abortion.'

No, it wasnt the most diplomatic comment for a public figure to make. Maybe Gaetz shouldnt have joked about the appearance of pro-abortion activists. But given the way the Left often characterizes Trump supporters, its not like his jokes were unprecedented or beyond the pale.

But what stood out about Gaetzs comments was his refusal to back down from them. Asked later whether he meant to suggest that women at these abortion rallies are ugly and overweight, Gaetz said yes.

What do you say to people who think those comments are offensive? the reporter asked.

Be offended, Gaetz replied.

The congressmans response shut down the conversation. Rather than apologizing for his remarks, he acknowledged them and refused to cave to political correctness. He may have been brash, but he didnt leave himself vulnerable.

The truth is that political mea culpas in general rarely end well. But apologies from conservatives, particularly for a perceived racial or gender-related slight, never end well. And thats because the Left doesnt want an admission of wrongdoing it wants complete capitulation.

Conservatives must stop bowing to the whims of the woke. We dont have to pretend men can get pregnant or that changing ones gender is courageous and something to be celebrated. We shouldn't go along with leftists' attempts to make everything about race. And we should call out and mock radical professors at Ivy League universities who think theres a link between working eight hours a day after a COVID diagnosis and white supremacy.

Gaetz showed us how its done, and wed be wise to take note. If the Left finds our remarks to be offensive, so what? They should be offended.

Elizabeth Stauffer is a contract writer at the Western Journal.Her articles have appeared on many conservative websites, including RedState, Newsmax, theFederalist,Bongino.com, HotAir, MSN, andRealClearPolitics. Follow Elizabeth onTwitter orLinkedIn.

See the rest here:

'Be offended': How to shut down the woke mob with two words - Washington Examiner

Youve probably noticed that Mr. Men and Little Miss characters are everywhere right now, as part of a viral trend thats taking over Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. Heres the reason why.

Far from the simple and cute characters of the original books, these 2022 reboots are being used to highlight darker, more toxic sides of peoples personalities and attitudes although always with humour.

On social networks, trauma has become one of the driving forces of online humor. Making fun of ones own toxic traits or about difficult situations from the past is an endless source of content for users of these platforms, especially when it comes to making memes. And all of this is reflected in a new viral social media trend involving the Mr. Men and Little Miss books and characters.

[Hero and featured image credit: @littlem1ssss/Instagram]

The Mr. Men and Little Miss series of books were launched in 1971 and 1981 respectively by the British author Roger Hargreaves, and were all themed on particular character traits, such as Mr. Nosy, Little Miss Brave, etc. But they were always politically correct traits. If the books have been a hit for decades, the trend for all things eighties riding high on social networks has helped turn them into a viral hit, 2022-style.

This time, the Mr. Men and Little Miss characters have veered away from political correctness. From toxic traits and insecurities to illness and emotional trauma, users have seized on this meme to share intimate aspects of their own lives and poke fun at their situation: Little Miss cries herself to sleep every night, Little Miss house is a mess because shes depressed, Little Miss stressed and sad thinking about her future every night. This kind of behaviour is often seen on social networks, where people can speak more freely and where showing oneself in a more authentic light complete with flaws is becoming increasingly common. And it works! On Twitter, some posts have scored over 60,000 Likes.

The origin of the first such meme is credited to @juulpuppy, who posted a first version of Little Miss Borderline Personality Disorder on April 19 on Instagram, but the trend only went viral in mid-July. This account is well known for creating original memes on the Meta-owned platform. On Instagram, the hashtags #LittleMissMemes and #LittleMiss have over 5,000 and over 404,000 posts respectively, while on TikTok, the hashtags #LittleMiss and #LittleMissTrend score 103.3 million views and 1.6 million views.

Since then, brands like Poosh, Kourtney Kardashians lifestyle site, have even posted their own takes on the Little Miss trend on Instagram. Then, the brand Sandro launched its Sandro x Mr Men Little Miss collection.

The trend has become such that TikTok now even has a filter allowing users to discover which Little Miss Rave Girl they are. Almost 5,000 videos have already been posted with this filter. Meanwhile, the user @littlem1ssss has launched a Twitter account and an Instagram account to collect and create new memes on this theme. More than 96,000 users follow the Twitter account and more than 24,000 follow on Instagram.

And, by happy coincidence, July 26 sees the movie Little Miss Sunshine celebrate the 16th anniversary since its US release, benefitting from a well-timed boost on social networks.

This article is published via AFP Relaxnews.

Continue reading here:

Why are Mr. Men and Little Miss memes all over social media right now? - Lifestyle Asia Bangkok

As we fight to tackle the climate crisis and the inequality crisis, we should be campaigning side by side with socialistssays Adam Bandt, the poster boy for all things Woke down under.

The Liberal Party must fight the latest Australian infection of the Western ideological virus misleadingly termed the Culture Wars but is more accurately described as an assault on the values of Western civilisation by the deep green progressive Left.

With the Greens keen to wage a Culture War, the Liberal Party simply cannot afford to ignore it. Many Australians may not personally be interested in the Culture War, but the Culture Warriors of the Intersectional Left are very much interested in them (as well as the books they read, the television shows they watch, the food they eat, the video games they play, and the curriculum which is taught to their children).

The Liberal Party should start rearming itself along classical liberal lines to fight the war on three fronts: Immigration, national guilt, and political correctness in schools all of which are core business of the Woke Intersectional Left Internationale.

In this war, the Liberal Party must avoid the kind of tactics which define American politics, where the influential US Christian Right denies evolutionary biology, was complicit in the Iraq debacle, and its right to liferdom that undermines female autonomy and pushes women toward the Left. Thankfully, such an agenda has no substantial support in Australia.

Nevertheless, something must be brought to bear against the cultish doctrines of the Woke Intersectional Left. What we need is a return to classical liberal values.

Immigration and refugee policy in Australia is typically framed in extreme terms: 100 per cent pro-open borders, or complete bans on immigration (often highlighting particular races and religions).

From a classically liberal perspective, the critical issue for migration is ensuring that potential new Australians share a love of civil liberties and established freedoms while having a set of beliefs compatible with Australias existing culture. This is the difference between accepting migrants from diverse cultures while excluding those who harbour extreme or radicalised views on politics, religion, and other social issues at odds with society. Liberals have a no tolerance policy for troublemakers and radicalised violence, while the Left fail to distinguish dangerous behaviours in prospective arrivals.

In theory, the Left should agree with Liberals on this point, given they would no doubt raise an objection if the ruling party began importing new migrants from an overwhelmingly hard-line Christian-right region whose influx would endanger progressive activism, such as the overturning of same-sex marriage. Yet, due to the Lefts fixation on intersectional victim politics, it is considered racist to worry about fundamentalist behaviour even if it contradicts directly with progressive ideology. Some call this, competing victimhood identities where one category in Woke supersedes the needs of another.

This brings us to the second issue the Liberals must address: national guilt. In the words of the poet Justin Bieber: Is it too late now to say sorry?

Australia is a country of immigrants and, of course, its original inhabitants. This messy melting pot is what made this country great. The illiberal response to this natural evolution of ethnicities is that we should feel guilty about creating a multicultural and prosperous first-world country. Guilty because of British colonialism (they forget and dont ever consider what it would be like under the Dutch or the French God forbid the Chinese or Belgium conquest).

Instead of celebrating what has been achieved, our institutions focus on Indigenous victimhood. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the Senator for the Northern Territory and the former deputy mayor of Alice Springs, has pointed this out numerous times and suffered for it. Indigenous communities need groundwork, not symbolic gestures. National guilt is a self-indulgent farce that has created a profitable activist industry and very little else. The Liberals must address this.

How? It must begin with education. Liberal-led education can have no place for Woke, Intersectional Social Justice, or Marxist-derived national guilt ideology. Its most toxic variation, Critical Race Theory, is a manifestation profoundly culturally and politically divisive. Its aim is to turn innocent children into victors and oppressors based on skin colour. The Liberal Party needs to reject CRT (or any pedagogy derived from it), and for two core reasons: firstly, it is unscientific, and secondly, because it is profoundly illiberal not only in its divisive conclusions but in its racist premises.

Let us be clear it is a matter of historical record that atrocities did occur during the colonial period. These are parts of Australian history and should be taught denial of reality is setting oneself up for failure. But Critical Race Theory is, as the name suggests, atheorynot historical fact. As the liberal philosopher Karl Popper showed a scientific theory is necessarily falsifiable. CRT is not only unfalsifiable; it rejects demands for data or evidence. It dismisses science itself as a manifestation of white male hegemony. Liberalism demands individual freedom, but CRT brings even the existence of the individual into doubt.

It is impossible for a major political party to not have a position on CRT and its woke aficionados. We now have a Labor government in bed with deep Green wokery. The Liberals must make their stand to safeguard the future of Western Civilisation by making sure there is an acceptance of secular civic values, a rejection of national original sin also known as collective guilt, and to bring an end to totalitarian-like ideology in the education system that is pushing us toward an era dominated by social pseudoscience.

Article co-authored by Lana Starkey PhD candidate in seventeenth-century literature at the University of Queensland and a freelance writer and Dr. Andrew Russell.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

See the original post:

Wokus Pocus and the Culture War - The Spectator Australia

Former Vice President Mike Pence spoke yesterday at a conference of conservative college students in Washington, D.C., two blocks from the White House. And he got this question from a student named Andrew.

My question is, President Trump and yourself are both speaking this week in D.C., and there seems to be a divide between the two of you on your outlook on what the future of the conservative movement might be, Andrew asked. So do you think that this divide extends to the rest of the conservative movement, like the general public, and what do you think we can do to alleviate it?

Pence began his answer by saying that he couldnt be more proud of the accomplishments of the Trump-Pence administration.

To promote a growing economy, to secure our border, Pence said. We appointed more than 300 conservatives to our federal courts at every level, including three Supreme Court justices. And Ill always be grateful for the opportunity to serve as Vice President. So I dont know that our movement is that divided.

But if the conservative movement is not that divided, why did he and Trump support different candidates in the primary for Georgia governor last May, and now the Arizona governors primary? Heres how he explained that.

I dont know that the President and I differ on issues, but we may differ on focus, Pence said. I truly do believe that elections are about the future, and that is absolutely essential at a time when so many Americans are hurting that we dont give way to the temptation to look back. But I think the time has come for us to offer a bold, positive agenda to bring America back. And Ill continue to carry that message all across this nation.

He even had a little smile on his face as he spoke.

Ross: The long time refusal to recognize right wing extremism led to Jan. 6

Now, Democrats might dismiss that answer as totally evasive or simply the conservative version of political correctness, but what I kept thinking was, heres a rare example of magnanimity.

Heres a man who came close to witnessing a shootout between his secret service detail and an avenging mob mobilized by his former boss now saying the main difference between them is focus. He even calls Trump president.

So since I was talking the other day about Christian nationalism and the hypocrisy of some of the politicians who are selling it, its only fair to point out that what I saw in Mike Pence was the very embodiment of turning the other cheek.

Read more from the original source:

Ross: Pence turns the other cheek when asked about Trump and the future of the GOP - MyNorthwest

In a move that surprised political watchers, Liberal leader Peter Dutton says the school curriculum and education reform will be some of his key priorities in opposition.

Despite the Morrison government signing off on the latest version of the curriculum just before the election, Dutton argues a broader discussion is needed.

As he told The Australian earlier this month, there is a lot of non-core curriculum that is being driven by unions and by other activists that parents are concerned about.

NSW Liberal senator Hollie Hughes has also blamed her partys election loss on Marxist teachers filling students heads with left-wing rubbish.

This may seem like an strange issue to prioritise after an election loss, with issues like climate change and cost-of-living front of mind for many voters. But there is a long tradition of curriculum wars in Australia, going back decades.

Parents concerned about this debate and what their kids may be picking up in the classroom should also understand this history.

Duttons attempt to reignite the culture wars harks back to former Prime Minister John Howard, who railed against a black armband view of history, political correctness and the divisive, phoney debate about national identity. Howard argued:

The time has also come for root and branch renewal of the teaching of Australian history in our schools [] it has succumbed to a postmodern culture of relativism where any objective record of achievement is questioned or repudiated.

Following suit, as opposition leader in 2013, Tony Abbott claimed the national curriculum had become politicised by left-wing teachers with history underselling the contributions and heritage of Western civilisation. He said there was a

Lack of references to our heritage, other than an Indigenous heritage, too great a focus on issues which are the predominant concern of one side of politics.

Once in government, Abbott ordered a review of the national curriculum in 2014, claiming that schools needed to go back to the basics.

Abbotts handpicked reviewers argued for greater emphasis on Western literature and Judeo-Christian heritage. The revised curriculum (version 8.0) was released in 2015 and has been in place until recently.

Australias curriculum wars can also be linked to education debates in the United States.

For example, critical race theory has become a key battleground for conservative culture wars against public schooling, teacher autonomy and curriculum. These debates are designed to create moral panic for parents, who worry that they send their kids to school to learn the facts, but are instead indoctrinated by cultural Marxists dressed as teachers.

The rise of homeschooling and school choice in Australia and the US are driven in large part by concerns about curriculum.

It is important for parents to know that the curriculum what gets taught in our schools is not developed by unions nor activists.

While teachers have a say in how their lessons are taught, the curriculum is developed and monitored by state and territory education authorities.

Read more: The Senate has voted to reject critical race theory from the national curriculum. What is it, and why does it matter?

Following their 2007 election, Labor promised an education revolution. This was the start of greater involvement by the federal government in curriculum development and assessment.

The newly created Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority released the first version of the Australian curriculum in 2010. This is the body that is also responsible for implementing the MySchool website and the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) tests.

Government schools are required to follow state and territory mandated curriculum guidelines, while Catholic, independent and other non-government schools have more curriculum flexibility. This includes offering alternative curriculum options such as Steiner, Montessori or International Baccalaureate programs.

The latest review of the curriculum (version 9.0) was undertaken with the aim to refine, realign and declutter the curriculum content within its existing structure.

There was an extensive consultation period during 20202021, with more than 6,000 surveys, 900 emails and 360 teachers and curriculum specialists involved in the review.

Even so, acting education minister Stuart Robert wrote to the chair of the Australian curriculum authority in February requesting extra changes to portray a more balanced view of Australian history. He specifically wanted to ensure

that key aspects of Australian history, namely 17501914 and Australias post World War II migrant history, are appropriately prioritised.

Following this, 55% of history curriculum content between Years 7 and 10 was removed.

Version 9.0 of the Australian Curriculum was then endorsed by federal and state education ministers in April, shortly before the federal election was called.

New education minister Jason Clare has been quick to dismiss Duttons attempts to fire up the curriculum wars, telling The Sydney Morning Herald, Im not interested in picking fights.

So, as the updated curriculum begins to roll out across Australian schools from 2023, it will be interesting to see how much momentum Dutton generates.

Granted, a proposed move to continuous curriculum updates instead of every five or six years will potentially make it easier to politically interfere with the curriculum.

But it is important to remember that education authorities determine the curriculum not unions, not activists and ideally not the minister of the day.

Read more: Australia is only one front in the history curriculum wars

The rest is here:

Why is Peter Dutton trying to start another political fight over the school curriculum? - The Conversation Indonesia

With Any Given Tuesday, Lis Smith delivers 300 pages of smack, snark and vulnerability. A veteran Democratic campaign hand, she shares up-close takes of those who appear in the news and dishes autobiographical vignettes. The book, her first, is a political memoir and coming-of-age tale. It is breezy and informative.

For two decades, Smith worked in the trenches. She witnessed plenty and bears the resulting scars. Most recently, she was a senior media adviser to Pete Buttigieg, now transportation secretary in the Biden administration, and counseled Andrew Cuomo, now a disgraced ex-governor of New York.

According to Smith, Buttigieg made politics ennobling and fun. More important, he offered a road to redemption.

He saw me for who I actually was and, for the first time in my adult life, I did too, Smith writes. According to exit polls in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Buttigieg brought meaning to middle-aged white college graduates. These days, he is seen by Democrats as a possible alternative to Joe Biden in 2024.

Smith dated Eliot Spitzer, another governor of New York who fell from grace.

We were like a lit match and dynamite, she writes. Smith also gushes about Spitzers deep set, cerulean blue eyes, the most gorgeous such pair she had ever seen. A 24-year age gap provided additional fuel but Spitzer, once known as the Sheriff of Wall Street, spent less than 15 months in office. His administration ended abruptly in 2009, over his trysts with prostitutes.

Smith can be blunt and brutal. She savages Cuomo and flattens Bill de Blasio, the former mayor of New York City, like a pancake.

Smith recounts in detail Cuomos mishandling of Covid, the allegations of sexual harassment and his obfuscation. He died as he lived, she writes, damningly, with zero regard for the people around him and the impact his actions would have on them.

As for De Blasio: This guy cant handle a 9/11. He also came up short, we are told, in the personal hygiene department: a gross unshowered guy. De Blasio retracted an employment offer to Smith, after her relationship with Spitzer became tabloid fodder. He also coveted an endorsement from Spitzer that never materialized.

Both of us had tried to get in bed with Eliot but only one of us had been successful, Smith brags.

On Tuesday, De Blasio dropped out of a congressional primary after gaining a bare 3% support in a recent poll.

Smith is very much a New Yorker. She grew up in a leafy Westchester suburb, north of the city. Her parents were loving and politically conscious. Her father led a major white-shoe law firm. He introduced his daughter to football and the star-crossed New York Jets.

Smith went to Dartmouth. Not surprisingly, her politics are establishment liberal. She worked on campaigns for Jon Corzine, for New Jersey governor; Terry McAuliffe, for governor of Virginia; and Claire McCaskill, for senator in Missouri. In 2012 she earned a credit from Barack Obamas re-election campaign.

Smith has kind words for McAuliffe and McCaskill but portrays Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs chief executive, as aloof, never warming to the reality that elections are about retail politics and people. Despite this, Smith omits mention of the markets-moving failure of MF Global, a Corzine-run commodities brokerage that left a wake of ruin.

I simply do not know where the money is, or why the accounts have not been reconciled to date, Corzine testified before a congressional committee. I do not know which accounts are unreconciled or whether the unreconciled accounts were or were not subject to the segregation rules.

Corzine holds an MBA from the University of Chicago.

Smith is candid about the corrosive effects of the Democrats lurch left.

If someone doesnt support every policy on their progressive wish list theyre branded an enemy or a Republican in disguise. If these ideological purists think a West Virginia Democrat is bad, wait till they get a load of the Republican alternative.

But Smith also falls victim to ideological myopia. Discussing the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 and its considerable political consequences, she appears to solely blame the Ferguson police for the death of the African American teen, who she says was shot to death in broad daylight. Like Hillary Clinton, Smith neglects to mention that police fired after Brown lunged for an officers gun. She also does not mention that Brown tussled with a convenience store owner before his confrontation with the law.

Inadvertently, Smith highlights the volatility of the Democrats multicultural, upstairs-downstairs coalition. Worship at the twin altars of identity politics and political correctness exacts a steep price in votes and can negatively impact human life. See New York Citys current crime wave for proof.

Smith reserves some of her sharpest digs for Roger Stone, convicted and then-pardoned confidante of Donald Trump, pen-pal of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. She calls him a stone-cold sociopath. But she skates over animus that existed between Stone and Spitzer, her ex. In 2007, Stone allegedly left a threatening telephone message for Spitzers father, a real estate magnate. Months later, Stone told the FBI Spitzer used the service of high-priced call girls while staying in Florida.

In the end, Smith is an idealist.

I believe in the power of politics to improve peoples lives, she writes. I still believe there is hope for the future.

Continued here:

Any Given Tuesday: Lis Smith on Cuomo, Spitzer and a political life - The Guardian

Commentary

The vote is all an American conservative has got. Thats the painful reality that faces anyone resistant to the woke revolution that has overcome nearly all major institutions in American life.

The facts are simple. Liberals control the schools and universities. They control Hollywood and Silicon Valley, most of the media and publishers, the art world and culture sphere (museums, libraries, etc.), and most government civil service posts. Theyve even captured human resources in corporate America, while the NGOs they run outnumber those run by conservatives by a long sight. The only broad-based exertion of control left to conservatives is the ballot booth.

It sounds depressing, and many conservative intellectuals hate the idea. They write op-eds and magazine articles, push hard truths and debate policy. They assemble conferences and panels, issue newsletters and host podcasts, all in the service of spreading conservative belief and discrediting progressive belief. Its noble work, and it should continue.

But in an Age of Woke, debate is no more. The woke temper assumes that intolerance is a virtue and pluralism a weakness. Look at the faces of woke protesters and you see a fiery, punitive, absolute, and illiberal personality in action. The left went on an all-out and open wartime footing in November 2016 (theyd been on a guerilla footing before that), and they recruited, intimidated, guilt-tripped, and bullied moderate liberals of the old Bill Clinton-Democrat profile into becoming compliant followers and functionaries of the movement. The actual numbers of hard wokesters may have been small, but they got liberals to join marches, sign petitions, and applaud and support the four-year effort to Resist! to the point that it looked like a majority of Americans hated Trump and Trumpsters with a passion.

The tactics werent subtle or brilliant, just effective. While conservative thinkers and intellectuals out-argued The View and the professors over and over, Stacey Abrams ran circles around Georgia Republicans, and Soros-backed leftists took office under the radar and did shocking things. Right-wing minds beat them at the ideas game, while left-wing operatives grabbed political posts. Which side would triumph?

Margaret Thatcher spoke of how important it was to win the debate, but that was another time. Having secured the schools and the media and the entertainment industry decades ago, leftists managed to produce a population of young Americans, Millennials, and older Gen-Zers with hardened beliefs and easily offended temperaments. The kids heard leftist opinion so firmly and repeatedly over their adolescence and early-20s, in classrooms and on TV, that they identified it with Truth. That makes non-progressive opinion into automatic falsehood, and evil, too. We now have two generations that perceive the other side as demonic, and why should demons get a place at the table, a voice in the discussion?

Millennials don wanna hear it and don wanna talk about it. The old way of hearing multiple opinions and letting the people decide doesnt impress them. A clever libertarian kid in college, natty and bow-tied with Ayn Rand in hand, who points out their ignorance and inconsistency doesnt shake their faith one bit. He just annoys themget him out. The columnist who highlights the hypocrisy and ingratitude of The Squad has accomplished nothing. They dont care. The marketplace of ideas is closed; the forensic climate has ended; the battle is all political.

Its a political battle that is personal, a simple matter summed up in a curt question: Who rules? In other words, everything depends on the vote. Leftists understand that. Mark Zuckerberg knew it well in Summer 2020. The Jan. 6 committee members understand it, too. Their deliberations are aimed at November 2022 and 2024, not January 2021. And the point for the left is not to win the upcoming elections. They want to win every election, and they believe that they should win every election. No modesty on their part, no expectation that sometimes you lose, and sometimes you deserve to lose. They have the conviction of the righteous, the certitude of the fit, while the other side is unfit, forever so.

Ive seen them at work. They possess a ruthlessness that conservatives dont. Prudence is a conservative trait, not a progressive one. Progressives think big; they dare to dream. They envision a Green New Deal thats downright fantastical, and the very un-realism of it thrills them. A conservative or two in the room rains on their parade, a sole dissent killing the enthusiasm. Only unanimous endorsement will satisfy our progressive dreamer.

Thats why its not enough for progressives to outnumber conservatives within an academic department, a business unit, or a government office. The bare presence of a single right-wing voice irks them. They ask, Why do such people still exist when we have History and Justice on our side? They must be removed, all of them, not a single conservative rogue or gadfly or outsider allowed.They dont see it as a political process, certainly not a democratic one. It appears more as a cleansing operation, a purification. Get those malodorous characters out of here.

Now that more and more institutions have been sterilized in this way, nothing remains for the exiles but the vote, as I said. The left abhors Donald Trump for this very reason. He didnt open up any of the institutions to conservative representation, didnt make them return to the pluralism of the past. Hollywood didnt recognize Trumps popularity and set about producing Trumpist movies and shows. Academia didnt create centers and hire teachers with a non-progressive outlook. On the contrary, political correctness in those spaces got worse.

But he did win the vote and move to the White House. It surprised and shocked the liberal/left elite, proving to them that dominance of media, education, and government doesnt ensure an obedient populace. Hence the ballot harvesting, mail-in voting, multiplying drop boxes, and partisan get-out-the-vote efforts passing themselves off as neutral. The left is tireless and vigilant on this. If Republicans do not understand that the vote is Issue #1, that election fairness must be a core concern of every campaign, they will find themselves outfoxed every two years, and roughly half of the American electorate will become ever more despondent, suspicious, and disaffected.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Follow

Mark Bauerlein is an emeritus professor of English at Emory University. His work has been featured in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, the TLS, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Original post:

This Is It - The Epoch Times