Category Archives: Political Correctness

On a filthy night three days before Christmas in 1978, I was sitting on a rather ancient coach travelling across the Pennines towards Lancashire, along with about 50 other football supporters. The Bradford branch of the Manchester United supporters club catered largely for a collection of brickies and other manual workers and that evening we were all on our way to watch a dismal 0-3 defeat at Bolton. As torrential rain poured down on the M62, the bloke sitting immediately in front suddenly turned and, with a hint of menace, said to my brother and me: Youre not really the same as us are you?

It may have been the drink talking after some seasonal revelry during the day, but his analysis was on the money. The sons of an academic and a teacher, Paul and I read different papers, watched different stuff on TV and spoke in a different way. But as aspiring young lefties in the late 1970s, we imagined, or hoped, that this divergence in terms of social class would be redeemed and erased by politics: after all, it was only 10 years after 1968, when radical students and workers attempted to dream a revolutionary alliance into being. So it was mortifying to my teenage self to realise that, even in the context of supporting the same football team, there might be an underlying suspicion towards the middle-class interlopers on the bus.

This uncomfortable moment was a minor lesson in the tricky social dynamics of class and status. Almost half a century later, the future of progressive politics in Britain may depend on a similar kind of learning process writ large. The usual caveats (low turnout, protest voting, local factors) apply to any analysis of last weeks council elections. But in England, the broad picture appears to confirm a changing political landscape that, while it potentially poses deep problems for the Conservative party, also confronts Labour with challenging truths. To quote the Oxford University election analysts Michael Thrasher and Colin Rallings: The urban south is becoming more Labour as the north hangs on to its post-Brexit attachment to the Tories but there is evidence too of a new demographic cleavage. Areas where more than a third of the population are university graduates swung sharply to Labour, those where graduates are thinner on the ground moved almost as much the other way.

Two demographies, two economies and, increasingly, two sensibilities. On one side, liberal-minded, Labour-voting urban professionals and young graduates clustered disproportionately in the cities; on the other, elements of the post-industrial working class (some of it retired) who mourn the loss of something that has disappeared in towns that are steadily getting older.

If it cannot do much better among this second group, Labour will not win a majority in the next election. Even the success of a progressive alliance with the Lib Dems and the Greens depends on Labour doing its job in the red wall. But despite notable successes, such as its victories in Cumberland and Kirklees, the hoped-for revival in the north and Midlands stuttered and stalled last week to an extent that allowed Boris Johnson to brazen out an otherwise terrible night.

Viewed through a purely economic lens, some of the results might appear inexplicable. Polls indicate that a majority of the public views the governments response to the cost of living crisis as woefully inadequate. But in one of the most deprived wards in Walsall where one in five households are fuel poor there was a 35% swing to the Conservatives. While red wall type areas will suffer disproportionately in the hard times to come, it would therefore seem unwise for Labour to rely on attacking the government to solve the problem of its soured relations with the traditional working class. Instead, perhaps the left should widen the horizon of its analysis to address the kind of question that my fellow United fan put to me on the coach to Bolton. Why do substantial numbers of former Labour voters sense a cultural gulf between themselves and what they think the party now represents? Why do they feel Labour is not the same as them any more?

Last year, the UK in a Changing Europe thinktank published an important paper co-written by the sociologist and social mobility expert John Goldthorpe. Entitled Meritocracy and Populism, a section of it summarises two main findings from red wall focus groups convened by Deborah Mattinson (now Labours director of strategy). The first was that these (predominantly leave) voters felt that good jobs and opportunities for younger people were no longer available in their communities. A sense of grievance at this was compounded by the perception that, as old industries had faded away, the world now belonged to new generations of degree-holders who, bluntly, looked down on them. Politically, write Goldthorpe and his co-author, Erzsbet Bukodi, such views translated into a deep disillusionment with the Labour party. This was seen as now dominated by graduate, metropolitan elites whether Blairite or Corbynite obsessed with political correctness and more concerned with telling the people they were supposed to represent that they were wrong than with trying to understand the conditions under which they were living. Depending on how things play out, Keir Starmers current woes over Beergate feeding a narrative of elite hypocrisy could prove particularly damaging in this regard.

This alienated perspective, which is almost certainly shared by large numbers of lost Labour voters, may be an unfair caricature. But if Labour is to bridge generational and educational divides in an era of culture wars, it should admit that there is a kernel of truth here. The mass expansion of higher education has helped Britain become a far better place when it comes to addressing, for example, race and gender inequality. But the widespread characterisation of Brexit as a purely xenophobic, reactionary project demonstrated that highly educated liberals are also capable of myopic intolerance. To reconstitute a relationship with leave-voting constituencies, Labour needs to do more than move on from 2016 and its aftermath, as Starmer has understandably but mistakenly sought to do. It needs to re-engage with why so much of its working-class support voted the way it did.

A starting point for that exercise might be the seminal essay Culture is Ordinary, written by Raymond Williams in 1958. In it, Williams describes the postwar blue collar environment in which he grew up as defined by commitment to neighbourhood, mutual obligation and common betterment. Mattinsons leave voters were evidently preoccupied by the perceived loss of this sense of solid community, and clearly ill at ease in an age of more freewheeling individualism. These are not in themselves reactionary sentiments; in fact they belong to a venerable Labour tradition that includes RH Tawney and William Morris. But in the context of Brexit, they were far too easily dismissed and misrepresented, and the scars from that are still there. If they are to be healed in the places where Labour so badly needs to reconnect, the modern left needs to travel outside its cultural comfort zone with an open mind, listen properly to the messages it receives, and admit that it can learn from the red wall as well as lecture it.

Read this article:

Labour may think its moving on, but working-class voters arent following - The Guardian

Grace Hyland primarily sees being transgender as a medical condition, but if you asked some of those vying for Australia's top jobs, they might not agree.

The 21-year-old Melburnian came out as transgender when she was 12, but she knew she was in the wrong body from when she was four.

Hyland, alongside her father, Australian actor Mat Stevenson, has been extremely vocal about her journey and is a passionate trans rights activist and one thing she is tired of seeing is the right for the transgender community to exist being debated for political sport.

READ MORE: Why thousands of Aussie avocados are being left to rot

"Being trans is a medical condition," Hyland tells 9Honey via Zoom.

"And being trans is something that is now being politicised into a left or right issue. I'm sorry, it's not a left or right issue. It's a medical issue. No matter what side of the spectrum you sit on, people deserve treatment for their health," she says, comparing it to how someone living with diabetes would not be subject to an ongoing, public debate as to if they deserve insulin.

"If there's one thing I hate, it's being politicised, because in my mind, it's the antithesis of a political issue."

On the campaign trail in Sydney, Tuesday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison doubled down on his support for Katherine Deves, the Liberal candidate for Warringah, who has come under fire for claiming that "mutilation" is the "correct medico-legal term" for gender reassignment surgery although Morrison did say that term is not one he would necessarily use.

Deves also insisted that her significant role in advocating against trans women in women's sport was like standing up against the Nazis during the Holocaust, and allegedly claimed in deleted Twitter posts that half of trans women are sex offenders.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese has questioned Morrison's support of Deves, and said that her "mutilation" comment is not one he believes is appropriate.

"Vulnerable people, in particular, are deserving of respect," Albanese said in Melbourne Tuesday. "Every human being deserves respect. What we need to look for from our national political leaders is ways to unify the country and bring people together, not play politics in order to divide people."

Contact Bronte Gossling at bgossling@nine.com.au.

There's no argument to be had about the fact that the transgender community is, in fact, a vulnerable one a 2021 peer-reviewed study found that 43 per cent of transgender Australians had attempted suicide, which is a rate significantly higher than that of the general population. That same study found that wanting but not having gender-affirming surgery is correlated with a 71 per cent higher chance of a lifetime suicide attempt.

Last year was also the deadliest year since records began for the murders of transgender people, with more than 375 reported killings worldwide.

Hyland, who herself told The Project that if she was forced to go through male puberty, she "genuinely [doesn't] think [she] would still be here," tells 9Honey that she feels the politicisation of the transgender community directly contributes to making people understand "what trans actually is" an "even harder" process. She says ignorance can have catastrophic consequences in this context.

She highlights how, when she came out as trans almost a decade ago, there wasn't a lot of information easily accessible online, and mainstream media and entertainment offerings belittled the transgender community as "a joke, a man in a dress, a fetish, a costume, a lifestyle."

"This whole politicisation of trans right is what leads to the lack of education," Hyland says.

"I have a saying that a lack of education leads to a lack of knowledge and wisdom, and a lack of knowledge and wisdom leads to ignorance. And then ignorance leads to transphobia, and I think the cause of that is the politicisation of trans issues."

READ MORE: TV host's blunt advice to couples who fight

Hyland's transition was one that was not done without thought or care, if that was even possible in a context where she had to go to court to be able to undergo hormone replacement therapy.

In fact, it was heavily supported by The Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne's Gender Service, which diagnosed her first with gender dysphoria, and, after a year, it was decided with Hyland and her doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists that she could go on testosterone blockers. By 14, she had grown her hair out and was publicly presenting as Grace.

"The Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne wouldn't have a whole entire clinic if this wasn't a medical condition," Hyland says. "[Politicisation] makes me feel like the understanding of what it truly is to be trans, it's going to take even longer to reach that fact. And the reason why it's so important for people to understand what it is, is because we need the proper treatment."

READ MORE: How the Queen broke new ground in Australia and paved the way for future royal visits

Inextricably linked with the concept of belonging when it comes to the transgender community's gender identity is, in public discourse, the concept of biological sex.

During Sunday's debate, when radio host and television presenter Deb Knight asked Morrison and Albanese how they define a woman, Morrison said, "A member of the female sex."

Albanese, meanwhile, said "an adult female," a definition he said he did not think was "confusing."

Among feminists and the LGBT+ community, debate exists as to the correct contexts when it comes to using the terms "woman" and "female".

Some argue that it is dehumanising as "female" is the scientific term that refers to the biological sex of any species and, by extension, reduces a person to their sex organs, whereas "woman" refers specifically to human people.

Similarly, "female" can be seen as a term that erases gender non-binary and some transgender identities, as it's a descriptor linked to biological sex.

For Hyland, it's a complicated issue. She highlights studies that, after analysing brain scans, determined that brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles that of their desired gender than the sex they were assigned at birth.

She also points out how, in the womb, everyone starts out with a vagina that either gradually develops or changes into male sex organs depending on if the Y chromosome is expressed at six to seven weeks' gestation.

"I would argue that transgender women are females in their own right who just need medical steps to help them come into that," Hyland says.

READ MORE: World's first fashion designer with quadriplegia, Carol Taylor, to debut at Australian Fashion Week

"However, I feel like saying the definition of a woman is a female in that [nationally-televised debate] space is... It's alluding to something that doesn't include trans women," she says.

"In this current climate of political correctness, if they wanted to include trans women, they would have said people who identify as [women]. They would have made it abundantly clear."

Being the face and outspoken voice of the transgender community in mainstream media as well as on Instagram and TikTok is something Hyland, who says she is a "tough cookie," can handle, but constant politicisations of her identity by people in power gnaw at her.

"I feel as though I have to be perfect because I have to constantly present the idea of like the model Australian, to prove that trans women are just like everyone else," she says.

"I shouldn't have [to do] that, I should be able to just fully be myself. But I do feel like I do have to almost be perfect in a way, just to prove that trans women are normal people."

She looks forward to a day where she doesn't.

If you or anyone you know needs immediate support, contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or via lifeline.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.

For a daily dose of 9Honey, subscribe to our newsletter here.

The best mind-bending optical illusions

Read this article:

Grace Hyland says she 'hates' being politicised as the transgender community is 'the antithesis of a political issue' - 9Honey

NPR is such an absurd organization these days. I cannot wait until some future Congress and president remove all federal funding from it, given what it has become. As far as I know, this major player in the Cathedral (the neoreactionary term for the informal system of American elites) have never paid a bit of attention to Orthodox Christianity in America. But now theyve come out with a hit piece on how Orthodoxy is attracting far right converts.

Heres how it appears on the website:

This is a biased article, even by NPRs standards. Reporter Odette Yousef begins by talking about right-wing converts to ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia the exile church, though it reconciled in recent years with the Moscow Patriarchate) in a single West Virginia congregation. More:

The case study that Riccardi-Swartz provides adds detail and color to a trend that a handful of historians and journalists have documented for nearly a decade. In publications mostly targeted toward an Orthodox Christian audience, they have raised the alarm about a growing nativist element within the church. Despite Orthodoxys relatively small imprint in the U.S., they warn that, unchecked, these adherents could fundamentally alter the faith tradition in the United States. They also warn that these individuals are evangelizing hate in the name of Orthodoxy in ways that could attract more who share those views.

Its an immigrant faith. Its now being sort of colonized by these converts in many respects, said Riccardi-Swartz. Theyre vocal in their parishes. Theyre vocal online. Theyre very digitally savvy and very connected to other far-right actors in the United States and across the globe. And thats really changing the faith.

Now, before I begin to deconstruct this ridiculous propaganda piece, I concede that it is based on a kernel of truth: some outsiders are finding their way to Orthodoxy, thinking that it will be the far right at prayer. A friend who attends a large parish told me last year that they are seeing some young men showing up with that in mind, only to find out otherwise. Let me be clear at the start of this essay that I concede that this phenomenon is not invented out of whole cloth.

In my own small parish, we have seen a surge of young inquirers, but they are coming not with far-right politics in mind, but because they are looking for something more stable and deeper than the churches they had been attending.And yes, it is true that some come because they correctly sense that Orthodoxy is much less likely to surrender to the wokeness that is infesting many Protestant and Catholic congregations. Note well, though, that to NPR, all of this is far-right.

This Riccardi-Swartz talks about how these people are really changing the faith. Are they? In my experience of being within Orthodoxy for sixteen years, these leftists like those quoted in Yousefs story are angry at converts like me because they want to change the faith to make it more compatible with American liberalism. Converts like me come into the Orthodox Church warning the unsuspecting cradle Orthodox what people like these activists within the Church are really doing and how if the Orthodox congregations dont wake up, they will find themselves turned into Baklava Episcopalians.

The NPR story focuses mostly on ROCOR, which is a tiny jurisdiction in America. There are single megachurches in Texas with more members. From the piece:

This is in line with American mainline religion, [where] everyone is shrinking in size except nondenominational churches, Krindatch said. But ROCOR, which Krindatch estimated in 2020 to have roughly 24,000 adherents, experienced a striking shift. While the number of ROCOR adherents declined by 14%, Krindatch found that the number of parishes grew by 15%.

So what it means [is], we have more parishes, but which are smaller in size. And if you look at the geography, those parishes were planted not in traditional lands of Orthodoxy, said Krindatch. The growth occurred in less populated areas of the Upper Midwest and Southern states, places with fewer direct links to Russia.

So for me, those are a bunch of new ROCOR communities which are founded by convert clergy or by convert members, Krindatch said.

OK, but why should we assume that these converts are far rightists? I worshiped in a ROCOR church from 2012-16, and my priest, a convert, was especially vigilant against far-right infiltration of Orthodoxy. He was a former cop, and understood that this was a potential threat. He was instrumental in educating Orthodox bishops, who were clueless. Again: this was a ROCOR priest who took the lead to fight racist infiltration of the Church by radical converts. And in our church, we founded a mission within ROCOR because it was the only Orthodox jurisdiction willing to send a priest into a mission in south Louisiana. Nobody cared about politics at our parish well, except for this one elderly man, who seemed perpetually disappointed that nobody wanted to talk politics with him. My experience is subjective, of course, but I have had nothing but warmth, kindness, and normality in my interactions with ROCOR people.

Anyway, these tiny little ROCOR mission parishes within a small and shrinking jurisdiction so alarmed NPR that it decided to do a big story on it. And by implication, the bullying liberals of NPR who just love diversity, as long as diversity goes one way smear all of American Orthodoxy, as youll see if you read the whole thing.

More:

Aram Sarkisian, a postdoctoral teaching fellow at Northwestern Universitys Department of History, said this new growth from converts has helped some branches of Orthodoxy offset a decline in multigenerational families in the church. Sarkisian said these converts often find their way to Orthodoxy because they seek a haven for what they consider to be the most important cultural issues of the day.

Theyre drawn to what they believe to be conservative views on things like LGBTQ rights, gender equality. Abortion is a really big issue for these folks, the culture wars issues, really, Sarkisian said. And so they leave other faith traditions that they dont believe to be as stringent about those issues anymore.

Thats true. If you want a more traditionally Christian church, youll want to investigate Orthodoxy. But look, Sarkisian is a left-wing smear artist, as I wrote last year when he attempted to demonize Southern converts to Orthodoxy as neo-Confederates.

He focused in part on my praise for the proposal that St. Vladimirs Orthodox Theological Seminary relocate from Yonkers, NY, to Dallas this, because Orthodoxy is dying in its historic American heartland (the Northeast), but booming in the South. And, unlike in New York state, legal protections for actually orthodox institutions are likely to be greater than in a hostile woke state like New York. I wrote:

The historic regions where Orthodoxy was first planted in the United States are turning away from God. Nobody can deny that. You might want to make an argument that a seminary should be in a place where the need for proclaiming the Gospel is greatest, but that fails to address the concern that St. Vladimirs board has over the legal and regulatory environment in the New York area.

It is a very, very serious concern for any faithfully Orthodox Christian institution, particularly when it comes to LGBT-focused legislation and cultural norms. For now, the First Amendment protects the rights of seminaries to teach according to religious orthodoxy, even if it contradicts the law governing homosexuality and transgenderism (of which New York is one of the most progressive states). But that says nothing about rules for academic accreditation. It is entirely possible that if SVOTS remains in New York, or another deep blue state, that it could face uphill accreditation battles that could put the very existence of the seminary in jeopardy. Relocating to a red state would mean going to a place that is both more culturally conservative, and, being more religious, better understands the importance of religious liberty.

Naturally this upsets the people atPublic Orthodoxy, who are eager to liberalize including to queer the Orthodox churches in our country. It appears that these theological progressives fear that they are losing influence over the direction of Orthodoxy in America, and are resorting to neo-Confederate smears to justify their anxiety. The Fordham Orthodox guys helped lead the charge to get my Schmemann lecture at SVOTS cancelled, but they failed. I talked aboutLive Not By Lies,and the crisis all small-o orthodox Christians and especially Orthodox Christians are facing in this post-Christian culture. I know exactly why they hated having me speak there: because I have their number. You rarely if ever hear progressive Orthodox voices complain about the rising soft totalitarianism against moral and theological conservatives because they themselves think oppression of the orthodox Orthodox by the state and by other institutions is a good thing. What these people cant do within the institution move it leftward they are hoping that the state will do for them.

You want to talk about those trying to change the church? NPR quotes Inga Leonova, a lesbian[a reader says she is not necessarily lesbian, but a divorced straight woman who writes about LGBT all the time; Im seeking to confirm this, but retracting lesbian until I verify; I was under the impression that she was an out lesbian RD] activist trying to queer the Orthodox Church in America. It quotes the militantly leftist academic Aram Sarkisian. And it quotes one of the two founders of the Orthodox Study Center at Fordham, the most important center of the attempt to liberalize and queer American Orthodoxy.

The frustrating thing about this NPR piece is that most people in America have never heard of Orthodox Christianity, or if they have, associate it with Greek food festivals. Now, though, NPR has brought all of us Orthodox under suspicion. From the piece, way down:

Those who have followed the influx of extremists into American Orthodoxy agree that those individuals are fringe within the church and are mostly concentrated in newly founded ROCOR parishes. But they also warn that it would be foolish to ignore them.

They are fringe people in one of the smallest jurisdiction of American Orthodoxy, representing only three or four percent of all Orthodox in the US! But NPR devoted ten minutes to sounding the alarm about their supposed threat. Sarkisian told NPR:

This is how people are finding Orthodoxy now. Theyre finding Orthodoxy through these YouTube shows. Theyre finding it through these podcasts. Theyre finding it through these blogs, said Sarkisian. Theyre being radicalized by these folks on the internet, and thats really dangerous.

Is that really how people are finding Orthodoxy now, through far-right videos? I hear all the time from people who have found Orthodoxy through reading my blog or my Substack, where I talk not at all about Orthodoxy and politics. Undoubtedly, some people do find Orthodoxy through extremist videos. But the idea that the people coming into Orthodoxy through this narrow gate is significant is not demonstrated at all in this article.

So what is its point, other than to tar a Russian church, in a time of Russophobia, as an anti-American menace? Let me give you a little more background on the kind of Orthodox people Odette Yousef quotes. The two Fordham Orthodox guys are George Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou. Back in 2014, the Orthodox theologian Vigen Guroian wrote a negative review of a book about Orthodox political theology by Papanikolaou. Excerpts:

In the end,The Mystical as Politicalis not about theology. The book makes much of theological concepts liketheosisbut deploys them as tropes or gestures to smooth the way for the Orthodox faith to be put in service of a distinctly American religious project, one launched principally from within the academy.

In a telling admission, Papanikolaou writes that, when it comes to political theology I do not think the transcendent referent need be to the divine, but can take the form of a common good. In other words, whatever conduces to democracy and justice is of God. The sacramental realism and eschatological maximalism of Orthodoxy evaporates and is replaced by a consecration of the democratic communion of the secular liberal state.

More:

Papanikolaou asserts that in relation to the democratic form of the common good, the church must accept its own limits and recognize that the goal is not the formation of a eucharistic community through persuasion. This is an astounding pronouncement. The Church must renounce not only the use of the states coercive power, something Orthodoxy often depended on in past centuries, but also her ambition to draw the world into the eucharistic celebration.

In the place of this ecclesial vision of transformation, we are served the claptrap of diversity and political correctness. The goal of Orthodoxy, according to Papanikolaou, is the construction of a community in which diversity and cultural difference must be affirmed and protected and in which the recognition of such diversity must be enforced if they are not voluntarily accepted. Enforced? Does this not imply that the liberal state has a responsibility and right to coerce the Church when the Church does not affirm diversity and cultural difference? Surely, Papanikolaou knows that these terms are the property of the progressive left that insists on same-sex marriage, among other things Orthodoxy refuses to recognize.

And:

Weve sadly seen this within contemporary mainline Protestantism and liberal Roman Catholicism. In those contexts, talk about justice (or social justice) has displaced the language of holiness. This has been accomplished at immense cost to the eschatological dimension in both Protestant and Roman Catholic social ethics. In the effort to insinuate the Churchs mind into public policy, weve seen the Churchs singularly biblical and Christian speech stripped away. Papanikolaou would do the same for Orthodoxy.

None of this is meant to minimize the threat, such as it is, from a handful of far-right nativists infiltrating a tiny jurisdiction of Orthodoxy. But it is to point out for non-Orthodox readers that NPR aligns itself with an academic faction within American Orthodoxy that really and truly does want to change the Church to make it more like, well, NPR.

I do give the Fordham guys credit, though, for publishing this essay from Sister Vassa Larin, a well-known Russian Orthodox nun who explains why shes not leaving ROCOR. Excerpt:

In conclusion, let me say a few words in support of sticking it out within ones own church community, at this Time of Troubles.I, for one, am not going anywhere, from my jurisdiction, which happens to be the ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia), also known as ROCA (the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad). Why am Inotleaving, even while we commemorate Patriarch Kirill, and many of our clergy sympathize with Putinism?Because I love my Church.Thats my best answer. And as Ive said jokingly, you cant take the broad out of the Russian Orthodox Church A-broad, just like you cant take the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad out of the broad. I do feel quite devastated by the whole situation, and I do feel betrayed by the utter failure of some of my fathers to discern the truth of this horrible war in Ukraine. I have not been able to post my usual reflections on Scripture on social media, nor have I updated our coffeewithsistervassa.com website, since the war began. I have been at a loss for words, frankly, and instead Ive been focusing on helping a Ukrainian refugee family here in Vienna, which has been a great blessing to me; this opportunity somehow to help the situation has been healing to me.And as I move forward, I see my now more-difficult vocation as witnessing to the truth within my beloved Church, however insignificant that witness is, or how uncomfortable for me, or whether it matters to anyone. I could just leave, but I dont think, in my case, that leaving my marriage to this Church is warranted. I think that God calls me to love, and to truthful witness, to my church family, and thats where I will remain.I also embrace the promise of St. Paul, quoted at the beginning of this post, that I might become one of the approved or in Greek thedokimoi, if I stand in truth at this time of divisions.Thank you to those of you who have read this to the end.Let us love one another, that we may with one mind confess, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

I wonder if NPR has any interest in ROCOR people like Sister Vassa who deplore Russias war on Ukraine, and the feeble response of many Russian hierarchs to it, but who stay anyway. Do they think Sister Vassa is a closet Putinist? Actually I dont think NPR cares. I think theyre just slinging snot at the Orthodox Church to see what sticks.

Well, look, if NPR hates an institution, that might be a recommendation for it. I hope you will go find an Orthodox Church this weekend and see what it has to offer. You will almost certainly not find politics, far-right or otherwise, despite what youve heard on taxpayer-funded state radio. Allow me to finish by quoting once again this line from Odette Yousefs report:

Those who have followed the influx of extremists into American Orthodoxy agree that those individuals are fringe within the church and are mostly concentrated in newly founded ROCOR parishes.

So by NPRs own admission, these menaces to society are a handful of people who are even on the margins within their marginal Orthodox jurisdiction (our word for denomination within Orthodoxy). Yet they gave ten minutes on Morning Edition to this story. How do you think NPR would have handled it twenty years ago if a fringe number of Islamic extremists were attending mosques belonging to a tiny conservative Islamic fellowship of mosques in America? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Yall better all get used to it, you Christians from non-tame churches. This is what its going to be like going forward. Dig deep, pray hard, and never surrender.

View post:

The Cathedral Vs. The Orthodox Church - The American Conservative

More than a century ago, when the fledgling Mumbai-based Hindi cinema industry attempted a full-length feature film, it chose the subject as life of the legendary king Raja Harishchandra.

It is said that filmmaker Dadasaheb Phalke was inspired after watching 1906 French film The Life Of Christ.

Within a few decades, the industry was firmly in the grip of communists and Islamists. That grip didnt loosen even after partition of the country.

Hindu Resistance Against Invaders Missing From Cinema

The themes in the industry changed drastically, and so did the language, which was no longer Sanskritised Hindi as envisioned for India in the Constitution, but Urdu, which Pakistan, after a brutal separation from India, had adopted as its official language.

While the industry produced films and television series on Muslim aggressors against native Hindus such as the Mughals (Mughal-e-Azam, 1960) and Tipu Sultan (The Sword of Tipu Sultan, 1990), hardly any work of a similar scale was made on the Hindu military resistance against Islamic invaders.

Instead, the industry produced a large number of social dramas criticising Hindu society as being ridden by social evils while showing Muslim society as just and inclusive. The films also censured the Hindu religious beliefs and ways of worship and were often made by Muslims such as Mehboob Ali (Mother India), Sultan Ahmed (Ganga ki Saugandh), Salim (Aakhri Ghulam), A K Nadiadwala (Izzat) and Hindus from West Pakistan.

It is only in the last few years that have coincided with the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party at the Centre, that the industry has ventured into this area.

In 2015, a film titled Bajirao Mastani was released, which was based on Maratha warrior Peshwa Bajirao who fought the Mughals (though the film was a love story between Bajirao and a half-Muslim woman named Mastani). By the same filmmaker, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, 2018 film Padmaavat depicted the resistance of legendary Rajput queen Padmawati against the lust of Sultan Alauddin Khilji.

Kesari (2019) was based on the 1897 battle of Saragarhi between soldiers of a Sikh regiment and Muslim Afghans. In 2020, Tanhaji: The Unsung Hero told the story of Maratha warrior Tanaji Malusare who, too, fought the Mughals.

The films received severe backlash from liberal film critics for anti-Muslim themes even though they did well commercially.

Interestingly, all these films had taken special efforts beyond historic evidences to create benevolent Muslim characters. Bhansali, the producer-director-screenplay writer of Padmaavat, cast Deepika Padukone as Maharani Padmavati and Ranveer Singh as the villain, Khilji. This was baffling to many, particularly the Rajputs of Rajasthan, because Deepika and Ranveer were rumoured to be romantically involved that time (later, they indeed married). The two were already a hit romantic pair on-screen, having played the lead roles in Bhansalis other major films such as Bajirao Mastani and Ram-leela.

Many questioned the choice of Ranveer to play a character that Maharani Padmawatis admirers hate the most.

This gives credence to allegations made by some Rajput groups that Bhansali was planning to shoot a romantic dream sequence between the two before they got it shelved. After Rajput groups protests, Bhansali told the media that such a dream song was never on the cards.

We would never know the truth. What we do know is that Bajirao Mastani featured a song where it was implied that the Maratha warrior was making efforts to learn verses of Quran as an expression of his love for Mastani, even though Mastani is documented to have been a follower of Pranami Sampradaya.

Kesari had a scene that showed members of the Sikh regiment building a mosque. It was based on no historical record. On the other hand, records say that Sikh regiments in their mission destroyed a few mosques as they were being used by Pathans for purposes of battle.

Tanhaji avoided a direct Maratha-Mughal conflict and instead focused on Maratha-Rajput conflict, with a patriotic Muslim character introduced for political correctness.

Will The Film On Prithviraj Show The Reality Of Chishtis Role?

At long last, the industry has made a film on famed Rajput warrior Prithviraj Chauhan, who defeated Mohammed Ghori of Ghurid dynasty in the 12th century before being killed by him in a later attempt.

The trailer of the film, produced by Yash Raj Films, was released yesterday (10 May). The titular character is played by Akshay Kumar, with Manushi Chhillar, Sanjay Dutt and Sonu Sood in supporting roles.

Mohammed Ghori, or Shahabuddin or Mohammed of Ghor, was a Muslim ruler of suspected Persian origin who conquered parts of the North Indian plain and laid the foundation for subsequent Islamic dynasties in the Indian subcontinent.

From the trailer of the film, it is clear that the hero of the film is Prithviraj while the villain, Mohammad Ghori.

It remains to be seen if the film would portray the role of Muslim Sunni preacher and saint Moinuddin Chishti, who is also called Gareeb Nawaz and Khwaja Sahib of Ajmer, in the defeat and killing of Prithviraj by Ghori, as documented in books endorsed by no less than top government officials.

Several biographies of Chishti, along with folklore, credit him for making Ghori re-attack Prithviraj after a humiliating defeat.

The film may skip this part, but Akshay Kumars passionate demands of increasing space for the valour of Prithviraj in school textbooks ahead of his films release, calls for a telling of that story.

With this story around Prithvirajs death forgotten, the grave of Chishti is visited as a holy site by not only Muslims but, in large numbers, also the Hindus.

Just like Akshay Kumar, who is a frequent visitor to Chishtis grave in Rajasthans Ajmer, lakhs of Indians pay obeisance to the Islamic preachers tomb while also venerating the Rajput king.

This is because of a myth associated with the preacher that he had magical powers.

Many of Chishtis followers believe he miraculously turned an immature cow to a milch one, transcended time and space to be at two different places at the same time, restored life in a dead human, dried up an entire river, made his enemies lose eyesight without even touching them and so on.

To tell this story, we have chosen to quote from the most prominent English biography of the preacher. Titled Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Hasan Chishti, it was written by Mirza Wahiduddin Begg and published in 1960.

The books introduction was penned by Humayun Kabir, then Minister for Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs, Government of India. Forewords for the book were written by B P Beri, an advocate for the Supreme Court of India who later became a judge in the Rajasthan High Court, and Syed Mahmud, a member of Parliament.

The biography dwells at great lengths on the miraculous powers of the Sufi saint, and his persecution by Raja Prithviraj when he set up base in Ajmer with a few followers.

The story, as told by Begg, goes like this (not quoted verbatim from the text):

Raja Prithviraj repeatedly tried to ouster Chishti from Ajmer at the behest of Brahmins, but to little success. Once, he sent Ajaipal, a black-magician and his loyalist, for the job but Chishti managed to defeat him in his craft. Chishti managed to convert Ajaipal, renamed him as Abdulla Bayabani and gave him a tour of the seventh heaven. His spirit still wanders in Ajmer and helps people who lose their way in jungles and hilly tracts. One only has to call out the name of Abdulla Bayabani for help; he not only helps with the route but also with food and water. Before the partition of India, there were many people in Ajmer who testified to this unique experience, the book says.

Chishti offered Prithviraj to convert to Islam. Prithviraj refused and, instead, told his durbar that the fakir by means his fake jugglers and prophesies was not only polluting their religious beliefs but also inciting people in order to gain influence in their political affairs. When Chishti came to know of Rajas words, he exclaimed these 15 words: We have arrested the Raja alive and headed him over to the army of Islam. The utterances were strange to his followers as Chishti had no army or resources to capture Prithviraj.

The same day Chishti uttered the words, Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori, sitting in his chamber in Ghazni and pondering over his defeat at the hands of Prithviraj a year earlier in the first battle of Tarain, felt giddiness and fell asleep. In his dream, he saw a venerable personality standing before him and commanding him, Get up, the land of India is yearning to kiss your feet and the throne and crown are awaiting you there. Ghori began preparations for war.

When the time for battle arrived, Ghori sent word to Prithviraj that the latter must wait till Ghori hears from his brother. Ghori concocted a story that he had come to battle at the behest of his brother. Prithviraj laughed at Ghoris letter, decided that he had backtracked, but sent a reply that he would wait. Ghori carried out a surprise attack before dawn. Prithviraj and his army resisted this attack and a full-scale battle began. When Ghori found himself losing, he pretended to retreat from the battle, but attacked Prithvirajs forces from behind. Prithviraj died.

The book says, The grave words of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishtiwere fulfilled at lastAnd that was the end of a most historic chapter in the annals of India and Hazrat Sahebs mission in the country.

This chapter in the book is titled "Shahabuddin Ghauri carries the day at Tarain with the blessings of Khwaja Muinuddin".

On page 67, the book says, After the fall of Prithviraj, there was no restriction in the way of Khwaja Saheb [Moinuddin Chisti] to carry on his mission peacefully all over IndiaUnfortunately, it was Prithvirajs own persistent obduracy, arrogance and intolerable persecution of the great saint and his innocent followers that were responsible for downfall of the Raja.

On the mission of Khwaja Saheb, the book says, The Khwaja Sahebs only object in Ajmer was to banish ignorance, darkness, superstition, oppression and corruption from soil of India.

The text makes clear the preachers agenda for the native Hindu society.

This biography, expectedly, is a most sanitised version of Chishtis life that skips the narratives that he indulged in cow slaughter that infuriated Prithviraj in the first place, and that he had entered India along with Ghori to wage jihad against infidels.

In his book Islamic Jihad: A legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery, author M A Khan writes:

Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti (1141-1230), probably the second-greatest Sufi saint of India after Nizamuddin Auliya, demonstrated a deep-seated hatred toward Hindu religion and its practices. On his arrival near the Anasagar Lake at Ajmer, he saw many idol-temples and promised to raze them to the ground with the help of Allah and His Prophet. After settling down there, Khwajas followers used to bring every day a cow (sacred to Hindus) near a famous temple, where the king and Hindus prayed, slaughter it and cook kebab from its meatclearly to show his contempt toward HinduismChisti also came to India with his disciples to fight Jihad against the infidels and participated in the treacherous holy war of Sultan Muhammad Ghauri in which the kind and chivalrous Hindu King Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated in Ajmer. In his Jihadi zeal, Chisti ascribed the credit for the victory to himself, saying, We have seized Pithaura (Prithviraj) alive and handed him over to the army of Islam.

Will the film tell this story? Its highly unlikely.

The Myth Around Jaichand

Whats also waiting to be seen is whether the film would bust the myth of a 'traitor' Jaichand or further it.

Few readers know but there is no reliable historical evidence of such a claim around King Jaichandra of Gahadavala dynasty of northern India.

The popular fictional tale around Prithviraj, Sanyogita and Jaichand is based on a spurious text named Prithviraj Raso, at least four different versions of which exist today. None seems to be older than the time of Akbar, which was at least 400 years after Prithvirajs era.

On the contrary, several historical records say that King Jaichandra died fighting the Ghurid Army led by Ghoris loyalist Qutb-al-Din-Aibak.

History of The Gahadavala Dynasty by Roma Niyogi (1959), the foreword of which was written by R C Majumdar, says, Jayachandra who was fighting on an elephant was killed in the battle, according to Firishta, by an arrow shot by Qutb-ud-Din himself.

With Chandra Prakash Dwivedi at the helm of research for this film, it is hoped that this historical blunder that defames a warrior as well as an entire clan of Rajputs is finally corrected.

Controversies Related To The Tomb

Until 2018, the official website of the Ajmer tomb said this about Chishti, In 1193 ADa devotee of Hazrat Khwaja Saheb had captured a Rajas daughter in an encounter who had embraced Islam and Khawaja Saheb, in response to the above reminder, married her giving her the Islamic name of Bibi Ummutulla.

When some social media users highlighted and criticised this portion for glorifying the act of marrying and changing the religion of a child [the daughter was quite young while Chishti was 55 years old), the website edited the line to gave his sister Bibi Ummutulla to marry him [Chishti].

However, the biography by Begg that we have cited above, supports the websites earlier version.

The book says (Chapter 11 titled Khwaja Muinuddins married life and death):

When he had settled down in Ajmer, the Khwaja Saheb had a special reminder about his marriage through a basharat (prophetic dream from the holy Prophet sometime in 591 AH or 1193 AD). The Prophet said: O Muinuddin, you are a great preceptor of our religion. You have followed strictly all our traditions except one. You should not depart from our sunnah (meaning here marriage which is incumbent upon every Muslim under the laws of Shariat). Coincidently that very night Malik Khitab, a devotee of Hazrat Khwaja Saheb, had captured a Rajas daughter in an encounter who embraced Islam and the Khwaja Saheb, in response to the above reminder, married her giving her the Islamic name of Bibi Ummutulla.

Talking of Chishtis tomb, it must not be forgotten that in the early 1990s, a major scandal rocked Ajmer where Hindu women became target of large-scale sexual exploitation and religious conversion. Many accused were khadims of, or held other posts at, the Ajmer dargah.

Last year, a current khadim of the tomb, Syed Sarwar Chishti, who claims descent from Moinuddin, addressed his followers outside the tomb over the issue of blasphemy of Islams founder Mohammad. Sarwar ended up issuing covert threats to Hindus, saying We [Muslims] ruled over you [Hindus] for centuries and the community should not be pushed to a limit that they begin to want to rule again. We were not subjects, we were rulers, he said.

Offering chadar at the grave of Chishti and venerating Prithviraj, the king who fought the invader brought upon the North Indian plains by Chishti, cannot go hand-in-hand.

One must choose.

The rest is here:

Chadar At Ajmer Sharif And Praises On Prithviraj Chauhan Cannot Go Hand-In-Hand; Chishti Blessed Ghori To Defeat Prithviraj, As Per His Biography -...

Indians, Native Americans, American Indians are all labels foisted upon the indigenous people of America and so what is a newspaper to do when selecting the supposed correct label?

In his book The Day the World Ended at Little Big Horn, Joseph M. Marshall III reviewed all of these labels and then wrote, "We prefer to be identified by our specific tribes or nations, of which there are nearly five hundred ethnically identifiable in the United States."

He goes on, "However, in the interest of avoiding confusion within the pages of this work, I have chosen to used the word Indian mostly in those instances when there is a necessary reference to more than a specific tribe or native nation."

And so in this era of political correctness even the great Sicangu author, Joe Marshall, has to admit that he is also faced with this recurring dilemma. Any writer covering issues related to events and people associated with Indian country faces this same question and must decide whether to follow political correctness or go along with historic usage.

If one visits an Indian reservation (there's that word Indian again) and speaks to the elders of the tribe, he or she will find that they refer to themselves as "Indian," without reservation (no pun intended).

I am a firm believer that most historians are wrong when they credit Christopher Columbus for coining the word "Indian" because he thought he was landing his ships in India. In 1492 there was no country known as India. Instead that country was called Hindustan. I think that is closer to the truth that the Spanish padre that sailed with Columbus was so impressed with the innocence of the Natives he observed that he called them Los Ninos in Dios. My spelling may be wrong on the Spanish words, but the description by the padre means something like "Children of God."

After many years of usage the word Indios emerged and to this day the indigenous people of South and Central America are called Indios. I am told that as the word wound its way North it evolved into "Indian." Of course some will say that there was a place called the East Indies in 1492 and Columbus may have thought he was headed for that region.

So how and when did the efforts to politicize the name start? I suspect that some of it started when Native Americans enrolled in some of the white colleges. I think they found the word "Indian" offensive and set about to remake it. They found that the word Indian was often used in a derogatory fashion such as "drunken Indian" or "rotten Indian." Perhaps the white people would have found it more difficult to say "drunken Native American?"

And finally, when some Indian journalists made it to the newsrooms of large and prestigious mainstream newspapers, they reacted to the word "Indian" as they did when they were in college. They went to their editors and tried to impress upon them that the paper should no longer use the word "Indian," but should, instead, switch to Native American or Native.

I first ran across this sudden change when I was mailed a copy of my weekly column that had appeared in the Lincoln (Neb.) Star Journal. In every place I had used "Indian" the editorial page editor edited it to read "Native." Of course I was appalled. If I had intended to use "Native" I would have used it and I resented the fact that the EPE had changed the word in order to fit his presumption of political correctness.

I immediately dropped him a note and asked, "When you come across organizational names like National Congress of American Indians or National Indian Education Association are you going to change them to read National Congress of Native Americans or National Native Education Association."

How about newspapers like "Indian Country Today," my former weekly paper? "Native American Country Today" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

The local daily newspaper in Rapid City, SD decided to drop the use of the word "Indian" and replace it with "Native American." I believe they did so when they, with unintended fanfare, used a headline that highlighted the word "Indian" when describing the new education director for the Rapid City Schools. A howl went up in the Indian community, but the howl was less about political correctness than about the bad usage of the name in that particular context. I believe it is a policy that needs to be reconsidered because anyone born in the United States of America is a Native American, but they are not American Indians.

Politically correct labels have been applied to other races in the past and since Indians are always the last to be labeled for anything, I suppose our time has come.

(Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota, was born, raised and educated on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. He was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard in the Class of 1991 and founder of The Lakota Times and Indian Country Today newspapers. He founded and was the first president of the Native American Journalists Association. He can be reached at najournalist@msn.com)

See more here:

The Name "Indian" and Political Correctness | HuffPost ...

1994 American comedy film

PCU is a 1994 American comedy film written by Adam Leff and Zak Penn and directed by Hart Bochner about college life at the fictional Port Chester University, and represents "an exaggerated view of contemporary college life".[3] The film is based on the experiences of Leff and Penn at Eclectic Society at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.

Preppy pre-freshman (pre-frosh) Tom Lawrence visits Port Chester University (PCU), a college where fraternities have been outlawed and political correctness is rampant on campus. During his visit, accident-prone Tom manages to make enemies with nearly every group of students, and thus spends much of his visit evading the growing mob upset with him.

During his visit, Tom also finds himself in the middle of a war between "The Pit" and "Balls and Shaft", two rival groups. Among the members of the latter is Rand McPherson, who, with the other Balls and Shaft members, want the outlawed Greek system to return. Meanwhile, "The Pit", an unofficial group, runs the former "Balls and Shaft" frat house in a highly disorganized manner. Currently inhabited by seniors Gutter and Mullaney, mid-year Freshman co-ed Katy, and led by multi-year senior James "Droz" Andrews, The Pit is a party-centric house that rebels against the politically correct protests; their counter-protests and parties are a frequent source of complaint forms.

Other factions on campus include a commune-style house of pot users called Jerrytown that Gutter often frequents, a radical feminist group known as the Womynists, an Afrocentric group suspecting the Pit of conspiring against them, and the college president, Ms. Garcia-Thompson, who is obsessed with enforcing "sensitivity awareness" and multiculturalism to an extreme. She proposes that Bisexual Asian Studies should have its own building, as well as a plan to change the campus mascot to a whooping crane instead of an offensive Native American character during their Bicentennial Anniversary. Garcia-Thompson conspires behind closed doors with Balls and Shaft to get the established residents of The Pit kicked off campus and give Rand control of the house. She provokes the Pit residents with a damage bill from their past semester. Left unpaid, the campus would seize their house, leaving them homeless and unable to continue attendance at PCU without getting jobs.

The Pit responds by throwing a party to raise the funds needed. The Womynists take offense to The Pit's flyers advertising the party, and hold a protest outside as the house residents conspire to steal alcohol and convince students to attend. The party at first appears to be a failure. However, a series of unlikely events results in George Clinton and Parliament-Funkadelic performing at the party. Students begin streaming in (initially to seize Tom for his prior mistakes) and the party successfully raises the funds to keep the house. Garcia-Thompson (after being locked in a room by Droz with the song "Afternoon Delight" playing on repeat), deciding to act on the many complaints against The Pit, shuts down the party and expels the residents of The Pit in spite of their fundraising efforts. Tom then informs Droz about an overheard conversation with the Board of Trustees: the President's politically correct changes are negatively affecting both their past legacy and media publicity.

At the bicentennial ceremony the following morning, Droz and former Pit residents succeed in liberating the Whooping Crane and provoking the other students into an impromptu protest against protesting (chanting "We're not gonna protest!"). The demonstration establishes that even with The Pit shut down, the President cannot control the student population, resulting in the Board of Trustees summarily firing her. Meanwhile, Rand complains about all the other student groups, unaware that Droz has surreptitiously used the podium microphone to broadcast his rant to the entire campus.

Later, Tom heads home having decided to commit to PCU as the Pit has moved back into their house. As he sits on the bus, he sees Rand, who is now in Tom's position at the beginning of the film: being chased by the students across campus.

Principal photography took place almost entirely in and around Toronto with the University of Toronto serving as Port Chester University. Some limited second unit shots were shot on the Wesleyan campus.[5]

Jeremy Piven complains in the DVD audio commentary that actors were not allowed by the director to improvise at all. He was able to include some limited improvisation by appealing to the writers directly. Production schedules were challenged when Piven, who is active in anti-malaria charities, contracted malaria on a trip to Guatemala which affected him while filming.[6]

On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 44% based on reviews from 16 critics.[7] On Metacritic the film has a score of 42% based on reviews from 13 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[8]

Roger Ebert said the film "begins with a terrific premise, but immediately loses faith in it."[9]It has also been ranked among the ten best college movies by The Huffington Post.[10]

With a budget of $8 million, it grossed $2,129,483 on opening weekend contributing to a final domestic total of $4,330,020.[2]

The soundtrack, released on May 10, 1994 by Fox / Arista, features songs from the feature film.[11] Steve Vai wrote the score for the movie, which he would later release on his compilation album The Elusive Light and Sound, Vol. 1. The album is notable for the Mudhoney's cover of Pump It Up.

Original post:

PCU (film) - Wikipedia

Every American should read 1984. Written just after WWII, this chilling dystopia predicts with stunning accuracy what happens when free speech is obliterated, as well as the nightmare effects of censorship.

George Orwell was a committed socialist, so much so that he fought, and almost died, in the Spanish Revolution on behalf of the communists. However, he became deeply disenchanted, when communist dictators like Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolution with mass surveillance, brutal repression, systematic murder, and totalitarianism.

Orwell stated that 1984, was based chiefly on communism, because that is the dominant form of totalitarianism, but I was trying to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English speaking countries, and was no longer a mere extension of the Russian Foreign Office.

Yet you and I dont have to imagine anymore, as the White House just created their new Disinformation Governance Board inside the Department of Homeland Security.

Yes, you read that right. The bureaucrats who should be (but arent) protecting our Southern Border armed with the militaristic might of the Federal Government have become the new Ministry of Truth.

In 1984, the Ministry of Truth was the propaganda arm of the government. By controlling the news, the media, entertainment, and education, they created a world where only One Truth is allowedthat which was approved by the government.

By rewriting past news accounts and books, the Party literally remade history into what they wanted it to be. By militarizing the Thought Police to investigate thoughtcrime, they eliminated people who had opposing views. But perhaps the most devious attack was Newspeak, the deliberate culling of words, like freedom and democracy, from the English language, in order to make these heretical thoughts essentially impossible.

When I first read 1984 in the early 80s, I never dreamed any of it could ever happen here.

Then came political correctness.

Surprisingly, the term originated in 1917 Soviet Russia. Over the past few decades, freedom-loving people have allowed the woke crowd to use political correctness to control what you and I are allowed to think and say.

Who among us thinks the government should add to its work list the job of determining what is true and what is disinformation? writes Politico, And who thinks the government is capable of telling the truth? Our government produces lies and disinformation at industrial scaleand always has.

Yet the White House wants to double-down on the repression of free speech, giving the woke PC police a military arm to enforce their odious mind control.

In a separate but interrelated story, the leftist mainstream media is furious that Elon Musk just bought Twitter.

The left used to love Musk as the guy who built green electric cars and private spaceships. They used to applaud him when he enthusiastically supported Obama and sarcastically attacked the Right.

Now, Twitter executives cry at board meetings at the thought that the media giant might have to allow free speech back on their platform. Now, the media is accusing Musk of being a racist and a right wing ideologue for suggesting that Twitter shouldnt censor opposing political views.

Remember, this is the same Twitter that suspended New York Post, Babylon Bee, and other media outlets in an attempt to silence them. Its the same platform that quashed countless facts that were later proven to be true. In short: it is the same platform that censors free speech.

Which leads us to a horrible truth: people today would rather sit comfortably in their safe space, than engage in free speech. People today would rather hide inside a plastic bubble, than hear opposing views. People today would rather be told what to think, than actually think for themselves.

This is how democracy dies. This is how dictatorships win. If we are to remain a free people, we must listen to each other and respect each others positions, whether we agree with them or not. Our goal should never be robotic agreement; but rather, curious empathy. We should embrace our differences, rather than eliminate opposing voices.

And we should never allow any Government to become the Truth Police.

State Representative Dave Belton represents the citizens of District 112, which includes Morgan County and the eastern side of Newton County.

See the rest here:

Reading between the lines of "1984" in 2022 | Opinion | morgancountycitizen.com - Morgan County Citizen

2022 is a big year for anniversaries: the Queens 70th anniversary, the BBCs centenary and the 25th anniversary of the death of Princess Diana, to name a few. Its also the worst year for anniversaries because the people in charge of celebrating them are obsessed with political correctness.

The Big Jubilee Read, a celebration of great books written during the first seventy years of the Queens reign, has already taken an almighty kicking from Private Eye, The Telegraph and Alex Larman in The Critic among others, because of the bizarre omissions (childrens classics including The Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter books and His Dark Materials, famous writers from Doris Lessing, AS Byatt and Kingsley Amis to Ian McEwan, Julian Barnes and Harold Pinter) and the woke choices.

Now comes the BFIs attempt to celebrate the BBCs centenary with what they have called 100 BBC TV Gamechangers. More political correctness. The Chinese Detective (notable for having the first British East Asian lead in a British television drama) but not The Singing Detective; Madhur Jaffreys Indian Cookery (one TV series) but not Fanny Cradock (24 TV series 1955-75); Ballet Negres (1946), excerpts from the repertoire of Europes first Black dance company, one of only two BBC programmes from the 1940s; but not Muffin the Mule, the first childrens programme to appear from the BBCs then new television studios at Lime Grove, the first televised Olympics or the beginning of the BBCs dedicated TV news service.

Theres a Scottish comedy show, Chewin the Fat, which the BFI contributor admits was virtually unknown and unseen elsewhere in Britain, but not Fawlty Towers, League of Gentlemen or Little Britain. Of course, theres one ethnic minority which doesnt feature in the BFI list. None of the great dramas by Jack Rosenthal, Stephen Poliakoff or Frederic Raphael about different aspects of Jewish life or history. Whenever you see woke lists, you always know theres one group who will be missed out.

Then there are the bizarre choices and even more curious omissions. Jed Mercurios Cardiac Arrest but not Line of Duty; Peter Watkinss Threads, about a nuclear attack made at the height of CND, but not War Game or his pioneering drama-documentary, Culloden; plenty of David Attenborough but no Ascent of Man, no Moon Landing, and no Life Story, Mick Jacksons brilliant drama about the discovery of the structure of DNA with Jeff Goldblum, Tim Pigott-Smith, Juliet Stevenson and Alan Howard. Theres the BBC Proms but nothing by Christopher Nupen, Camberwick Green but nothing from Watch with Mother.

Of course, there are some outstandingly good choices: Arena, Civilisation and Ways of Seeing from the arts, Life on Earth and Blue Planet, some great childrens programmes from The Sooty Show and Playschool to Blue Peter and Vision On (but its worth noting that theres only one childrens programme since Teletubbies), and great dramas, from The Forsyte Saga to The Billy Trilogy and Boys from the Blackstuff.

Each choice has a section called How it changes TV. Some of the choices were pioneering: from Ways of Seeing and Arena to Pennies from Heaven and The Office. They all radically changed the nature of arts programmes, drama and comedy. Vision On was designed specifically for children with hearing impairment and Something Special pioneered the use of Makaton.

Some of the most interesting choices didnt change the form of TV at all, but did introduce different voices, especially since the 1970s: new Black and Asian comedy shows and dramas, including The Lenny Henry Show and Goodness Gracious Me, gay drama series like Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit. But arguably there are equally important firsts: the first well-known and much-loved Black childrens TV presenters like Floella Benjamin and Derek Griffiths on Play School; Cy Grant, the first black person to be featured regularly on television in the United Kingdom, mostly due to his appearances on the BBC current affairs show Tonight; Moira Stuart, the UKs first female African-Caribbean television newsreader; and Diane-Louise Jordan, the first Black presenter on Blue Peter in the 1990s.

But many of the choices didnt change TV at all. They may have been outstanding and/or popular, but how did Strictly (Come Dancing + mostly minor celebrities) change TV? Or Amy Jenkinss overrated drama, This Life? The Six Wives of Henry VIII was hugely popular in the early 1970s, but like so many dramas of the time it remained confined to the studio, with huge, clunky old cameras; it now looks old-fashioned compared to Peter Kosminskys Wolf Hall.

Which brings us to technology. There is no room here for the first use of colour TV, the first satellite transmissions, the first use of lightweight cameras in TV drama and in news, the change from film to video.

There are other dramatic changes. If you look at the BBCs timeline celebrating 100 years of the corporation, there are references to the 1951 General Election with Truly comprehensive analysis and results for the first time; the first BBC daily news TV programme in 1954; the first TV programme for deaf children in 1955, a forerunner to Vision On; Edward II with Ian McKellen in 1970, which showed the first same-sex kiss on British television; Does He Take Sugar?, a series which began in 1977 offering a new perspective on the lives of disabled people. These are all programmes which changed British television for the better, but they didnt make the BFI list. The BFI seem more interested in ethnic minorities (no, not that one), transsexuals, feminists, left-wing drama and refugees. If only the BBCs centenary had been twenty years ago.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

More:

Why 2022 is the worst year for anniversaries - TheArticle

ITV DI Ray fans have been left divided by the opening episode - but all are in agreement: Birmingham has stolen the show. Fans have commented saying they love the Brum backdrop to the new drama.

But some think the series if off to a dull and boring start. Bird said: "#DIRAY anyone else bored already? Was hoping it would be a good drama but its so slow." But Rebecca shot back: "We really enjoyed it fail to see how people thought it was boring... was fab."

Gavin Evans said: "Finding #DIRay really boring." Dennis remarked: "#DIRay shes being followed so she leads them to her home .... not exactly the most intelligent thing for a detective inspector to do surely."

READ MOREAnne Robinson quits Countdown and issues lengthy statement

But Cleo said: "#DIRay enjoying the first episode and love the premise. Promoted to tick a box but only speaks English and GCSE Spanish, made me smile, Real. Filmed in Brum and mainly West Mids cast.." And Excuse Me said: "I'm quite enjoying the slower pace, with no one being shot or exploded body parts scattered across a car park yet. Bit different from the Line of Duty team #DIRay."

LJ Kaboom said: "Im not enjoying #DIRay and not for reasons the old racists on here are banging on about such as political correctness. I just think the story is lacking and there hasnt been enough investment in the characters. Its good to see a show filmed in Birmingham though."

Another "Good lord, this plod drama is, well, plodding." Another said: "Anyone else bored already? Was hoping it would be a good drama but it's so slow."

Stay up to date with all the latest news and opinion on days out, nights out, shopping and plenty more with our Daily What's On Email update newsletter - and it's completely free.

Read the rest here:

ITV DI Ray fans left divided about show but all in agreement on one thing - Birmingham Live

A recent Marist Poll showing a Republican advantage in the upcoming election has some additional good news for the GOP big gains among Hispanic and other non-White voters.

The survey, taken in late April, reflects a national trend signaling Hispanic and non-White voters are increasingly disenchanted with the Biden administration and with Democrats who run Congress. In rising numbers, they plan to pick GOP candidates in November, when every House seat and 34 Senate seats are up for grabs.

A Wall Street Journal poll in March found Hispanic voters picked a Republican candidate over a Democrat by 9 percentage points on the generic congressional ballot.

The survey found that support for Democrats among Black voters had shrunk dramatically, from 56% in November 2021 to 35% in March. Black voters increased their support for GOP candidates, the poll found, from 12% to 27% from November to March.

Republican strategists are optimistic, but say the upcoming election will truly test whether the trend spotted in polls will provide real gains to the party, which has traditionally lagged behind Democrats when it comes to Hispanic and non-White voters.

Weve seen a surge in polling showing Hispanics are moving to the GOP, but have yet to see any real evidence in recent special elections and off-year elections, said Republican strategist Ryan Girdusky.

The Marist poll of registered voters showed that 47% planned to vote for a GOP candidate, compared with 44% who said they would more likely choose a Democrat. Independent voters picked Republicans over Democrats 45% to 38%.

Among Hispanics, whose vote has become increasingly critical in swing areas of the country, 52% said they would pick a Republican if the election were held immediately, compared with 39% who planned to vote for a Democrat.

Half of non-White voters said they would pick a Democrat, but 41% said they would choose a Republican candidate.

The big gains for the GOP suggest that while President Biden will not be on the ballot, hes poised to cast a long shadow over the results.

Voters are increasingly concerned about inflation, high gas prices, crime and other economic woes that have persisted or worsened under the Biden administration.

Among Hispanic voters polled by Marist, 60% disapproved of Mr. Bidens handling of the economy, while 33% said they approved of his job performance. Non-White voters disapproved by a margin of 50% to 43%.

Giancarlo Sopo, a Cuban American Republican strategist, said the Marist poll shows Hispanic voters are unhappy about the economy and other issues, including rising crime.

The data strongly suggest Bidens Hispanic woes stem from concerns over the economy and public safety, Mr. Sopo tweeted. Hispanics disapprove of economic handling by 27 points. This makes sense. The median Hispanic household income is $55k. Inflation is bad for everyone and brutal for Latinos.

Mr. Girdusky said Senate and House races in Nevada, Texas, Arizona, and in Californias Central Valley, where Hispanics make up a substantial part of the electorate, will tell us how substantial the movement is.

According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, 1 in every 10 voters in 2022 is expected to be Latino, an increase of more than 34% since 2014.

In Arizona, where Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly is defending a seat that could determine whether the party maintains the Senate majority, Hispanics are expected to make up nearly a quarter of all voters.

Mr. Biden won the state by fewer than 10,000 votes in 2020, and Arizona voters have since then soured on the administration.

An OH Predictive Insights poll taken in late March found 55% of Arizona voters were unhappy with Mr. Bidens job performance. Among the respondents, 22% were Hispanics.

The wavering Hispanic vote will be critical in Nevadas Senate race, where Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto is battling Republican challenger Adam Laxalt.

More than 16% of the 2022 electorate in Nevada is expected to be made up of Hispanic voters. They helped Mr. Biden narrowly win the state in 2020, but polling in late March found Hispanic voters in Nevada now favor Mr. Trump by 19%.

The Blueprint Polling survey found Ms. Cortez Masto and Mr. Laxalt tied among Hispanic voters.

Democrats told The Washington Times they plan to educate Hispanic voters on the difference between the two political parties on taxes, health care and other issues.

While Democrats lower costs and invest in communities, Republicans plot to hike taxes on working families and attack affordable health care, all while emboldening the extremists and White supremacists in their rank, said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Hallen Kalla.

Mr. Sopo told The Washington Times that Democrats need to focus on issues that are most critical to Hispanic voters and not political correctness and making minorities feel like victims in America, which he said, is just not how most Hispanics view ourselves or this country.

Link:

Republicans making critical gains among Hispanic and non-White voters ahead of 2022 election - Washington Times