A slippery slope








Multicultural gynaecologist 'groped six female patients during private and NHS consultations and even asked one woman to reveal her tattooed bottom'


The Patwardhans are Indian Brahmins

Consultant gynaecologist: Mahesh Patwardhan, 53, of Loughton, Essex, was allegedly turned on by rubbing himself against women

A consultant gynaecologist groped six female patients during private and NHS consultations - even asking one woman to reveal her tattooed bottom, a court heard today.

Mahesh Patwardhan, 53, of Loughton, Essex, was allegedly turned on by rubbing himself against women while ‘groping’ their breasts from behind as they bent over an examination couch.

He saw NHS patients at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Charlton, south-east London, and private patients at the nearby Blackheath Hospital and The Holly in Buckhurst Hill, Essex.

Patwardhan told one woman ‘Take your knickers off’, while he told another that she would soon be having ‘Lots of sexy sex and orgasms’ after performing intimate cosmetic surgery on her, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

The gynaecologist has pleaded not guilty to six counts of sexual assault and two counts of fraud relating to falsely billing private medical insurers for work he did not perform.

Kate Bex, prosecuting, said the first woman, aged 37, was an NHS patient referred by her GP who claimed the consultant groped her between her legs. She said: ‘It lasted ten seconds, but she was so shocked and surprised she did not say anything at the time.’

The woman reported Patwardhan to the police after reading he was disciplined by the General Medical Council.

The second woman, a mother-of-three aged 32, was also seen at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Miss Bex said: ‘He came behind her and put his arms around her and onto her breasts.

‘He groped her breasts and squeezed them with his hands and she was in total shock,’ she added, explaining the woman made an excuse to avoid removing the rest of her clothing.

The woman told police: ‘He came behind us and that’s when he put his hands on us. He wasn’t talking, he was just groping my breasts. ‘It was horrible, I was in total shock. I didn’t know what to do, I felt sick and disgusted. When he said: “Take your knickers off” I knew something was wrong. If I had lied on that couch and took my knickers off what would he have done?’

The third woman, a 35 year-old private patient, says Patwardhan groped her between her legs.

‘She says she heard him making a groaning noise and he asked her about her sex life and if she had orgasms,’ said Miss Bex.

Patwardhan performed intimate cosmetic surgery on the woman, but billed her insurers - AXA PPP - for cyst removal because they would not cover the true operation, the jury were told.

‘Afterwards he told her she would soon be having “Lots of sexy sex and orgasms” in a way that gave her the creeps.’

The fourth woman, a 37 year-old mother-of-two, says Patwardhan became more intimate after sizing her up.

‘The cuddling started after her second or third visit,’ explained Miss Bex. ‘He’d hug her goodbye and push his body into her, grab her bottom and kiss her on the cheek.

‘He examined her breasts after asking her to bend over the couch and asked her to show him the tattoo on her bum.’

The fifth woman, aged 30, was a private Blackheath Hospital patient, who had an ovarian cyst.

‘The defendant put his arms around her, his hand on her knee and told her she was as beautiful on the inside as she was on the outside.

‘He asked her to bend over the couch and she could feel his body pressing against hers from behind while cupping her breasts. She thought he became aroused and she was embarrassed so put her clothes on and left the room as fast as she could.’

Patwardhan offered to investigate the back pain of a sixth woman, aged 26. He allegedly felt her spine and then cupped her breasts.

A private Bupa patient, aged 21, came forward to report Patwardhan for making her sign a claim form for a £195 non-existent pre-surgery consultation.

She was seen at The Holly, where the defendant’s wife was the anaesthetist, and said she did not make a fuss because she was in the couple’s hands.

When questioned by police Patwardhan mainly answered ‘no comment’ to questions, but did deny making dishonest claims and conducting sexually-motivated examinations.

The six sexual assault allegations are claimed to have taken place between July 2008 and September 2012, and the trial is expected to last three weeks.

SOURCE






Charlie Daniels Responds to Typical Liberal Hate Note with Open Letter

Dear fellow American from the “dream world,”

I want to thank you for your letter and all the unkind things you attempted to say about me. I have a few comments of my own to make.

First of all, your command of the English language, while archaic, inane, convoluted and tiresome, is admirable – if not very communicable – but your finely-honed sense of hyperbole would qualify you for the upper echelons of liberal verbal overkill.

However, you really should go to your dictionary and look up the word “racist.”

I'll save you the trouble, the dictionary defines racism as the belief that one race is superior to all others; not those who criticize President Obama.

Your insistence that I want to starve old people and children, start a war, completely divest women of every right they've gained since the days of Susan B. Anthony, abuse minorities by demanding a valid ID to vote, put a gun in the hand of every violent person in the country, accuse every Muslim in the world of being a terrorist, take away the rights of every religion except my own, destroy the ecology with the internal combustion engine and by not believing in man made global warming, mistreat undocumented aliens by not allowing them to come into the country illegally and that believing everyone should pay some taxes to have some skin in the game, not having compassion for lazy bums who refuse to work and sponge off the government and being the cause for the Chicago Cubs not being in a World Series since 1945 is a little over the top.

Kidding about the Cubs.

You did, however, pay me a couple of compliments.

You called me a “redneck” and a “hillbilly,” and I wholeheartedly accept both insinuations with gratitude. And I acknowledge that at least you got two things about me right.

Let me elaborate.

I’m “Redneck” from your point of view because I passionately believe that the second amendment guarantees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms – and not just for sports and target practice, but protection – because I like to spend my Sunday afternoons watching cars go around a race track real fast and because I enjoy watching heavyweight young men face each other over an inflated piece of pigskin, among other things you may consider to be trivial and plebeian.

I’m a “Hillbilly” because – first of all – I love country music and the rural lifestyle. Oh, and by the way, “hillbilly” is passé. The only ones who use it are people who never venture outside their little circle of urban-bound, self-ordained sophisticates with a weakness for Perrier and lime and reading books they claim they love, but don’t really understand.

When it comes to somebody who has my back I'll take the rednecks and hillbillies every time and leave the university professors and armchair philosophers to you.

Your idealism and tacit fascination with socialism reflects shallowness, indifference or downright ignorance – or perhaps a little of all three – as all it takes to understand the abject failure of the system, for at least three quarters of a century, is a cursory examination of history.

And your belief that you can bargain with terrorist states and dictatorships or contain their evil is naive to say the least, as the only kind of diplomacy these kinds of people will ever understand is a power much stronger than any they can muster.

While you'll go to all lengths to save the whales and see that baby seals are treated humanely, you condone the murder of millions of the unborn every year and condemn me for believing that a fetus is a living human being and deserves the same right to come into the world alive as you and me.

And one more comment insofar as the right to bear arms: If and when a terrorist sleeper cell comes out of hiding and starts indiscriminately gunning down people in the streets and invading neighborhoods, or some hardened criminal escapes from prison and is considered “armed and dangerous,” put a sign on your door stating that your home is a gun free zone.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem. God Bless America

SOURCE






Is Slavoj Zizek actually a moderate Leftist?

He doesn't seem to like migrants very much and is rather conservative in other ways -- he just finds roundabout roads to those positions



He’s an avowed psychoanalytic philosopher. An unabashed Hegelian Marxist. And, according to some, ‘the most dangerous philosopher in the West’. He is, of course, Slavoj Zizek. And, whatever else he might be, he remains one of the most probing, independently minded thinkers out there, possessing an intellect as prodigious as his writings are prolific. Ella Whelan decided it was time to put some questions to the great man himself, about the migrant crisis, the Culture Wars, and his latest book, Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours.

Ella Whelan: In your new book, you criticise liberal humanitarianism and the over-emotionalised response to the migrant crisis. Why do you think this is a problem?

Slavoj Zizek: What disturbs me is not the emotionalism as such – these are tragic stories. What I want to know is why the migrant crisis is perceived, at least in Europe, as a purely humanitarian problem. People say, ‘hundreds and thousands are coming – will we receive them or not? Does Europe have an open heart?’ I think that this fascination with the misery of the migrants obfuscates other questions, which are, for me, much more important. What is not asked is the absolutely crucial question: what are the causes of the crisis? The practice of economic neocolonialism of Europe, the military interventions in the Middle East, and so on. Change at this level is what we must first address.

My metaphor for the response to the migrant crisis would be a cinematographic one. We have a close-up of refugees landing across the Mediterranean. But we have to move the camera backwards to get a general establishing shot – what exactly is going on there? I am especially suspicious of this immediate readiness to feel guilty, to be responsible: we Europeans screwed it up, everything is the fault of our neocolonialism. This is not what I mean by probing into the background.

This response to the migrant crisis is a problem because it puts refugees in the totally passive position of victims. It’s as if we turned the old racist slogan of white man’s burden into white man’s guilt, as if we are the only active ones. This is, I think, our basic racist view. And when the refugees become too active, they are dismissed as terrorists.

This response to the migrant crisis is a problem because it puts refugees in the totally passive position of victims. It’s as if we turned the old racist slogan of white man’s burden into white man’s guilt, as if we are the only active ones

But my greatest problem with all this humanitarianism is that people are not aware of what is really happening in Europe – the massive anti-immigrant populist movement. The leader of the Austrian populist Freedom Party had a serious chance of becoming president. This could have been the first time, in a Western European country, that a pure, anti-immigrant, racist populist became president.

Whelan: There is often a dismissal of those who are in favour of immigration controls as simply being racist. Are we ignoring people’s genuine concerns about this serious political issue?

Zizek: I don’t agree with the usual left-liberal attitude of dismissing all this as just lower-class populism, racism or fascism. Walter Benjamin put it clearly: ‘Behind every fascism there is a failed revolution.’ What is this discontent of the so-called ordinary people in Western Europe? How do we address this? These left-liberals do not want to address it. They just bemoan the fact that Europe is losing its heart. This is my greatest reproach to what I call the left-liberals: the worse the situation gets, the more they feel morally superior. They like to emphasise a sense of horror about Europe becoming fascist. Well, what are they effectively doing to prevent this horror?

I am pleading for a much more complex view, to begin some kind of a restructuring of the economic, military and political view of the entire situation that has caused the migrant crisis. The solution is not just, ‘let’s open our borders, and all will come in’. This, I think, is the first step towards a catastrophe. I am trying to understand the concerns of ordinary people without condoning racism.

Despite all his limitations, I admire US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. His success is based on the fact that he always maintained a link with the small farmers of Vermont, all those who usually vote for Bible-belt conservatives. That is an absolutely crucial task today. If we don’t do this, we are lost.

Twenty years ago, I remember being shocked watching the then Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen on television at a national meeting. What he did was ingenious. He brought on stage a Jew, a black guy and an Arab, and he said, ‘look at them, they are no less French than me. They are my friends, they are not my enemies. My enemies’, and of course here he came close to anti-Semitic racism, ‘are the ruthless, cosmopolitan capitalists’. In this anti-immigrant populism, no matter how manipulated, there is a clear anti-capitalist edge. It is just displaced and mystified.

Whelan: Against the Double Blackmail also looks at what you call left-wing taboos – for instance, Islamophobia – and the reluctance to judge certain things that people do and say, especially when it comes to migrants or refugees. Are these taboos holding us back from having an honest discussion about immigration?

Zizek: People argue that if refugees do something wrong, they should not be held responsible. It’s always that we must somehow be responsible. But, if you talk to real immigrants, and I did talk to them in Germany and elsewhere, they want to be treated as responsible individuals.

But every critical remark you make is instantly decried by leftists as Islamophobia. With many leftists, I notice that this doesn’t only involve Islamophobia – some leftists don’t even like to emphasise materialism or secular values. I am absolutely, unambiguously a materialist. I don’t want any part of this return of the sacred, post-secular age. People think that I am part of some Western secular conspiracy against the Third World and the people there. I find this way of thinking extremely dangerous. The emancipatory core of the Western legacy – materialism, secular thought, women’s rights, Cartesian subjectivity, abstract universal subjectivity – these are more precious than ever today.

These are heavy political choices, I know. That’s why some post-colonialists attack me so much. We have global capitalism, we have to ask ourselves how do we move over it. Is it that we accept that we have to move through it in the sense of modernisation, secularisation? And that this is the only consequential Marxist view? Or should we play this game and demand that the European Enlightenment is discredited on account of the horrors that it caused, and argue that, today, the only resistance to global capitalism can come from Third World, indigenous traditions: African traditions, Latin-American traditions, etc.

I do not buy this second version, not only because it is ineffective, but because I think it fits perfectly with where global capitalism is moving today. There is absolutely nothing subversive in this idea that we should preserve or revive some old tradition of communal meetings, the solidarity of the whole community over individual rights. I don’t believe there’s any substantial emancipatory potential in this. China is doing this today. I had a debate recently in Amsterdam with one of the Chinese political thinkers whose line of thought was that, ‘you in the West have a destructive modernity because your modernity is too much in this Cartesian, individual-rights, competitive vein. But we, the Chinese, succeeded in combining modernity with ancient Confucian traditions.’ I don’t buy this.

The emancipatory core of the Western legacy – materialism, secular thought, women’s rights, Cartesian subjectivity, abstract universal subjectivity – these are more precious than ever today

Whelan: One of the biggest problems we have at the moment is the West’s self-effacing attitude. People say, ‘who are we to criticise? Britain has done terrible things in the past and we are in no position to judge.’ Should Britain’s, or indeed Europe’s, past stop us from exercising our critical and political judgement on other traditions and cultures?

Zizek: Take this example. British colonialism did many horrible things in India, but the worst among them was resuscitating the oppressive Hindu tradition of caste. Before British colonisation, the caste tradition was already disintegrating because of the influence of Islam. But British colonisers understood very quickly that the way to rule Indians was not to make them like us or to bring to them our modernity. No, a much better way to rule them was to resuscitate their own traditional, patriarchal, authoritarian structures. Colonialists did not want to create modernisers. No, intelligent colonialists always prefer to keep the majority in their own traditional frameworks. They never wanted Indians to become like us. Aldous Huxley wrote about his experience in India in the 1920s and detailed how the average English coloniser in India loved traditional Indian culture. He looked at how they described Westerners as vulgar, caring only about technological domination. The ordinary, poor Indian Hindu priest, in contrast, had an incredible spirituality and wisdom that far surpassed Western culture. The same thing is happening with refugees – why would we want them to be like us when we are so awful?

Whelan: You often criticise our obsession with culture. We are now living through the Culture Wars, with racism, sexism and gender politics dominating the political landscape. Why has culture become such an obsession? And, especially with regards to the migrant crisis, has it replaced a much-needed, broader political discussion?

Zizek: I do think racism and sexism are problems today. But I do not like the culturalisation of racism, where the problem becomes one of tolerance. If you read speeches by Martin Luther King, and search for the world tolerance, you’ll find that it is practically absent. He did not perceive racism in terms of tolerance, but in terms of economics and politics. He saw that this was the core of the argument. What I hate today is this automatic association of racism with tolerance – ‘we do not tolerate their way of life, we should understand it more’. This is culturalisation.

For me, the problem with racism in the US is not that we are not open enough towards black people. The problem is that they are systematically marginalised because of their economic situation. The problem is not one of tolerance. We have a real problem with racism, but the way in which we perceive this problem mystifies it.

Another example is harassment. Of course, I am against harassment, but I was quite surprised at how often it is a very double-edged notion. My time in the US taught me that it can also have a very clear class dimension. For many middle-class academics and liberals, harassment means they cannot really stand the presence of vulgar, aggressive, ordinary people. Crying harassment is a way for the upper-middle classes – academics, intellectuals and liberals – to keep their distance from ordinary people.

We talk about culture in order to not talk about the economy. This, for me, is the tragedy of the leftist politics from the 1970s and 1980s. We still have strikes, but basically leftist politics has become cultural politics

It’s clear that we talk about culture in order to not talk about the economy. This, for me, is the tragedy of the leftist politics from the 1970s and 1980s. We still have strikes, but basically leftist politics has become cultural politics. Of course, we should not simply return to pure economics. But, on the other hand, as many philosophers and even economists argue, today’s capitalism is becoming more and more what one may conditionally call (it is a tricky term, I know) cultural capitalism.

To use the most stupid everyday example: when you wear stone-washed jeans with cuts in the knee, you are attempting to make a certain statement. We do not buy products simply to satisfy our needs, even if these needs are imaginary. We literally define ourselves through the commodities we buy – we define our identity by buying what we buy. A Russian friend once gave me a great example from way back in the 1990s, when the situation there was much more coercive. Ordinary women, not all of them, but those who consider themselves sexually attractive, would try to wear dresses or make-up that we would have identified with prostitutes. But real prostitutes dressed in grey suits to appear more educated, like businesswomen. So there was this wonderful deviation – you recognise a prostitute when she appears as a businesswoman, but when a prostitute looks like a prostitute, she is definitely not a prostitute.

This cultural dimension of capitalism is getting incredibly important. I think the problem behind it, and this is underestimated by rational, enlightened, anti-passionate social democrats like Habermas, is the sheer libidinal sense of belonging. We want to belong and we define our belonging through what we do. I have a sense of belonging but it is an incredibly material force. The strength of this belonging is precisely the result of a global market economy, because a global market economy disintegrates the traditional bonds which would have once provided a sense of belonging. You need to satisfy this need for belonging – then you need other ways of belonging, which are not really a return to tradition.

So, if we look at all these fundamentalist movements, from Poland to Boko Haram to ISIS, I think they are the paradox: traditional content but in postmodern form. I spoke to some people from Nigeria who told me that Boko Haram appears to be purely fundamentalist traditionalist. But in the way they are organised, they are ultra-modern, flexible, like a revolutionary organisation. So it is an incredible tension between form and content. Even in the US, christian fundamentalism is a fake – it’s not really fundamentalism. It’s a big ego trip. They are already a part of the modern culture of self-promotion.

Whelan: Identity politics, and the war on sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on, doesn’t seem to apply to refugees if they’re homophobic or racist. Is this because Westerners are unwilling to treat migrants on the same intellectual level as themselves?

Zizek: I am a pessimist in this regard. I agree with you about the limit of identity politics. I am especially sceptical of it, and here I follow Gilles Deleuze, who said it is absolutely crucial to maintain a link with universality. The true danger comes with the reasoning that only a lesbian single mother can understand what it means to be a lesbian single mother, or that only a gay man can understand what it means to be gay. I think such a view, such an undermining of universality, is catastrophic. I see no emancipatory potential in relying on, or referring to, your own particular identity as beyond criticism, as an unquestionable identity.

Our innermost attitudes are something we learn, but they can also be changed. We must never forget that

We have two types of identity: multicultural identitarian politics and the identity of migrants. But why is there such a tension between the two? Precisely because they are, at the same time, radically different and uncannily close. They move in the same terrain – the terrain of strict control. For example, in most religious fundamentalisms, sex relations are strictly codified. But, in a way, the same thing is happening with our political correctness – the way we are allowed to approach someone’s sexual identity, and the way we talk about it, is so tightly controlled.

Although they are radically opposed, the politically correct attitude and religious fundamentalism share this characteristic of strict control. On both extremes, we have strict control over how to proceed, what is prohibited, how quickly you approach a barrier. But human interaction does not work this way. All rules can be twisted.

Whelan: In your final chapter, you express a desire to cut through the ideological fog that is stopping people from having an open and honest discussion about the migrant crisis. You argue that we must take a more material approach, politically and economically. Where do we go from here?

Zizek: You mentioned honesty, and, at a certain level, I like hypocrisy – just not bad hypocrisy. What does honesty mean? Let’s say we meet on the street. You are my friend and you see that I am very poorly and have some terrible disease. The honest thing would be to say: ‘You look so bad, you look like you will drop dead.’ No, I am all for hypocrisy and politeness. But how you or me feel is not in itself an argument for anything. I am absolutely sure that there are sincere racists who are truly horrified by people of another race. But this is not an argument. When a racist says, ‘sorry, it is not an ideology, I just cannot stand black people’, the answer must be, ‘my God, your feelings are wrong’. I am pleading for a really critical, rationalist spirit where you don’t trust any of these immediate feelings or identifications.

Here, I am a good Freudian. Freud always made this clear – if you look deep into yourself, at the core of your personality, you will not find some deeper spiritual truth. Instead, you find the fundamental lie – the fantasies and dirty things that define you. The goal of psychoanalysis is not simply to overcome these things but to disturb and restructure them. This is what we should learn from such cultural struggles. Cultural struggles should not simply be: ‘I have my culture, you have yours, and we should understand each other.’ There are horrors at the heart of every culture. Like Walter Benjamin said: ‘There is no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism.’ The problem is how to confront the very core of how we feel, how we desire. Our own cultural fundamentalists claim that culture is an authentic experience at the innermost core of our being. Such a claim is false. Fake it, pretend it, overcome it, but I don’t think that this appeal to some inner core (even if it is of our own culture) has any value. It certainly doesn’t have any emancipatory value. Our innermost attitudes are something we learn, but they can also be changed. We must never forget that.

SOURCE






From reason to radicalism: "Gender fluidity"

Former leading Leftist in Australia, Mark Latham, writing below, is in many ways an old-fashioned Leftist -- still with good reality contact and not totally into destruction.  He says not only is the modern Left's post-structuralist agenda anti-reason, anti-science & anti-family, it is anti-education

WHEN John Maynard Keynes declared “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler a few years back”, he knew what he was talking about.

The craziest trend in Australian politics is to teach Neo-Marxist genderless programs in our schools through the Orwellian-named Safe Schools and Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) curriculum.

Even though Australian students are falling down the international league tables in maths, science and English, teachers are devoting class-time to the mechanics of breast-binding and penis-tucking.

As Keynes envisaged, the thinking behind this madness is distilled from an academic scribbler a few years back. BRR’s author, Debbie Ollis from Deakin University, has attributed the intellectual inspiration for the program to a “post-structural understanding of gender construction”, drawing on the work of a Welsh academic Christine Weedon in her book Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory.

To understand what’s happening in today’s Labor Party and its attitude to education, Weedon’s tome is compulsory reading. I got my copy last week from the NSW State Library and was spellbound by its contents.

Parents deserve to know where the Safe Schools and BRR philosophy comes from, and Weedon brazenly sets out the ideology behind these new teaching materials.

Post-structuralism argues for a different way of looking at society, especially in understanding the nature of knowledge and learning.

Since the rise of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, people have applied reason, rationality and observable truths in trying to build a better life. Weedon regards this process as inherently misleading.

She thinks that from our first moments alive, we are brainwashed into accepting the social order around us.

Governments, schools, churches, the media, popular culture and even fashion trends combine to reinforce the “power relations” and dominance of capitalism.

The things we know from observing nature and studying science are dismissed as “biological determinism”.

So too notions of truth, commonsense and life-experience are disparaged as “historical constructs” — delivering “false consciousness” and tricking people into a misunderstanding of their best interests. For Weedon, the process of social conditioning denies its “own partiality”.

“It fails to acknowledge that it is but one possible version of meaning, rather than ‘truth’ itself and that it represents particular (political) interests.”

For instance, growing up with two straight parents is said to “lead to the acquisition by children of a heterosexual gendered identity”. Weedon writes of how: “For young girls, the acquisition of femininity involves a recognition that they are already castrated like their mother”, forcing them to submit to patriarchy, or male dominance. No one is immune from the process of false gender identity.

Individuals are said to be “sexual beings from birth”, reflected in the “initial bisexuality of the child”.

This is the kind of thinking behind the Start Early program developed by Early Childhood Australia (ECA), which teaches childcare and preschool infants about sexuality, cross-dressing and the opposite sex’s toilets.

An ECA spokeswoman has said that, “(young) children are sexual beings, it’s a strong part of their identity’’.

Most parents would be horrified by this stance but it’s become commonplace in the Australian education system.

Having lost the battle for economic and foreign policy in the 1980s, Neo-Marxists embarked on a long march through the institutions of the public sector, especially universities and schools.

Indoctrination programs like Safe Schools, BRR and Start Early are the inevitable result. This breaks the longstanding, bipartisan practice in Australian politics of keeping ideology out of schools.

The purpose of a quality education has been to equip young people with the knowledge and vocational skills of a civilised society. If graduating students wish to pursue social and political change, they can do so through the democratic process in their adult years.

Education has been relatively free from ideological indoctrination. But this is not the view of the new curriculum designers, with Ollis depicting schools as “in a unique position to educate for social change”.

Weedon also said she wants to engineer an androgynous “ungendered” society through classroom tutoring. The other key Leftist battleground is for the control of language.

Inspired by French post-structuralist Michel Foucault, Weedon writes, “If language is the site where meaningful experience is constituted (in capitalist societies) then language also determines how we perceive possibilities of change”.

This is why Safe Schools seeks to eradicate the use of terms like “his and her” and “boys and girls”.

It believes genderless language will produce a genderless generation of young Australians, self-selecting their sexuality as a fluid identity.

Political correctness is not an accident, a random form of censorship. It’s a carefully targeted campaign designed to outlaw the language of observable facts in the discussion of race, gender and sexuality.

For every commonsense ­aspect of life, there’s a PC push to eliminate identity differences. Weedon writes of how the “dominant meanings of language” force boys and girls “to differentiate between pink and blue and to understand their social connotations”.

“Little girls should look pretty and be compliant and helpful, while boys should be adventurous, assertive and tough … (shaping) their future social destinations within a patriarchal society”.

This pink/blue phobia is the basis of the Leftist ‘‘No Gender December’’ campaign, trying to outlaw gender-specific toys each year at Christmas.

The more I research the BRR and Safe Schools programs, the more bewildered I am as to how Labor leaders like Bill Shorten and Daniel Andrews endorsed this rubbish. Gough Whitlam must be turning in his grave.

The Great Man dedicated his life to the principles of the Age of Enlightenment: that rational, evidence-based argument could create a better and fairer society. Not only is the post-structuralist agenda anti-reason, anti-science and anti-family, it is also anti-education.

It wants to abandon the conventional process of learning through known facts and universally established truths, creating a borderless world of genderless individuals.

Australia’s political leaders are sleepwalking into an educational disaster.

As parents we need to make our views known to election candidates and school leaders alike. Anyone who has researched this issue will know we are fighting for the future of our civilisation.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************