Category Archives: Politically Incorrect

In the second episode of The Politically Incorrect Guide, Tom Woods and Michael Malice demolish widespread myths about the Great Depression and the New Deal. Tom and Michael explain how the New Deal worsened the very problems it aimed to solve, that capitalism didnt cause the Great Depression (the Federal Reserve did), and that World War II prolonged rather than ended the Great Depression.

The first season of The Politically Incorrect Guide includes ten episodes and will release throughout 2021. Each covers the undiscussed facts and stories about history, culture, and social movements, purged from todays mainstream education system. Tom Woods penned the very first book in the series, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, which was a New York Times bestseller.

Episode website

Learn more about Tom Woods at https://tomwoods.com/.Learn more about Michael Malice at https://michaelmalice.com/.

More:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal - Capital Research Center

Is the State a strict, bad-tempered parent who always wants to have things his or her way, simply to prove that it knows what is best for its children? Or should the State be an understanding and indulgent parent who allows its wards to grow up with freedom, and yes, make the occasional mistake, face the consequences, and learn from it? This is a choice every State has to make. And we citizens have no option but to fall in line with that choice, since we have given the State, as indeed we give our parents, that power over our lives.The ban on cryptocurrency has once again raised concerns about curbs on free choice. According to a recent news report, over one crore Indians hold digital assets worth Rs 10,000 crore, and they will make losses as a black market for cryptocurrency emerges. This has happened in the past as well, whenever we have banned anything.Take alcohol, for instance. All that bans have encouraged is bootlegging. And more deaths from illicit hooch. Take the ban on lotteries. Or casinos. Or, for that matter, betting on cricket. All illegal. All banned in many states. Yet today we are flooded by internet lotteries. Casinos have moved offshore. And betting on cricket is currently estimated at Rs 4 lakh crore - marginally less than our Defence budget.

Also, funnily, whats banned today may well be deemed perfectly legitimate tomorrow. Governments change. Ideas change. Notions of right and wrong also change. The mysterious Satoshi Nakamotos wondrous 2009 invention, the Bitcoin, may - bolstered by Elon Musks $1.5 billion buy a fortnight ago, and his announcement that Tesla car dealers will soon accept payment in this form - well emerge as a global currency. Its trading at Rs 35 lakh per bitcoin today. Does anyone want a RBI-backed cryptocurrency? Not really. It defeats the purpose for which it was invented: To celebrate the anonymity of blockchains mining it.Alcohol, on the other hand, is an old enemy of the State. Taxes and excise income from alcohol are huge (Rs 1.75 trillion in 2020), but it is still politically incorrect to acknowledge that. Bihars putative chief minister Nitish Kumar announced last week that prohibition remains a government policy and any employee caught drinking will be instantly sacked. Similarly, the gutkha and pan masala bans are farcical. Both remain freely available. The shops that sell them also sell loose cigarettes, another banned item.Censorship is not much different. But, luckily, nothing ever stays censored for long. Everything finds its way into the net. There was a time when censorship was worse than a ban. Take the Emergency years. Newspapers were published with missing headlines and empty spaces. Cartoons were dropped. (Governments have no sense of humour. Cartoonists are often arrested and we have just seen a stand-up comic, Munawar Faruqui, arrested before he even cracked a joke.) During the Emergency, the Censor Board wanted 51 cuts in a B-grade film called Kissa Kursi Ka. But that was not enough for Indira Gandhi, who got the master print picked up and burnt in the Maruti factory in Gurgaon. It was a silly decision because the film instantly acquired cult status and Amrit Nahata, its maker, became a hero.

Frequent internet shutdowns, be it in Kashmir or on the outskirts of New Delhi where the farmers are agitating, have brought no glory to India, only unwanted global attention. The State, of course, may not see it in that light. No State does. It is not about democracy or fascism; its about power. The wielding of power. If you allow the State to wield that much power over you, it will. You can do nothing about it till you decide to make that complete break, as children often do with their parents. Not because their parents are bad people but because their need for freedom becomes, at some point, more important.In India, we tend to mostly believe that children are always wrong. And that parents are the epitome of all virtue. Bollywood has stereotyped the mother as a long-suffering parent beavering away on the sewing machine, and the father as this struggling bread-earner, always misunderstood. Our myths and fables perpetuate this notion as well. And reluctant parents have no option but to live up to this absurdly noble image of what they should be-- instead of living their lives as they want to. Children, too, are expected to abandon all their freedoms to be the ideal offspring.The result? More broken families. More psychoses.The truth is, freedom is not dangerous. It liberates us. It does not draw us away from each other. Freedom is when parents and children live together with mutual love and respect. Where they support each other to take risks, make mistakes and discover life together.Its the same with the State and its citizens. They must learn to live with each others follies. Repression is not the answer. Bans and censorship are not the only way to exercise authority or teach people the difference between right and wrong.Many banned books are classics today. Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses is a must read. Gucciones Caligula is cult. Stanley Kubricks Clockwork Orange is included among the 10 great films of all time. James Joyces Ulysses is syllabus for students of literature. No one considers Anais Nins The Winter of Artifice as pornography any more. The use of marijuana is being increasingly legitimised across the world. New generations are discovering new virtues in stuff we were once forced to shun.The world is opening up. Its time we did as well.Pritish Nandy writes an incisive fortnightly diagnosis of the state of our imperfect democracy(Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author's own)From the same author:

Continued here:
Why India should stop being a nanny state and ban the ban - Times of India

VICTORIA -- A Vancouver Island senior is six figures richer after parting with a rare Rolex wristwatch that was once instrumental in his brief but successful career as an octopus wrestler.

The Rolex Explorer, circa 1953, sold at a New York auction house last month for US$126,000 ($158,000 Canadian).

The man who sold it is Bill Hook, 89, of Qualicum Beach, B.C.

After dropping out of high school at 15, Hook became one of the first scuba divers in British Columbia.

He would later wear the Rolex while competing in spearfishing and octopus-wrestling competitions in Victoria and Seattle.

A January 1966 issue of Vue magazine featuring Bill Hook and his octopus-wrestling adventures in Victoria, B.C.

When it comes to catching and wrestling a giant Pacific octopus, accurate timing and team co-ordination is everything.

"You go out and dive down and look at the rocks and if you could see some crab shells out in front, you had an octopus den," Hook told CTV News on Monday.

"When it came out, the one who found it gets first chance at catching it. Then when you catch it, you can get your arms around it and it will have its arms around you, and you swim to the surface, he explained. "They did that in Victoria for years. Its politically incorrect today. But people dont realize we have the largest octopus in the world here."

The watch was a gift from Hooks first wife, who bought it for him in Switzerland.

Appropriate to its name, the Explorer timepiece accompanied Hook on several adventures through Europe, Australia and Africa, including to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro.

Bill Hook (right) and his brother Allan after a spearfishing competition.

In 1980, Hooks wife "walked out" on him and the watch became a crucial accessory in his dating life. "I mostly wore it out tomcatting," he says.

Forty years later, with his "tomcatting" days behind him, Hook told a friend about the Rolex Explorer over coffee.

"He nearly jumped out of his chair," Hook recalled.

The friend told the owner of a Victoria watch shop about Hooks timepiece.

"Its a very rare Rolex Explorer from right at the beginning of when they made them," said Jonathan Mossop, owner of Meticulous Watches.

Rolex released the Explorer watch shortly after climbers Tenzing Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary achieved global renown for summiting Mount Everest, sparking sudden interest in high-performance sports watches.

"Rolex was taking advantage of that interest in the market for explorers," Mossop said. "And since Bill was the original owner of this watch, that gives the watch legitimacy to collectors."

Mossop facilitated the sale at Phillips auction house in New York, which described the watch as "truly breathtaking"and one of the finest Explorers ever to come on the market.

While the identity of the buyer is kept confidential, Mossop said it was bought by a man in the United States.

Hook said he plans to pass along the money he earned in the sale to his daughters family.

Go here to read the rest:
Rolex watch owned by former Vancouver Island octopus wrestler nets over $150K at auction - CTV News VI

Superstore is beloved for many reasons and the biggest might be that it features some wonderful characters who audiences adore.

The announcedcancellation of NBC's Superstore came as a shock tothe cast and fans alike. Despite its popularity, the series will be coming to a permanent end at the conclusion of its sixth season. This came shortly after the departure of America Ferrera, who hopes to return for the series finale.

RELATED: Superstore: 10 Things We Want To Happen Before The Finale

Still, sixseasons is asolid run, and it gave viewers time to grow attached to the Cloud 9 employees. They all bring somethingunique to the big-box store,which differentiatesit from other workplace comedies. No matter how funny the entire ensemble can be, some characters are more popular among fans than others.

Carol isn't technically part of the main cast, but she causes so much chaos both in and outside the store that it's surprising she was never added. She constantly manipulates the other employees and even stole Sandra's boyfriendafter winning a coin toss.

Carol is condescending, rude, and the workers fearfor their lives when she's around. No one wants to be scheduled with her because of her tendency toturn ona person at the slightest inconvenience. Even if she's trying to be nice, Carol comes off as creepy.

Many viewers find Glenn's eternal optimism annoying.He ignores the company policy when it comes to religion, and he continually tries to push his faith and his old-world views on his co-workers.Once Glenn found out the store sold Plan-B, he bought all the pills to prevent a couple from using them.

Despite his incompetence, he manages all of the employees, which is part of the joke. At the end of the day, Glenn does have a good heart and he cares deeply about everyone. He's not unlikeable as much as he's exasperating.

Mateo's the rudest character of the ensemble. He's selfish, manipulative, and downright hostile when he wants to be. Mateo has no problem using his friends for his own personal gain. But his quips are often some of the funniest lines in the series, and that's worth a lot in a comedy.

RELATED: MBTI Of Superstore Characters

The plotlinewherehe wasdetainedby ICE for being undocumented was one of the most emotional moments of the show.He's not a pleasant presence in the store, butSuperstorewouldn't be the same without him around.

Originallya background character, Sandra was moved into the spotlight during the show's fifth season. She's thekind ofperson you never see coming as she starts off quiet and timid. She never goes after what she wants and she often lets others walk all over her.

It was difficult not to feel bad for her when she was onscreen. As the show went on, Sandra started to grow a backbone and she learned how to stand on her two feet. She's also the number one fan of Amy and Jonah's romance,and every great couple needs a cheerleader.

Garrett is one of the few people in the store with common sense. Heindulges the employees in their crazy schemesbecause he enjoys watching it blow up in their faces. Garrett is the character who most represents everyday retail workers and says the type of things people are thinking in real life.

He doesn't enjoy his job at Cloud 9, but he does enough to get by. Garrett doesn't let anyone take advantage of him, and he often calls out rude customers in the store.

Like Carol, Marcus isn't officially a part of the main cast. He started off as anunderdogbut quickly becomes one of, if not the, funniest characters in Superstore. He says everything with complete confidence, no matter how politically incorrect he may be.

RELATED: Superstore: The Store Employees, Ranked By Intelligence

Marcus' ignorance mixed with the actor's delivery,createsthe best one-liners in the show. His obsession with Jonah is particularly amusing to fans because he treatshim like his significant other rather thana fellow co-worker.

Most fans have somewhat turned against Amy and are up in arms abouther decision to go to California and leave Jonah behind.This plotwas a resultof America Ferrera's choice to depart the series,which forcedthe fan-favorite romance to come to a painful end.

Pushing the anger of their breakup aside, Amy Sosa is a phenomenal protagonist with several different layers to her character. While she wasn't the funniest inthe group, she could be completely unhinged when she wanted to be. Amy Sosa's arc and her quest to find her purpose add a level of depth to an otherwiselight-hearted show.

It'shard to dislike Cheyenne. In the pilot, she's portrayedas an uneducated high school student who doesn't understand how the world works. Her growth throughout the series is incredible, and while she's still the sweetest character of the group, she refuses to let anyone take advantage of her.

Cheyenne works hard to provide for her daughter, even if she doesn't openly acknowledge it. She's become strong, independent, and she even earned the floor supervisor position because of her innovative ideas.

Out of all the characters, Dina is the most unique. She's strict, bossy,and she puts walls up to avoid getting hurt. Her co-workersbreak her down alittle more each episode, and viewers get a better picture of who Dina is at her core.Still, she has no problem being blunt.

If she doesn't like someone, she'll let them know. Dina even used her power as assistant manager to exert control overthe employees and ignite fear.But she's also the best friend anyone could ask for, and her loyalty to Amy is admirable.

It's no surprise that Jonah is the fan-favorite character. He hasenlightened views, he cares deeply about the people around him, and he's an all-around dork. The employees oftenspend their time poking fun at him, but Jonahtakes it like a champ. Despite his privileged upbringing, Jonahis passionate aboutworkers' rights.

He attends protests for"Raise the Wage," and inspires the mistreated employees of Cloud 9 to form a union. No matter how many times he's knocked down, Jonah always manages to get back up. If anyone deserves a happy ending, it's him.

NEXT: Superstore Characters Sorted Into Their Game Of Thrones Houses

Next How I Met Your Mother: 10 Times Robin Said Everything Fans Were Thinking

Rachel Foertsch is an aspiring screenwriter and lover of all things television. Previously a social media manager, Rachel is a current TV critic at TV Fanatic and a List Writer at ScreenRant.

The rest is here:
Superstore: The Main Characters, Ranked By Likability - Screen Rant

DESPITE the shocking devastation wrought on our country and its people over the last year,rollingopinion polls tell us that voting intentions are still wrapped up in the duopoly.

Yet the Conservatives lockdown policies have all but ruined this countryand agrotesquely ineffectual opposition statesonlythat it would have enforced these policies harder and faster than the Government.

Despite both Covid and lockdown, illegal immigration across the Channel has continued unabated. So have knife crime, wokery andcancel culture. Londons mayor seems more interested in destroying the capitals history thaninkeepinghis city safe and financially sound.

With both government and opposition in the ever-tightening grip of green lunacy, it begins to look as if there is no way out of this political vice.

The Reform Party has presented itself as the anti-lockdown party and challengers to the status quo, but has done little in the last months to live up to this role.

Nigel Farages attacks have been intermittent and ineffective he has previously asserted that full-time politics is not for him and Richard Tice has yet to make his mark.

The same goes for Reclaim, led by the charismatic Laurence Fox, whose admirable stance against the cancel culture will no doubt win supporters, butstillfails to address the fundamental issues that have brought us to where we are today.

The only party really trying to buck the trend is the Heritage Party, led by London Assembly member David Kurten, the only small c conservative party with policy ideas to match.

I recently had the opportunity to askMrKurten,a chemistry teacher for nearly 20 years before he got involved in politics,why hestarted it and what his aims were forthis new party. He told me:

I joined UKIP in 2012 because of growing concerns about loss of national sovereignty to the EU and political correctness. After the referendum, UKIP slowly collapsed and never became the strong, socially conservative party that I hoped it would.

With such a void in the UK political landscape for a socially conservative party which millions of people would support, I started the Heritage Party.I hope we will attract enough people to break the two-party system and restore sanity to our nation.

What makes your party different from Reclaim and the Reform Party?

We have a full socially conservative manifesto. We are not just a pressure group campaigning on a small number of bullet points about a single issue.

We stand for all the things that a conservative party should stand for which were long ago abandoned by the fake-Conservative Party: Defending our culture and heritage, national sovereignty, traditional family values, free and fair markets, free speech and liberty, and low immigration.

How important is it to see the country return to commonsense conservatism?

It is vital. The corrosion of our culture and society by Cultural Marxism or the long march through the Institutions is deep and destructive.

Almost all of our institutions in every area of life are infested with woke thinking. Such thinking sees society as institutionally unjust and needing social justice, which undermines individual responsibility and our fundamental freedoms.

It started in universities, but has spread to the media, the police, the judiciary, schools, the main political parties and even businesses. Without a return to commonsense conservatism, the country will descend into woke totalitarianism which will burn down everything that came before, either metaphorically or literally.

In a country where the duopoly of the Labour Party and the Conservatives has ruled the roost for the best part of a century, how would you look to break their stranglehold on British politics? As a commenter, Ive read many excuses over the years, always the same fear of the system (First Past The Post), voting for the best of two terrible options, too many tribal voters. How can you cut through that with your party?

The FTPT system is what we have, so we have to build a party big enough and strong enough to win in that system.

It wont be easy, but there has never been more dissatisfaction with the red-blue duopoly, which increasingly looks like one big party with two different colours.

We are building a party with a strong grassroots that will engage both locally and nationally. Although we are still small, we are growing every day, and we hope to be big enough to stand candidates in every seat by the time of the next election, which is likely to be in 2024.

How can your message pierce through the celebrity of Laurence Fox and Nigel Farage?

The Heritage Party has had very little mention at all on the mainstream media, which tends to focus on celebrity, but we have had huge attention under the surface in the free speech media, both for the party, and for me as leader and a candidate for the London Mayor elections this May.

More and more people are switching off the mainstream media and getting news from Facebook groups and free speech outlets likeBreitbart,Life Site News, The Lightand of course,The Conservative Woman. Thats where we are!

The Reform Party is being viewed as the anti-lockdown party and Reclaim as anti-cancel culture. How do you want to present your party in forthcoming elections?

The Heritage Party is both of those things and more. Ive been fighting cancel culture and advocating for free speech for years before I started the Heritage Party, and Ive been against the lockdown from the very beginning, so its natural that we are the champions of free speech and liberty.

Well be fighting elections this year in London and selected local councils in England, so we will of course be campaigning on specific local issues. In London, we want to Make London Safe Again: We want to re-focus the police on catching real criminals rather than spending their time closing businesses or looking for politically incorrect posts on the internet.

We also want to Get London Moving Again, with an end to Tory/Labour road blockages which they say are green, but in reality are simply annoying to normal people who need to travel.

In local council elections, we will be campaigning to prevent rampant development, which is ruining our town centres with ugly tower blocks and turning prime agricultural land into solar farms or housing estates which do not benefit local people.

We want to prevent any more financial irresponsibility and appallingly risky property speculation, which has pushed some councils into hundreds of millions of pounds worth of debt and led to increases in council tax.

As stated, I comment a lot online and many people have never heard of you or your party. How can you change that?

We are doing very well considering we started from nothing last summer! Our challenge now is to increase our presence and get known and noticed by more people. This is happening on social media and in the free speech media.

Were also building a grassroots of branches and we have a presence in almost every county in England as well as branches in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. People are now joining the party through contact with local members as well as seeing me or the Heritage Party online.

From what Ive read and heard, English culture, history and heritage isnt being taught in schools. How would you look to rectify that?

The National Curriculum has been dumbed down to such an extent that schools are no longer required to teach a full range of our history.

We will ensure the National Curricula for History and Literature include requirements to teach all of our history over the full period of a childs education, and ensure pupils learn about the most important works of literature. It is appalling that some schools are not even teaching Shakespeare. This needs to be rectified immediately.

There is more of a challenge to change the culture of education, which has succumbed to the radical nation-hating Left over many decades.

Many teachers are activists who disregard the requirement for political neutrality in the Education Act 1996 and openly advocate for Left-wing groups such as BLM.

They have acted to embed political ideology across the curriculum, but we will empower parents to remove their children from the main supplementary subjects in which political ideologies are thrust on to children against their wishes.

We will once again make Citizenship, PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) and RSE (Relationships and Sex Education) non-compulsory and restore parents rights to remove their children from these subjects. We will also require subjects like maths to be simply maths, rather than a Trojan horse for diversity.

If you won the upcoming London mayoral election, what would you do in your first 30 days?

Close down Sadiq Khans Diversity Commission and Online Hate Crime Hub.

Tear out all of Transport for Londons temporary StreetSpace schemes, road barriers and pop-up bicycle lanes.

Re-focus the police on catching real criminals such as murderers, burglars, thugs and vandals, rather than wasting their time closing businesses and fining people for not wearing masks.

Stop the rollout of the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) expansion and border charge for vehicles driving into London.

Many institutions across the country, if not all, have been indoctrinated by a form of cultural Marxism and common purpose. How would you eradicate that?

We need to repeal Harriet Harmans Equality Act and Tony Blairs Human Rights Act and return to the legal situation where people have equal rights to enjoy our fundamental freedoms and equal opportunities, rather than the law being used to attempt to enforce equality of outcome.

We must also repeal all anti-free speech laws and prevent hate speech laws coming in. Criminal penalties must be based on the objective actions of the defendant, rather than the subjective feelings of the complainant, such as perceived hostility.

Billions of pounds are spent in the state sector on diversity training, unconscious bias training and diversity and inclusion officers to comply with the Equality Act.

This is a huge waste of time and money. Well put an end to it all, so that people can simply get on with their jobs, rise up the ranks on the basis of their skills or talents, and stop having to spend hours a week worrying about whether they are diverse or inclusive enough to fend off a visit from their workplace Diversity Officer.

After reading your manifesto, I believe it can attract voters from all political stripes. Do you agree?

Yes, its simply what 30 years ago the vast majority of people would have said is common sense. It combines a pride in our heritage with financial responsibility, support for families and free speech and liberty.

Defining people as economically Left and Right is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The cultural dynamic is now as important as the economic, if not more so.

Both parties of the old duopoly are both now woke and authoritarian in cultural terms, and millions of people want an alternative which is patriotic, traditional and commonsense. The Heritage Party is here for them.

Over the last year, weve seen this country slip into the realms of fascism. The Government (and pro-lockdown allies) have embedded a system of control over a powerless people where now vaccination passports are being seriously discussed to grant freedom to those willing to take the vaccine while removing liberties for the sceptics. How can the country legally resist these changes?

I have said from the beginning that the lockdown measures were unnecessary and disproportionate. It is appalling that we now effectively live in a police state. The police should be catching real criminals, not closing down businesses.

The Heritage Party offers political resistance. We will immediately reverse any and all Covid regulations which undermine our freedom and outlaw vaccine passports, if we have the chance to do so.

When some people say that vaccination is the only way out of lockdown, what do you think about that? Dont you think that pressuring people to have this vaccine is Orwellian?

The lockdown is unnecessary and disproportionate to the effects of SARS-Cov-2. At least 99.7 per cent of people survive and recover from it. The average age of those who sadly die from the virus is 83 and most have a serious underlying health condition.

The idea that if everyone gets vaccinated we can then get out of lockdown is a false narrative that lulls people into accepting the lockdown.

The Government could and should end the lockdown and all Covid restrictions immediately. Instead, it has created prison hotels for people returning from Portugal and is suggesting restrictions will continue for many more months, and leaking proposals for even more Orwellian control measures like vaccine passports and double masking.

This is coercion on a national scale which is against the Nuremburg Code on informed consent. Nobody should be disadvantaged if they choose not to have an injection of a rushed, experimental vaccine, nor should they be threatened with any loss of rights or smeared as anti-vaxxers or Covid deniers for disagreeing with their repugnant policies.

Lastly, have you found your time as a London Assembly member fruitless or rewarding?

The London Assembly is in some ways frustrating. It has no real power, as in not a legislative body. Its function is to hold the London Mayor to account.

I have been on the London Assembly during the tenure of Sadiq Khan, who has been a terrible mayor, presiding over spiralling violent crime, the rollout of road blockages, and who has inculcated the equality, inclusion and diversity agenda into every area of policy.

On the other hand, I have had a platform to speak out against Cultural Marxism, the LGBT agenda, the green agenda, and Sadiq Khans frequent unseemly attacks on President Trump. I am very glad I have been there for the past five years to be able to do that.

I do hope that people read The Heritage Partys manifestoand look at joining up. Not only do we need a proper conservative party, but we need one that will be around for the long run rather than a short-term pressure group with little interest in the broad aims and no proper vision for the future.

Excerpt from:
David Kurten: My Heritage Party is the only home for true conservatives - The Conservative Woman

While citizens were appropriately focused on vaccinations, rebuilding the economy and repairing the education system, the U.S. Senate was busy with the second impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump. Much has already been written about the political impact of this historic event and the future of the Republican Party post-Trump. But we cant help but pile on.

Sen. Mike Lee was among 43 colleagues who acquitted Trump, while Sen. Mitt Romney was one of seven Republicans who voted to convict. Will national and Utah Republicans punish Romney for his vote?

Pignanelli: The Liz Cheney vote tells you what Republicans really think. Chris Christie

Jenga is a popular game wherein players compete in removing wooden blocks from a tower until it ultimately collapses. Most of the animosity toward Romney was constructed by his antagonistic relationship with Trump. Like a Jenga tower, over time this will disintegrate.

Polls indicate a majority of Republicans support President Trump. But recent developments reveal GOP leaders are distancing from him. Congresswoman Cheney was overwhelmingly affirmed in a leadership position despite her impeachment vote. The nations most powerful Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, publicly excoriated Trump and held him responsible for the events of Jan. 6. McConnell sent a clear message that actions against Trump should not cease and gave Romney a pass.

Romney will likely confront a 2024 convention battle as he did in 2018. But over the next four years, he can demonstrate his conservative bona fides when pushing back against a Democratic administration.

The Jenga tower built on Trumps hostility to Romney is slowly losing blocks and will eventually fall.

Webb: The Utah Republican Party wisely issued a statement invoking Ronald Reagans big tent aspiration for the party. The statement seeks to avoid an intra-party fight by saying, disagreement is natural and healthy, and its OK for Republicans to showcase a diversity of thought.

So Romney wont be formally censured by the party, but a lot of Utah Republicans are disappointed in his continued antipathy toward Trump (except when he was a candidate for secretary of state). If Romney seeks reelection in 2024 he will almost certainly face a strong GOP opponent.

As Ive written previously, I have little sympathy for Trump, because he brought his problems on himself with his narcissism. But I feel bad for his followers, and I feel bad for the policy setbacks that are coming. The Biden administration is taking a hard lurch to the left, to the detriment of the country.

Romney, like most Democrats, will probably never understand Trumps appeal to average, working-class, patriotic Republicans who feel left behind. These are heartland Americans who resent coastal and big-city elites labeling them domestic terrorists and considering them systemically racist. They feel vulnerable to Big Tech canceling or censoring them. They fear losing jobs if they say something politically incorrect. They believe their conservative family values and moral principles are under attack. Identity and victimhood politics repel them. They really do cling to their guns and religion. And there are a lot more of these folks than the elitists recognize.

Will the Republican Party break into pro-Trump and establishment factions that are hostile to each other?

Pignanelli: Even a casual observer of the news would conclude a split within GOP ranks has existed since 2015. But many traditional Republicans remained quiet as Trumps success isolated their concerns. Trumpistas possess the advantage of an ideology attached to a charismatic individual, whereas mainstream Republicans have not coalesced around a nationally recognized leader as of yet. But the disadvantage for Trumpistas is their mentor will soon be distracted by legal and financial pressures. The two opposing forces will be pitted against each other in 2022. Eventually there will be several candidates who can appeal to the Trump base but also excite the conventional, while organizing a coalition to compete against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Webb: I dont see a problem for state and congressional races in Utah, but Republicans wont win another presidential election until Trump Republicans and establishment Republicans can unite on a candidate. That wont be easy.

Since Trump lost, neither the Biden administration or establishment Republicans have made any attempt to understand, or appeal to, heartland, working-class Republicans. In fact, the opposite is true. The Biden agenda of big government, higher taxes, social justice, environmental extremism, identity politics and cancel culture is their worst nightmare.

Establishment politicians live in an echo chamber where they watch network news, read The New York Times and The Washington Post, and receive positive feedback from Hollywood, big business and Big Tech. And they think thats America. Theres a whole side of America out there that cant relate to them and they cant relate to it.

How long will Trump continue to be a factor in U.S. politics?

Pignanelli: It is rare for a former president to have extraordinary influence on a political party. (Exceptions include Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt). History suggests that Trumps dedicated base will decrease over time. But many of our beloved traditions were smashed in the last several years, and this may be a victim. Regardless, presidential contenders will have a Trump strategy in 2024.

Webb: It really is up to Trump. No one knows what role he will play. I very much want the party to move beyond Trump. But the party must better understand his followers and bring them along.

Republican LaVarr Webb is a political consultant and lobbyist. Email: lwebb@exoro.com. Frank Pignanelli is a Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist and political adviser who served as a Democrat in the Utah state Legislature. Email: frankp@xmission.com.

More here:
Opinion: Will the GOP of the future follow Mitt Romney or Donald Trump? - Deseret News

On June 1, 2020, members of the private Bachelor-themed Facebook group, Brett's Bachelor Buds, started organizing. It had been a week since George Floyd was killed by police, emotions were running high, and people across the country were experiencing a heightened awareness of racial inequality.

The Facebook group, which formed in March 2020, was meant to act as a fun, positive space for 7,200 fans and counting to connect over their shared love of all things Bachelor, the reality show that's been running for 18 years and has inspired other popular series including The Bachelorette and Bachelor in Paradise. But after a member named Chloe posted to express her frustration about the lack of diversity within the franchise and a desire to take action, the fandom decided it was time to get serious. Over a series of Facebook Messenger conversations and Zoom calls, the Bachelor Diversity Campaign was created.

"[Chloe] likes to say it was a nap thought. She was just in the middle of her day about to take a nap and sent this message. And quickly a bunch of us jumped on it and were like, 'We feel the same way as you, let's do something,'" Sam Halfmann, a member of the campaign, explained during a Zoom call. "We decided to put together a petition that really grew into a campaign, and we decided to do this big launch on the day of The Bachelor: The Greatest Seasons - Ever! [which was] airing on June 8."

When the campaign which now consists of 14 Bachelor fans across the country who came together through their mutual Facebook group went public, they launched a website and social media accounts to voice their concerns over the franchise, and outlined a series of 13 anti-racist standards for ABC and Warner Bros. to meet and uphold. The asks, which are detailed in a change.org petition that more than 163,000 fans have signed, range from casting a Black lead in Season 25 of The Bachelor (what ended up becoming Matt James' season) to issuing "a public statement apologizing for enabling systemic racism within the franchise" through years of problematic comments from producers, poorly vetted contestants, and predominantly white casts. The petition also calls on the franchise to provide "a clear plan for demonstrable anti-racism efforts moving forward," and encourages supporters to pledge to commit to anti-racism as well.

On June 12, 2020, four days after the campaign launched, the franchise made history by announcing Matt James would be its first Black male lead. The franchise also posted a statement to Instagram saying they "condemn racism, bullying, and hate in all of its forms and have introduced new community guidelines for interacting" on their posts. ABC has not said if the campaign's actions helped promote these changes, but the Bachelor Diversity Campaign feels they may have helped apply some additional pressure.

"[People working on the show] haven't been in touch with us. However, some out there have argued that they are aware, just given some of their actions," Halfmann, a 27-year-old senior marketing manager in Wichita, Kansas, said.

"We like to think they're very aware of us," BDC member Rachel Everley explained. "I do think that especially the second [statement] was in response to the push of our campaign."

The decision to cast Matt James and the statement condemning racism were both seen as signs of hope in the Bachelor community, but the campaign was all too aware given the past two decades that if left unchecked, the popular franchise likely wouldn't prioritize diversity or fight to facilitate positive, more inclusive change in the form of giving equal air time to people of color and carefully vetting contestants to ensure those who've promoted prejudice are not cast. So they felt compelled to take action.

"When we first got that announcement that Matt was going to be cast as the first Black bachelor, you have that moment of 'We really hope that this isn't just bread crumbs or lip service that there's going to be some concrete signs that things are changing," BDC member Ariana Arestegui, a 29-year-old law firm administrator in Orange County, California, explained. "I think that's why it was so important that we created those multiple points. It wasn't just about casting a Black bachelor. It's about making sure that there's more equity in screen time, and that theres better quality in terms of storylines and conversations" related to important topics including race, equality, mental health, family history, and more.

Since its launch, the Bachelor Diversity Campaign live tweets the two-hour episode each Monday night not only to celebrate the funny, viral-worthy moments and praise whatever is good, but to call out the bad and reflect on certain aspects of production that need improvement, for instance, focusing less on the petty drama that's become a Bachelor staple and giving contestants of color that air time to showcase their experiences and share personal storylines. The Bachelor Data Analyst Twitter account has been tracking contestant's screen time, and the data from the first six episodes of Matt's season shows just how much focus drama among white contestants is given.

Why was Heathers van roll-up longer than the Carnival date?! #TheBachelor

Bachelor Diversity Campaign (@bachdiversity) February 9, 2021

Were frustrated. Once again mean-spirited drama is drawing attention away from BIPOC storylines. Raise your hand if youd rather hear Matt + Michelle discuss the achievement/opportunity gap than watch Victoria, Anna, & MJ delight in a malicious rumor. #TheBachelor

Bachelor Diversity Campaign (@bachdiversity) February 2, 2021

"It's kind of like 'Avengers Assemble.' Like, OK are we here? Can we do it now? Let's get this done," Arestegui said when asked how the group decides what to post. "We just need to continue holding them accountable so that this isn't a passing phase for them."

As many members of Bachelor Nation know, the franchises history with diversity, systemic racism, and poorly vetted contestants is thornier than the many roses its contestants hand out.

The Bachelor Diversity Campaign detailed a series of particularly abhorrent examples of times the franchise has exhibited or defended problematic behavior in a Twitter thread on Monday, Feb. 16.

The thread highlights racist tweets and brownface social media posts from contestants; heartbreaking accounts from Black women who were cast in seasons with little to no diversity; a former Black casting producer speaking out about how the show returned to casting predominantly white contestants after Lindsay's season. And then there were the comments made throughout the years from Bachelor creator and producer Mike Fleiss, as well as longtime host and executive producer Chris Harrison:

In 2011, when asked if fans would ever seen a non-white bachelor or bachelorette, Fleiss said, "We really tried, but sometimes we feel guilty of tokenism. Oh, we have to wedge African-American chicks in there! We always want to cast for ethnic diversity, its just that for whatever reason, they dont come forward. I wish they would."

In 2018, he noted that ratings were down for Lindsays season, the first to feature a Black bachelorette, insinuating that her race may have been to blame. "I found it incredibly disturbing in a Trumpish kind of way," Fleiss told the New York Times. "How else are you going to explain the fact that she's down in the ratings, when black or white she was an unbelievable bachelorette? It revealed something about our fans."

Harrison has made his fair share of jaw-droppingly bad comments on race, too. In a 2015 interview with NPR, after some prickly reflections on Juan Pablo Galavis, who was cast as the franchise's first Latino lead, Harrison bluntly spoke about the "tricky subject" of diversity related to the show.

"...As soon as you say, 'race,' 'racism,' 'ethnicity,' 'minorities,' all of a sudden, everybody is waiting for you to say something politically incorrect and for it to be a scandal," Harrison said. "And when you're a white guy, a middle-aged white guy talking about diversity, you're already five steps behind. You're already in trouble. Because there's nothing you can say that's going to be good, that's going to go well in that regard."

Harrison went on to explain his belief that the success of the show mattered more than trying to take a stand on social issues or help pave the way for inclusivity on-screen.

"This is a situation that so many people of color, women of color, have been in before. You're trying to express yourself, a very valid sentiment, and you're continuously getting backlash, interjected, and made to seem as though your opinion is not as valid or as grounded as that other person's."

"...This is what worries me about speaking about it, honestly: television is a business, like anything else. And what we have to do, we can't just say, 'We're changing the world. We're going to do whatever it takes to change the world and make a stand on any social issue,'" Harrison continued. "I don't care, whatever take race out of it. Save the whales. We're going to make the entire show about saving the whale or the spotted owl. Well, that's great. But what happens when our show is off in six months, and you're not watching it anymore, and now hundreds if not thousands of people are out of a job?"

Earlier this year, when Harrison was asked if he felt the franchise was quick enough to diversify, he said, "There is this amazing culture of change going on. But there's also this culture of, how can I ruin that? How can I say, well, you're not woke enough? What is woke enough for you?"

Most recently, Harrison came under fire for excusing and defending historical racism in an interview with former show alum and the first Black bachelorette, Rachel Lindsay. Harrison spoke on allegations made against Rachael Kirkconnell, a contestant on Matt James' currently airing season of The Bachelor, who sparked outrage online after photos from 2018 surfaced showing her at an "Old South" plantation-themed college party with a group of women. The 24-year-old contestant has also been accused of bullying and promoting harmful political conspiracy theories in past weeks.

Before Kirkconnell publicly addressed the allegations, Harrison tried and epically failed to do some damage control. While repeatedly arguing that Kirkconnell should be given grace since the photos in question were taken several years ago, the 49-year-old host, who noted he's "not the woke police" said, "Well, Rachel, is it a good look in 2018, or is it not a good look in 2021? Because there's a big difference. Where is this lens we're holding up and was this lens available, and were we all looking through it in 2018?"

"It's not a good look ever, because she's celebrating the Old South," Lindsay replied. "If I went to that party what would I represent?"

Arestegui, a BDC member and woman of color, said she had a "very visceral" response when listening to Harrison's interview with Lindsay. "When Chris would try to speak over her or interject or make a fallacy in reasoning and judgment I would just be like, you can't outdo the doer," she said.

"Rachel was so gracious and graceful throughout that entire thing more than I think she should have been.... But within my own personal experiences as I was putting myself in her shoes, I was like, 'This is a situation that so many people of color, women of color, have been in before,'" Arestegui continued. "You're trying to express yourself, a very valid sentiment, and you're continuously getting backlash, interjected, and made to seem as though your opinion is not as valid or as grounded as that other person's. I really felt for Rachel, and I think she did a great job there. It is never okay to attempt to gaslight someone."

In a move I'm not sure any member of Bachelor Nation actually saw coming based on the total and complete lack of accountability exhibited from the franchise in the past, Harrison announced on Saturday that he would be stepping down from his hosting duties "for a period of time."

Since Harrison and Kirkconnell's Instagram apologies, the Bachelor Diversity Campaign has been extremely vocal on social media, in shining a spotlight on the franchise's problematic history, calling for Harrison's permanent departure, and supporting people of color on the show.

Dozens of alumni from the franchise (along with the women from Season 25, which is still in the process of airing) also released joint statements supporting Lindsay and denouncing any defense of racism. And fans created a petition calling for Chris Harrisons permanent removal from the franchise, which has already received more than 40,000 signatures. Many also abstained from live tweeting the last episode in support of viewers of color.

Hi #TheBachelor friends

I wont be tweeting tonight in support of BIPOC viewers whove had an especially exhausting week. While Chris Harrison stepping aside is a step, his ability to unlearn those troubling beliefs cant be unlearned overnight. Therefore, he should be replaced.

Brett S. Vergara (@BrettSVergara) February 16, 2021

"We have seen both statements from Chris Harrison in the past week, including the news of his stepping aside for a period of time. This is the first step towards accountability. However, we arent looking for a short break, but for substantive change and an action plan with demonstrable antiracism efforts," BDC member Everley said.

"The pushback within Bachelor Nation on the call to remove Chris Harrison is also revealing another reason he should go because without it, it emboldens others to defend racism as well. Anything less than his removal is quiet acceptance."

Since Lindsay was cast as the Bachelorette lead in 2017, she's served as one of the main voices advocating for the show to embrace people of color, but shes not alone anymore, and she along with alum including Tyler Cameron, Kaitlyn Bristowe, Nick Viall, and Ben Higgins have signed and shared the Bachelor Diversity Campaign's petition. And in a recent Reddit AMA, when asked what changes she would implement if she became an executive producer of the franchise Lindsay said, "I would basically consult with the Bachelor Diversity Campaign creators. They seem to really get it and be on top of the change the fans want to see in the franchise."

"I was hoping when I came on to be a trailblazer for that and to increase diversity in the audience that watches it. But in the last three years, there really haven't been changes made," Lindsay said in a 2020 interview with GMA. "I want producers of color I'd like for them to cast leads that are interested in dating outside of their race that aren't just getting their first-time experience for the first time on national TV. I need the acknowledgment of that. Not putting a band-aid over the situation and just saying, 'Here, we're going to put this here. Are you happy now?'"

Lindsay also penned a powerful blog post to further flesh out her thoughts on the franchises role in perpetuating systemic racism, in which she explains, "I am sad to say that after almost four years in this franchise, we still don't have the diversity that this show needs, and that our audience deserves It is a naive expectation to believe that leads will authentically start an interracial relationship for the first time on national television. The sad reality is that people of color become placeholders as the token person of color to add some flavor to the second half of the season."

It would be incredibly easy to look at all of these transgressions with disgust and abandon the franchise all together, and no doubt many fans have considered doing just that. But the harder task the task that the Bachelor Diversity Campaign has embarked upon is sticking with the show and relentlessly challenging all those who play a hand in casting, creating, and airing the series to facilitate impactful, lasting change.

"We don't want to [boycott] because we like this show... We want it to be better than it is."

"There has been a lot of talk among Bachelor fans about boycotting the show in the past, like 'We're done, we're out, we're boycotting.' Not that that thought didn't initially [cross our minds] in planning, but we don't want to go that way because we like this show. The thing that brought us together is that we like this crazy show and we don't want it to go away," Everley said. "We want it to be better than it is. And so, rather than just boycotting or only specifying a Black bachelor for Season 25, we wanted to outline the things that us as fans are looking for, and how this show can be better very explicitly."

If you've been watching the past three seasons especially, you know firsthand that groundbreaking change is possible in the franchise. James being cast as the first Black bachelor made history, but in 2020 Clare Crawley and Tayshia Adams also served as back to back Latina women leads. Adams' season featured a number of raw, eye-opening conversations about surviving addiction, suicide, eating disorders, and mental health. And, of course, Adams and contestant Ivan Hall had a crucial and candid discussion about race, Black Lives Matter protests, prison reform, and police brutality, which was aired on prime time television.

This season of The Bachelorette was a season of firsts. We watched as TWO Bachelorettes led the show with decisiveness, empathy, and grace. We saw the first (and second) female Latinx leads and the first Black Latinx lead. 1/8 #TheBachelorette pic.twitter.com/jitIlXFmnw

Bachelor Diversity Campaign (@bachdiversity) December 23, 2020

"I was watching by myself that evening, and I think my words in the group chat were literally, 'Did they just say George Floyd?'" Halfmann said. "I was like, 'You guys, this is a real moment. This is completely topical. It's exactly what's going on. And this is a conversation that we never see on The Bachelor. We were seeing a real moment. And that's what we want to see, the real moments.'"

James' season also featured Abigail Heringer, the show's first deaf contestant, whose story BDC member Rachel Everley connected with on a personal level. "Seeing Abigail is really special to me because I'm hard of hearing," the 39-year-old elementary education worker from Connecticut said. "I don't have a cochlear implant, but I do have to have captions. I do read people's lips. That's how I communicate. So just to see someone who's like me a little bit someone who has this type of diversity It's just such a humbling moment really."

Over the past two decades, the Bachelor franchise has given viewers the chance to watch grand love stories unfold from the comfort of their living rooms. The series are more than capable of offering lighthearted escapism and a silver lining to even the dreariest Mondays. But as society continues to reckon with racism and inherent social and political inequities, fans are demanding those whose actions have harmed contestants and fans of the show, such as Harrison, cut ties. And they want more substance, relatability, and on-screen representation, and less manufactured drama, shallow and incomplete storylines, and limos of contestants so similar in appearance you'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart halfway through your first glass of wine.

"It's one thing to cast a diverse cast, but it's not really doing anything if you're spending all of your time on petty drama from white women. That's not what we want to see. We want to hear people's stories and get to know them," Halfmann said.

"We want to see real life. We don't want to see contrived drama. We don't want to see fights. We want to see real conversations that are happening as people try to choose their partner. That's why we watch the show," Everley agreed.

Instead of focusing the majority of an episode on a woman whos going home, fans would rather see more of what goes into the final love story. When it comes to romantic connections, conversations that may seem mundane for television are, in reality, what help two people develop a strong relationship. On Tayshia Adams' season, for example, fans were confused and outraged upon learning that Adams sent home contestant Ivan Hall after learning they shared different religious beliefs. Their conversation on religion wasn't aired, so fans were left to wonder and many expressed a desire for additional transparency.

"They're really upping the ante with these women and creating all of these stressors for them to try to create that drama, but they don't need that. They don't need those shticks and gimmicks. We want to see the man fall in love," Arestegui said. "Let's talk [about] filing taxes or something. Where are we going to settle down? How do you feel about Wisconsin? Are you a vegan? There's so many other things about people that make them unique that arise in regular normal relationships: Religion, socio-economic differences, education, different values, and different ways of growing up."

"We want to see real life. We don't want to see contrived drama. We don't want to see fights. We want to see real conversations that are happening as people try to choose their partner. That's why we watch the show."

While watching a heavily edited fairy tale unfold may seem like better TV to producers, what Bachelor Nation really craves from these reality shows is simply more reality: diverse contestants; unedited, topical, sometimes heavy conversations; a team thats willing to own up to its many past mistakes and not only vow to do better, but show theyre capable of following through on their empty promises.

The sheer premise of the show one person attempting to find a life partner in a matter of weeks while simultaneously dating 20+ people, all of whom live together breaks nearly every dating tradition in the book. So why is the show so reluctant to push boundaries as small and sensible as casting a diverse group of contestants that not only includes more people of color, but people with disabilities, people with different religious beliefs, and contestants that represent different age groups and body types?

The accelerated, unconventional process these contestants use to find love is already pretty forward-thinking, and the decision to properly address and incorporate diversity in the form of better casting and hiring an omnipresent part of looking for love in the real world would only make the show more powerful and realistic. Fleeing from that opportunity for inclusion and trying to avoid it, as Harrison and others involved with the show have done multiple times, is both limiting and harmful to viewers and contestants. At the end of the day The Bachelor is a reality TV show, but it's reality TV that people hold close to their hearts, and it has the potential to grow alongside society and positively address deeper issues.

Now that fans are holding the show accountable, the franchise has reached a crossroads. It either continues to downplay its role in perpetuating systemic racism, brings back Harrison, and fails to show actionable efforts to change, or it starts really listening to what its fans want to see and starts living up to what it can actually be.

Mashable reached out to ABC and Warner Bros. for comment.

See the article here:
How A Group Of 'Bachelor' Fans Is Working To Improve The Franchise's Diversity - Mashable India

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell

This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of free speech as we once knew it.

In a world increasingly automated and filtered through the lens of artificial intelligence, we are finding ourselves at the mercy of inflexible algorithms that dictate the boundaries of our liberties.

Once artificial intelligence becomes afully integrated part of the government bureaucracy, there will be little recourse: we will be subject to the intransigent judgments of techno-rulers.

This is how it starts.

Martin Niemllers warning about the widening net that ensnares us all still applies.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew.Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me.

In our case, however, it started with the censors who went after extremists spouting so-called hate speech, and few spoke outbecause they were not extremists and didnt want to be shamed for being perceived as politically incorrect.

Then the internet censors got involved and went after extremists spoutingdisinformation about stolen elections, the Holocaust, and Hunter Biden, and few spoke outbecause they were not extremists and didnt want to be shunned for appearing to disagree with the majority.

By the time the techno-censors went after extremists spouting misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, the censors haddeveloped a system and strategy for silencing the nonconformists. Still, few spoke out.

Eventually, we the people will be the ones in the crosshairs.

At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes extremism, we the people mightallbe considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

Whatever we tolerate nowwhatever we turn a blind eye towhatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Watch and learn.

We should all be alarmed when prominent social media voices such asDonald Trump,Alex Jones,David IckeandRobert F. Kennedy Jr.are censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

The question is not whether the content of their speech was legitimate.

The concern is what happensaftersuch prominent targets are muzzled. What happens once the corporate techno-censors turn their sights on the rest of us?

Its a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

Already, there arecalls for the Biden administration to appoint a reality czarin order to tackle disinformation, domestic extremism and the nations so-called reality crisis.

Knowing what we know about the governments tendency to define its own reality and attach its own labels to behavior and speech that challenges its authority, this should because for alarm across the entire political spectrum.

Heres the point: you dont have to like Trump or any of the others who are being muzzled, nor do you have to agree or even sympathize with their views, but to ignore the long-term ramifications of such censorship would be dangerously nave.

As Matt Welch, writing forReason, rightly points out, Proposed changes to government policy should always be visualized with the opposing team in charge of implementation.

In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

As Glenn GreenwaldwritesforThe Intercept:

The glaring fallacy that always lies at the heart of pro-censorship sentiments is the gullible, delusional belief that censorship powers will be deployed only to suppress views one dislikes, but never ones own views Facebook is not some benevolent, kind, compassionate parent or a subversive, radical actor who is going to police our discourse in order to protect the weak and marginalized or serve as a noble check on mischief by the powerful. They are almost always going to do exactly the opposite: protect the powerful from those who seek to undermine elite institutions and reject their orthodoxies. Tech giants, like all corporations, are required by law to have one overriding objective: maximizing shareholder value.They are always going to use their power to appease those they perceive wield the greatest political and economic power.

Welcome to the age of technofascism.

Clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, technofascism is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem to achieve a common goal.

Thus far, the tech giants have been able to sidestep the First Amendment by virtue of their non-governmental status, but its a dubious distinction at best. Certainly, Facebook and Twitter have become the modern-day equivalents of public squares, traditional free speech forums, with the internet itself serving as a public utility.

But what does that mean for free speech online:should it be protected or regulated?

When given a choice, the government always goes for the option that expands its powers at the expense of the citizenrys. Moreover, when it comes to free speech activities, regulation is just another word for censorship.

Right now, its trendy and politically expedient to denounce, silence, shout down and shame anyone whose views challenge the prevailing norms, so the tech giants are lining up to appease their shareholders.

This is the tyranny of the majority against the minorityexactly the menace to free speech that James Madison sought to prevent when he drafted the First Amendment to the Constitutionmarching in lockstep with technofascism.

With intolerance as the new scarlet letter of our day, we now find ourselves ruled by the mob.

Those who dare to voice an opinion or use a taboo word or image that runs counter to the accepted norms are first in line to be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various word crimes and banished from society.

For example, a professor at Duquesne University wasfired for using the N-word in an academic context. To get his job back, Gary Shank will have to go through diversity training and restructure his lesson plans.

This is what passes for academic freedom in America today.

If Americans dont vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different, then were going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before we the people constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state driven to maintain its power at all costs.

We are almost at that point now.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwells1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended1984as a warning. Instead, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

Nothing good can come from techno-censorship.

Again, to quoteGreenwald:

Censorship power, like the tech giants who now wield it, is an instrument of status quo preservation. The promise of the internet from the start was that it would be a tool of liberation, of egalitarianism, by permitting those without money and power to compete on fair terms in the information war with the most powerful governments and corporations. But just as is true of allowing the internet to be converted into a tool of coercion and mass surveillance, nothing guts that promise, that potential, likeempowering corporate overlords and unaccountable monopolists to regulate and suppress what can be heard.

As I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People, these internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. Theyre laying the groundwork to preemptanydangerous ideas that might challenge the power elites stranglehold over our lives.

Therefore, it is important to recognize the thought prison that is being built around us for what it is: a prison with only one route of escapefree thinking and free speaking in the face of tyranny.

WC: 1562

Read more:
Techno-Censorship: The Slippery Slope from Censoring 'Disinformation' to Silencing Truth - John Whitehead's Commentary Techno-Censorship: The Slippery...

Perhaps the most distinctive dynamic in American politics in recent years has been the frequency and rapidity with which leftist ideas infect it.

Again and again the furthest reaches of the left come up with proposals that seem absurd upon initial inspection but soon become de rigueur on the broader left, quickly acquire mainstream respectability and then become part of an entrenched orthodoxy.

Gay marriage was opposed by a majority of the population little more than a decade ago (including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton) but now even modest expressions of skepticism can produce social ostracism and wreck careers amid accusations of "homophobia" (raising the question of how, since they were once afflicted by it, the last three presidential nominees of the Democratic Party were so effectively cured).

Claiming that gender is a consequence of anything but biology would have been taken as evidence of scientific illiteracy just a few years ago, but the man who just won a presidential election with more votes than any other in our history has now issued an executive order that would seem to require schools that receive federal funding to allow men to play on women's sports teams if they "identify" as women.

Feminists in good standing who question this are diagnosed as "transphobic" (in other words, it's no longer the guys in dresses who have the mental problems but the folks who think guys in dresses have mental problems).

The Soviet Union's tendency, in its death throes, to imprison dissidents in psychiatric hospitals thus finds an eerie echo in our radical left's use of junk psychology ("phobias") to suggest that criticism can only flow from mental disorder.

It wasn't long ago that something as absurd as the 1619 Project would have been filed alongside the Protocols of the Elders of Zion because of being filled with similarly poisonous fabrications, distortions, and unproven claims (as some of the most prominent historians of the American founding have pointed out), but it is now published by the nation's most prestigious newspaper, awarded the most prominent prize in journalism (the Pulitzer) and will soon be required reading in public school curricula throughout the land (with anyone who objects accused of trying to keep students ignorant of racism and slavery).

Lefties that would instantly (and appropriately) scream "foul" if creationism were taught in biology classes now enthusiastically encourage the leftist equivalent thereof in history classes; that multiple claims in the 1619 Project have by now been decisively refuted by people who know a lot more about American history than the project's authors matters less than that it bolsters a leftist narrative and therefore has political utility.

It seems like only yesterday that we were beginning a perhaps overdue national conversation about Confederate flags and statues in public spaces, but now suddenly find ourselves struggling to keep the names Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln on schools and streets in a way that suggests scheduling that visit to Mount Rushmore sooner rather than later.

The point is that, like the narrator in that old TV series "The Outer Limits," the radical left now firmly controls both the horizontal and the vertical and thus determines the parameters of acceptable public discourse through an ever-expanding and hyper-efficient array of awards and punishments. That in most cases radical-left positions are patently absurd, fundamentally illogical, untrue, non-falsifiable, contradictory or all of the above doesn't matter; they become the new smelly orthodoxy to which all must subscribe, or at least pretend to if they know what's good for them.

What is politically correct (required) and politically incorrect (prohibited) is determined entirely by the left and a consequence of its stranglehold over our political discourse. It isn't the logic or power of leftist ideas or narratives that leads to their imposition but the fact that it is only the left that has the power to cancel its critics and is so obviously eager to use it.

The left wins because it exerts a chilling effect on ordinary citizens who don't go looking for trouble and know that the best way to avoid it is to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. It wins not through debate and persuasion but through fear.

The left's long march through the institutions was based on and confirms via its current consequences Andrew Breitbart's observation that "politics flows downstream from culture." All of the important influencers of political opinion and hence our political culture--academe, the mass media, the teachers unions and public education bureaucracy, the entertainment industry, professional sports leagues, the publishing industry, philanthropic institutions, and now the "Big Tech" that controls so much of contemporary information flow--are controlled by the left and used to propel the leftist narratives of the moment.

The ideas which most Americans are exposed to are now determined almost entirely by the left and consequently reflect left priorities and assumptions.

Americans suddenly woke up one morning and discovered that profoundly different values now ruled the day, and are baffled as to how it all happened.

And when we look at the ideas now percolating on the radical left, however loony they seem, we see what we will soon have to pretend to believe.

--v--

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Continue reading here:
OPINION | BRADLEY GITZ: The left calls the shots - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Stephen Givens is a corporate lawyer based in Tokyo.

As an American who has spent most of his life in Japan, watching America fragment over race and gender makes me grateful to be living in a country where 99% of the population could care less whether bakers should be legally compelled to bake cakes for gay weddings.

Many Americans today would say the comparison is not fair. America is diverse. Japan is homogenous. America's problems -- and its virtues -- reflect its diversity. Japan avoids the problems that come with diversity, but is one-dimensional and sheltered.

To which I want to reply, "Let me tell you about the diversity of Japan and its people!"

Yes, there are fewer black and brown faces in Japan than in America, for obvious reasons of history and geography. But the diversity of the Japanese people, from Hokkaido to the Ryukyu Islands, is, if anything, more complex and interesting.

Although the origins of the Japanese people are still shrouded in unknowns, no one doubts that Japan is the product of centuries of immigration and foreign influences that even today have not blended into a homogenous bowl of porridge.

The consecration ceremony at Todaiji Temple in Nara in 752 was attended by dignitaries from Korea and China. Japanese Buddhism, the city plan of Kyoto and the Japanese writing system all entered from abroad.

Isabella Bird and Lafcadio Hearn in the late 19th century noticed, as do the Japanese themselves, striking regional differences in customs, physiology and dialect.

The complexions of women from Akita Prefecture are said to be especially beautiful. Scholars do not agree whether this is because there is lots of snow and little sunlight in Akita, or a result of intermarriage with Russians from across the Sea of Japan.

Japan, like ancient Greece, is home to hundreds of local dialects, festivals, musical and craft traditions and cuisines, now sadly dying off with accelerating mobility, television and the internet.

And lest we forget, for most of Japan's history, diversity led not to harmony but just the opposite -- cycles of vicious clan warfare that only came to an end with national unification at the turn of the 17th century.

Japan's diversity is supported by remarkable tolerance of eccentrics and curiosity about foreign people and things.

Nobody bats an eye at trucks driven by right-wing activists blaring martial music, or girls dressed up like their favorite manga characters. Gender-bending and cross-dressing have a long and respectable history in Kabuki and its more recent offshoots like the all-female Takarazuka Revue. Foreign visitors and immigrants are treated with friendly curiosity and respect.

Eccentricity and deviation are tolerated, but against a background that understands that men and women, and people from different countries and regions, are not interchangeable, and have their own natural and normal characters. Politically incorrect stereotyping? Perhaps so.

Women are partial to sweets, and are more sensitive to cold. Men like spicy food, and have strong body odor. Single-sex schools are OK. So are girl-only group outings and men-only private clubs. The Japanese language itself codifies different vocabularies and verb endings for men and women.

So, too, regional stereotypes. People from Osaka unashamedly bargain for a lower price. People from Kyoto are aloof and unfriendly to strangers. Wakayama people are country bumpkins. Regional differences provide a rich source of humor of a kind that is now effectively outlawed in America, where diversity is celebrated but differences must go unmentioned for fear of hurting someone's feelings.

Japanese have never believed in a Higher Truth or Great Awakenings. They are rooted in the here-and-now, ordinary common sense, acceptance of human beings and knowledge as inevitably imperfect. For that reason, feelings of moral outrage and moral superiority are rare -- a good thing if diverse human beings and communities are to get along.

By contrast, Americans over their history have been attracted to high-minded, bluestocking religious and ideological movements inspired by feelings of moral outrage and superiority against their less enlightened fellow citizens. Puritanism and Evangelical Christianity cast their long shadows today. The Prohibition movement, and both sides of the abortion issue, are examples of self-righteous finger-pointing utterly baffling to most Japanese.

On a trip back to America last month, I was taken aback to see how the Great Awokening has taken hold in "progressive" enclaves like Cambridge, Massachusetts. Churches and historic mansions along Brattle Street have signed on to an updated Apostles' Creed emblazoned on placards in windows and front steps everywhere you look: "We believe: Black lives matter; No human is illegal; Love is love."

Translation: Unbelievers repent.

As a foreigner privileged, assuming I pay my taxes and otherwise behave myself, to reside here until my body is laid to rest, I am profoundly grateful to spend my remaining days in a vibrantly diverse and pagan nation rooted in earthy common sense and forgiveness for human fallibility.

Originally posted here:
The remarkable diversity of Japan and its people - Nikkei Asia