[Edwin] Poots, the new [Democratic Unionist Party] leader, is a believing Christian. But the way the mainstream media has been reporting it you’d think this were freakier than if he were a practising Satanist.
Sky News couldn’t resist warning us that “in his past” Poots has “courted controversy” because of his “strongly held views on issues like evolution and homosexuality.” …
There is no way on earth that Faisal Islam would preface an interview with, say, Sadiq Khan, by making light of the Muslim belief in Gabriel flying Mohammed around Heaven on a winged horse to meet Allah, Adam and Moses.
Indeed, were you to search the BBC news archives I doubt you’d find a single instance of a BBC interviewer even hinting to a Muslim that there was anything unhealthy about Islamic attitudes towards homosexuality.
The mainstream British broadcast channels all seem to be united in their loathing for Christianity — and routinely persecute politicians of faith.
Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, for example, was effectively hounded out of his job because the media kept pestering him with questions about whether he believed homosexual sex was a sin. …
Leader of the House Jacob Rees Mogg, too, was endlessly tormented by journalists because of his profound Catholic faith. The BBC’s Jo Coburn once asked him whether his religious belief was a “barrier to holding high office” — which she would certainly never have asked of a devout Muslim, Sikh, or Jew.
The left truly don’t even notice their anti-Christian bigotry or anti-white racism any more, so common have their double-standards become.
First, N.S. Lyons on the recent open letters by the military in France:
Not only do 58% of the French public agree with the first letter’s sentiments about the country facing disintegration, but so do nearly half of Macron’s own governing party, the centrist En Marche. Awkward.
Nor are those sentiments limited to any one part of the political spectrum, even if the right is more sympathetic overall. Far-left party leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon may have quickly declared that the “mutinous and cowardly” soldiers who signed the letter and would all be purged from the army if he were elected, but 43% of his party seem to share their concerns.
But that’s not even the whole of it — an amazing 74% of poll respondents said they thought French society was collapsing, while no less than 45% agreed that France “will soon have a civil war.” …
There is the key detail — almost entirely skipped over in the English-language press in favor of focusing on the anti-immigration angle, as far as I’ve seen — of the “anti-racism,” “decolonialism,” and “communitarianism” decried in the two letters as contributing to national dissolution. This is rather unmistakably a reference to the amalgamated, zealously anti-traditional and anti-liberal ideology of the “New Faith” — alternately referred to as Anti-Racism, the Social Justice movement, Critical Theory, identity politics, neo-Marxism, or Wokeness, among other synonymous infamies …
Let me repeat this proposition again: no revolution has ever remained contained by national borders. The New Faith is a trans-national ideological movement, which can no more remain confined to the United States than it remained confined within the American academy where it matured (it was arguably born in, well… France). And it is more than capable of rapidly adapting itself to and flourishing within whatever national context it penetrates. But, wherever it goes, it’s just as disruptive to the foundations of social and political order.
Dreher, writing from Hungary:
Here in Budapest,… the anti-Orban Left recently erected a mock-up of the Statue of Liberty, holding a table that read BLACK LIVES MATTER, and colored in the rainbow flag. This was sponsored by the city government, which is in the hands of the opposition. Some right-wing men tore it down soon after it was put up.
What is so striking about this, at least from my point of view, is how the Left in this small Central European country adopted the symbols and themes of the American culture war to launch their own attack on the government. There are very, very few black people in Hungary. The point of the gesture was to unite the local Left with the global Grand March of Progressivism. …
I wrote … recently about how concerned I am that the Hungarians are welcoming the Chinese construction of a European outpost of their Fudan University. But I spoke the other day to a Hungarian-born professor who has spent his life teaching in US and British universities, and he told me that the Chinese, whatever their failings, will not export cultural pathology through Fudan University. A Budapest branch of any leading Western university would, he said. Of course he’s right about that.
Seriously, would you really want to invite into your country a vector for the kind of crackpot ideology that is tearing apart American institutions, psychologically harming kids with gender theories, turning races against each other, and dismantling the ability of once-great universities to do what universities are supposed to do?
Would you want your country to adopt education policies that punish gifted and talented kids for the sake of “equity,” as California is now doing? Do the people of Hungary, or any other nation that hasn’t already swallowed the poison, really want their children to be taught in school that there are scores of genders, and that they can decide for themselves what their gender really is? …
France is facing the prospect of civil war because it allowed in massive numbers of Islamic immigrants, which it has not been able to assimilate.
Back in 2015, in the midst of the migration crisis, the Hungarian PM gave a speech:
Hungary’s nationalist prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has claimed Europe is in the grip of madness over immigration and refugees, and argued that he was defending European Christianity against a Muslim influx. …
He denied that the emergency was a refugee crisis, but one of mass migration.
Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. …
This is total anathema to liberals and progressives. But Orban was right then, and is right today.
To step slightly outside of the West — Hungary is a Western, Christian country, but has not (yet) drunk the woke Kool-Aid — and to look at what’s happening at home is to realize that the West is not the future.
The West has been the future since the discovery of the New World, but it’s hard to believe that it remains so today. … I believe that it is primarily because of its decadent, narcissistic culture, including its abandoning of Christianity. …
The woke left go ever more totalitarian:
Near the core of this political and cultural crisis is the fact that we cannot even talk across ideological lines about it. Look at this. Jay Rosen is a major professor of journalism and media critic at NYU. [He quotes] Margaret Sullivan, the media columnist at the Washington Post:
The US is going to become “functionally an authoritarian White Christian nationalist state in the very near future”
Jay Rosen thinks so too, and so, it would seem, does Margaret Sullivan?! Good God. The left controls nearly every major institution of civil society in this country, and corporate America; even the CIA and the US military are going woke. This claim is deranged — but it’s what they are going to keep telling themselves to justify tightening the soft totalitarian grip.
Woke and Islam — both aggressive, totalitarian ideologies — versus the traditional successful culture of the West.
In the middle of Israel, 16 miles outside of Tel Aviv, sits the city of Lod (Lydda). One-third of its population of 77,000 is Arab; it has been a source of local pride that Arabs and Jews have gotten along so well, and that the Arabs have flourished. Starting with an Arab population of 1,600 in Lod in 1949, the Arabs now number 25,700, a colossal increase of more than 1500%. Obviously, living in Lod agrees with them.
But in recent days, Arab mobs in Lod have been roaming the city, attacking Jews, burning cars, throwing petrol bombs into Jewish homes and shops, setting three synagogues on fire. …
Jewish shops were set on fire, three synagogues burned, gasoline bombs thrown into Jewish homes. It is a miracle that no one so far has burned to death, though several Jews have been seriously wounded by Arabs, and one Arab man was shot dead while attacking Jews. Meanwhile Arab mobs for two days and nights roamed the streets, looking for Jews and Jewish property to attack. Some Jews had to be escorted home by the police, for fear of what might happen to them at the hands of the maddened Muslim marauders. …
No Jews in Lod have attacked Arab-owned shops or houses, or mosques. …
Throughout central Israel, the Arab attacks spread: in Ramle, right near Lod, more attacks on Jewish homes and cars; major fires consumed a restaurant and hotel. In the Arab town of Umm al-Fahm, the locals blocked roads so that the forces of order — the Israeli police — would keep out. On the coast, in Jaffa, a car was set on fire and Arabs and Jews clashed, Even in the overwhelmingly Jewish Tel Aviv, fights broke out between Arabs and Jews in the very center, Habimah Square, of the city. …
A refuge ended by Arab bad behavior:
Israel was supposed to be the Jewish National Home, a refuge for world Jewry. The Israelis are used to fighting for their survival against the armies of Arab states. They are used to fighting terror groups, too — Hamas, Hezbollah, PFLP, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
But in Lod, many of the Arabs with whom they have lived side-by-side, among whom they had grown up, people whom they had allowed themselves to believe were reasonably content as citizens of Israel, with all the civil, religious, and political rights of Israeli Jews, suddenly turned on their Jewish neighbors. …
The Border Police have been called in to restore order in Lod, where the Arab mob violence has finally been suppressed. But the former trust between Arab and Jew in Lod, and in other mixed cities, too, have been broken by the Arab mobs …
President Rivlin, normally so measured and soft-spoken in his remarks, said that “the sight of the pogrom in Lod and the disturbances across the country by an incited and bloodthirsty Arab mob… is unforgivable.”
Today Jen Psaki was pressed by White House reporters on why President Biden had not yet called for a cease fire. She bobbed and weaved, saying that “we all know” that the only way to end violence is “for there to be a two-state solution.”
Really? How do we all know that? The Arabs were offered a two-state solution in 1948, and they turned it down, preferring to try to destroy Israel and kill the Jews. They have made the same choice consistently over the last 73 years. And if Gaza were a “state,” why would Hamas be any less prone to launch missiles against Israel? …
He encouraged Israel to make every effort to ensure the protection of innocent civilians.
Really. Hinderaker again:
This is the weird false equivalence that we see all the time where Israel is concerned. How about if the world’s “leaders” demand that Hamas “make every effort to ensure the protection of [Israel’s] innocent civilians”? But that wouldn’t make sense, since the whole point of Hamas’s terrorist offensive is to kill innocent civilians. The Palestinians have sown the wind, and yet the world’s prime concern is that they not reap the whirlwind. Why?
Similarly, world “leaders” tell Israelis that their response to Hamas’s thousands of rockets must be “proportionate,” which means, apparently, that no more Palestinians than Israelis should die. Evidently Israelis are supposed to downgrade their own competence to match Hamas’s primitive, if brutal, rocketry.
This is a standard never before known to warfare. If you are attacked by an enemy, it is appropriate to respond with overwhelming force so as to devastate your enemy and disable him from further attacks, not at the least cost to your enemy, but at the least cost to your own citizens. See, e.g., the U.S. response to Japanese and German aggression in World War II. Hamas started this war, and Israel has every right to inflict maximum damage until it is satisfied that Hamas can never again pose a threat.
As the left grows ever bolder in the West — having taken over almost every institution (just the police and military to go) — it increasingly sounds anti-Semitic.
Biden reversed all Trump’s policies and all useful incentive structures the Trump administration … had shrewdly set up in the Middle East. The Biden administration restored more than $US200m in aid to the Palestinian Authority so Washington could regain influence in Palestinian politics.
How has that gone? So far, the main result is that Hamas has fired more than 3,000 rockets at Israeli civilian targets and Israel has necessarily responded. …
Hamas has intentionally engineered this tragedy for its own people in the sure knowledge of what would follow. No country in the world would fail to respond to 3,000 rocket attacks, and more continuing daily, on its civilian population. Hamas had wider purposes. One was certainly to re-establish itself as the leading force in Palestinian politics by being the most violently anti-Israel faction.
Another barrage of Palestinian rockets on the right, Israeli Iron Dome anti-rocket missiles on the left to knock them down (or at least, the rockets that will land in inhabited areas).
But it was also serving Iran’s strategic ambitions. The mullahs in Tehran are emboldened by the Biden administration running after them to reinstate the fatally flawed deal Obama negotiated with them in 2015.
Although Biden has yet to formally lift all sanctions, all the steam has gone out of the former Trump approach, and Iran has much more room to manoeuvre. It supplies the rockets, money and geo-strategic direction to Hamas.
Meanwhile, the Gulf and North African nations that made peace with Israel, or were considering doing so, see a much less reliable ally against Iran in the new Biden administration. Trump would comprehensively underwrite their peace agreements with Israel. Biden is much less enthusiastic about that. …
This is indeed the Obama paradigm recreated; constant regional conflict, Israel under siege, Iran empowered, the most extreme elements in the Palestinian leadership reinforced, new waves of conflict. If Trump’s policies had produced this mess, as the bien pensants unanimously predicated they would, he would not have escaped blame. Neither should Biden.
Trump leaves and the Biden regime takes over, and soon a Russian troop build-up is threatening the Ukraine, the Middle East erupts into violence, talk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is suddenly all over the place, and even the North Koreans are back to their old ways.
There is no such thing as a “social construct” as currently understood. Into the 20th century people would have laughed at the idea of it. There are customs and institutions, for sure, but those are things that evolved within a people over a period of trial and error. …
The social construct … takes the custom or institution and recasts it as an invention, a thing that is true only because of a set of rules. Further, it smuggles in the idea that it was deliberately invented. Men, and it is always men, sat around dreaming up the new social conventions to serve their interests. This strips the custom of legitimacy by casting it as just a partisan interest. The people wishing to change it are just as legitimate as the people who invented it. …
What the phrase social construct permits the partisan to do is to smuggle in the idea that something like sex was an invention of men, and it is always men, to serve the interest of the inventors. On the one hand, the roles assigned to those with a uterus served the interests of the patriarchy. Now we are told that those same men made gender binary in order to oppress the non-binary. The concept of the social construct turns objective reality into an intergenerational conspiracy theory.
One of the ways the political neologism smuggles in lies is that it creates a false dichotomy in the minds of the audience. In the case of sex and sex roles, things are either purely nature or purely nurture, with nurture always assigned the default position in the comparison. Sex roles, for example, are either a social construct or a universal fact of nature. Since few things are the latter, the former becomes the default position, as if by magic. Suddenly, the natural world is up for debate.
This happened with homosexual marriage. It was first detached from its natural meaning to be a social construct, rather than an ancient custom. Instead of being defined by the biological necessity of reproduction, it was just an invention to suppress women and manage property rights to the favor of males. Once that transformation occurred, opponents of homosexual marriage were forced make the affirmative argument for something that had been the default for eons. …
This is the deceit of new words and phrases cooked up by partisans. The point is to assault the truth, strip it of its legitimacy. … It traps the bourgeois objectivist into the either/or trap. Once they accept the false dichotomy, they accept the weaker hand, and the results are inevitable. The Left wins every battle by first destroying the weapons the opponent can use against them.
This is why there is no reasoning with a partisan. That lefty aunt thinks what she thinks because she sees the world in binary terms. She greedily adopts the new language because it reaffirms her world view.
The partisan sees the truth in the same way the vampire sees a mirror. It’s not the reflection that terrifies the vampire. It is the lack of one, a reminder of a truth of their existence. Facts and clear language have the same effect on the partisan, which is why they hiss at them.
Is a military coup really feasible in democratic France?
As breathtakingly inconceivable as Macron’s forced removal might seem, it appears that French military leaders are openly advocating the idea. French officers assert that the interests of the French nation, indeed, its very survival, may depend on Macron’s removal.
Growing numbers of Frenchmen agree. In the most recent national poll, roughly half the French population agrees with the military leaders’ argument for decisive action. What the larger French officer corps thinks is unknown, but the numbers of soldiers signing on for action is growing day by day.
Globalists in France, as everywhere, are enamored of building a Marxist dystopia. Many Europeans think they have largely succeeded. To Macron and his ilk, Frenchmen and indeed all human beings are replaceable and interchangeable. They insist that religion, race, culture, and language are meaningless artificial constructs and they seek to abolish national identities. It was this flight from reality that led Macron to open the borders of France in 2015, admitting tens of thousands of Muslims ostensibly seeking asylum.
In short order, Frenchmen soon discovered that the tsunami of Muslim migrants had no desire whatsoever to assimilate and, baffling enough, zero interest in ever returning to their home countries. Although Muslim migrants clearly sought to benefit from France’s generous welfare state and economic prosperity, they also demanded their own laws, their own schools, their own language, and their own customs and religion. These demands were accompanied by rising criminality in the form of terrorist attacks, violent riots, racially motivated rape gangs, and burning Christian Churches.
As the crisis spirals out of control, the French army — the last, true repository of national identity and French values — appears to be drawing a red line. The French, and the Western nations watching from the sidelines, face a truly gut-wrenching choice: Either act with force to restore French sovereignty or watch their nation perish.
France is the country furthest down the globalization/end-of-western-culture road. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Israel launched an airstrike that leveled a building in Gaza that also contained Al-Jazeera and Associated Press offices. Katie wrote about it yesterday. There’s been outrage. There have been allegations that Israel violated international law. And the news coverage has been predictably trashy …
Israel shared intelligence with the US showing how Hamas operated inside the same building with the Associated Press and Al-Jazeera in Gaza, officials in Jerusalem said on Sunday.
Officials in more than one government office confirmed that US President Joe Biden’s phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday was, in part, about the bombing of the building, and that Israel showed Biden and American officials the intelligence behind the action.
“We showed them the smoking gun proving Hamas worked out of that building,” a senior diplomatic source said. “I understand they found the explanation satisfactory.” …
Netanyahu also remarked that there were “no deaths whatsoever” from the strike on the building, because of measures Israel takes to avoid harming civilians, including giving an advance warning. …
“The building housed the offices of civilian media, which the terrorist organization Hamas hides behind and uses as human shields,” the IDF said in a statement. “The terror organization Hamas deliberately places its military assets in the heart of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the attack, the IDF warned the civilians who were in the building and gave them sufficient time to evacuate.”
AP CEO: “AP’s bureau has been in this building for 15 years. We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building. This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We’d never knowingly put our journalists at risk.”
Hamas systematically uses the media towers and studios in Gaza for military purposes. They've been doing it since they took over in late 2000s. It would count as an open secret but it's not even a secret. Anyone who pretends they don't know is either very new to this, or lying. pic.twitter.com/VIX5H0p05h
If publishers were fair about underrepresented voices, and underrepresented consumers, they would be publishing anti-woke authors. …
Contemporary fiction is dominated by left-wing themes. Novelists who call out this bias only hurt themselves, such as the Australian Michael MacConnell. (That was in 2009. He hasn’t published a novel since.) I was told of a few successful novelists who are relatively conservative but remain closeted. …
Males are already underrepresented in the publishing industry (as they are in teaching). Recently, a novelist revealed that in the 2000s he “was explicitly advised . . . to give up any ideas of publishing literary fiction,” given female dominance on both the demand and supply sides. …
No male under 40 years old has been nominated for the Booker Prize for fiction in a decade. The shortlist for the 2020 Booker Prize was published in mid-September, with three women “of colour,” a man of color, a white woman, and a white man (but he’s gay, Scottish, and wrote about a single mother battling with alcoholism, and a son grappling with his sexuality, in Glasgow, in the 1980s, all of which are blamed on “Thatcher’s policies”). …
The deputy literary editor for the Times of London, James Marriott, welcomed the incline in female nominees on the Booker longlist, but he also noted that young men would struggle to get a break today. One agent told him: “it’s really, really hard,” given that “the culture doesn’t really want to hear from them.” Appropriately, the agent blamed a culture, not the market. Indeed, a minority culture attempted to cancel Marriott on Twitter. He suspended his account (temporarily).
Despite female dominance of the Booker Prize, women have their own annual prize for women’s fiction, now in its 25th year. Where is the annual prize for men’s fiction? That would be sexist, they say, with no realization of hypocrisy. …
Publishing is special, because it can get by appealing only to the woke?
The adage “go woke, go broke” has been proven in other industries. Why not publishing?
Industry insiders respond that they serve the minority that consumes most of the books. There’s some truth to this, but also complacency. True, the big publishers have the power to create demand for a tiny proportion of authors. Yet at some point, consumers lose faith in the marketing. Those in the publishing world talk up the industry out of self-interest. But most of the time the insiders are talking to each other.
Nope, woke is a slow road to ruin, even in publishing:
The market is bigger than the literary class. Britain publishes more books per capita than any other country, partly because it serves an enormous Anglophone market outside of Britain. Most sales are of nonfiction, whose subjects are less woke.
What’s more, the big publishers have been losing market share to self-publishers, which account for about one-third of sales (and a higher proportion of ebook sales). Their growing share proves plebian demand. Self-publishing implies rejection by the elite, however, and is stigmatized as such. Most publishers, agents, and critics refuse to consider authors who self-publish. This is partly self-protection. Hypocritically, they will chase authors who make it big as self-publishers. …
Opportunity knocks for a brave entrepreneur:
While anti-woke nonfiction has a few publishers, anti-woke fiction has none. This is not for want of a market. …
The publishing industry is identarian and unmeritorious. If publishers were fair about underrepresented voices, and underrepresented consumers, they would be publishing anti-woke authors.
Because of media dominance by the left, it is too easy for professional people to live in a woke world where the non-woke truths never penetrate. Watch the mainstream media, visit only websites approved by Google, read the main left wing newspaper, read only trendy books, visit inner city coffee shops and art museums etc., and only talk to people like themselves. Friendships between PC and non-PC people are becoming rare nowadays, because the PC types are so censorious and intolerant that normal people cannot stand them for long. Like two ships in the night.
The purpose of virtue signaling is to appear “better” than others. If everyone already believe something (perhaps because it’s true, or validated by centuries of experience) then you aren’t distinguished by believing it. Which is why the virtue-signaler activists are always pushing ridiculous ideas. They are special.
Thus, PC ideas typically are supported by the usual 20%, opposed by 50%, and the remaining 30% can be persuaded either way.
So it is always politically stupid for a mainstream political party to go woke. Leave full-on virtue signaling to the fringe players, like the Greens.
Sadly, the UK Labour Party, like mainstream left parties around the western world, is being pushed by its activists into adopting necessarily unpopular stances. If you haven’t seen this, have a sad laugh:
After the left abandoned the working class (too deplorable, all the “good” people from poor backgrounds have moved on and are wealthier now) around 1990, and became the party of the rich 1% and the professional class that services them, they lost their ballast. There is little attempt to do what the vast majority of people want. Now they believe any old thing, so long as it makes themmore virtuous, richer, or more powerful.
The Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority released the new national school curriculum for history from Years Seven to Ten. …
The most historically significant Australians:
The curriculum contains no mention of Robert Menzies or his political rivals John Curtin and Ben Chifley, or of any other of our prime ministers. No mention of other long-serving leaders such as Bob Hawke or John Howard. Yet there are plenty of names of other political identities that students will be required to study. Here is one list from the syllabus for Year Ten:
William Cooper, Jack Patten, Sir Douglas Nicholls, Lady Gladys Nicholls, Vincent Lingiari, Charles Perkins, Shirley Smith, Gladys Elphick, Essie Coffey, Joyce Clague, Roberta (Bobbi) Sykes, Gary Foley, Michael Anderson, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Lowitja O’Donoghue
There is no prize for guessing what they have in common. They are all Aboriginal political activists. …
It reads like a wish-list straight from the Green Left Weekly. It endorses every one of the major claims currently being made by left-wing climate warriors, LGBTI advocates and indigenous activists. …
What makes this especially concerning is that it has been produced in a period when John Howard’s Coalition successors have held the reins of political power, and when all the members of the ACARA board responsible have been appointed or re-appointed by either the Turnbull or Morrison governments. …
This curriculum is aimed at teaching kids to hate Australia. …
Year 7 to be taught the following spin and half truths:
In Year Seven, the study of ancient Aboriginal society, now re-branded by this curriculum by the legally inaccurate term of “First Nations Peoples”, is compulsory and takes up half the course. The other half can be a study of either ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India or China. For the study of the First Nations, it lists the following (this and other dot-point lists are all reproduced verbatim):
# the development of innovative technologies by early First Nations Peoples of Australia
# how the ancestors of the early First Peoples of Australia are recognised as the first seafarers on record and how this is considered as one of the greatest achievements of early humans
# the technologically advanced societies of early First Nations Peoples of Australia and their highly sophisticated development of stone tools and stone knapping techniques
# First Nations Australians’ cultures as ongoing and dynamic entities that continue to successfully respond and adapt to broad scale environmental shifts as they have done over millennia and continue today such as Sabai Island and Western Cape York
# the absence within Aboriginal society of such technologies as wheels, pottery, farming and metallurgy were not signs that it was primitive. Such an idea comes from “now discredited” theories of cultural evolution. …
The kids are going to be appalled when they later learn the truth and compare it the BS they were fed. The numerous examples that would cause one to come to the opposite of the required conclusions are carefully omitted.
“Why weren’t we taught that?” they will say when they find out. Then they will realize their education was a farce of indoctrination.
They also come away quite ignorant of where our society came from and the issues that shaped it — a leftist’s dream, easy to manipulate with nonsense and cockamamie schemes, because they don’t know what’s already been tried.
Teachers can choose between covering the origins and growth of either Christianity or Islam, but don’t have to study both. This virtually guarantees that students at Islamic schools will gain no knowledge of Western history and its place in Australian society. …
In Year Nine, the curriculum returns to its central political objectives. It requires students to study the awful destruction wreaked on the First Nations Peoples by the evils of European imperial expansion. In a study of the “making and transformation of the Australian nation from 1750 to 1918”, students will study:
# the impact of invasion, colonisation and dispossession of lands by Europeans on the First Nations People of Australia such as frontier warfare, genocide, removal from land, relocation to protectorates, reserves and missions.
# the effects of colonisation, such as frontier conflict, and the massacres of First Nations Australians; the spread of European diseases and the destruction of cultural lifestyles [NB: diseases such as smallpox are identified as “European” rather than originating in Asia]
# the effects of sheep and cattle farming on the Australian landscape, such as loss of native plants, compacting of soil, and water run-off
# the forcible removal of children from First Nations Australia families in the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century (leading to the Stolen Generations), such as the motivations for the removal of children, the practices and laws that were in place, and experiences of separation
A very postmodern approach to truth, more lies than truth, especially the omissions. All about power and politics. By the time the un-PC truths that explain the current situation are ignored, there isn’t much left but self-parodying spin.