Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #46 
Originally Posted by Janet Albrechtsen
“BBC CHIEF STUNNED BY SECRET SEX SURVEY.” The headline blaring from Britain’s Mail on Sunday one balmy morning in London a few weeks ago was irresistible. And the news report didn’t disappoint. “Can someone have a guess at how many people we’ve got who have disclosed they are transgender at the BBC? Ten? Anyone else? Twenty?” asked the BBC’s director of diversity at a social policy forum last month.
“I’ll put you out of your misery. We’ve got 417 people within the BBC who have said they are transgender, almost 2 per cent of the ­organisation.”
Using personal information from staff, diversity bean counters at Britain’s national broadcaster found 11 per cent of its employees are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Diversity executive Tunde Ogungbesan says that while the number of transgender people is “very, very high”, the broadcaster needs more lesbians.
The real misery is that we count this stuff at all. Extrapolating from the diversity director’s comment that “what gets measured gets done”, the next advertisement for a BBC job will logically need to seek a candidate with the following qualifications: must be able to write, have proven reporting skills, work effectively in a small team and be a lesbian. And how do they check the veracity of a candidate meeting that last stipulation? If only this were a facetious ­scenario.
A few days later, on July 4, former US president Bill Clinton tweeted: “E pluribus unum — out of diversity comes a deeper strength and unity rooted in the timeless ideals that we celebrate today. It’s ‘We the People,’ not ‘Us vs Them’…”
If only that were true. Instead, we are being sold a lemon every time someone says diversity makes us stronger and unites us.
Diversity, the new buzzword, has much in common with its older sibling, multiculturalism. The celebration of diversity and the daily condemnation of white male privilege has morphed into a project that divides us. When anchored to group identities, this new diversity project becomes the antithesis of the liberal model that emerged from the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. The timeless ideal that all individuals are revered as equal regardless of colour, creed and gender is being turned on its head.
To be fair to the BBC, by crunching the numbers about the sexual identity of its staff, the diversity bean counters are simply doing their bit, as disciples of this new project. But it didn’t need to unfold this way. Respecting diversity is admirable because it unifies us. Worshipping diversity as some kind of new age god in a secular world is destructive.
The more we label and encourage people to join smaller identity groups defined by being transgender or black lesbian or Muslim gay, the “other” — the outsiders — grow larger in number. There are more people outside the group to be suspicious of, to fear and even loathe.
People gathering in groups, associating with tribes, preferring their own kind, is as old as the history of mankind. As English philosopher Roger Scruton said as he watched the 1968 Paris protests — when middle-class students turned out to protest without really knowing what they supported — craving membership is “a deep adaptation of the species”.
Whereas people in previous centuries joined or were born into religious communities, in the modern secular West the search for meaning is leading people to seek out different group identities. It raises the real threat of a new and different form of sectarianism as politics and policies, even if well-meaning, encourage people to be defined by smaller and smaller group identities, fracturing along sex, sexual identity, race, colour, creed or other such traits.
Group identities don’t unify people, they build walls between people. Loyalty to the tribe, for example, means members are less likely to publicly countenance divergence from group orthodoxy even if they disagree in private. Tribal loyalty explains why it’s harder for an indigenous man, such as Warren Mundine, or an indigenous woman, such as Bess Price, to diverge from indigenous orthodoxy on anything from welfare to family violence to education and employment.
It explains why feminists within the #MeToo movement cling together, even if they harbour private reservations about trivial complaints about bad sex that have formed part of the ­movement.
Tribal loyalty explains why so few Muslims will say what Ayaan Hirsi Ali dares to say about aspects of Islam. Only the bravest speak up, understanding that they will be cast out as apostates, joining the ranks of “other” — people beyond the group — who are treated with suspicion, and worse.
Tribal loyalty explains how the heartbreaking case of Nia Wilson has given identity politics a new battleground. Last weekend the teenager was changing trains with her sister in Oakland, California, when a white man stabbed her in the throat. Police are exploring a race-hate motive. When I typed Wilson’s name into Google, up popped actress Anne Hathaway’s thoughts on white privilege. Not a news piece about what happened to Wilson.
Rachel Cargle, who describes herself as the “Beyonce of Academia” created an Instagram post exclusively for people of colour to share their feelings about Wilson. “No white women, no men,” she wrote. She asked people to tag their favourite white feminists who had yet to talk about Wilson.
The misguided Beyonce of Academia is building walls. Separating feminists according to skin colour creates more otherness, more fear, more suspicion. It does not help black women. It creates “us vs them”.
Worshipping diversity also has led to more victimhood, not empowerment. Just as tribes compete, grouping people according to sex, sexual identity or other human traits fuels a marketplace of outrage. Different groups vie for top billing as the biggest victims, to attract public attention or policy responses or both.
Over at Meanjin, a left-wing artsy publication, a few indigenous women were outraged when, on the last cover, editor Jonathan Green decided to cross out the indigenous title of the magazine, replacing it with MeToo. How dare white feminists trump indigenous women. Green confessed his sins and apologised profusely for his white, male privilege.
The diversity cult is not breaking down barriers by encouraging intellectual sharing of ideas and experiences between people. Instead, it’s constantly searching for malfeasants guilty of the new sin of for cultural appropriation.
This month, Scarlett Johansson pulled out of playing a transgender man in Rub & Tub, a movie about Dante “Tex” Grill, who ran brothels in 1970s Pittsburgh. Her first response to claims that a “cisgender” woman should not play a transgender man was to direct the complaints to media representatives of Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto and Felicity Huffman, three cisgender actors who won rave reviews, awards and nominations for playing transgender women. Inevitably, Johansson succumbed, saying she was grateful that the casting decision sparked a conversation about diversity. But it wasn’t much of a conversation. It came down to a stifling and one-dimensional, simplistic story that only a transgender man can play the role of a transgender man. And when journalist Daniella Greenbaum wrote a piece for the website Business Insider defending an actress who was hired to act in a role as a transgender man, her column was spiked by editors for “violating editorial standards”.
Respecting diversity should encourage us to step into the shoes of someone else, to empathise with their stories that define them as human beings. Instead, in the Age of Diversity, we are told a single story about people premised on their sex, sexual identity or skin colour.
In a TED talk some years ago, Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie spoke superbly about the danger of the single story. She recalled one of her professors telling her that one novel “was not authentically African”.
“Now I was quite willing to contend that there were a number of things wrong with the novel,” said the author of Half of a Yellow Sun. “But I had not quite imagined that it had failed at achieving something called African authenticity. In fact, I did not know what African authenticity was. The professor told me that my characters were too much like him, an educated, middle-class man. My characters drove cars, they were not starving. Therefore, they were not authentically African.”
Adichie confessed to falling for single stories about others. Growing up in Nigeria, she saw the family’s house boy only through a prism of poverty. When she visited the boy’s home she was startled to see a beautiful multi-coloured basket woven by his brother. “It had not occurred to me that anybody in his family could make anything,” she said. “Their poverty was my single story about them.”
When people choose to define themselves according to a single identity, they encourage a single story about their sex, or their sexual identity or their skin colour with a focus on negatives. Black Lives Matter tells a tiny, incomplete, story about black people in America. A dance performance last month, Where We Stand, suffered the same flaw because a dance student thought it clever to force whites to stay in the lobby while people of colour, brown people, indigenous people and members of the Asian diaspora were invited to enter the theatre.
Revering diversity encourages an ugly backlash, too, attracting opportunist grandstanders such as Canadian woman Lauren Southern, who arrived in Australia wearing a T-shirt that read “IT’S OK TO BE WHITE”. It’s not smart to answer toxic identity politics with tit-for-tat toxicity, where people treat their pale skin as a badge of honour. Southern’s white identity politics marks a low point of the new sectarianism. We are regressing further and further from the liberal project that treats all ­humans as equal regardless skin colour.
As Adichie said, telling one story based on negatives about people flattens their experience. “The consequence of the single story is this: it robs people of dignity — it makes recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasis how we are different rather than how we are similar.”
In a recent podcast, Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, recalled the 1934 experiment by American psychologist Richard LaPiere when he researched whether people were more racist in practice or theory. LaPiere took a Chinese student to a restaurant that had a sign saying they did not serve Chinese. At a time of growing American resentment towards Chinese, the student and the psychologist ordered and ate their meal without a hitch. LaPiere took the Chinese student, and his young Chinese wife, on a road trip across America, visiting 251 establishments, bars, bowling alleys, hotels and ­restaurants. The couple was denied service once. When LaPiere returned to his campus office, he sent questionnaires to each place — “would you serve members of the Chinese race?” More than 90 per cent said no.
Defining people according to race elicits divisive reactions, whereas a name and a face is a human story that attracts respect and empathy. As Brooks said: “Stories unite. Identities divide.”
Remember that next time an overpaid corporate executive or public bureaucrat champions diversity using a set of numbers based on gender or sexual identity or race.
I think the most sinister thing about the "diversity" ideology is that it has actually gone far beyond the most benign interpretation of the concept of multiculturalism, which is supposedly about mutual respect, tolerance and coexistence. Most reasonable people have no problem with mutual respect and coexistence, even if multiculturalism is a fundamentally unworkable proposition. Historically, even cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic societies acknowledged the supremacy of a dominant culture and value system - something that today would be considered "white supremacist".

Today's diversity ideology is about demonisation and deconstruction. It does not even pretend to pay lips service to the norms of Western Civilisation, but strives to deny and replace them completely. It is all about aiming to destroy and replace the dominant people and culture.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #47

Originally Posted by Andrew Bolt

Is it a tidal wave or an invasion, the point here is why did the governments do this to us? They have sold us out.

The problem being the moment they get settled they want us to change to suit them, if we tried that in their countries we would be locked up for ever.

(Daily Telegraph) 
THERE is no “us” any more, as a tidal wave of immigrants sweeps away what’s left of our national identity. Another 240,000 foreigners joined us last year alone, not just crowding our cities but changing our culture.

For instance, in 1996, there were 119,000 Chinese-born people living here. Now, there are 526,000.

In 1996, there were 80,000 Indian-born people living here. Now, there are 469,000.

Once we might have assumed that such migrants — just like my own parents — would assimilate into the wider “us”.

We’d still be able to recognise Australia and talk about what “we” wanted and believed.

But something has changed and no longer can we assume Australians share anything but territory.

Immigration is becoming colonisation, turning this country from a home into a hotel.

We are clustering into tribes that live apart from each other and often do not even speak the same language in the street.

Check the new Chinese suburbs such as Melbourne’s Box Hill, where an astonishing two-thirds of residents were born in China or have Chinese ancestry.

Chinese is now spoken by 40 per cent of residents there and Chinese signs dominate in the shopping streets.

In Melbourne’s Clayton and Sydney’s Campsie, three-quarters of residents speak a language other than English at home and a third speak Chinese.

It’s not just the Chinese who tend to live with their ethnic tribe in the same suburbs, speaking the same language, following the same faith.

In Sydney’s Lakemba, nearly two-thirds of all residents are Muslim and nearly 70 per cent were born overseas.

In Melbourne’s Springvale, one in four residents speaks Vietnamese at home. Another 10 per cent come from China or Cambodia.

In Sydney’s Fairfield, one in four residents were born in Vietnam, Cambodia or China.

In Sydney’s Five Dock, long after the heyday of immigration from Europe, one in seven residents still speaks Italian at home.

In Melbourne’s North Caulfield, 41 per cent of residents are Jews, including hundreds who have lately fled South Africa. Dandenong now has an official Little Indian Cultural Precinct, with 33 Indian businesses.

Such colonising will increasingly be our future as we gain a critical mass of born-overseas migrants.

Like tends to attract like and these new colonies can then more easily keep their cultures thanks to satellite TV, the internet, and cheap travel.

This would already be a huge challenge to our sense of a common identity — an “us” to which we owe our loyalty and mutual support.

But this massive immigration challenge has been dumped on us exactly when we’re at our weakest.

We have for decades had activists, academics and politicians push multiculturalism — a policy to emphasise what divides us rather than celebrate what unites.

That has been made even worse by the new identity politics, and our sense of an “us” is now being shattered, deliberately.

What do we today share as Australians when we don’t even have a national day or flag we can agree on any more?

Even our national broadcaster, the ABC, has agitated against keeping January 26 as Australia Day, and several Melbourne councils now refuse to celebrate it, claiming it’s divisive.

Over most government buildings, at least three flags are now flown — including ones for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander “nations” — while many activists and republicans deride the Australian flag as racist and colonial.

The Western civilisation that gave this nation its character — and especially its democratic institutions — is damned as oppressive and racist even by our universities, with the academics’ union attacking “the alleged superiority of Western culture and civilisation”.

Meanwhile, Christianity is losing its hold as the country’s faith and is followed now by just over half the population.

Even the law no longer binds Australians into an “us”.

Instead, we have Aboriginal-only courts, and politicians of the Left now want to create an Aboriginal-only advisory council.

Meanwhile, Muslim extremists refuse to stand for our judges, claiming their religion is higher than Australia’s law.

As I say, there is no “us” anymore.

No flag, faith, national day, law or civilisation can be said to represent us all now.

Nor does even our army. We have so little in common today that more Muslim Australians have joined the Islamic State than serve with the Australian Defence Force that fought it.

And so we fragment, more every year.

These are just trends for now, but we should resist this colonising of Australia while there is still an “us” who can.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #48 
Meanwhile, Mick Dodson is echoing Maxine Waters:

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #49 
Former Deputy PM of Australia John Anderson interviews Melanie Phillips. Worth a listen:


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #50 
And again:
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.