Category: Forward!

What Your Children Are Being Taught

And why you mustn’t find out:

On the subject of parents being shocked to discover, belatedly, what their children are actually being taught, these three incidents came to mind. Among many others. Note, in the third link, the casual invention of a fake curriculum – yes, a fake curriculum – so as to deceive any curious parents. And all while insisting, “This is not being deceitful.”

In light of which, the “anti-fascist” snuff-video session mentioned above – the one for other people’s ten-year-olds – doesn’t exactly scream anomaly or aberration, or some unfortunate misreading of the room, so much as a ratcheting upwards.

Three snapshots of Very Modern Education.

But What If I Catch Their Whiteness?

On efforts to “decolonise” folk singing; on claims of being oppressed by a rapidly shrinking minority; and on rap, the ‘N’ word, and dumb academia:

Having covered quite a few of these “decolonisation” efforts, which generally rely on a fig-leaf of widening access and removing barriers, it’s remarkable just how rarely any meaningful obstacle to access is actually mentioned. Typically, the humdrum is depicted as gruelling and somehow agonising, and motes are inflated to the size of boulders.

We were told, for instance, that racial minorities are being “deterred” from visiting the British countryside “due to deep-rooted, complex barriers.” Barriers such as the fact that rock-climbing instructors are usually white. And apparently this unremarkable state of affairs, in a white-majority country, is something that needs fixing.

Though it occurs to me that if a person with brown skin were being deterred from trying rock climbing by the fact that the instructor is likely to be white, then it seems somewhat unlikely that said person is interested in rock climbing to any significant extent. And a person deterred by such things may also want to reflect on their own racial assumptions. But we’re not supposed to mention those, at least not in an unflattering light.

One of these.

Take That, Conventional Family Structure

On the non-random nature of who you are; on the apparently “problematic” Calvin and Hobbes; and on the family unit as reinvented by Guardian contributors:

“For us,” says Eleanor Margolis, “the ideal parenting setup would consist of three or four of us sharing responsibility for a child (the others involved would also be responsible for providing the sperm).”

Providing the sperm. A joyous and maternal turn of phrase.

Also of note, the idea of wanting a baby, but with only a third or a quarter of the responsibility. A kind of low-commitment parenting.

Bodes well.

All this and more.

Carney’s Canada

The Food Professor- What many Canadians may not realize is how deeply our country relies on rules and regulations. While regulation is necessary, the sheer volume has become problematic.

According to Statistics Canada, federal regulatory restrictions increased by 37% between 2006 and 2021. This surge has been linked to a 1.7-percentage-point decline in GDP growth, along with decreases in business investment, productivity, employment, and the rate of new business formation.

The Hub- It’s time to rein in Canada’s red tape state: DeepDive

Not Going Boldly, If At All

When space exploration is stupefied by progressive imperatives:

We are, however, told that we need more deaf and disabled people in space. Because space exploration just isn’t difficult enough and dangerous enough as it is. And choosing astronauts with hearing problems, poor eyesight and motor-control issues will make things much more exciting.

And frankly. when you’re asking, apparently in all seriousness, how a mission to Mars would benefit Black Lives Matter, as if it somehow should, I think we can say that the foolishness in the room has risen to hazardous levels.

Oh, there’s more. Much more.

Have You Listened To The Lichen?

The class, since you ask, is Ecofeminist Poetry & Poetics. Taught by a Professor of English, Brian Teare, who will, we’re assured, situate relationships and encourage re-feeling. And who will also reveal how “chattel slavery, imperialism, industrialisation, settler colonialism, and militarisation” can be understood – and righteously tutted about – by listening to “birds, goats, willow oaks, and lichen.”

Wokeness and woo, together again.

Keepers Of Deep Knowledge

Three tales of leftist librarians. And the loud buzzing inside their heads.

Something-something “white supremacy” something-something “privilege.” I’m paraphrasing, of course.

But really, it’s the same doctrinaire horseshit we’ve seen a hundred times. And according to which, the world will be enormously improved by the “abolition of policing in all its forms.” If that isn’t sufficiently unambiguous, our Ivy League librarians insist that their “ultimate goal” is, and I quote, “the complete abolition of law enforcement… everywhere.” Because “a world without policing” will somehow, rather conveniently, be a world without crime.

And because helping people find the books that they’d like to borrow is just too boring and insufficiently high-status for minds such as these.

Oh, there’s more.

When Pretending Just Won’t Do

Readers may wish to ponder the implication that a high-trust society can somehow be maintained unilaterally, simply by not caring about the number of people who violate that trust, and who do so repeatedly, whether in ways that are audacious or just wearyingly routine but nonetheless degrading.

As if pretending not to mind the evaporation of civilised, reciprocal standards – and pretending not to be alienated by primitive behaviour – somehow means that said behaviour isn’t there and didn’t happen. And that it won’t happen tomorrow, or the day after. And with ever greater boldness.

As if a high-trust society means letting antisocial fuckers act with impunity.

On high-trust societies and those who struggle with the concept.

Crack And Badger

Come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure what loving one’s body might mean, beyond the obvious off-colour jokes. But apparently, it’s something that one is supposed to proclaim as an accomplishment, a credential of progressivism. I have, however, noted that it tends to be announced by people whose declared triumph in this matter is not altogether convincing, and whose basis for doing so is generally much slimmer than they are.

On the ideological gratification of thwarting clever children; on shoehorning pretentious racial guilt into the world of dentistry; and on not wearing knickers in a terribly radical way.

All this and more.

Issues Of Earth-Rumbling Import

The question “what is queer food?” is, we’re told by Professor Elias, “a question that’s coming up a lot lately.” If only among academics desperate for an angle, an excuse for claiming a salary and wasting other people’s time. Academics much like Professor Elias.

Elias said she does not have a definition for what “queer food” is, but wants “recognition” it exists.

Welcome to the bleeding edge of human mental activity.

Quite how one can write “an illustrated guide to queer food,” complete with recipes, as Professor Ilias has, while simultaneously being unable to define what such a thing is, should it exist, is a question I leave to the reader.

At Boston University, where annual tuition is $90,000.

Navigation