Leftists' Glittery Red Herring: Book-Banning
Leftists’ new glittery red herring is “book-banning,” which they swing around frantically, trying to divert everyone’s gaze from the relentless word- and book-banning of the worker bees who keep the Hive Mind buzzing and humming along as queens acquire yet more power. Before we take a stroll through the real censorship dystopia, let’s briefly review some of the things leftists with creepy gleams in their jaded eyes call “book-banning.”
If parents object to books in curricula or school libraries that depict, describe, or refer to oral sex (including oral sex between 10-year-old boys), dildos, and girls “tasting” themselves, they’re evil “book-banners.”
Parents who object to their minor children reading homoerotica—a favorite genre of leftist “educators”—like Lawn Boy and All Boys Aren’t Blue: A Memoir and Manifesto are “book-banners” to people with their moral compasses shattered in pieces.
From Lawn Boy:
He reached his hand down and pulled out my dick. He quickly went to giving me head. I just sat back and enjoyed it as I could tell he was, too.
From All Boys Aren’t Blue:
For the first few minutes, we dry-humped and grinded. I was behind him, with my stomach on his back as we kissed. After a few minutes of fun and games, he got up and went to his nightstand, where he pulled out a condom and some lube. He then lay down on his stomach. I knew what I had to do even if I had never done it before. I had one point of reference, though, and that was seven-plus years of watching pornography. Although the porn was heterosexual, it was enough of a reference point for me to get the job done.
I remember the condom was blue and flavored like cotton candy. I put some lube on and got him up on his knees, and I began to slide into him from behind. I tried not to force it because I imagined that it would be painful; I didn’t want this moment to be painful. So I eased in, slowly, until I heard him moan.
“As we moved, I could tell he was excited—I was, too, but the pride in me told me not to show it. I felt like I was in control and proud of myself for getting it right on the first try—all the while still being nervous. I wanted to stay dominant in that moment. We went at it for about fifteen minutes before I started to get that feeling. Weakness in the legs, numbness in the waist. I finally came and let out a loud moan—to the point where he asked me to quiet down for the neighbors. I pulled out of him and kissed him while he masturbated. Then, he also came.
Leftist ideological groomers who scour Dr. Seuss for offensive content think homoerotica is suitable for children.
Now let’s wade into the leftist book- and word-banning dystopia to see what they seek to censor.
These censors have banned the word “censor” when referring to leftist censorship. In Newspeak, leftist censors are now called “sensitivity readers.”
These sensitivity readers (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) have altered or expurgated books by P.G. Wodehouse, Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, R. L. Stine, and Ian Fleming. Here are some of the words leftists who support obscene material in public schools deem unfit for anyone anywhere to read and so, ban:
The word “men” is banned, so, Willie Wonka’s Oompa-Loompas are no longer “small men.” They’re “small people.”
The “Cloud-men” in James and the Giant Peach are now “cloud-people.”
A woman in The Witches who was described as "working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman" is now described as "working as a top scientist or running a business."
The character Earthworm in James and the Giant Peach was once described as having [warning] “lovely pink skin.” Now he has “lovely smooth skin.” Though I try never to see earthworms, if memory serves me correctly, they have pinkish skin—hideous pinkish skin. While leftists are in the censorship business, they should definitely get rid of “lovely.”
Mrs. Twit in The Twits remains beastly, but she is no longer “ugly.” Can’t have that. Wouldn’t be prudent to suggest a fictional character is “ugly.” Sensitivity readers ban the use of physical unattractiveness as a symbol of ethical ugliness.
Augustus Gloop, the chubby, greedy character with no self-control in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, is no longer “enormously fat.” He’s “enormous.” Leftists defend the teaching of books with graphic sexuality, abuse, and obscene language because “kids are exposed to worse stuff” on television and social media and in movies and the real world. Aren’t children exposed to fat people and to people calling others fat on social media and in the real world?
In a presumptuous effort to alter meaning, censorious sensitivity readers have even added material to other people’s writing. Following a reference to witches being bald underneath their hats, the control freaks with uber-delicate sensibilities at Penguin added this: "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that."
In R.L. Stine’s Goosebumps horror stories for kids, boys at a summer camp no longer give give “a loud wolf-whistle. Instead, they “whistled loudly.” Even metaphorical uses of the word “slave” have been expurgated. A character in I Live in Your Basement! Originally asks rhetorically, “did he really expect me to be his slave—forever?” Denuding the question of colorful figurative language, the censors now have him blandly ask, “Did he really expect me to do this--forever?”
In a book in which aliens abduct people with “at least six chins,” the censors altered their largeness to refer—not to corpulence—but to height. It now says the abductees are “at least six feet six.”
Leftists call objections to pornographic material being available to minor children in taxpayer-funded schools offensive and dangerous, but bowdlerizing books by removing references to women, men, obesity, and pink earthworms is … not.
In another Stine story, normal schoolgirl feelings have been censored. Those who believe kindergartners should learn about anal sex and cross-dressing oppose any mention of girl students having “crushes” on male headmasters, so they bowdlerized the text.
And the reference to a boy calling the novel Anna Karenina “girl’s stuff” had to be changed. It is now described as “not interesting.” What will the sensitivity readers do when they hear actual boys describe rom-coms as “girl stuff”?
But this is small potatoes to leftists. They’ve got far grander censorship schemes percolating in their darkened minds.
They’ve already gotten publishing companies to refuse to publish books that express ideas leftists hate, particularly ideas about homoerotica and “gender.” They’ve gotten book review journals to refuse to review books that espouse ideas they don’t like. And they’ve created Collection Development policies to prevent libraries from purchasing books espousing politically incorrect/morally correct ideas.
Now they’re going after booksellers that sell conservative-themed books that have, like pinkish earthworms, managed to squirm through cracks in the walls of censorship prisons that leftists have systemically constructed.
For example, leftists were successful in getting Amazon to stop selling political philosopher Ryan T. Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement. They tried but were only temporarily successful to get Amazon to stop selling Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.
And then, as mentioned earlier, there’s the widespread Orwellian effort to ban all gendered language everywhere. Language is inextricably connected to ideas, and leftists can’t run the risk of banned ideas being expressed.
In obsequious deference to today’s petulant cultural overlords—that is, “trans”-cultists—leftists seek to erase any reminders of the sexual dimorphism of the human species. Schools, lawmaking bodies, press outlets, and other leftist-controlled groups are now engaged in a de facto word-banning campaign to eliminate the use of the terms like “women,” “men,” “girls,” “boys,” “fathering,” “mothering,” “Mother’s Day,” “Father’s Day,” “brother,” “sister,” “aunt”, “uncle,” and “actress.”
The terms "mothers” and "fathers" have been banned in favor of “family.” "Ladies and gentlemen" has morphed into “folks.” Women are now called “persons who produce eggs,” and men are now “persons who produce sperm.” “Mothering” and “fathering”—the language rulers have proclaimed—must be replaced with parenting. “Brothers” and “sisters” should be called “siblings.”
“Aunts” and “uncles”? No problem. They’re “piblings”: that is, parents’ siblings. “Nieces” and “nephews” are being neutered into “niblings.”
References to biological sex are being memory-holed. But that’s not censorship—no way, no how.
The Hive won’t win in the end. America is filled with Guy Montags, Winston Smiths, and First Amendment fanatics.
I will conclude with actor Tom Hanks' views on the word-banning of leftists:
I'm of the opinion that we're all grown-ups here. And we understand the time and the place and when these things were written. And it's not very hard at all to say: that doesn't quite fly right now, does it? Let's have faith in our own sensibilities here, instead of having somebody decide what we may or may not be offended by. Let me decide what I am offended by and not offended by. I would be against reading any book from any era that says 'abridged due to modern sensitivities.'