Modern day book burning: Erasing authors of the past

Book banning is verboten according to the left, but editing them is a-okay, apparently. Unless of course you're trying to edit out the gay parts.

Chairman Mao, Xi Jinping, eat your hearts out.

That's right, friends. We have a more socially acceptable version of book-burning sweeping the nation courtesy of those tireless Karens infecting universities with mass formation psychosis from their soft “sciences” enclaves. Namely this one.

I put ‘sciences’ in quotation marks there because the personal misgivings of an ideologically captured professor should never masquerade as science of any sort. Misinterpreting statistics to fit one’s narrative does not lend credence to the validity of a purported scientific discipline. But I digress.

We have what seems to be a crisis on our hands, where classic literary works of the past whose crimes are only that they’re a little out of step with today’s political correctness puritans’ ideas of what is appropriate, are set to be ‘re-edited for sensitivity’.

Leave it to soy latte-swilling trigender queer attack helicopters who majored in smoothbrained ‘soft science’ disciplines with no actual application to the world at large to be so narcissistic as to believe themselves worthy of rewriting the works of great authors. They’ve even dreamed up a bullshit job title for themselves: Sensitivity readers.

Nero must be playing his fiddle, because Rome is burning again.

Even Whoopi Goldberg thinks it’s a terrible idea. I never thought I would agree with Whoopi on anything, but here we are.

"Look, y’all got to stop this. Just put a disclaimer that says, listen, this book was written at this time or put out the original and what y’all have done. Because kids should have the right to read how people thought so that they know how to make the change," Goldberg said on the matter. She goes on to correctly suggest that disclaimers be put on the books describing how they’re a product of their time and should be viewed as such. That’s all the concession that should have to be made when it comes to classic literary works.

Sometimes even the most ideologically captured people occasionally get it right. But then, I believe she behaves the way she does on The View for the paycheck, not to satisfy her own sensibilities when it comes to making observations about the world around her. I figure they just get their cues from Joy Behar and phone it in, collecting millions along the way. Having a shred of backbone would leave many Hollywood types in the poorhouse, so they elect to sell their dignity to the highest bidder. After all, it’s common knowledge that if it wasn’t for women who prostitute themselves for a shot at stardom, Harvey Weinstein would still be a virgin. But, again, digressing.

Roald Dahl was the author that brought my attention to this whole thing about re-editing classic books recently. It seems that his works have been re-released to be kinder and gentler to people who think words are violence, even those contained in a children’s book.

The New York Times even wrote about this particular situation, attempting to use a quote from Rick Behari, a spokesman for the Roald Dahl Story Company, who manage the affairs surrounding Dahl’s works, in order to try to do damage control in response to the backlash in response to their actions.

Side note: Netflix owns the Roald Dahl Story Company, surprising no one.

Behari goes right to work trying to dissuade anyone from being concerned about the idea of re-editing books, saying, “When publishing new print runs of books written years ago, it’s not unusual to review the language used alongside updating other details including a book’s cover and page layout.”

That’s all well and good, but I don’t think the ‘review’ process was quite so hamfisted in the past with situations like this. Usually you don’t see a complete revocation of language based on a particular ideology’s feelings about terms like ‘fat’ or ‘mother’ or ‘father’.

Offensive words get the axe, while ‘gender-specific’ language is revised to be more gender-neutral, because calling someone a father or mother is now offensive, I guess.

Unless they’re trans, of course. Then it’s okay. Because after all, we’re all compelled by the threat of losing our livelihoods to tyranny masquerading as righteous digital mob justice to play pretend with narcissists, or else.

The next classic author whose works are getting put through the woke meat grinder is Ian Fleming, the famed author of the books surrounding everyone’s favorite secret agent, James Bond.

The situation is a bit different with Fleming’s books, however, as the edits are largely geared toward removing any racially-charged language from the books, while keeping all the sexy bits. This would, on the surface, be explained by stating that Fleming’s books were always literary works meant to be read by adults, so removing the sex from them didn’t make a whole lot of sense.

A better explanation is that rewriting such things would likely leave the books with glaring holes in them, and we as a society seem to be perfectly okay with children having ready access to pornographic content of all varieties nowadays, seeing as very few porn sites even go through the worthless gesture of asking whether you’re 18 or not before entering them, anymore.

I’m sure if Roald Dahl’s books had copious amounts of gay sex in them, that would have made the cut as well. Because, again, leftists want to saturate everything in sexual deviance and degeneracy wherever possible, especially where children are involved.

We typically call that grooming, where I’m from. But let’s move on.

We also have real world instances of unpersoning now, when it comes to authors.

J.K. Rowling needs no introduction, being the famed author of the wildly popular and successful Harry Potter books that were later adapted into equally popular and successful movies.

While there don’t seem to be any plans that I can find about re-editing Rowling’s works for ‘sensitivity’, her books are being assaulted in a different way entirely.

In recent years, after several digital spars with the gay mafia on social media, Rowling’s reputation for not caving to the whims of the woke mob’s misgivings toward her are well-documented. This has caused one particularly surly trans activist to go as far as unpersoning Rowling entirely from the books she wrote.

Laur Flom, a bartender-turned-book reseller has taken to rebinding Rowling’s literary works in an effort to remove the author’s name from them entirely, and of course reselling them to overly sensitive narcissists like itself who get angry at the sight of a name, but can’t deny their love for Rowling’s work.

In comments made to SWNS, Flom explains, “The project is spurred by her transphobia … I was [a fan]. Growing up when I did, it was a given that you would read ‘Harry Potter.’”

To paraphrase - “I believe that the world revolves around me, and I can’t stand the thought of anyone liking something or someone that I don’t like. That and I need the attention because I’m a narcissist.”

I’m sure that was the real sentiment being conveyed, anyway.

This act of hatred against someone with a different opinion by a self-centered idiot precluded the recent backlash that has seen the lgbtq+-=/ mob resorting to sending death threats to, and doxxing influencers who merely expressed an interest in playing the recently released video game Hogwarts Legacy, a game based on the Harry Potter universe that was created, of course, by J.K. Rowling. Those threats went double and kicked off relentless campaigns of trying to bully streamers who broadcast themselves playing the game.

And naturally, like all good crybullies, the trans streamer community has attempted to adopt a position as victims themselves by pretending that they’re the ones being threatened, as is the modus operandi of terminally online garbage people.

To get back on topic, surely the revisionism will stop at works of fiction, right?

Wrong. In fact, revisionist history was popular before unpersoning or re-editing authors was a thing.

The 1619 project is poorly written revisionist history that teaches people to hate the United States due to painting the very establishment of the nation as some grand conspiracy against anyone whose skin color is darker than stucco.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the socialist git who also happens to charge $33,000 an hour for speaking engagements, was the one to author her fever dream revision of American history.

Her dour rewrite of American history should be enough to make you question her academic integrity, but then we find quotes where she openly praises Cuba’s system of government as being the most ‘equal’.

“If you want to see the most equal, multiracial, it’s not a democracy, but the most equal multiracial country in our hemisphere, it would be Cuba. . . . Cuba has the least inequality between black and white people of any place in the hemisphere.”

Yeah, everyone starves and suffers pretty equally in Cuba no matter what their skin color happens to be, she’s right. It’s such a great place people still risk their lives to try and make the swim over from Cuba to sneak into the United States.

So as you can see, nothing is sacred to these people.

Of course, we know just why these re-edits are taking place, and it has little to do with offensive content written in times where that sort of rhetoric was more acceptable, more... commonplace. Although I won't discount that as a primary reason also, there's an ulterior motive.

The reason these revisions are taking place are the same reason that media conglomerates are remaking and re-releasing every classic movie, video game, or tv show under the sun if it has anything the woke puritan mob finds offensive. It's because it's much easier to trick people into watching revised versions of popular and beloved franchise offerings in order to foist woke narratives on audiences who would otherwise have used their own discernment to avoid watching original works carrying the same message.

Often, the word gets out that a show or movie that would've been highly anticipated has been tainted by the touch of hamfisted diversity casting that ignores basic logic in favor of 'representation', as well as woke political nonsense being shoehorned into what was once a good story to satisfy DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives in Hollywood that often take the audience right out of what could have otherwise been a good show/movie/book/video game. That's probably the reason any games, shows, or movies I consume these days were usually made back when there were still only two genders.

If I must live in the past to live on my own terms, then so be it. I will never succumb to compelled thinking or speech, so gulag me if you must. I will also use my writing and my voice to convince every person I can that the road to hell is really paved with undue pressure from iconoclasts who are insulted by the very idea that someone does not agree with them on something.

I'm something of an iconoclast, myself. I fully intend to do my part in destroying the insanity that I see all around me in the form of societal pressure to conform to a standard of ideology that ignores basic reality.

In conclusion, if any sensitivity readers happen to catch this one, give me your edits so I can mock you openly.