I published the original version of this article in April of 2006 on the old site under the title Believing Politically Correct Lies. Even though America has ostensibly thrown off the leftist yolk of oppression by electing Donad Trump as President, the message in this article is just as pertinent as it was when penned eleven years ago. (This version has undergone a little editing.)
Believing Politically correct lies
Someone recently wrote advising me that it was a waste of time writing responses to people who have accused me of racism, because being as intractable as they are, I shall never convince them of the error in their accusations.
But as a matter of fact I don’t write ‘just’ to justify myself or to ‘try to convince’ my accusers of anything. I write so as not to allow the PC activist agenda to be disseminated without dissent. I believe in ‘fighting back.’ Having survived a corrupt police force, I learned to believe that we should not allow ourselves to cower before those who would intimidate us and so I will not now cower in the face of the totalitarian minded activists and their agendas.
If there is one thing I really do believe, it is that the empty vessels really do make the most noise, and political activists make a tremendous amount of noise. In their so called pursuit of human rights, freedoms and dignity they can be utterly brutal, dictatorial and totalitarian.
Although over the last few weeks I felt unable to write, today I finally got out of bed and sat down in front of the computer. The first thing I did was go to Magic City Morning Star News to see what was new, and there I found the latest in a long list of articles about the Mexican border problem.
Note: This article was written in 2006 – 11 years before Donald Trump became President of the United States and allegedly originated the idea of a wall with Mexico. See Jim Kouri Article on the history of the wall.
When I saw it I thought, ‘Not Again!,’ and as I read it I kept thinking, “What is wrong with that Country? Why don’t they do something to protect themselves? How can a country be so stupid?”
Then it hit me. ‘The forces of evil are winning! Everyone is just too afraid! Most people have believed the lie!‘ Everyone is so concerned to be politically correct and so worried about being perceived racist, that they fail to see that in fact the true racists with the truly incorrect political agenda are the ones pointing the finger and doing the name calling. (In psychology it would be called reaction formation; the suppression of one impulse by the promotion of a counter impulse.)
In Reconquista Rose By Paul Streitz I noted two very interesting lines that I think reflect the reality of my statement.
The first line said that a group called ‘La Raza’ openly says, ‘for the Race everything, for everyone else, nothing.’ from which I take it that this organisation believes in some sort of racial superiority, along the lines of Hitler’s pure Ayran race.
The second line was that one Linda Chavez is part of the fifth column in the United States determined to undermine the sovereignty of the country.
If I read these sentences correctly, and if these sentiments be actually true, then they do in a nutshell demonstrate that some of those who claim to be fighting for human rights, equality and non discrimination are in fact liars who use, manipulate and hide behind laws that were designed for a different purpose.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think we should all be ready to ‘take up the cause,’ whatever the cause may be, but there is a difference between standing for what is right, true and just, and slavishly following self-serving agendas and achieving success through lies and injustice. I guess that means that I do not believe that the end justifies the means.
I believe that while many originally sincere activists might believe that their cause is just, if they could see the depths to which their personal moral standards have fallen they might return to becoming more like the people that they set out to be.
The trouble with activists today is that the more successful, (or more desperate) they become, the more blind they become as well.
One particular line caught my attention in an article I read recently. It said: ‘There is no doubt that they are prepared to march, protest, and demonstrate against the horrible system in which fully half the population earns less than the median.’ (Take Me Out To the Seder)
The irony in this statement would I am sure be missed by many well meaning bleeding hearts. Since the humanitarian agenda is the human condition and human rights, then quite clearly the battle will never end until all those ‘under the median’ either reach it or surpass it. An interesting conundrum.
Now the interesting thing about those who push the PC and multicultural agendas in the USA is, as I understand it, that they are referred to as ‘Liberals.’ In an article entitled, “Liberals Silence Parents, Sacrifice Children at Alter of Tolerance” By Laura Adelmann, I read the following statements:
The free-love generation that despised social restraint, the forever-reckless crowd that never grew up, is destroying our culture and sacrificing our young on the alter of tolerance.
Indoctrination in schools has become the norm. With parents distracted, liberals have metastasized in our schools, infecting our children with their deadly lies
Now I don’t claim to have any understanding of political terminology but it seems to me that society is divided into two spheres, the fundamentalists and the liberals.
(I had to laugh reading this now because in those days I considered conservatives to be those who stood by the fundamental principles of our western Judeo/Christian upbringing, whilst liberals were those who wished to destroy those values. Today I realize that there is practically no difference between extremists on the left and right of politics. They are all fundamentalists. Fundamentalism as a way of belief and living is actually an indicator of certain disturbed emotional and personality problems. You can research this in psychology.)
The former (conservatives) try to maintain the historical and cultural status quo, whilst the latter do everything in their power to re-engineer society. I really don’t understand all the tags, but I have picked up from my readings at Magic City that the liberals are the ones to blame for all trouble in society. Or is that the libertarians? I’m not sure. All this political babble confuses me.
At any rate, if the liberals are the ones who don’t like the historical and cultural status quo, and if it be the liberals who like to constantly accuse everyone of being racist etc, then I find that interesting, for according to an article entitled “Becoming the Other: China’s Challenges to American Teachers” by Tony Giffone, it would be the anti-establishment liberals who would be more challenged by living in China, than any stiff necked ‘maintain the status quo’ fundamentalist. Allow me to quote a little:
“But the dilemma for American teachers is compounded by the fact that while they may have never thought of themselves as particularly American before teaching in China, they would have defined themselves, more or less, as multiculturalists, adhering to a philosophical and pedagogical belief in the relative value and equality of all cultures.
What happens to one’s multicultural beliefs when one comes into contact with aspects of another culture that one does not like? How does one adjust the image of oneself as a person who celebrates cultural difference when one finds one’s reactions increasingly ethnocentric?
While all Americans in China are bound to feel an element of culture shock, the culture shock is greater, I think, for American teachers because these questions are bound to apply to teachers in China more than, say, to business people.
American business people go to China armed with the inherent belief in the superiority of American capitalism and find in China a reconfirmation of that belief. But American teachers go to China armed with the inherent belief in the equality of all cultures and find their commitment to this principle challenged daily.
Ironically, the Americans least challenged by China are right-wing Republicans; the Communist campaign against bourgeois liberalism is not that different from the American right-wing campaign against secular humanism. American liberals — and how many English teachers do you know who don’t consider themselves on the liberal half of the political divide?–find that the things that the Chinese most embrace about America (unbridled laissez-faire economics, unchecked technological growth) are the very things that most American teachers dislike about America.”
Now I have to admit that even though this last paragraph was the crux of the matter, I don’t really understand what it is about except that it serves my purpose in pointing out that the lofty minded are really out there on their own.
My personal experience of China tells me that these liberals and the libertarians would find their personal agendas challenged by the ordinary Chinese honest enough to discuss them. (Believe me, it takes a lot for Chinese people to arrive at a place where they know they can trust you and can therefore be totally honest with you.)
In addition to being challenged, both liberals and libertarians would not find that they have the same freedom here to express their opinions. They would furthermore probably end up biting off their tongues.
(I remember the day we had a class discussion on gender equity. Everything went well until I asked, ‘What would you do if you discovered that your same gendered best friend or sibling was gay? Most were satisfied to beat the living crap out of them. Some were adamant that death was the only solution. Western activists would not get far in China.)
On the issue of activism, years ago I read an article about a particular high school that was having trouble with a ‘communist’ student activist group. Having failed to arrive at a truce with them, the principal decided to tackle them head on. One Monday morning the students arrived to find the school plastered with notices informing them that new dress standards, hairstyles, behaviours and punishments would be introduced in the school.
The students naturally went on the war path until the principal posted a copy of the Rules and Regulations for Russian Schools, and pointed out that if the students wanted to be communists, then they should adopt the communist rules and regulations pertaining to education. The effect was apparently sobering.
Those students were not really communists, they were just anti-establishment and used communism as their justification for bad behaviour. As the principal demonstrated, if you are going to champion a cause then you need to live by the rules of that cause. Unfortunately, like their PC/Multicultural liberal activists friends today, the students found it easier to champion a cause than live by its rules. (Boy is this true in post-election USA 2017)
As the article by Mr. Giffone (above) points out, the American liberals who might want to champion their PC/multicultural cause by denigrating someone who might say something politically incorrect (but nevertheless true) about China, would in fact find living in China a challenge to all their particular belief systems. Notice the contradistinction between ‘truth’ and ‘politically correct.’ It is a totally feminine trait. To put it in the words of someone who very briefly was my wife: ‘If you don’t speak the truth in a nice way, of course I am going to fight against you.’
This brings me to an interesting question. “When is Racism not Racism?” The Answer: “When it is a political judgement call of course!”
One of the belief systems of the multicultural PC crowd is that one should not discriminate on the basis of race, colour or religion, which is why when they constantly condemn Israel they are careful to do so on the grounds of ‘politics.’ Yet when such people support the leadership of the Palestinian people, are they not openly supporting the most vile form of anti-Semitism and religious discrimination since the Holocaust? They do so however by pretending that their support for the Palestinians is humanitarian, and that their rejection of Israel is political not racist. But as the old saying goes, ‘Actions speak louder than words.’
If you research the April 6th article entitled: “Homemade Rockets” at Honest Reporting . com – OR – “Denial of adversity” by Sarah Honig, you can read how the new Palestinian foreign minister sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan which talked about the Palestinians living a dignified life in freedom and independence, side by side with their neighbors.
The wording seemed to indicate that the Palestinians were prepared to live alongside Israel, but as was indicated in a statement made to the Chinese on April 1st, the “neighbors” in the letter do not include the State of Israel. Palestinian Foreign Minister Zahar believes that there is no place for the state of Israel in Palestine. With this in mind there is only one conclusion to reach: ‘anyone who supports the Palestinian leadership is supporting racism and pre-meditated genocide.’
Another of the racist lies perpetrated by the so called ‘bleeding hearts’ is that it is Israel who makes the poor Palestinians suffer, but in the article “Girl dies as Israeli shell hits home” By Stephen Farrell in Beit Lehiya (an article no longer available), it is made quite clear that Islamic jihad groups deliberately carry out their attacks against Israel from personal property sites so that when the inevitable retaliation comes, the damage done to the ‘poor Palestinians’ will promote favourable press. To quote:
The attacks infuriate many Palestinians, especially locals whose poultry farms and greenhouses are shredded by retaliatory shrapnel.
“I tried to stop the Islamic Jihad firing from my farm and told them to get off my farm,” said Ahmed Abu Halima, 20, a cucumber farmer. “They hit me with their Kalashnikov and shot me in the foot.”
It seems that the very people the bleeding hearts want us to support are not only racists, but deliberately abuse their own people and their property rights. That the bleeding hearts support a racist agenda and not a political one is quite apparent.
As I stated earlier, I don’t respond to those who send me nasty emails just so that I might justify myself. I write because I want to tackle an issue. There are lots of issues that concern me, and the plight of the Israelis and the Palestinians is just one of those concerns since I know and have known people from both countries.
Personally I think that the members of the government of Israel should all be shot, and that this should be done whilst they are embracing their Palestinian counterparts. Overall though, I know that the true cause of the constant conflict in the Middle East comes from those with a vested interest in war, and no amount of PC BS will change that.
I personally believe that there comes a time to bite the bullet; to do what must be done, and to say “to hell with the consequences.” This is something that President Bush appears to have done, (and particularly now in 2017 with President Trump – God bless his cotton socks!) although as Caroline Glick pointed out in her article entitled ‘Let’s ignore Hamas‘, “although the Taliban were deserving of being punished earlier than they were, the final decision to punish them only came about after they enabled the September 11 attacks.”
What a pity that no men could be found with the right physical accoutrements to take ‘affirmative action’ a lot sooner. Maybe September 11 would now be just another day.
Rather than waiting for a future day of disaster, I think it time we drew a line in the sand of political correctness and said, ‘Thus far and no further.’ We have for too long been conned by the so called politically correct and by the multiculturalists who insist that national and traditional culture is excrement; that free speech and honest speech are not synonymous, and that law abiding citizens should be treated with contempt.
They do this because in the end they do not care about society; they find it repugnant. They do not care about the law; they revile it. They do not care about tradition; they reject it, and they do so because they are a people who have no anchor. They are a people who have no substance. They are a people who have no direction.
Living their lives in a void, they have had to create a purpose for living and that purpose has as its primary directive, the ‘affirmation of the self’ by any and every means possible. They don’t care about the future, the pain they cause, the people they oppress, the lives they ruin, the lies they tell, the deceptions they practice, or the will of the national people.
The principles of political correctness and multiculturalism are not new. They can be found in the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Communism. They are wonderful ideals. But having killed off the Judeo/Christian religion, the self-declared secular ideologues have found a way to pretend that they are a ‘moral’ people, whilst simultaneously abusing the principles they espouse, and aided and abetted by laws which they themselves sired, routinely abuse the tradition and soul of the entire nation.
Laura Adelmann said: “Stand up, speak out and demand accountability to traditional morals before they disappear with our generation.”
We as a people need to learn to stand up and speak up for what we believe in, and more than that, to stand up and speak up about what we don’t believe in.
I find it hypocritical that Americans and Australians today object to gay marriage when for decades they kept their mouths shut as gay activists fought for and won a variety of rights. Like some of my students who wait until their very last opportunity before choosing to speak to me, many passive citizens are too lazy to take a stand on any issue until it is too late. That is no way to convince anyone that you have convictions, and certainly no way to win a war!
We all need to take the time to see where our nations are headed. If we don’t like what we see, then we need to take a stand. For me, it is in writing. For some, it will be in marching. For others, it might be in sending snail mail to political representatives. But for everyone, it should also be by refusing to be cowered into silence when the loud mouths who proclaim that they are champions of human rights abuse you for exercising yours.
A democratic state is one in which the majority decide. Unfortunately in countries like the USA where voting is not compulsory, the minorities, that is to say, the rich, the influential and the activists, are the ones who decide the future. (But only until the Donald came along!)
Political Correctness is just a weapon used by criminals to make their own crimes legal. It is Pure Hypocrisy!
And in this Trump era the chorus sang ‘Hallelujah!’