Today I received the latest Women in Green Newsletter that contained an article written by Sarah Honig entitled: Never since the 1930s, which encapsulates I think, the true hypocritical nature of Political Correctness, and demonstrates the politically correct way of being anti-semitic. Allow me to provide you with some excerpts:
Never since the 1930s have we experienced isolation so suffocating and so ubiquitous.
What matters is that Jewish self-defense in the framework of the Jewish state is as assiduously demonized as was the nonexistent cabal of the Elders of Zion.
JEWISH SELF-preservation today is as illegitimate as it was then
Once more the self-professed spokespersons of enlightenment and free speech horrifyingly shout down and shut up the objects of their scorn.
Reviling the Jewish state is today just as proper and urbane as turning sophisticated noses up at Jews was for the prewar smart-set.
When Jews, moreover, are called Israelis, their maligners can fend off accusations of anti-Semitism.
Calculated, circuitous reasoning eventually turns Jew-haters into righteous, persecuted underdogs, while Israelis are cast as ferocious hounds.
It's thus possible to seethe with anti-Semitism without admitting it.
Hate-mongers need only claim that they just cannot abide the suffering inflicted by Nazi-clone Jews/Israelis on pitiable Palestinians. By equating Jewish/Israeli "crimes" with the Holocaust, the ploy becomes altogether irresistible.
Any young quasi-cultured person one might encounter overseas is likely not to like us. That has nothing to do with malice and everything to do with the trendy indoctrination of the do-gooders in crowd.
Said do-gooders orchestrate sinister demonstrations outside Israeli embassies. They throng at college campuses to heckle and abuse any speaker suspected of pro-Israeli sentiments (or of not being sufficiently anti-Israel). They clamor for boycotts of all Israeli products. In freedom's name they initiate inherently incongruous academic boycotts of Israeli universities (which are renowned for unconstrained nonconformity and pluralism). They disrupt sporting events in which Israelis compete. Some even purport to champion opposition to genocide by abiding chants like "Hamas! Hamas! All Jews to the gas!"
It might be tempting to brand such rhetoric as just words originating in Bias, so let me just provide you with some excerpts from United Nations Farce: Durban II before demonstrating the true face of Political Correctness.
Citing"The Durban II Snow Job: One giant leap backwards for humankind by Anne Bayefsky" (Eye on the UN)we can begin to get an idea of the direction in which the United Nations at least is headed
The UN's idea of an anti-racism conference entered the final stretch today with the planning committee deciding Iran ought to preside as a Vice-Chair, Libya will serve as the Chair of the "Main Committee" running the conference and Cuba will be the Rapporteur. All three human rights paragons will assume their new duties on the first day of "Durban II" set for Monday, April 20th.
On Monday, April 20th, the anniversary of Hitler's birth, an Iranian will be elected as a Vice-chair of a global "anti-racism" conference. In the afternoon of opening day, a genocidal Holocaust denier Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address a UN conference "against" racism. The European Union will sit and listen to an antisemite give a lecture about combating intolerance. And in the end most UN states will adopt a document incompatible with the UN's foundational principle of the equality of all men and women and nations large and small.
The world is slowly becoming anything but free, democratic and antidiscriminatory. Remember that each of the countries listed above stand opposed to the United States of America; that symbol of Western Democracy.
Having said that, let me direct you to some statements I made in Political Correctness in the Free World in relation to China and Western Political Correctness.
I doubt that there are many westerners who would consider that China is a truly free and open country, where people can think and act as they please. Generally speaking however, it actually is a place where one is free to think and say what one pleases, except that is, when what you say runs contrary to the 'official and sanctioned opinion'.
That my friends is how Political Correctness is ultimately defined. Unless you think, say and do that which is the 'officially sanctioned position', you are in deep 'do do'.
Political Correctness Activists are no different to, no more or less than, those people who rule that Tibet suppressing, human rights abusing communist country called China; the people you and your ideological crowd stand against and call 'totalitarian'.
In China, it is Political Correctness that delineates admirable Patriotism from offensive Nationalism. With Patriots you can discuss your differences of opinion, although sometimes they might not wish to discuss a particular topic. With the Nationalists however, nothing may be discussed without prior approval and then can only be discussed in accordance with certain pre-requisites.
Nationalists will attack you for every little perceived bit of unacceptable language, slip of the tongue, or carelessly revealed opinion, and they will do so on the basis that you are an offence to China's pride, it's image and it's true and deserved hierarchical place in the world. And this attack will be interspersed with a variety of accusations against your country for what it did to China in the past (even if your country didn't do anything, and even if your ancestors did not live in 'your' country at that time).
The 'Rabid Nationalist' in China, spends his days just waiting for some foreigner to do or say something that will provide him with opportunity to boldly speak out in defence of China and that will justify his tirade against foreigners, Westerners, Americans, White People, Imperialists or whatever segment of the non Chinese world that is currently irritating his bowels.
Make no mistake about what I am really saying here. In my opinion, Western Political Correctness Activists are no different to 'rabid Chinese nationalists'. There is no place in the political correctness activist agenda for any person who offends them by not supporting their slanted view of the world.
That statement: There is no place in the political correctness activist agenda for any person who offends them by not supporting their slanted view of the world, has the same meaning as Sarah Honig's statement that: They throng at college campuses to heckle and abuse any speaker suspected of pro-Israeli sentiments (or of not being sufficiently anti-Israel).
It's thus possible to seethe with anti-Semitism without admitting it, is exactly the same as the sentiment I expressed when I said: The 'Rabid Nationalist' in China, spends his days just waiting for some foreigner to do or say something that will provide him with opportunity to boldly speak out in defence of China and that will justify his tirade..
When you look at 'rabid nationalism'; when you look at speech and thought control in China; when you see how the Dictatorial leaderships in a variety of so called 'totalitarian' countries treat and control their people, you can begin to understand how 'Anti-Semitism' is not just allowed to flourish, but encouraged to grow.
Between passive political correctness and active political correctness, the world is playing a self-righteous game of Justifiable Anti-Semitism.
We don't want to understand! We don't want to research! We don't want to see what is unpleasant!
We just want to feel 'righteous'.
As long as what you feed me makes me feel righteous, then all is well with the world. No matter how many people die!
"In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home. The territory in question stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern boundary of Mandatory Palestine, which was a border that would separate it from what was to become the future state of Iraq.
In 1921, however, Churchill unilaterally gave away most of this territory to the Hashemite dynasty to create what later became known as Jordan.
Why the Oslo Accords Should Be Abrogated by Israel
A Jurisprudential Memorandum for the New Prime Minister
By Louis Rene Beres
Taken by itself, the fact that the Oslo accords do not constitute authentic treaties under the Vienna Convention - because they link a state with a nonstate party - does not call for abrogation. But as the nonstate party in this case just happens to be a terrorist organization whose leaders must be punished for their egregious crimes, any agreement with this party that offers rewards rather than punishments is entirely null and void. Significantly, in view of the peremptory expectation known in law as Nullum crimen sine poena, "No crime without a punishment," the state party in such an agreement - here the State of Israel - violates international law by honoring the agreement.
According to Principle I of the binding Nuremberg Principles: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment." It is from this principle, which applies with particular relevance to Hostes humani generis ("Common enemies of humankind") and which originates in three separate passages of the Jewish Torah, that each state's obligation to seek out and prosecute terrorists derives. Hence, for Israel to honor agreements with terrorists - agreements that require, among other pertinent violations - the release of thousands of other terrorists - is to dishonor the very meaning of international law.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, please take heed. International law does not require compliance with the Oslo Accords. It requires abrogation of these illegal agreements.
Louis Rene Beres is Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University.
Afraid of victory
March 20, 2009
Sarah Honig ,
THE JERUSALEM POST
IN THESE PSYCHO-POLITICAL circumstances it would be very gutsy to aim to win instead of insecurely trying to conciliate an in-your-face uncooperative "peace partner."
We blabber about "occupation" without asking by which line Arabs demarcate areas where a sovereign Jewish existence might possibly be accepted. Is it the 1949 line? 1947? None at all? Does "occupation" refer only to territories we have held since 1967 or also where Jews settled in 1870?
In defiance of demographic fatalism, Israel's demographic momentum has been Jewish. Since 1882 (the launching of annual Aliya), the Jewish population between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean has grown 238 fold, while the Arab population increased only 6 fold. Since 1948, the Jewish population increased almost 10 fold and the Arab population expanded 3 fold.
In sharp contrast to conventional wisdom, the UN Population Division reports a sharp decline of fertility rate (number of births per woman) in Muslim and Arab countries, except in Afghanistan and Yemen. The myth of "doubling Muslim population every 20 years" has been shattered against the rocks of modernity and reality.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
