Multiculturalism and Political Correctness Corrupting DemocracyThe thinking behind Political Correctness is that if you say anything with which we disagree, we will punish you using laws that we had introduced for the specific purpose of controlling the voices of the population. I was asked last week why I object to Multiculturalism. My answer was that I do not in fact object to multiculturalism. What I object to is it's symbiotic relationship with totalitarianism - with Political Correctness. When you punish me for not deceiving you with politically correct language, I object. If you ask me a question, I will give you my honest opinion. If you are a Politically Correct person who prefers that I lie, then sod off!
This article is about three subjects: The Hijab, Multiculturalism, and Political Correctness. I will state at the outset, that my daughter-in-law wears the Hijab - but with open face.
At King's Calendar I have written many articles about Political Correctness and Multiculturalism, and some about Women in Islam. I want to state clearly that I have no objection to women wearing open faced hijabs. I hate Political Correctness on it's own, and in symbiosis with Multiculturalism. I do not hate multiculturalism - on it's own.
First, 14-year old British schoolgirl Codie Stott was arrested for trying to get a good grade in her group science project. She had been placed with a group of students only one of whom spoke any English. When they began talking what she deduced was Urdu among themselves, she realized she had no hope of completing the project. She went to her teacher, and prefacing her request with a diplomatic, "I'm not trying to be funny, but ..." she asked to be moved to an English-speaking team. The teacher reacted violently, raising her voice in the classroom to shout, "It's racist! You're going to get done by the police!"
The 14-year old was reported to a police officer on the school premises and the next day she was arrested
Second - Aishah Azmi, a teacher's assistant in an Episcopalian school who was tasked with helping recently arrived Urdu-speaking children to learn English
The school, conciliatory for fear of being accused of racism, told her she was free to wear the veil in corridors and the staff room, but she should remove it when teaching foreign children English. She refused
Third - a Christian worker at a British Airways' check-in counter. She wore a small cross, barely the size of her thumbnail, to work and was sent home for refusing to remove it.
Political Correctness in Symbiosis with Multiculturalism.
Political Correctness is firstly "a political movement" if not foisted onto the community by an activist agenda, then it has at least been hijacked by an activist agenda.
Note the statement which I highlighted in the TCS article: "It's racist! You're going to get done by the police!"
Ask yourself this question: What do you think about the alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by the Communist Government of China? If you feel that the Chinese people, either now, or under the reign of Mao Zedong were not permitted free speech, then I ask, how different is the reaction of the teacher in the article above. The thinking behind Political Correctness is that if you say anything with which we disagree, we will punish you using laws that we had introduced for the specific purpose of controlling the voices of the population.
Political Correctness is bare faced totalitarianism!
In this case - "in symbiosis with multiculturalism" - political correctness denies us the right to express our thoughts, words, or opinions, in relation to 'other cultures'. But who decides what is acceptable in foreign culture, and what is not.
Many times in the past, activists have objected to 'circumcision'. Some people are very vocal in their opposition to this practice, but in being so vocal, are they not criticising both religious and social customs of many ethnic communities? Is that not politically incorrect?
Who determines which foreign cultural activities are acceptable and which are not? Is spitting food and other matter onto the dinner table or floor in a restaurant acceptable? Would you object to it? Did you know it is normal cultural practice for the Chinese in Mainland China? (Oh but it is a health matter you say! - Tosh!)
Would you ban ethnic communities from 'choosing' the spouses of their children? Yet I knew many girls when I was young who knew that they would marry whomsoever their parents told them to marry. Do you object to this cultural practice? Would you dare?
If you dare to object, then who are you to complain when some person finds something about an ethnic culture objectionable. Are you God? Are you the sole arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not?
If you read the full article of which I quoted part, you will find listed some Islamic countries that do not permit veiled women to enter public buildings. Are they racist? Discriminatory?
I was asked last week why I object to Multiculturalism. My answer was that I do not in fact object to multiculturalism. What I object to is it's symbiotic relationship with totalitarianism - with Political Correctness.
In my life, I have at various times been subjected to abuse. Let me list some of the things for which I have been abused:
I am a Nazi Jew killing kraut
I am a dirty Jew
I am a Catholic
I am a fundamentalist Christian
I am a homosexual
I am homophobic
I am white
I am a misogynist - (proof of which is that in a company I owned almost all of my staff were female - part time workers)
I am a racist (living in China and coming from a family consisting of Chinese, Vietnamese, Thais, Japanese, Philippinos, Indians, and Aboriginals plus Europeans.)
6 of my parent's Grandchildren are "ethnic" and have so far only produced 10 'ethnic' great-grandchildren. - 13 of their grandchildren are 'non ethnic?" producing so far 11 'non ethnic' children and 3 'ethnic' children of their own.
I have 5 children, of which 3 married 'ethnic Asians', 1 married 'non ethnic' - if you call Dutch non ethnic, - and 1 is not married. (By 2011 I have 9 grandkids and 3 step-grandkids - 4 are pure European / the others are ethnic / 2 are Muslim)
As a racist, I obviously hate my family, which is why I live in China!
It's a hard life I live, trying to be all things to all people!
I believe that if foreign peoples come to live in Australia, then they must integrate, at least in public, with the rest of the population. Serbs with Croats, Whites with Blacks, Jews with Muslims, Australians with Poms (can't believe I said that!), and even accept Yanks! Orthodox must live with Liberal and reformed, communists must live with the rest of us, monarchists must live with republicans (Damn I did it again!)
Australia has always been a multicultural country. I spent my teenage years working in my parents shop and going to the local public high school in a predominantly Greek-Italian community. My first two years at school were in a private school, where most of the foreign students were Black. I never encountered the 'racist' and politically incorrect "crimes" that we sometimes read about today.
There have always been problems of course, and as I pointed out, being white did not stop me from being abused by abusive people.
The thing I hate about Multiculturalism as it exists today, is that coupled with Political Correctness, it says that we 'must accept' other ethnicities and their cultures. The fact is that we should not have to, even as many of them don't accept ours! Do Muslims or Mainland Chinese accept Homosexuality, The Falun Gong, Christianity, or beer guzzling hedonist students, to name but a few things to be found in our Australian culture?
The fact that we don't like a foreign ethnicity or it's culture, does not detract from our duty as citizens to be decent human beings.
Do you like dealing with drunken, noisy, abusive alcoholics in public places? What do you think when you encounter them? I grew up disliking them, but nevertheless, behaved like a decent human being, showing respect where it was due, and being polite because that is the decent thing to do. The only time when you should demonstrate anything 'negative', is if pushed into a corner from which you cannot escape.
Are you black? So What! Are you a homosexual? So what! Are you a Feminist? So what! Are you a Liberal Party Voter? So what! Are you Muslim? So What! Are you male? So What! As long as we treat each other decently, because we value decency; as long as we treat people as human beings and not as something else, then it doesn't matter what people look like or believe, or what their dress is like, (unless they wear pink chiffon) or what they do at home (with the curtains closed - unless they are good at it.)
But when you force me to accept people, I object! When you punish me for not deceiving you with politically correct language, I object. If you ask me a question, I will give you my honest opinion. If you are a Politically Correct person who prefers that I lie, then sod off!
As I stated at the outset, my daughter-in-law wears an open faced hijab. What difference whether she wears a scarf to protect her head from the elements, or a piece of religious clothing? (2011 Must Read) Didn't Catholic nuns wear something similar? Did we object? we didn't. There is nothing wrong with the hijab.
But in the instance mentioned in the TCS article, the hijab that was worn was a full face hijab that concealed the face. How ridiculous that she should be teaching students of English. Anyone who teaches a foreign language knows how important it is to make students watch your lips when you speak, and how necessary it is to demonstrate how sounds are made.
If the woman wants to wear a full face hijab, that is a matter for security departments concern. If they are happy with it then OK. If not, then it must go. (Given the dust in the air in Wuhan, I often wish I could wear a full face hijab.)
But to conceal your face while you teach foreign students is just plain ridiculous, and I have no hesitancy in stating that that woman is either plain stupid or pushing a hidden agenda.
Of course her objection was that she had a 'male' teacher in the class with her. If she is prepared to take off the face covering in the presence of a female teacher, then that should have been arranged. But what of male students? At what age can she not show male students her face?
The final issue dealt with in the TCS article, concerned a woman who wore a Christian cross, contrary to Employers regulations.
If you cannot abide by the regulations of the workplace, you should not be working there, but as it pertains to 'multicultural issues', I agree that if 'ethnic' or 'religious' groups can wear their customary dress, then so too ought Christians to be allowed the same privilege. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, n'est-ce-pas?
In totalitarian communist China, it is common to see Chinese people wearing Christian Crosses, and to see local Muslims wearing open faced hijabs. In Beijing, I saw ethnic Chinese wearing the full Muslim regalia, but with an open face hijab.
If the bloody Communists allow it, who are we to get hung up on it? Obviously the Chinese government and the Chinese people are more tolerant and understanding than are we Westerners.
So what is our problem?
1.. We are bloody stupid.
2..We have bound ourselves up in chains of our own choosing.
3..We have let activists gain control of society.
4..We arrogantly view 'minorities' as inferior, which is why we bend over backwards to treat them preferentially.
5..We don't value a 'common culture'.
6..We strive for equality, and enforce it through discrimination.
7..We don't believe in Democracy.
8..While we believe in Evolution, we interfere with the evolutionary process.
9..We believe that we can legislate Utopia!
10..We are fracturing Australian Society!
Any society divided against itself will fall. Wasn't it Jesus who said that? What would he know?
There is a big difference between welcoming foreign peoples and accepting their cultural difference; and promoting a situation through Political Correctness and a love of law suits, that overtly states that foreign cultures take precedence over the 'commonly accepted culture' of the nation.
I've said it before and will say it again: If Australia is to become a totally different cultural reality, then that culture should evolve naturally. Unfortunately, sections of society are trying to engineer that change by force.
Any student of history, psychology or sociology knows, when a major force disintegrates and a power vacuum occurs, something else will fill the void. Symbiotic Political Correctness Multiculturalism, is creating a cultural void in society, and already, competing cultures are trying to fill the void.
The major culture will always be dominant until replaced. There is no such thing as a successfully dominant multi-cultural power structure in any society. One culture will always be dominant.
The question that we must ask ourselves, is which cultural type do we want to be representative of our country. Personally I hope it is the Islamic culture, if for no other reason, than that it will rid our society of all these stupid academic activist social engineers, and give us all one common culture.
Cultural Marxism[ is doing it's best in the west to completely destroy religion and spirituality; apart from those times of course when it suits the Marxist agenda to raise a religion to a prominence over another so as to destroy the newly 'inferior' one. Such is the desire of some to undo the cultural effects of religion that they become willing partners in deception; as has been the case with some supporting fanatic Islamics who claim that there never was a Solomon's temple. For a growing number of academics and intellectuals, King David and his united kingdom of Judah and Israel, which has served for 3,000 years as an integral symbol of the Jewish nation, is simply a piece of fiction. It remains true that there is a subculture at work in the West that is determined to destroy the traditional cultures of Western Countries. Many of those belonging to this subculture hide behind respectable and allegedly humanitarian facades that enable them to undermine our culture. If we don't recognise this, then how can we cope with it? Marxists believe that the existing society must be destroyed in order to successfully establish the new order. They believe that society, like the Phoenix must die so that out of the ashes can rise the new Phoenix. I don't think that they realise that it is the same bird that rises, not one with a new design.
That expression 'except unto themselves' is the key to understanding Political Correctness in all it's forms. The purpose of "Politically Motivated Political Correctness Activists" is to make you dependent upon them for 'moral guidance' until you reach the point wherein their power supercedes all other. In short: 'They have an agenda not directly connected to their alleged 'ideology'. We must begin to realise that every source of information has it's own agenda, and that the information provided is designed to stir up our support for that cause. It never ceases to amaze me that those who have a "Just Cause" to fight, have no hesitation resorting to 'Unjust' - 'Dishonest' behaviour. There can never be any excuse for such, but our willingness to ignore the truth is often the result of our own prejudice - 'prejudice whipped up for us by someone's Media propaganda Unit.'
"The Patriarchs' Route" in Gush Etzion also passes through an area known as Netzer, located between the Elazar and Alon Shvut communities. The Netzer area is built on terraces that assemble a spectacularly beautiful, green mosaic; green grapes twining alongside old olive trees in plots of varying shapes and sizes, and in the pre-Spring season the Netzer space looks like a Claude Monet masterpiece: the green background is spotted with the pink and white of the almond trees at the peak of their bloom. But this pastoral bubble bursts the moment we 'zoom-in' on the photo, then we discover a real battle for this land and the future of the country, with the innocent plants often standing like soldiers on the frontline.
A key portion of the meeting was White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC) Director Cecilia Munoz outlining President Obama's overall immigration reform proposal that includes creating a pathway to citizenship for up to 11-million illegal aliens. In my discussion with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Border Security, I mentioned that a potential "State of State Emergency" might be unfolding, and deliberate steps might have to be taken by the State of Arizona to protect its' own sovereignty and welfare."
Marxists believe that the existing society must be destroyed in order to successfully establish the new order. They believe that society, like the Phoenix must die so that out of the ashes can rise the new Phoenix. I don't think that they realise that it is the same bird that rises, not one with a new design. Cultural Marxists pay no attention to the lessons of history, and it is we who will suffer because of it. We must begin to question what we have been taught. We must begin to see where our societies are headed. And most importantly, we must stop being bystanders who believe that there is nothing that they can do. (History, accelerated by science, is compressing itself, and our misfortunes, into ever tighter spirals. Can we cope? We can if we recognize the fact that man's astonishing technological progress presents just as many dangers to society as opportunities; and if we remember that utopia, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or whatever you choose to call such a state of grace, is not something that we confer on our society with science or social institutions, but forge within our souls by an act of devotion to some thing or principle greater than ourselves: Wm. B. Fankboner
"Application of Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria," drew over 1,000 diverse attendees, from college students, journalists and bloggers to veteran activists and pensioners, and was held in a jam-packed, standing room-only Jerusalem hall, featuring some of most influential government leaders and policy makers in Israel today. To put it simply, while just several years ago annexing Judea and Samaria seemed liked an implausible, unrealistic, or even taboo suggestion, today the concept of establishing Jewish sovereignty over all of the land from the River to the Sea has grown into an entire movement
Annexing Judea and Samaria: The speakers discussed the practical aspects of applying sovereignty: How it should be done, what the status of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria will be, and what are the anticipated reactions from the Arab and Western worlds. The Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Yuli Edelstein, also mentioned that even the application of sovereignty over Jerusalem, decades ago, did not make the world accept construction in all parts of the city, so there is no reason to worry about the international response.
Annexing Judea and Samaria: The drive to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria -- all or parts thereof -- is now a bona-fide, full-blown national drive, with the support of government ministers, Knesset Members and candidates, academics, and members of the media. Talk of a two-state solution, while widely prevalent, is largely irrelevant.
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air 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.