Archives For Political Correctness

Twas the night before the Happy Holiday (formerly known as Christmas) when with much fanfare, the 21st Century Herod and his advisers bitterly proclaimed thus:

“This baby, the so called “Prince of Peace” is a Nazi, racist, and homophobic bigot. We deem him a threat to our “happy holidays”, all “religions of peace,” our entitlements, and the glorious goals of our perpetual revolution. We, the protected minority. We, the ruling class therefore command that all male Hebrew children be killed. Our dominion, our choice.”

With that they called in their keyboard warriors, social media trolls and paramilitary “peaceful protestors”, saying:

“The Christ child’s birth is nothing but a conservative, bourgeois conspiracy, comrades! According to our Intersectionality rubric, He is violence against everything we stand for, which is surely justification enough for our violent suppression.”

Legacy media, obeying the script handed to them, ran headlines demonising the Christ child. Crying in well-funded unison they whined,

“His existence as an outright repressive assault on everything we’ve built; everything we want people to believe in.”

The Bethlehem Times produced article after article arguing that this birth was,

“blasphemy against the State and that it must not go unpunished. We’ve heard of the academics; how three bourgeoisie wise-men cheated us. Traitors to our glorious academic-industrial complex, all of them!! Therefore, any who refuse to give up this child’s location should be tried and tortured; and treated like the vermin, we say they are.”

The Herodian News Network anchors ran wall-to-wall panels, with repeated 24/7 coverage, saying,

“It’s their kind that hinders us from completely implementing the tolerant and inclusive ways of our glorious leaders. The way of our glorious revolution. This child, the “Prince of peace” is a threat! He challenges us, our religion of peace, and our people. He must be found and executed!”

Celebrities even weighed in posting impromptu sing-a-longs imaging there was no heaven, stating,

“Comrades, you know that ‘State power must be exercised in all spheres, even in that of thought! For what we do is for the good of the people, we know what’s best for them, better than they know themselves.”’ 1

Academics took to Twitter hashtagging in anger that their

‘tenured collective’s survival rested on their egos and ideas dominating the higher ground in the hearts of the people. God would never come as a cisgender man! The future is female! Cancel the bigots who disagree!”

“I concur!” said another.

“This birth represents heteronormative oppression. We must rally people to take up arms against it. He who says that God became man is guilty of hatred towards women. It is said that the husband, one carpenter by the name of Joseph, has wed this woman, Mary, under strange circumstances. As it has been told to us, this Joseph is said to have been given the task of caring for the child by Angels. This only reinforces the evils of patriarchy. It will perpetuate the lies that claim healthy child-rearing at its best, involves both a man and a woman; a father and a mother. This heteronormative oppression MUST be stopped! We must cancel this Christ-child!”

I have an idea, boasted yet another,

“We’ll paint this cisgender male Christ-child, and the nativity scene itself, as evil; constructed to further the chains of bigoted societal norms.”

Blue tick accounts on social media piled on, frantically sharing and resharing that,

“The birth of the “Prince of Peace” threatens our control over what we say is peace; We must have war! War is peace! These ‘Christ-child’ breeders are an assault on ALL humanity. The State alone is the peace bringer. The State alone is the saviour of the people.”

Herod and his bureaucrats, sensing some quick political gain, sent their support, declaring:

“At the heart of this child there is a war on peace! He will stand against our truth and its phobic misrepresentations. He will not be easy to control through our mass propaganda and He will unhinge progress.”

Scientists fell in line justifying the murderous “peaceful protest” against the Christ-Child as “the betterment of humanity.”

Expert after expert filed peer reviewed papers claiming that this “Christ-child was anti-science.” That in order to do science, science mustn’t be questioned. “All must believe the science.”

Feminists staged a women’s march and rose up in their thousands, demanding that Mary be brought to heel by Herod’s men in charge, chanting:

“Hell, yes! Hell, yes! How dare this woman choose to keep her unexpected pregnancy! Worst of all, she claims to have been chosen by God! Send her to Planned Parenthood, where she’ll be re-educated in feminist healthcare and women’s rights! That child must not be allowed to live!”

Others screamed:

“How dare she stand against us and think for herself. This must not go unpunished! Think of the women who might follow her and keep the child?”

Still more, applauding the “peaceful protest” against the “Prince of Peace” cried out,

“Love is love! Her convictions and religious beliefs are phobic, sexist, and irrational. This woman’s pregnancy, and the prophecy attached to it is a farce, therefore this child’s life should be deemed not worthy of life.”

Members of the judicial community, waving their flags of virtue, also chimed in gaslighting Mary claiming she was to be held to blame for Herod’s bloodletting.

“It’s perfectly just. We cannot be to blame; we wouldn’t have had to act as we have if Mary had been willing to treat the child as a sexually transmitted disease and remove it. Thus, we decree that Mary is to wear the blame. This woman has forced Herod’s hand.”

Herod, buoyed by the support, wrote into law that,

“the decision was unanimous. Therefore, let nothing sway you.”

His soldiers were to wipe out all males up to the age of two. Making certain that the Christ-child was eliminated.

Not to be left out, the approved opposition among Herod’s theologians and poets lined the pavements with salutes, arguing that Herod was showing

 ‘great compassion. His ridding the State of this Christ-child was the liberation of his people. His chosen course was the only socially just action he could take. The birth of the Prince of peace; the Son of God, and its proclamation before everyday people would inspire ignorance, non-conformism and counter-cultural activists into disobedience. Zealots will rise. Worst of all it will inspire unity and solidarity amongst those we seek to control for their own benefit.”

The poets and theologians then sang,

“Only Herod could be called King. Only the State and the glorious leaders of the revolution can be called saviour! There can be no other!”

Herod, whose preferred pronouns were he/him, then proclaimed,

“Then let it be made known that all who disagree with us are traitors, haters and infidels! Anyone not thinking along with us is against us.”

“We’re told that the prophecy of Isaiah has been fulfilled, that this child is a saviour.”

“But the quiet proclamation announcing the birth of a Jew; a baby boy from Judea is ethnocentric; it’s offensive to other “races”. It propagates the legitimacy of Israel’s existence, and threatens our power on the world stage.”

“Organise the outrage! Get the wheels of the State moving and manipulate the ignorant. Send out the murderous minions and shut down all this unlicensed good cheer. The party must not be seen to approve of this unsanctioned movement. Stop the early rumblings of this pathetic prophetic Jesus movement.”

And everybody said: “Long may our glorious revolution, the party who enforces it, and its leader who embodies it, reign!”


References:

Weil, S. 1936 Oppression & Liberty p.109 Routledge & Kegan Paul 1958.

First published on Caldron Pool 24th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Political correctness in its excessive form is the secular equivalent of Shari’a law. It might not have the full judicial weight of Western law behind it yet, but that doesn’t mean people aren’t trying to manipulate the system so as to implement it.

I used to think that the only thing wrong with political correctness was the excesses that went along with it. Take the good, reject the bad. However, the more I learn from those who practice and enforce the ideals of political correctness, the more I arrive at the conclusion that political correctness is the secular version of Shari’a Law. The power base for this is the cult of modern liberalism which currently rules the Left side of politics.

Adherence to political correctness is fanatical. It’s designed to control what and how you think, making sure you comply with the laws outlined by modern liberal overseers. These overseers are most often professionals who say that they don’t believe in absolutes, but issue orders in absolute terms: “You are what we say you are, you will speak and think as we tell you to or else!” Professionals, who have, as we’ve witnessed since Trump was elected, sought to wage a jihad against conservatives and those allied with the concerns of conservatives.

Throughout the years I’ve had three personal encounters with professionals along these lines. Each encounter has given me an insight into how excessive political correctness is having a negative effect on society, trust and relationships as a whole.

The first involved a co-worker. He assumed that I was being racist when I used the phrase “these kinds of people’’, in response to being hammered by telemarketers from India. Though it was clear I was voicing frustration at telemarketers taking up work hours, (an actual thing called time theft), this didn’t stop my co-worker from trying to find some hidden racism in my quick reply. He was more concerned about my phrasing and what possibly laid behind it, than he was with the complaint that wages were being spent answering unsolicited phone calls unrelated to customer service.

Over the process of an hour and a few email exchanges with management, who had gotten involved, things were clarified. Even though my phrasing of “those people” meant unsolicited calls from telemarketers, and not a racist remark towards Indian people, I was, through the event, forced to be anxious about, and super-careful with my words.

The second incident involved a foreign-born medical professional on a routine visit. He took a disliking to the fact my wife and I homeschooled. He had no grounds for this, but took it upon himself to hound me for forty minutes about socialisation, ignorance and yes, racism. He proceeded to tell me that kids teach kids, they learn and should learn from one another. He argued that they can only learn about differences between cultures, and religions from being in the education industrial complex.

I was uncomfortably put on the defensive. Although I informed him that we have a NSW board of studies representative and are registered with NESA, he was determined to be right; adamant that I was wrong. Although I made every effort to help him understand that our curriculum was in line with the Australian Curriculum standards, this medical professional assumed that because I was white, and a Christian, we were being prejudiced; teaching our children to not only be ignorant of the world, but to hate those who are different.

The third, most recent incident was when another medical professional lightly scolded me for using the politically incorrect term, “colour blindness”, instead of the politically correct term, “colour vision deficiency”. This professional made a point of telling me, with conviction, that the term “colour blindness” wasn’t “kosher”. Despite the terminology being widely used, it is considered offensive, and insensitive to not apply the “authorised version”; the “correct” or allowable terminology.

If this is so wrong, why does Google return 29.6 million hits under the term “colour blindness”? Why is a website, which says its aim is to raise awareness about “colour vision deficiency”, actually called “Colour Blind Awareness”?

My position here isn’t reactionary. It’s an attempt at a well-considered expositional brief about a reactionary position forced on society. I say forced, because it hasn’t arrived by way of democratic consensus, nor has it arrived by scientific reasoning and rigorous debate. It has arrived by way of emotionalism, where feelings come before facts and seeming to be doing is the only thing necessary to prove whether someone is guilty or innocent. Appearances trump substance.

All of this suggests to me that people are making political correctness up as they go. They acquire a form of consensus from like-minded individuals who then punish, or ridicule into submission, those who aren’t aware of the rules. They create blasphemy laws. This isn’t science or logic, its law by whim of the ruler; in other words, it’s a regression back into absolute monarchy. The only difference is that the absolute divine right of kings becomes the absolute divine right of the individual, through which the individual is either deified or deifies themselves.[i]

It’s a lot like school. The law of the playground applies. One minute the sports shoe trend is Nike, the next it’s Reebok. After that it’s this band. The next day, it’s another band. Any and all who disagree are ostracised or treated as ignorant and irrelevant for not being up to date on the latest and greatest.

In other words, political correctness isn’t something that has been freely accepted and rationally agreed upon. It’s not in line with common law [ii]. The politically correct are a law unto themselves. As such, the politically correct impose new cultural laws on society, based on the whim of those created them. Everyone is assumed to have been acquainted with these new cultural laws. Anyone found to be unaware of them pays the price by being reeducated, or embarrassed in front of others. They face unnecessary hostility, or abuse, condescension, and some times, harassment.

Political correctness in its excessive form is the secular equivalent of shari’a law. To be outside political correctness is to be outside the religion. Those outside the cult of modern liberalism, that currently rules the Left, is to considered “deporable”.  These “deplorables” are insensitively accused of insensitivity. With abuse and disrespect, they are abused and disrespected.

If one is not politically correct, (by politically correct, I mean, living in line with whatever Leftist activists say it is)[ii], then that person isn’t trendy enough to be friends with, to be included in, accepted, respected, tolerated or loved.

In fact, as has been seen since Trump was elected to the presidency in the United States, it’s considered acceptable by the politically correct to hate anyone outside of their religion. “Deplorables” are infidels. The only choices are convert, keep quiet and pay a tax, or die.

Actions speak louder than words. Those dividing society are those who seek to benefit from doing so. For example: for as long as the politically correct preach from the political narrative of “love trumps hate”, yet continue to unreasonably hate on Trump, responsible Trump voters[iii] and anything they perceive as being a threat to their power; the lip service the politically correct give to love, will remain a confusing enigma, fused with dissonance, exclusion, prejudice, deification of self, partisan politics, manipulative propaganda and logical fallacies.

I’m left agreeing with Roger Scruton:

“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”
(Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey 1994) [iv]

Notes:

[i] For more on this I recommend Jean Bethke Elsthtain’s 2008 publication, ‘Sovereignty: God, State and Self’.

[ii] ‘The goal of the common law is not social engineering but justice in the proper sense of the term, namely the punishment or rectification of unjust actions.’ (Roger Scruton summing up a point made by Friedrich Hayek. Fools, Frauds & Firebrands, 2015)

[iii] This isn’t saying that the far-right don’t do this. Historically we know they do and have done so. However, in the current socio-political climate, the Left dominate this arena with their own vile version of tyranny masked as good intentions. Such as libertarians who believe people should have the freedom to drink and drive.

[iii] By responsible Trump voters I mean those who think before they vote; the average citizen, not the far-right or alt-right.

[iv] Scruton, R. 1994 Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey Bloomsbury Publishing

Photo Credits:

Abuse of Power...’  Samantha Sophia.

Razor Wire‘, Robert Hickerson

I Had To Learn …

November 24, 2014 — Leave a comment

*hyperextension: to extend beyond that which is normal; to literally ‘go round the bend.’

*Political correctness: agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.

*Slippery slope: a process or series of events that is hard to stop or control once it has begun and that usually leads to worse or more difficult things.

George Wittenstein White Rose


Source:

Definitions via Merriam-Webster.com