Friday, July 12, 2013
Politically correct is incorrect
Thanks to Lyndon Sullivan for sharing this:
"Western peoples have also been conditioned to die. Not for Allah or Hirohito, but for the new religion of Liberalism. We have surrendered any hope of a decent future for our children and grandchildren because we do not wish to be labelled racist, intolerant, xenophobic, nationalistic or illiberal. Western peoples have also been conditioned to die. Not for Allah or Hirohito, but for the new religion of Liberalism. We have surrendered any hope of a decent future for our children and grandchildren because we do not wish to be labelled racist, intolerant, xenophobic, nationalistic or illiberal. Such a suicidal ideology is wholly unnatural and can only be inculcated through propaganda every bit as powerful as Shintoism once was, and Islam is today."
An extract from an article by Paul Weston, for Gates of Vienna.
I will now attempt to explain why this is the opposite to what the liberal left tell you. Firstly I would rather be "racist, intolerant, xenophobic, nationalistic or illiberal" than not free to be. Freedom is the highest level of being, as everyone in prison has food and shelter but they are still being punished and generally suffering. Poor and hungry people can often still appear to be happy, as they are at least free and have some means to eat and find shelter. And secondly we already have laws to stop people hurting each other physically, and if it's someone I'm only offending then it's their problem not mine. If that's who someone is then they have as much right to be who they are as anyone else. They will still be prosecuted for paying black people less or attacking homosexuals as they are simply treating people in ways you wouldn't want to be treated yourself, and consequently illegal. But preferring your own sort of people living around you, as most minorities do both abroad where they form small versions of their own country, and in their own countries, is perfectly normal. Making uninformed and ignorant statements is quite different from having personal preferences and being able to speak them without the risk of prosecution. The same applies to political correctness. I'd rather be called every single derogatory names for a Jew and never be allowed to punish the people who did than lose my right to use retard, Paki, mongol, spastic and any other word which is only as bad as the person hearing it. A word may have some historical baggage, but cannot ever be any worse than saying shit or fuck, they are all still words and should never be given more power than they can actually convey. The majority of people are sheep and cowards, and break their own principles (if they even have any) if today's government tells them they are wrong, and some go even further and believe they are.
If you listen to people from the last century, now dying out, using words such as coon or darkie were not actually very significant in 1930 or even 1950, and were not meant the way they usually are now. So condemning a pensioner who calls the radio and starts talking about coloured people (as they were till around 1975) and possibly dropping in one of the other terms as they go along is far more ignorant than they are for simply using a word which was perfectly normal in their time and has no malice behind it at all. But the general point is that people generally do not and will not attack and physically discriminate against any of the people they complain about at times, or use the wrong words to describe. A father who uses the term poof and nancy boy is no more likely to kick his son out for being homosexual as one who uses the current terms. None of these 'isms' make anyone a bad (or a good) person, it simply describes natural human traits more or less present in everyone. Black and Asian people in London (as that is who I mix with personally) are no less racist than the white people, just against slightly different targets. Do I mind? Why should I? If I dare to go to Wales or Cornwall and walk into a pub do I mind if they speak Welsh or stare at me? I'm certainly not feeling comfortable or welcome but it's their pub and if they are insular to an extreme never experienced in London then I'm better off not bothering to go somewhere as medieval as that. I'd certainly never send up task forces to teach them about diversity as they've every much a right to be who they are as anywhere else. Unlike certain parts of the world we still have freedom of movement, so anyone that bothered about the local's primitiveness can always move to Stoke Newington or Camden if they can afford it. Or Havana if they actually want to appreciate the freedom they actually have already.