POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – the scourge of our time
Laying on the guilt trip (otherwise known as Political Correctness) by ‘progressives’ is a curse promulgated by the political elite who would destroy the American way of life, a fact clearly documented in the work of the Frankfurt School. You are encouraged to confirm it… The political elite need constant affirmation of their sense of self—that they are ‘nice’ and ‘kind’—and that their lofty intellect puts them above the masses. Those masses (‘workers’, a 19th Century term echoing socialism) must be constantly kept in fear of being crushed; and the freeloaders demanding ‘more’ kept clamoring for those having more being forced to give it to them. Issues identified with Political Correctness have expanded from the holy trinity of race, class and gender to include terrorism, global warming, income equality and a host of others. From the top:
Affirmative action is the politically-correct term for social engineering (itself a politically-correct term for positive discrimination) contrived to promote opportunities for defined minority groups to achieve equality in areas from which they may have been historically excluded—employment, education, culture and, more recently, financial compensation. It is a response to the politically-correct ‘need’ of the marginalized (women, minorities, special interests) supposedly suffering from discrimination by the white male ruling class (WMRC), and is propagated by class envy. The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is that the WMRC must compensate for past discrimination; it is often instituted by government and/or educational institutions to ensure that prescribed minority groups are included “in all programs”. (Other subjects such as gender, abortion, gay marriage and matters of applied emotion—feelings—are similar in character.) Affirmative action doesn’t stop short of changing the Constitution (or the dictionary, by changing the meaning of words—such as marriage—to suit some minority), A recent SCOTUS ruling upheld a state referendum (by a large majority), prohibiting discrimination either for or against any citizen on the basis of race. Even more important was liberal Justice Stephen Breyer’s rationale—let the people decide—it’s not our business—we will not ban affirmative action, nor will we impose it. “The Constitution foresees the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of these programs.” The decision was decried by black ‘activist’ Al Sharpton for not providing preferential treatment of blacks, telling them: “If (they) do not keep affirmative action in place, you will not have a job at all.” And: “They had laws specifically against us, which is why they have laws for us to repair the damage they did to us” (note the ‘them against us’; It’s not enough to achieve equality—(black) racial preference is demanded). Specific racial and ethnic preferences are unjust; they serve to perpetuate, rather than fight, stereotypes.
RACIAL ISSUES www.extremeethics.org/?p=159
Racist! – an epithet guaranteed to raise hackles on both sides of the accusation. Its politically-correct definition has come to mean ‘whites’ (always guilty) taking advantage of non-whites (never guilty). For instance, it’s common knowledge that 90-percent of blacks voted for Barack Obama in the last presidential election; it is clear that some blacks voted for him simply because he is black. This classic racism is nevertheless exempt from the charge. To think otherwise would be politically incorrect. Racism (the raison d’être of affirmative action) holds that members of different races should be treated differently. By current definition only whites can be racist; some hold that all whites are racist. The idea of liberal blacks vilifying conservative blacks cannot be racist; Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Eric Holder and the President cannot be racist, according to the politically correct. They can only provoke dissent. It is evident where the name-calling originates. (It’s instructive that the entire race of Orientals is notably absent from both sides of the equation.) Charges of discrimination began with race and its definition has expanded exponentially to become a catch-all used when nothing else seems to gain traction. Currently, any criticism of President Obama is grounds for being labeled racist. Border security and immigration issues are labeled racist, as are sentencing and incarceration. Recent studies by Yale University and the University of Minnesota even have concluded that air pollution is racist. Wherever there is an instance of ‘applied emotion’ (gay marriage, abortion, etc.—where ‘feelings’ trump rationality), this issue is likely to be found. Racism is the darling of Progressives, the major purveyors of PC, and slandering the opposition is a major weapon. “When you can’t argue the facts, argue the law. When you can’t argue the law, argue the facts. When you can’t argue either the facts or the law, unilaterally call it final, stop the debate altogether and start calling names…” If you can’t win, make the opposition appear to lose by default. Racial and ethnic preferences are unjust; they serve to perpetuate, rather than fight, racial stereotypes.
THE RIGHT(?) TO NOT BE OFFENDED
All Americans have the right(s) to life, liberty and happiness—property—and free speech (among others), but nowhere in the Constitution (or Declaration) can be found the word fair (or fairness). Personal feelings remain a function of one’s mind and mental state and must be dealt with personally. Government does not protect against one being offended by another—it’s a personal issue. The freedom to speak one’s mind works both ways. Personal feelings have no protection nor have they any effect on free speech; feelings are neither politically correct nor incorrect. However, in the world of PC, feelings trump rational thought. If someone or some group feels upset, hurt or offended by another, they seek remedy, retribution, legal protection and compensation. Our rights do not include protection from insensitive, upsetting, ‘hurtful’ or offensive speech, nor are we guaranteed ‘fairness’ in all dealings with others. Perhaps offensive words are not nice, or fair, or even to be tolerated, but free speech is protected by law and not subject to being ‘politically correct’. This includes ad hominem attacks and the use of abusive language, which are often used by those who claim to be politically correct. Stay tuned for Part II…