POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

[Edward Kennedy]

Political Correctness
by Philip Atkinson

What Is Political Correctness?

Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. (see Newspeak) It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness

To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

Clear Inspiration For Political Correctness

The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms n*****s, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values.

The Origins Of Political Correctness

A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition. (See the law of reverse civilization) As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints that genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

Dissembles the real nature of the claim
Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name

For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

Different cultures are compatible.

People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.
All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.

From Bourgeois To Racist

Naturally as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticised for being bourgeois. George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. The term bourgeois was then a popular slogan meaning having humdrum middle class ideas— The Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Edition, 1938 — which is just a blatant attack upon tradition.

Outright Assault Upon Tradition

Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois (retaining traditional notions), is being labelled racist, sexist etc. and risk losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street, being subject to judicial penalty and death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.

Parental Values Always Attacked

The inevitable scapegoat for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society's agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing offspring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilization by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:

"For every democracy which has enjoyed prosperity for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order,.."

Tyranny Grows

Once a community embraces tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socializing and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once those members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another member's performance were just labeled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracized. Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.

Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny

In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the Federal Member of Parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics. Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson's political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilized community. And any mob that chants "Burn the witch" (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.

Widespread Throughout The Community

Revealing the extent of the mob's support, their sentiments (suitably refined) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties contesting the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.

International Experience Of PC Tyranny

And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression. Bowing to the clamour of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson, paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington, USA confirm that the hysteria is everywhere.

The Inevitable Result Of Political Correctness

By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust. Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.

Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech

Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe. The SBS television program "What Ever Happened To Russia", which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik's oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series "Blood On The Snow" broadcast in March 1999.

An Old Witness

Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad. The awful effect this had upon Helen's sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating, this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.

Political Correctness Is Social Dementia

Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, nor why they are saying it: they are insane.

Social Decline Grows Worse With Each Generation

Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behaviour less restrained and less rational.

« Support This Site » « Retreat From Reason » « Hatred Of Truth » « A Study Of Our Decline » « Home »

[Thistle]

Political correctness does only one thing. It hides the truth.

[Edward Kennedy]

Political correctness does only one thing. It hides the truth.

...by censoring and denying it.

[Marshall]

So very, very true.

[calgary clipper]

This from the rules/regulations of the City of Calgary public swimming pools and an example of Political Correctness gone awry. Creeping unreasonable accommodation leads to increasing political correctness.

I don't think this policy came out of any HRC ruling - perhaps the threat of one, who really knows. It may have came forward from a very small lobby and if this is the case, then I will argue it is unreasonable accommodation.

"Non-Traditional
Bathing Wear Policy
July 10, 2008
Non-Traditional Bathing Wear Policy
The City of Calgary Recreation is committed to providing an aquatic environment where individuals
from all ethnic and religious backgrounds are comfortable participating in activities in and around the
water. We want all customers to feel safe and welcome at our facilities, and have therefore adopted
a non-traditional bathing wear policy as outlined below.
In addition to conventional swim wear, participants may wear:
􀁸 Long-sleeved pants and shirts, tee-shirts and shorts with undergarments or a swim suit worn
underneath.
􀁸 Traditional ethnic clothing (e.g. saris and hijabs) with a swim suit or undergarments worn
underneath. For safety reasons, patrons wearing traditional garments such as saris are asked
to remain in the shallow end of the pool and to refrain from using the dive tank.
In order to ensure that our aquatic environments are safe and free from any external contaminants, all
participants are required to:
􀁸 Wear clothing that is different from the clothing worn to the facility
􀁸 Take a complete and cleansing shower (while clothed in the swim attire that will be worn in
the water) before entering the pool
Through this policy, Recreation affirms its commitment to recognizing and valuing the diversity of our customers".
_________
This policy is simply wrong on several accounts
1. It is a health issue - who knows where the street clothes have been and what is deposited into the pool
2. It is a safety issue - clothes of this nature absorb huge amounts of water. The sari has some 6 yards of 60" material and is often not even colorfast

[Thistle]

This from the rules/regulations of the City of Calgary public swimming pools and an example of Political Correctness gone awry. Creeping unreasonable accommodation leads to increasing political correctness.

I don't think this policy came out of any HRC ruling - perhaps the threat of one, who really knows. It may have came forward from a very small lobby and if this is the case, then I will argue it is unreasonable accommodation.

"Non-Traditional
Bathing Wear Policy
July 10, 2008
Non-Traditional Bathing Wear Policy
The City of Calgary Recreation is committed to providing an aquatic environment where individuals
from all ethnic and religious backgrounds are comfortable participating in activities in and around the
water. We want all customers to feel safe and welcome at our facilities, and have therefore adopted
a non-traditional bathing wear policy as outlined below.
In addition to conventional swim wear, participants may wear:
�� Long-sleeved pants and shirts, tee-shirts and shorts with undergarments or a swim suit worn
underneath.
�� Traditional ethnic clothing (e.g. saris and hijabs) with a swim suit or undergarments worn
underneath. For safety reasons, patrons wearing traditional garments such as saris are asked
to remain in the shallow end of the pool and to refrain from using the dive tank.
In order to ensure that our aquatic environments are safe and free from any external contaminants, all
participants are required to:
�� Wear clothing that is different from the clothing worn to the facility
�� Take a complete and cleansing shower (while clothed in the swim attire that will be worn in
the water) before entering the pool
Through this policy, Recreation affirms its commitment to recognizing and valuing the diversity of our customers".
_________
This policy is simply wrong on several accounts
1. It is a health issue - who knows where the street clothes have been and what is deposited into the pool
2. It is a safety issue - clothes of this nature absorb huge amounts of water. The sari has some 6 yards of 60" material and is often not even colorfast

How did I know where this was going before I even finished reading the first paragraph?.....Geeeeeees I'm so smart.....

[Princess_Jules]

If the regulations for cleanliness are followed what difference does it make is someone wants to wear clothes in the pool? How does this affect you? Now if they start dictating what others can wear there is a problem.

[Thistle]

If the regulations for cleanliness are followed what difference does it make is someone wants to wear clothes in the pool? How does this affect you? Now if they start dictating what others can wear there is a problem.

It makes absolutely no difference to me one way or the other. It affects me no more than what you have to say affects me.

[Princess_Jules]

If the regulations for cleanliness are followed what difference does it make is someone wants to wear clothes in the pool? How does this affect you? Now if they start dictating what others can wear there is a problem.

It makes absolutely no difference to me one way or the other. It affects me no more than what you have to say affects me.

Umm ok... Considering your location, it is highly unlikely that I could have done anything to your cornflakes this morning..

Perhaps your peevish response was due to your misunderstanding my usage of "you" in as a general term rather than my post being directed toward you personally.

[Thistle]

If the regulations for cleanliness are followed what difference does it make is someone wants to wear clothes in the pool? How does this affect you? Now if they start dictating what others can wear there is a problem.

It makes absolutely no difference to me one way or the other. It affects me no more than what you have to say affects me.

Umm ok... Considering your location, it is highly unlikely that I could have done anything to your cornflakes this morning..

Perhaps your peevish response was due to your misunderstanding my usage of "you" in as a general term rather than my post being directed toward you personally.

Quiet possibly. When someone uses the word "you" it can refer to a person or to a unspecified person or people in general. The fact that you left this unclear is the reason for my "peevish" response.

[Princess_Jules]

Thistle:

Quiet possibly. When someone uses the word "you" it can refer to a person or to a unspecified person or people in general. The fact that you left this unclear is the reason for my "peevish" response.

If everyone had to clarify every word used that has more than one connotation the posts would last all day.

To a certain degree we (generally) need to be able to read the context. Considering you (personally) did not really offer an opinion on the swimming regulations and you (personally) only commented on your guessing the outcome, I really had no reason to address you. (personally)

To further clarify my posts I will quote a person I wish to address personally or use their name.

Hopefully Thistle, this will clear up any future misunderstandings and avoid peevishness on both our parts.

[Thistle]

Thistle:

Quiet possibly. When someone uses the word "you" it can refer to a person or to a unspecified person or people in general. The fact that you left this unclear is the reason for my "peevish" response.

If everyone had to clarify every word used that has more than one connotation the posts would last all day.

To a certain degree we (generally) need to be able to read the context. Considering you (personally) did not really offer an opinion on the swimming regulations and you (personally) only commented on your guessing the outcome, I really had no reason to address you. (personally)

To further clarify my posts I will quote a person I wish to address personally or use their name.

Hopefully Thistle, this will clear up any future misunderstandings and avoid peevishness on both our parts.

Okay this is getting laughable.

[Princess_Jules]

Okay this is getting laughable.

[Edward Kennedy]

Thistle:

Quiet possibly. When someone uses the word "you" it can refer to a person or to a unspecified person or people in general. The fact that you left this unclear is the reason for my "peevish" response.

If everyone had to clarify every word used that has more than one connotation the posts would last all day.

To a certain degree we (generally) need to be able to read the context. Considering you (personally) did not really offer an opinion on the swimming regulations and you (personally) only commented on your guessing the outcome, I really had no reason to address you. (personally)

To further clarify my posts I will quote a person I wish to address personally or use their name.

Hopefully Thistle, this will clear up any future misunderstandings and avoid peevishness on both our parts.

Okay this is getting laughable.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Edward Kennedy]

If the regulations for cleanliness are followed what difference does it make is someone wants to wear clothes in the pool? How does this affect you? Now if they start dictating what others can wear there is a problem.

It makes absolutely no difference to me one way or the other. It affects me no more than what you have to say affects me.

Umm ok... Considering your location, it is highly unlikely that I could have done anything to your cornflakes this morning..

Perhaps your peevish response was due to your misunderstanding my usage of "you" in as a general term rather than my post being directed toward you personally.

There was absolutely nothing peevish about her innocent response, but yours on the other hand....