Political Correctness

Political Correctness is an euphemism for political censorship, which is nothing new. In every age there are certain things that cannot be said and certain things that must be said to show you are a member of the dominant culture or aspire to be.

Currently, Political Correctness is a catch-all term to acknowledge the privilege all the protected groups of the matriarchy under what is laughably called equality legislation. These days there is even something nonsensically called the Women and Equalities Commission.

The question comes to mind about how many “equalities” there are, if there are more than one. Men are now apparently able to claim they are the equal of women at giving birth and claiming parental leave. Women are allowed to claim they are the equal of men at soldiering, policing and not suffering unwanted pregnancy after having casual sex, apparently.

It was Aristotle who said that it is the greatest injustice to treat unequal things equally, and this is surely undeniable. What if God just decided He couldn’t be bothered to decide who should go to heaven or hell, in the way that an examiner decided he could no longer be bothered to mark exam papers because he was tired of having to decipher bad handwriting, make sense of incorrectly spelled words and excruciating grammar? What if God decided to send everyone to hell irrespective of their conduct? What if He decided to send everyone to heaven irrespective of their conduct because He just couldn’t be bothered to sort the sheep from the goats and the chaff from the wheat?

When I was learning English grammar at primary school, I learned the difference between a quantifiable noun and an unquantifiable noun. An example of a quantifiable noun is people, but these days you often hear BBC presenters wallowing in their degeneracy talking about “the amount of people”. As Montaigne said, grammar is the logic of language. In a matriarchy, logic is avoided the way an ugly woman avoids mirrors. If I were still at primary school and you asked me if equality was a quantifiable noun, I would have said no, because you cannot talk in terms of having one equality and then of having two equalities, in the way I might have one potato and acquire a second potato and be said to have two potatoes. Since MPs were persuaded by a Tory Prime Minister into voting for gay marriage with significantly more female MPs prepared to go along with legalising gay marriage than male MPs, it is a given that the House has taken leave of its senses and can no longer be trusted and taken at its word in anything it does. Many MPs are muddle-headed, capricious and incompetent women like our female Prime Minister, or cucked men afraid of incurring her wrath and being kicked out of her cabinet.

A large part of Political Correctness is about inflicting the injustice of treating unequal things equally and not calling things by their proper names, thus corrupting language, thought and of course the very thought processes necessary to reach correct decisions to promote good government.

[This c 500 word essay is part of my application to be the Parliamentary Assistant of Philip Davies MP. I have one previous application to be an MP's secretary and believe I would have been successful if I was prepared to take a pay cut. That MP was Simon Hughes. I remember being impressed by his grasp of detail at my interview.]

http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=61125

13 themes constituting the main body of Political Correctness by Thilo Sarrazin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thilo_Sarrazin

From 25:26 he speaks.

From 34:34 he lists his 13 Points.

1. Inequality is bad, equality is good. 
2. The secondary virtues like industriousness, punctuality have no particular value. Competition is morally objectionable except in sports because it promotes inequality. 
3. The rich should feel guilty except those who have earned their money as athletes or pop stars.
4. Different conditions of life has nothing to do with people's choices, but with the circumstances they are in. 
5. All cultures are of equal rank and value, especially the ways and values of the Christian Occidental West. Western industrialised countries should not enjoy precedence. Those who think differently are provincial and xenophobic. 
6. Islam is a religion of peace. Those who see any problems with immigration from Islamic countries are guilty of Islamophobia. This is is nearly as bad as antisemitism. 
7. Western industrialised nations carry the main responsibility for poverty and backwardness and other problems in other parties of the world. 
8. Men and women have no natural differences except for the physical signs of their sex. 
9. Human abilities depend mainly on obtaining an education. Inherited differences play hardly any role. 
10. There are no differences between people and races, except for the physical appearance. 
11. A nation-state is an outdated model. National identity and peculiarities have no particular value. The national element as such is rather bad. It is at any rate not worth preserving.
12. All people in the world do not only have equal rights, they are in fact equal. They should all be eligible for the benefits of the German welfare state. 
13. Children are an entirely private affair. Immigration takes care of the labour market and of any other demographic problems.

National parlour game being played by British politicians - fiddling while Rome burns

Questions for Dr Feldman and Shami Chakrabarti on anti-Semitism

WHY DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED

Instead of discussing important affairs of state rationally, British politicians occupy themselves playing a parlour game.

Parlour Game Racism and Anti-Semitism - this could be played on Just A Minute! @BBCRadio4 https://t.co/aCW53IyLG1 https://t.co/qW0FnNpHDC

— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 2, 2016

How about this 4 a new parlour game? Invite a gentile politician to talk on Hitler for Just A Minute without being accused of anti-Semitism.

— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 2, 2016

Talk for 60 seconds on Hitler/Israel/Jews/Zionism without hesitation, repetition or deviation/OR BEING ACCUSED OF ANTI-SEMITISM. @ken4london

— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 2, 2016

How about this 4 a new parlour game? Invite a gentile politician to talk on Israel for Just A Minute without being accused of anti-Semitism.

— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 2, 2016

How about this 4 a new parlour game? Invite a gentile politician to talk on Zionism for Just A Minute without being accused of anti-Semitism

— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) May 2, 2016

How PC are you?

How would you feel if your 13 year old

1) son were seduced by his female teacher into having sexual intercourse with her?

2) daughter were seduced by by her male teacher into having sexual intercourse with him but not impregnated?

3) son were seduced into being sodomised by his pederast teacher?

4) daughter were seduced by her lesbian teacher?

If you answer differently to any of the 4 questions are you guilty of discriminating on grounds of age, sex and sexuality?

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/headteacher-anne-lakey-jailed-for-eight-years-after-having-sex-with-two-boys/ar-AAc2rXl?ocid=UP97DHP

An interesting and ironic role reversal of the races in America

http://whiterabbitradio.net/how-whites-took-over-america-2

This is rather sinister and probably quite upsetting for many, but the points it makes hit the target.  

I am not white - I only live in the land of the white people - but I think white people are getting very upset and fearful indeed about immigration.  I would be too if I were them.

Their government does not care about them, however.

A child whom the parent thinks has irrational fears should have its irrational fears soothed and reasoned away.   What the parent ought not to do is hit that child and call it an evil extremist Nazi Fascist racist for voicing its fears, because it will become even more fearful and neurotic.

The government should perhaps ask itself why it is so addicted to foreign labour.  

Why are the indigenous whites so unsuitable for the labour force?

Is it because decades of feminist-dominated education has made the indigenous white population inferior to foreigners?

Why don't they fix their own people then and make them better employees?

Is it because decades of welfarism - the means by which statist and leftist political parties use to buy their votes - have produced an inferior people so inferior that even their own people won't hire them?

Is it because fixing the quality of the indigenous is going to take so much time and trouble that no government dares to try this because it would be so unpopular it would be thrown out of office at the next election?

How have decades of welfarism resulted in the degeneracy of the white race?

Because welfarism has encouraged female promiscuity, and female promiscuity produces sluts and bastards, who are social parasites.  

In Britain more than half the babies now are born out of wedlock.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

In Britain, only a homosexual dared to say that white people have become like black people.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517

What did he mean by that?  Just that most black people are born out of wedlock as are white people now.

Why are black people over-represented in the crime statistics?

http://boysraisedbysinglemums.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/single-mothers-children-responsible-for.html

Because they are mostly singly-parented, just like white people now.  

Why is it OK to be singly parented now, when it was not before?

Because of FEMINISM.  

Their children of single mothers who go to schools tend to have behaviour and educational attainments that  drag down everybody's.  Also, the liberal and feminist-dominated teaching profession do not like traditional ideas of discipline and conspire to hide their failure.  

Why does the government bribe social parasites with the taxes of the productive?

Because that is what will buy them votes and without votes they cannot be in office, and without being in office they are nothing as politicians.

Politicians these days are only divided into AMORAL tribes who care nothing for the national interest and cannot think beyond the next election ie 5 years.

What are the Sacred Cows of these amoral and tribal politicians who run our countries?

1. The Welfare State
2. Democracy (whatever that means)
3. Freedom (though we have that less and less now)
4. Feminism (which is founded on the principle of gender equality and which gives women the right to be as promiscuous as men at the expense of the taxpayer, who are mostly male)
5. Sexual liberation AKA sexual licence AKA Slut Single Mums AKA Widespread illegitimacy

If nationalists get it together to challenge feminism and reclaim power from the demented matriarchy, they can prevent the ship of state from crashing into the rocks.  There is not much time left now.  Sadly, however, the people most affected by degeneracy of feminism are in fact the white working classes, who are the ones complaining about immigration because they are most affected by it.  

But they too are addicted to one or some or all of the above five I have listed.   

Feminism is really quite easy to challenge, if we all do it together.  I like to think it will be as easy and as instantaneous as what happened when the boy in THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES pointed out that the emperor was naked.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.  

The Empress in her "New Clothes" of Feminism

Gang of Disabled people victimise potential BNP mayoral candidate for saying she does not wish to bring up a severely disabled child

You would have thought that no parent would wish to bring up a severely disabled child.

You would have thought that you would be allowed to express this view in a country known for its liberties.

But apparently not.

There is a Disabled People Against Claire Khaw Facebook group which repeatedly claims I wish to exterminate the disabled even after I have repeatedly denied this.

What I said (or was trying to say) on the Victoria Derbyshire Show on 2 March 2011 was that I would smother my own severely disabled baby if the midwife would not do it for me, and this was what midwives would do for you if you have a home birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwifery

"After the delivery, the midwife made the initial call on whether or not an infant was healthy and fit to rear. She inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty. Ultimately, midwives made a determination about the chances for an infant’s survival and likely recommended that a newborn with any severe deformities be exposed."

But apparently even citing this piece of social history is no longer allowed because it is offensive to the disabled, who demand that I be forced to bring up a severely disabled baby, destroy my marriage and give up the opportunity of having healthy babies because I would be too busy looking after my severely disabled one.
That is what the disabled demand and expect me to do while demanding that I be punished for saying what any honest parent to-be would feel.

Is this quite right, I wonder?

Is this Political Correctness gone mad? 

OFFICIAL: gollywog now called "racist doll" in Liberal Totalitarian Britain

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/03/22/tory-couple-from-dudley-quit-party-in-row-over-racist-doll-97319-28380416/2/

Political Correctness gone mad, and we are all paying for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239765/Park-ranger-sacked-racist-joke-wins-40k-compensation-tribunal-tells-council-skin-colour-fact-life.html

Because a black man said it was racist of a white employee to jokingly ask if he put polish on his legs, Lambeth Council had to pay the white employee they sacked £40K for wrongfully dismissing him for "gross misconduct".

£40K of taxpayers' money, folks. More if you include the legal fees Lambeth must have paid to defend the case.

It would be a rather good story if it were to be discovered later that the white and black employee were in cahoots with each other in a conspiracy to divvy up the £40K between themselves ....

Political Correctness

Oxford Reference Dictionary:

"Conformity to a prevailing body of liberal opinion especially in avoiding language, behaviour which might conceivably be regarded as discriminatory or pejorative to racial or cultural minorities or as reflecting undesirable implicit assumptions."

Martin Mears in Institutional Injustice:

"The key words in this definition are 'conformity', 'might conceivably be regarded' and 'undesirable.' "

Political correctness is a quasi-religion in its assumption that there is a right and wrong way of looking at the world, that the right way can readily be identified by people of goodwill and that those who fail to identify it demonstrate ignorance or malice. This quasi-religion is obsessed with discrimination whether of race, gender. 'sexual orientation' or otherwise. The modern legal establishment shares and promotes this obsession.

"We no longer hear about loony leftism, of course, this having now become mainstream opinion."

"Bias derives from prejudices, preconceptions and general cultural conditioning. In the context of 'equality and diversity' issues, the courts have no difficulty in recognising (indeed they are anxious to acknowledge) that they too can be guilty of unconscious 'stereotyping'. Judges now willingly submit themselves to training courses to rid their minds of alleged cultural clutter. Their trainers will tell them, for example, that the failure of an Afro-Caribbean witness to look the judge in the eye is for him an indication of respect not of contempt."

Why Political Correctness is Evil

In an online interview with FrontPage magazine, Dalrymple (whose writings can be found at http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/authors.php?author=Theodore) explained:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When
people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious
lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they
lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies* is to
co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's
standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of
emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political
correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

* for example,

• avoiding the conclusion that women should not serve with men on combat duty because they are unable to avoid being a hindrance and distraction, whose hostage value will always be greater to the enemy than "mere" men http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sarah-sands/sarah-sands-only-the-capture-of-prince-harry-could-have-done-more-damage-442716.html
• causing offence by referring to someone's race is de facto racism that could lose you your position if not your job - Top Tory axed over Army race row - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6431005.stm
  

Balancing Safety and Recklessness on 1 May 2008

Ken or the BNP candidate Richard Barnbrook? Or both? (There is the option of a second vote.)

How should Londoners vote? According to whom they think will probably win, like a punter betting on a horse? (In this case, it has to be for "our" Ken, a smooth operator with his super-sensitive political antennae. He did not want to invade Iraq, unlike Bungling Boris, who voted for the invasion. Ken was right about the IRA, surfing on the crest of Political Correctness and anti-car Environmentalism as he does. Ken at least knows to suck up to the Chinese and Muslims whose powers are waxing, whether we like it or not, and to abandon Uncle Sam whose powers are waning. The US will no doubt be wanting to have a bit of quiet to deal with the effects of the credit crunch and reap the whirlwind that Greenspan has sown. Ken for Foreign Secretary? We could do worse!)

Or, should Londoners vote for what would upset our ruling classes MOST? (In that case, The Protest Party of Londoners can only be the BNP, to cause maximum alarm to our ruling classes!)

What would YOU want to do, as a Londoner? "Win" a "bet", or upset the ruling classes?

The option of voting for the kind of policies you really want, eg lower taxes, lower crime, controlling immigration etc does NOT exist in our political system, as you must already know. We are now just reduced to choosing someone we think we could like and trust, when they are mostly fools, knaves and no-hopers. Well, maybe we should now start thinking about what we would like to DO, for a change, and the sort of message we want to send our ruling classes.

Now that our democratic “choice” has been reduced to these two stark choices, could it now be time to question the political system under which we are governed?

Vote: Should Londoners vote BNP on 1 May 2008 to upset and alarm our ruling classes?
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=105

Rhetoric in defence of Conservatism

The new spirit of our age, Political Correctness, is but a manifestation of Liberalism in extremis. Its dominance can be attributed to the proletarianisation and vulgarisation of Western culture, female emancipation and indiscriminate universal suffrage, which pander to all that is mawkish, sentimental and irrational in the human breast.

It is not surprising therefore that we are in the mess we are in, when most people are culturally and socially encouraged to glorify emotion and despise prudence and reason.

Notes on a lecture I once attended on the nature and purpose of Rhetoric records that it should, ideally, be (1) corrective (2) suggestive (3) instructive and (4) defensive (as well as being of course persuasive). This is precisely what is required to defend boring old Conservatism against any ideology that promises us Utopia and Heaven on Earth, such as Communism, Socialism, Fascism etc. However, hardly anyone studies the Classics these days and our political classes these days cannot boast of even one Classicist. The last one was Enoch Powell, who was racially discriminated against by the English because he was Welsh.

With its attendant censoriousness and mania to legislate against free speech, it seems we have now entered the New Dark Age of Political Censorship, where nothing can be said without penalty against state-protected groups of people: the lame, the halt, the unproductive, the illegitimate, the coloured and anyone who can successfully claim the now coveted and honoured status of Whingeing Victimhood.

It may be some time before we emerge again ...