Tag Archive: Political correctness


When I attended school, in the days when classical works were still considered to be a vital part of good education, Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” was required reading, as was Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty Four“. Looking back, I’m not so sure now that the intention of everyone involved in writing the school syllabi was to warn us of the evils of totalitarianism, as we thought at the time…

Written in 1931, Brave New World is still remarkably relevant today, though not often read. It imagines a future in which a world state governs all the affairs of humanity, to the extent that it produces humans without any need for a womb or a family. From “conception” the state places people within prescribed and fixed classes, rather like castes, each with its own level of intelligence and ability. The state then conditions the minds of its offspring to accept their positions in life happily, and to conform without complaint to everything the world state has instituted.

The reason the book is still relevant in many ways is that it expresses some of the goals and dreams of many socialist-minded people over the last couple of centuries, up to the present time. In fact, you could probably find most of its suggestions within Marx’s “Manifesto”. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that all socialists want everyone to be equal and on the same level: those in the forefront of the movement want to be more equal than the rest of us.

Huxley, the brother of a famous evolutionist, was opposed to religion and the nuclear family (Marx’s Christian “bourgeoisie family”) and rather partial to the concept of eugenics. In Brave New World he was not warning us all of future evils, as most people, including myself, were led to believe. His imagined society was not intended to be dystopian: he was surreptitiously encouraging our consideration of its benefits. He was pushing it into our faces, much as Hollywood does today.

Growing numbers of people today, particularly in the feminist movement and among extremist liberals, have similar dreams and desires for the transformation of our world. Those desires include eugenics; total government power over a compliant and suitably re-educated populace; amorality; the end of the traditional family; the complete preoccupation with entertainment; a news media entirely in the pocket of the politically-correct establishment; totally revised or forgotten history; the end of the Church; radically controlled reproduction; the despising and vilification of anyone who does not comply; the homogenization and simplification of thought; the use of euphemisms and ambiguity for all institutions and agencies (like the current DOJ); total control over all education from birth; the moral corruption of children; a world government, and the loss of all national identity and culture.

Perhaps the only big difference between Huxley’s future utopian society and the real movement towards such a world today is that Huxley’s society worked.

Advertisements

I scanned the weather forecasts a couple of weekends ago in desperation, praying that the below-freezing winds passing straight through my body as I worked outside would soon abate…

Sure enough, temperatures, said the official forecasts, were going to rise daily over the next week until pleasantly mild. However, the cold remained locked in throughout the week. The forecast was wrong. I know I’m not the only one to ask this, but how can “experts” predict what our climate will like be in thirty years, if they can’t always predict the weather correctly for the next few days?

img_0750

Climate change? Hasn’t the climate always “changed”? Isn’t that the history of earth? Why do I read about ice ages? Why do I read about fossilized palm leaves and camel and rhino remains in northern latitudes, where there is now permafrost and polar bears? Why were there farms in Greenland a thousand years ago where there is now ice, if climate change and global warming are brought on by human industry? And why have the dire predictions of our time made a couple of decades ago come to nothing? Why did warnings of “global warming” morph into “climate change”?

More to the point, why did the previous US administration want to cede large amounts of money and sovereignty to international organizations: to “global governance”?

I’ve recently observed several more challenges to the hysteria still being encouraged in many circles. In the first of three examples, 49 former NASA scientists dispute man-made climate change. Follow this link to the details:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Secondly, I read Roy Spencer’s recent book* in which he reviews Al Gore’s sequel movie “Truth to Power”. Among Spencer’s accomplishments is his work as a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA. He was principal observer on missions to observe the Earth from the Space-Shuttle. Spencer, in his conclusions, writes:

Most if not all of the weather events Al Gore presents…occur naturally anyway, and we have good evidence that they have happened in the past…

…none of it has evidence that humans are making it worse…

In some cases, Gore’s claims…can be shown to be outright false.

Finally, a physics professor who taught at Columbia and Princeton expresses in this video his understanding that it’s impossible to predict the climate years in advance:

* An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy

GREETING FREEDOM

In the course of my work I’ve been wished a “merry Christmas” many more times this season than in the last several years. I’ve also heard “happy holidays” of course, but the increase in the “C” word is marked and clear. I’m happy to hear either: I’m not offended…

Snowflake_DetailWhichever greeting suits you is fine with me, so long as whichever greeting suits me is fine with you. And therein is my point. In a truly free and diverse country we should all be able to be what we are, and we should all have the opportunity to offer our views. Once someone claims “offense” at someone else’s thoughts and beliefs we’re losing freedom and heading towards tyranny.

When Mr Trump was running for election he said “We’re going to say ‘Merry Christmas’ again!” Thank you, Mr President, for defying the liars, those who hate the faith of our fathers, and those who wish tyranny upon us.

TWO COUNTRIES, ONE WORLD

Today I had a total of one visitor to my blog from two different countries…work that one out if you can. Perhaps he/she/it flew the twelve thousand miles in one day and took a look at my blog at each end of his/her/its journey, or perhaps he/she/it had some exotic form of schizophrenia. I’ve never suffered from schizophrenia-(oh yes you have, and it may well show in the following rant!)

125357664.exQUyuV0

If you started a new blog by writing about, say, Barack Hussein Obama’s “success” as a president you would probably get a large view count and some appreciative comments. If you diversified your content in succeeding posts, and strayed from the mainstream of politically acceptable thought, your response would increasingly be somewhat diminished.

If you then began to go out on a limb and expose some rather unconventional attitudes, you would be counting your viewers on two hands, or one. If you got rather deep and philosophical, and wrote at length about some meaty issues, more followers would fall by the way-side, and then if you described yourself as a Christian, and openly expressed beliefs which didn’t fit any sizable theological niche, but rather analyzed them critically, you would end up with a maximum grand total of two views a day.

I always did see much of life differently to the majority of people. And I don’t mean to say that in an intentionally rebellious or prideful way, like some who choose the antagonist as their hero, or those who listen to the most crass metal band or rap artist at wall-rattling volume simply because it successfully annoys the neighbors.

th

Christian faith-the fundamental variety-is growing ever-less acceptable in the West, and to make matters worse, within the Christian world there are innumerable divisions of interpretation. The longer I’ve been a Christian the more distant I’ve felt from my brothers and sisters, because I don’t fully endorse any one stream of acceptable thought. As one little example, to some I’m a second-class Christian and necessarily ineffective for God because I don’t speak in tongues.

The problem with having truly independent thought is that nobody else is interested in what you have to say. Oh they want to think of themselves as being independent, and being as loving as those who are independent, but they do it in a dependent sort of way. In this post-modern world people cook up weirdness for themselves just to show people how weird they are, but their weirdness is designed to impress people and so to make themselves acceptable to someone. The herd mentality is strong in human nature, and the cool dudes among humans know that they have to be cool in an acceptable way. Is following the herd a God-given trait? I don’ t think so.

Numerous aspects of my character and views and beliefs conspire to separate me from my fellow humans. It’s not as though I desire to be alone, but I find myself there anyway because no-one else sees things the way I do. Even if they agree with something I have to say, they’ll disagree vehemently with a lot of other things I think or like, or they’ll simply dislike me and stand well back. This is one of the symptoms of twenty-first century life: if you don’t fit any mold, you’re going to end up talking to yourself for company.

477px-Frankenstein's_monster_(Boris_Karloff)

I’ve always resisted the urge to follow everyone else just for the sake of having company. When they wanted to boogie-on down to the latest Bee-Gees song I couldn’t force myself to if I were paid to, because I didn’t like the Bee Gees. When they wanted to vote for Mrs. So-and-So I didn’t, because I didn’t agree with Mrs. So-and-So (is it illegal to use the title “Mrs” yet? If not, it soon will be).

I think that when I realized how hard it was to impress others (nigh-on impossible) at the age of about thirteen, I began to accept that I may as well just be me anyway and enjoy it. And how can you be true to others if you aren’t true to yourself? As someone on the radio today said, if saying the correct and needful thing to your kids for their good makes them hate you, then so be it.

The alternative to truly independent thought is to be captured to every fashion, whim, pressure, wind of thought, lie and just plain obnoxious idea or action being peddled by the popular, so that you either grow to actually agree with them, or spend a lifetime cringing and screaming inside.

mad

When it comes to tastes and preferences, I have to concur with the late Vivian Stanshall, who wrote, “Don’t think that I will smile at it, I’m not a weak-willed hypocrite”. Now, I’m not talking about rudeness. I’m talking about politely declining the experience of listening to John Doe’s latest album if I don’t like it; not blindly accepting Pastor X’s insightful pronouncements on salvation theology if I know them to be invalid, and not going along with the most current politically-correct view of gender if it’s blatantly false and ridiculous. I refuse to like something….if I don’t like it, and I refuse to agree with something…if I don’t agree with it. I can’t see the problem with that.

You see, contrary to some in the Christian world I don’t agree that God has not given us free will: I’m convinced that he has. I’m also convinced he’s given us all the potential to think our own thoughts and make up our own minds and to reason things out for ourselves. He’s made our characters as varied as all those millions of pieces of DNA in each cell, with their countless possible combinations-if we would only be true to our creation. His desire is for us to submit our will to his-without losing our individuality.

Of course, humans have always put each-other under pressure to conform. But the ultimate movement of conformity is under way in our time. World citizenry must begin with herding. Herding must be seemingly pleasant and helpful at first. The goal is unity: unity around the goals and plans devised and concocted by the herders. Herding must be controlled and directed by those who have the correct end-game in mind. Centralization and homogenization of all things, especially government, must include shared ideology, philosophy, tastes, and views. Hey look down the road…someone’s building a huge tower!

 

 

Good news, dear people! Now that we’ve finally rid our world of those awful and arbitrary gender designations (see note 1 below) we will be moving ahead with further ground-breaking changes…

11026517-spaghetti-pasta

Dear citizens, Our Wonderful Person has announced a new alteration to our language, formerly known in Dark Days, days of colonialism, bigotry and Trumpism, as “English”.

Our Wonderful Person wants us to remove a certain rancorous and disgusting three-letter word from permitted vocabulary due to highly offensive specificity and exclusivity. An ugly, sadistic sequence of letters, an offense around us, begins with a “t”, quickly progresses without shame to an “h”, and then abruptly ends itself with an “e”, offering no apology whatsoever. Oh, expression is almost TOO HORRIBLE TO CONTEMPLATE! Expression makes OUR WONDERFUL PERSON FEEL SICK! Expression makes me WANT TO DIE! AAAAAGH! OH NO…! I CAN’T STAND IT ANYMORE!! GET RID OF EXPRESSION…NOW!!!!!!

I apologize for emotion, dear people. I will duly punish myself.

Our Wonderful Person also wishes me to announce further forthcoming revisions for which we must all prepare or face consequences. Since a certain expression discussed above transgresses our new and glorious Book of Permitted Vocabulary, so others with similarity will soon be extricated from daily use. Here they are, though I am SICK AND DISGUSTED TO USE THEM OR EVEN MENTION THEM…

“It”…”in”…”on”…”under”…”at”.

UGH! OH NO!! THEY ARE JUST TOO HATEFUL AND DISGUSTING!! GET RID OF THEM!!! NOW!!!!

Ahem…

There is one more expression, or perhaps more…or less (depending how many you believe there are) to be dealt with around a very near future, according to Our Wonderful Person. An expression known as (gulp) “word”. Yes, good people, I’ve used a expression twice-give or take a few times-through my report, and for them I sincerely apologize. BUT BELIEVE ME: A PROFOUND NECESSITY OVERTOOK ME!

An above “w” expression (you know, “w…o…r…d”) must soon be removed from our books (and even our lips and our minds, dear people) since such an expression discriminates greatly against non-w…o…r…d expressions.

Around a place we will use far more inclusive and less stereotypical expressions, such as “ugh”; “hmm”, or “grr”. Our Glorious Book of Permitted Vocabulary will now be filled with happy, positive, loving and inclusive “ughs”: a far more earth-friendly, citizen-friendly prospect.

NOTE 1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4043394/First-ze-Mr-Mrs-BANNED-Oxford-University-tells-colleges-remove-gender-specific-titles.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/05/colleges-trend-toward-gender-neutral-pronouns/71780214/

 

 

%d bloggers like this: