— Ted Hughes, from “Crow’s Fall”
The celebration of oxymora is central to the politico-linguistic discipline commonly known as “political correctness”.
To disable rational opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy, the first step is to take control of the language, forbidding certain words, promoting others, and changing the meanings of words within the permissible vocabulary to align with an all-pervading political ideology.
The second step is to erode the logical framework of thought itself, eating away at the deep structure of language until the underlying mental processes are deranged, leaving the mind vulnerable to re-programming.
Under the new PC template, time-hallowed distinctions — between good and evil, moral and immoral, true and false — are discarded. The only remaining distinction allowed is between what is and is not politically acceptable. PC has but a single commandment: “Thou shalt have no other words before mine.”
If all this sounds vaguely Orwellian, it’s because George Orwell’s writings drew on his experience with communism, and modern politically correct orthodoxy derives from Marx, the Frankfurt School, and the ideology of the revolutionary Left.
The preparatory task in the Marxist/Frankfurt schema was to make the “long march through the institutions”, destroying the cultural fabric of Western Civilization, leaving it ready for re-branding with what is now known as political correctness.
Since the PC system sees the whole of reality through the lenses of politics, the only rules are political ones. It considers such notions as objective truth and moral value to be meaningless as well as oppressive, and seeks to replace them with political values. The new rules, of course, since they are subject to the whims of those who wield power, are fungible.
In the comments here a few days ago, Pangloss said this:
PC may not be Satan but it most certainly is a parody of Christianity. Christians have faith that God and Christ exist. Our science sprang from the Christian doctrine that God created the universe with eternal laws that are not subject to change. Discovering and using these laws is akin to worship of the Creator. Thus fact and truth are central to morality within Christianity.
On the other hand, PC has faith that what is politically allowable is good, what is politically disallowable is evil, and that truth and falsehood are irrelevant. It subordinates truth and falsehood to political considerations, and is thus much more fundamentalistic in its mindset than even fundamentalist Christianity, for no sane, fundamentalist Christian will claim that black is white and white black, or that women are every bit as strong as men because to say otherwise is sexist.
When someone asks the inevitable question of “how are these politically allowable and disallowable categories determined?” then obfuscation is the usual answer. The factual answer is that Stalin’s communist party internationale determined what was allowed and what was not. The practical answer is that anything that weakens liberty or strengthens communists and socialists (or feminists, greens, muslims, etc) is allowed and anything that benefits the USA or liberty or weakens communism, socialism, etc is not. Correctly identifying communism, socialism, or other isms as wrong and false religions counts as weakening them.
Since truth and falsehood are not part of the value system it is impossible to disprove PC under the PC system. It’s also impossible to prove it. That’s where the perverted faith of PC comes into play.
For practical purposes, what is true and what is allowable are defined by those who inhabit the existing power structure in the modern bureaucratic State, as well as its affiliated institutions in the media and the academy. The relativity of truth leaves them free to define what is to be affirmed and what is to be persecuted.
By adding massive amounts of bureaucratic regulation to the structure of society, the PC regime effectively ends the rule of law. When laws proliferate as they have in recent decades, virtually everyone is a lawbreaker. Enforcement becomes capricious, allowing the State to exert legal pressure against those elements which are most threatening to its hegemony.
After a while, everyone learns the unwritten and unofficial rules, and tiptoes in fear around the danger zones. Anything that violates the PC code of the moment is pushed underground and becomes samizdat, or disappears altogether.
Britain is an example of the modern PC regime in its full baroque exfoliation, and Lionheart’s case is emblematic of what happens to those unfortunates who transgress the boundaries of PC. The rules against racism and religious incitement are not applied equally to all races or all religions — witness what happened to the complainant against the behavior of Muslims on the London Underground.
Selective enforcement of the rules means that there are no rules.
There are only groups that are in favor and groups that are out of favor with the oligarchs of PC.
George MacDonald Fraser, the creator of the popular “Flashman” novels, weighed in last weekend on British political correctness in an editorial entitled “How Britain has destroyed itself”:
- - - - - - - - -
Political correctness is about denial, usually in the weasel circumlocutory jargon which distorts and evades and seldom stands up to honest analysis.
It comes in many guises, some of them so effective that the PC can be difficult to detect. The silly euphemisms, apparently harmless, but forever dripping to wear away common sense — the naïveté of the phrase “a caring force for the future” on Remembrance poppy trays, which suggests that the army is some kind of peace corps, when in fact its true function is killing.
The continual attempt to soften and sanitise the harsh realities of life in the name of liberalism, in an effort to suppress truths unwelcome to the PC mind; the social engineering which plays down Christianity, demanding equal status for alien religions.
The selective distortions of history, so beloved by New Labour, denigrating Britain’s past with such propaganda as hopelessly unbalanced accounts of the slave trade, laying all the blame on the white races, but carefully censoring the truth that not a slave could have come out of Africa without the active assistance of black slavers, and that the trade was only finally suppressed by the Royal Navy virtually single-handed.
In schools, the waging of war against examinations as “elitist” exercises which will undermine the confidence of those who fail — what an intelligent way to prepare children for real life in which competition and failure are inevitable, since both are what life, if not liberal lunacy, is about.
[…]
That PC should have become acceptable in Britain is a glaring symptom of the country’s decline.
No generation has seen their country so altered, so turned upside down, as children like me born in the 20 years between the two world wars. In our adult lives Britain’s entire national spirit, its philosophy, values and standards, have changed beyond belief.
Probably no country on earth has experienced such a revolution in thought and outlook and behaviour in so short a space.
Other lands have known what seem to be greater upheavals, the result of wars and revolutions, but these do not compare with the experience of a country which passed in less than a lifetime from being the mightiest empire in history, governing a quarter of mankind, to being a feeble little offshore island whose so-called leaders have lost the will and the courage, indeed the ability, to govern at all.
[…]
But much has deteriorated. The United Kingdom has begun to look more like a Third World country, shabby, littered, ugly, run down, without purpose or direction, misruled by a typical Third World government, corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic.
My generation has seen the decay of ordinary morality, standards of decency, sportsmanship, politeness, respect for the law, family values, politics and education and religion, the very character of the British.
Oh how Blimpish this must sound to modern ears, how out of date, how blind to “the need for change and the novelty of a new age”. But don’t worry about me. It’s the present generation with their permissive society, their anything-goes philosophy, and their generally laid-back, inyerface attitude I feel sorry for.
They regard themselves as a completely liberated society when in fact they are less free than any generation since the Middle Ages.
Indeed, there may never have been such an enslaved generation, in thrall to hang-ups, taboos, restrictions and oppressions unknown to their ancestors (to say nothing of being neck-deep in debt, thanks to a moneylender’s economy).
We were freer by far 50 years ago — yes, even with conscription, censorship, direction of labour, rationing, and shortages of everything that nowadays is regarded as essential to enjoyment.
We still had liberty beyond modern understanding because we had other freedoms, the really important ones, that are denied to the youth of today.
We could say what we liked; they can’t. We were not subject to the aggressive pressure of specialinterest minority groups; they are. We had no worries about race or sexual orientation; they have. We could, and did, differ from fashionable opinion with impunity, and would have laughed PC to scorn, had our society been weak and stupid enough to let it exist.
[…]
Short of assassination there is little people can do when their political masters have forgotten the true meaning of the democracy of which they are forever prating, are determined to have their own way at all costs and hold public opinion in contempt.
I feel I speak not just for myself but for the huge majority of my generation who think as I do but whose voices are so often lost in the clamour.
We are yesterday’s people, the over-the-hill gang. (Yes, the old people — not the senior citizens or the time-challenged, but the old people.) Those of ultra-liberal views may take consolation from this — that my kind won’t be around much longer, and then they can get on with wrecking civilisation in peace.
Short of assassination there is little people can do when their political masters have forgotten the true meaning of the democracy of which they are forever prating.
This, as we all know, is “hate speech”. A man of lesser eminence than Mr. Fraser might have encountered the Crown Prosecutor for putting such forbidden thoughts into writing. A year from now, when the Lisbon Treaty goes into full effect, even his celebrity status might not spare the author from official retribution.
The PC project has been notably successful in its long march through our public institutions. Once our culture has been fully eviscerated, with all the vital guts removed, the emptied body politic will be ready to be filled with whatever the revolutionary vanguard deems most appropriate.
For the communists, it would have been the New Soviet Man. For the Greens, it will be Sustainable Development Man. For the forces of political correctness, it will be the Non-Racist Non-Discriminatory Ungendered Person.
And for Islam it will be the Man of Perfect Submission.
The forces of Islam are more vital, more fecund, and more ruthless than any of the children of the Frankfurt School. When the time comes to refill our empty culture, political correctness won’t stand a chance.
Hat tip for the Fraser editorial: Fjordman.
33 comments:
Baron
Up there… Where white is black and black is white, you are a lousy writer.
"modern politically correct orthodoxy derives from Marx, the Frankfurt School, and the ideology of the revolutionary Left."
This could have been written yesterday:
From the Naked Communist (Cleon Skousen)
Noted in U.S. Congressional Record on January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals:
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture."
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
TC --
You have my full ingratitude.
When laws proliferate as they have in recent decades, virtually everyone is a lawbreaker.
This is something that I observed many years ago about the Soviet Union. So much had been outlawed by the communists that an individual's guilt or innocence was no longer even in question. Everybody was guilty of something and it was just a matter of how they had not gotten around to arresting you quite yet.
Regarding this, Solzhenitsyn noted how—when the first KGB teams came in the night to begin arresting political dissenters—if neighbors had only united and strung up these state-hired thugs from the nearest lamp post, perhaps Soviet totalitarianism might never have gained such momentum. Quite clearly the plea of Pastor Martin Niemöller had fallen on deaf Russian ears when he said, "First they came for the Jews ..."
I bring to everyone's attention the case of Lionheart. We are now witnessing the exact same phenomenon and those of us who wish to remain free must raise our voices against this creeping tyranny. Decades of post-World War prosperity have lulled many of us into slumbering complacency. We risk becoming the proverbial frog in that slowly heating pot of water.
Baron, I'm especially pleased to see how you have made particular note of Pangloss's analysis regarding Political Correctness. I found it instructive enough to excerpt and file in my cache of quotations. As Islam continues to encroach upon Western civilization I have gained an increasingly deeper appreciation for the moral structure of Christianity. Being a scientific person, I was taken by Pangloss's connection of how, "science sprang from the Christian doctrine that God created the universe with eternal laws that are not subject to change."
The importance of recognizing that there are immutable laws and facts is made all the more vital when confronted with Political Correctness. Its chameleon definitions and eel-like slipperiness of meaning—once words are submerged in the cesspool of arbitrary application—takes us straight through the looking glass. Alice In Wonderland is filled with so many parallels, as with Humpty Dumpty saying: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less". One can just as easily hear the Red queen exclaiming: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Short of assassination there is little people can do when their political masters have forgotten the true meaning of the democracy of which they are forever prating, are determined to have their own way at all costs and hold public opinion in contempt.
Imagine my own astonishment to not only read these words but see them repeated with emphasis. For reasons that I will not—one more time—go into such lurid detail about, they really are of exceptional pertinence. Not so much that we citizens have arrived anywhere near this tipping point in the West so much as that our own leaders do not seem to comprehend how they—as “little people” in the eyes of less friendly others—remain wholly incapable of reaching a similar conclusion.
Sweet merciful crap, Whiskey_199! Those guidelines read like something out of a fictional polemic by Ayn Rand. Worse yet, they also read like a catalog of recent history. Gah!!!!!
Referring to the post itself, it was correct and the hurt of society shone through.
The problem is that everything's political and opposition to PC is fragmented. For example, as a Christian, I see it as a tool, very much so, for an agenda which is largely protective of the big money.
And the big money is aligned with the Old Money. And the Old Money is financing anything which can destroy the fabric of a Christian based society. It finances all war. Look not at stated aims but at net effect.
Now this is where a Southern Baptist will part ways with me because the moment I say "war", I look like a liberal, which I assure you I'm not. I'm the 37th conservative UK blogger by one list.
But this doesn't alter the PC phenomenon which is serving the ends of enslavement of society and each of the cabals which control world finance are serving the ends of an entity who can be found in Ephesians 6:12.
My blog almost never quotes scripture except for this one. So we're indeed i a new phase of a very old war, of which the 1683 push was just one aspect.
Our most immediate concern is the dumbing down of education producing a generation of hedonistic zombies which makes it so much easier to bring in the draconian legislation, e.g. in the UK.
While all focus is on a bipartisan war - Christianity v Islam, the real tripartite war goes unnoticed. This is Christianity, Islam and the Old Money which is a cover for the real antithesis of Christianity as it ever was.
Sharia is anathema but it is part of the larger issue of state control. And that's going very well just now with the SPPNA, whose first move was to allow Mexican trucks unfettered access to the U.S.
The enemy is not at the gates but inside the citadel, working hard from inside. The enemy is many places and is particular in Washington. Clinton is just one tentecle of the relativist monster.
Your choice, Baron to link to the post on dhimmiwatch by Dominic couldn't have been more tragic or poignant. He was killed last year in a traffic accident, but reading this sad post, seeing him helpless in the face of incompetent law enforcement was doubly painful, and now Paul (Lionheart) is going through this as well. I think a call should be sent out to Britons to post their experiences with the "new paradigm".
Baron this is an excellent piece thanks for posting
Zenster I believe that was Homophobic Horse that posted that, not me.
As for Fraser, I think his posting AND the support he has gotten from ordinary people is revealing.
As people have less and less to lose, the hold over them by PC authorities becomes less and less. And they will turn to alternative power structures. For a man, advanced in age, with much to lose monetarily and otherwise, to write in such strong language (even mentioning political violence) should be an alarm bell for everyone that the situation is quite serious.
Napoleon's great insight was that granting peasants land instantly made them into deeply conservative anti-Revolutionaries who would do ANYTHING to protect their meager gains. That alone destroyed the revolutionary movement (forever) in France and propelled his Army all the way to Moscow. He very nearly won.
Now, you have very many people who own small houses, shops, the like. Who are as noted by Fraser deep in debt. Who have much on the line and have little also. A deeply conservative people may tolerate much but Machiavelli says they will not tolerate being impoverished.
SHOULD welfare-transfer payments that keep the middle-working class afloat ever be in doubt, well that would be as Lenin would say, a "revolutionary situation" not a pre-revolutionary one.
I think it's also highly likely that a political personage could do well on simply an anti-PC platform espousing liberty and freedom; which would also of course mean greater security for small-holders. Perhaps some lean and hungry man studies these words even now.
Just FYI, George MacDonald Fraser died early this month.
Craploa, W_199, please pardon my error. Thank you, HHorse, well posted!
As people have less and less to lose, the hold over them by PC authorities becomes less and less.
To quote Bob Dylan, "When you ain't got nothing, you ain't got nothing to lose."
For a man, advanced in age, with much to lose monetarily and otherwise, to write in such strong language (even mentioning political violence) should be an alarm bell for everyone that the situation is quite serious.
Agreed, in SPADES.
Napoleon's great insight was that granting peasants land instantly made them into deeply conservative anti-Revolutionaries who would do ANYTHING to protect their meager gains.
I do believe that Caesar may have beaten Buonaparte to that particular punch. Julius' recruitment of the Roman headcount and his awarding them of retirement lands made not just the peasantry but his troops incredibly loyal.
a political personage could do well on simply an anti-PC platform espousing liberty and freedom
Gadfrey, I certainly hope you're right, even though current indicators do not support such a notion. Fear not, the emergence of such a military messiah requires but the blink of a nationalistic eye. I'm beginning to think that this might not be such a bad thing.
This book is an excellent companion to your essay, Baron:
Sinisterism: The Secular Religion of the Lie by Bruce Walker
Excellent articles and discussions here. I am in agreement and have written on the subject much on my blog. I think the world is in a revolutionary era once again, and a series of civil wars is about to swept the Globe. At the end of the day "The Man On Horseback" may rule in a score of Western nations, as Nietzsche said, "Out of chaos comes order."
When laws proliferate as they have in recent decades, virtually everyone is a lawbreaker.
That is so true. There are so many laws and regulations that one cannot possibly be aware of them all.
We're being put in the position of being one zealous bureaucrat and a busybody prosecutor away from arrest - and of course it's the 'civil rights' advocates that are paving the way in this increasingly Orwellian world.
Facing future will require courage.
I did a little Wikipedia digging and found some interesting stuff related to what goes on in Kosovo and other places.
Three articles here:
Westphalian sovereignty
Contingent sovereignty
Humanitarian intervention
This is a dangerous development, at least seen from the perspective of the right of people to govern their own countries. The 'moral imperative to intervene' is a violation of the principles of the Peace of Westphalia. This is no secret, it has been discussed quite extensively.
I'll follow a related train of logic:
The basis for these interventions are 'Human rights'. Sounds good, doesn't it? Now, *which* set of 'human rights' are we talking about? One will assume that these would be the Universal Human Rights of the United Nations. That's a problem. For in reality, human rights are violated in every country on Earth. In some, the violations are benign and spurious, in others they are a systematic tool of a brutal regime.
Technically, the logic leads to a conclusion that a 'casus belli' (reason for war) now exists against a lot more countries than before our intervention in Yugoslavia.
But it gets worse. In 1997, the UN adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam as a 'regional' alternative to the Univeral Human Rights. These rights are entirely ruled by Sharia (articles 24 and 25). Now, if these 'rights' (that is, Sharia law) are violated by a country with a Muslim minority, there would, in principle, be a just cause for Islamic countries to intervene to protect the 'Islamic Human Rights' in said country.
The redifinition of NATO from 'defense organisation' to 'international actor' is related to this problem. When it moves from 'defending' to 'acting', accountability evaporates.
The war in Afghanistan is based on the common defense clause in NATO, article 5, which is fine. We attacked Afghanistan because they - Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda - attacked us from Afghanistan. That fits, and the result is real - the original Al-Qaeda has become more of a movie production studio than a terrorist organisation. Nice.
But the war in Iraq? Iraq did not treathen or attack the US, any NATO member or any other ally of us. It was justified by three points:
- Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Support of terrorists
- Human rights violations
(Wikipedia: Rationale for the Iraq war)
Only the third of these points turned out to be verifyably true. Interestingly, it is precisely the point that consists of a 'moral imperative', the human rights clause.
The war is, as we know, not quite functional. Systematic human rights violations may be significantly down, but the living conditions of the Iraqis, as well as the terror from Islamist organisations, show a rather poor 'return on investment' in this intervention. It's a Herculean effort for sure, but not worth out money. So much for the usefulness of intervening in this remote country.
John Stuart Mill has an older take on the right to intervene in other countries. He calls it 'imperialism', not 'humanism', but the underlying principle is similar to that of a 'humanitarian intervention'.
My take: The concept of 'Humanitarian intervention' is inherently dangerous and should be abandoned, so that we are better fit and able to protect our sovereignty. We need 'defense', not 'intervention' - 'moral imperatives' be damned.
Yes but who could reasonably disagree with human rights? The Grauniad readers will lynch you. Liberal fascism indeed.
Baron
Understanding PC and thereby identifying its week points is our biggest chalenge.
Like all hard-to-grasp things it can be imagined as something like a 3 dimentional objekt that can be seen from many different angels or vieuwpoints , each of which will add to the understandin of the thing as a whole.
From a " religious" point of vieuw PC is a PSEUDO RELIGION ,a poorly made substitute religion designed to exploit the guiltfeelings and general lack of moral standards that exists in the secular western democracies.
From a historical angel PC might be seen as a sign of a degenerate week period that western civilisation is going through ,similar to the time when the roman empire colapsed.
From a muslim point of vieuw PC must be a cristall clear sign , that cristianitys days are numbered,that it has in its infidel hart finaly admitted to its DHIMMY status.
And so on, from countless other points of vieuw.
I would urge once again, and Zenster will probably agree, that everyone should read Return Of The Primitive by Ayn Rand, written about 35 years ago. It is a collection of essays about various issues that demonstrate, even then, the pitiful state of the American mind, and the American education system.
HH, agreed. Noone is permitted to disagree with 'Human rights'.
When the IOC Cairo declaration disguised Sharia law as human rights, they created a masterpiece of deception. And are now able to use the UN to extend it to anyone they wish, under that nice HR name.
We can just expose it, for now, and tell the UN that we run our countries, not they.
"Return Of The Primitive by Ayn Rand,"
It's funny you should mention that. Since observing the heralding of Obama as a messiah bringing in a "new" spirit I decided to undertake a study Biblical and Medieval eschatology and demonology - to ascertain the extent depraved and primitive superstition has returned.
ScottSA --
Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.
Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.
--------------------------
ScottSA said...
I highly recommend Roger Scruton's chapter "Extinguishing the Light" to further this thesis...I think it's reprinted here.
Excellent article and comments, Baron. The primary consolation we have is that individual truths became sayable again when blogging began, after having been denied widespread availability during the period of the 1960's - 2000. We can now speak and discuss truth as we know and understand it.
There is a gap of forty years when the children of America have been denied an understanding of America which others of us have. They do not have the same assurance as to the historical basis of our freedoms as we have. Many have accepted the false doctrine of political correctness and those who deny it are treated as lepers by their peers. The Marxists are no longer willing to wait until age replaces the resisters and are in some hurry to solidify their control.
We must find a way to give overwhelming support to the individuals who come into the line of fire of the Marxists. If we do not, then the natural tendancy of everyone will be to withdraw and that will make it easier for them to find other individual victims. We must make it costly enough to the Marxists that they and their Administrators do not repeat the individual persecutions lightly. We will not have long to find ways to do this without going to underground networks.
Their communications link is their strongest point (media), followed by their indoctrination program (education). Their control of enforcement infrastructure through police, military and lower-level administrators may be their weakest link at this point. The individuals who are within those are the ones who are most likely to resist their commands and are closer to the people.
Other than these observations, I have no recommendations at this time. I would be interested to know whether others do. We need to find answers as we support Lion Heart during the time his situation progresses. We should villify anyone who disparages and attempts to label him with relativist politically correct allusions.
Henrik: But it gets worse. In 1997, the UN adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam as a 'regional' alternative to the Univeral Human Rights. These rights are entirely ruled by Sharia (articles 24 and 25). Now, if these 'rights' (that is, Sharia law) are violated by a country with a Muslim minority, there would, in principle, be a just cause for Islamic countries to intervene to protect the 'Islamic Human Rights' in said country.
This is why I continue to advocate banning shari'a law in all non-Muslim countries. Even if the Koran or Islam itself cannot be illegalized, shari'a most definitely can. Ironically, I base this decision upon how shari'a law represents a fundamental violation of human rights.
Intrinsically, there is nothing deeply flawed with the concept of human rights. America's Bill of Rights certainly is a fine and upstanding example of this. The real problem comes from special interest groups—like Muslims or the UN—being allowed to dictate their own definitions into the record. Defining human rights should be the privilege of free nations who have shed real blood to defend such a concept. It is most certainly not a task that should be given over to this planet's biggest gang of despotic thugs, elitist dilettantes and diplomatic parasites. The very notion of "Islamic human rights" is nothing but a first rate oxymoron. I rank it right up their with some of my own contributions, like: "Arab unity" and "Muslim integrity".
Ethelred: I would urge once again, and Zenster will probably agree, that everyone should read Return Of The Primitive by Ayn Rand, written about 35 years ago.
I could probably only agree more if I had actually read the book myself. It is one of the few Rand manuscripts I have yet to peruse. Curiously enough, I have been actively searching for this title during just the last few weeks.
HHorse: It's funny you should mention that. Since observing the heralding of Obama as a messiah bringing in a "new" spirit I decided to undertake a study Biblical and Medieval eschatology and demonology - to ascertain the extent depraved and primitive superstition has returned.
One place to start is by examining how modern society is being taught to accept the primitive as authentic and the novel as innovative. These two basic premises serve as a sort of binary "nerve gas" upon the brain that allows people to embrace meaningless drivel as something of substance. As you yourself noted in your initial comment:
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
Even the most cursory examination of modern music and art reveals a strong trend away from orchestral tradition or allegorical depiction.Both of these methods are important hallmarks of classical composition or artistic expression. How much of a reach is it then from such abject mutilation of these vital arts over to the public being presented with a political candidate like Obama? His utter lack of experience makes him a political primitive, yet this is trumpeted as a sign of authenticity. His—quite possibly intentionally—unarticulated and nebulous agenda of "change" attempts to pass off the novel or untested as innovative. Welcome to the end result of unshackling intellect from reason. Our very worst enemies could wish upon us few greater calamities.
I'll close by quoting from an unnamed contributor at another forum:
"Political Correctness is the unshakable belief that it is somehow possible to pick up a turd by its clean end."
"Some people just don't like change" I once heard a left-bat muse. It's interesting how words such as "diversity" and "change" have been corrupted. It's difficult to oppose them as those words retain in their ontology a little of their original existential meaning. Which means to a little, disorientating extent, to oppose "change" is to oppose reality.. Discrimination means to discern what is good or bad. But it is now not uncommon to the here the MCB denounce factual accounts of honour killings as "Discriminatory".
I think the words may have been conciously redefined, but on a dialectical basis.
My carefully crafted comment just got blown to hell when I previewed it and clicked on my link to make sure it worked right. I was unable to go back to my comment to post it.
Blogger sucks donkey b*lls.
Take two...
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
The great blogger Rachel Lucas just returned from a vacation in Italy. Scroll down and read her description of Michaelangelo's Pieta. She's an atheist, but it certainly made an impression on her.
OK, here's her description:
But nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to Michelangelo’s Pieta. I didn’t take my own photo because I was so enthralled that I forgot I even had a camera...
Juancarlo gathered us in front of the bulletproof glass the Pieta is behind and talked about it for a good 20 minutes. I stared fixedly at it the whole time; I simply couldn’t take my eyes off of it. It is so beautiful. I’d seen pictures of it before and only ever thought, why is Mary so young? Fool! That doesn’t matter. What matters is that this sculpture can make even an atheist choke up with tears. I’m completely serious.
I do not believe Mary had a virgin birth or that Jesus was the son of God or died for our sins. But this representation of that story brought tears to my eyes. I knew for the first time in my entire life why people might have religion and why they hold some things so sacred. Because it was impossible for me, an atheist, to look at this work made by human hands and not truly, deeply feel that there was more to it than that. How could a man have created this thing all by himself? It’s just a simple thing, a shape chiseled out of stone, a little bigger than life size, but it looks alive. I watched it, waiting for Jesus to slide off Mary’s lap. You have to see it in all three dimensions to know what I mean - it looks impossibly dynamic. Does that make sense? It looks like it is actively disobeying the laws of physics.
The guide explained to us that Mary’s hand on Jesus represents her human side, and her uplifted hand represents her divine side. He told us about the nutjob who attacked the sculpture with a hammer in 1972, breaking Mary’s arm clean off and shattering her nose and doing other damage to her face and veil, and how she was rebuilt perfectly because they’d made a cast of it before sending it to America for the World’s Fair in 1964, and how that attack is the reason it’s now behind bulletproof glass. The guide told us how, when he was a boy in the 1950s, his mother would bring him here every year and he would touch Jesus’s knee, and how cold and smooth it was.
Anyway. Don’t know what else to say. Rachl Lukis was moved by religious art! Who would’ve thunk it? It’s not going to “give me religion”, but I tell you that it gives me a whole new respect for religion. Had to go all the way to the Vatican to get that but it is done.
Excellent post, Baron, and good discussion, as well.
I am often surprised by how many bright minds that post here, that are from people that are atheist, or not interested in Christianity, being what is called a 'born again' Christain, after lapsing in my youth, and becoming an agnostic.
I had a personal experience that I won't go into, and I don't proselytize, as I know first hand it is a personal journey. Reading the story of Rachel Lucas, was inspiring, as I think we all have that desire for inspiration and understanding inside us. Perhaps she is still on a journey of her own. Would any believe that the director of the Human Genome Project believes in God? It surprised me when I read an article about his new book, but his explanation made perfect sense...to me.
The Language of God.
Having said that, I was doing some research for a post at my friend's blog, as I was writing a rant piece on why John McCain is still in the running for the GOP nomination, when I found a name that I had forgotten about. A name in the annals of the advance of conservatism in the U.S. that most people don't know. Paul Weyrich is his name, and he was the founder of the Heritage Foundation, considered by many to be the leading conservative think tank in the U.S. He was also the co-founder of the Moral Majority, along with Jerry Falwell, and he was instrumental in creating many councils and organizations that formed the Reagan revolution. A brilliant and tireless man, that has done much to stem the tide of the corrupting influence of PC, liberation theology, and secular humanism. This is his wiki page, and I was drawn by the following letter he wrote to conservatives, and when it was written.
"I believe that we probably have lost the culture war. That doesn't mean the war is not going to continue, and that it isn't going to be fought on other fronts. But in terms of society in general, we have lost. This is why, even when we win in politics, our victories fail to translate into the kind of policies we believe are important. Therefore, what seems to me a legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture. What I mean by separation is, for example, what the homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer educate but instead 'condition' students with the attitudes demanded by Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes. I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing the institutions that are controlled by the enemy. If we expend our energies on fighting on the "turf" they already control, we will probably not accomplish what we hope, and we may spend ourselves to the point of exhaustion." -- Paul Weyrich Letter to Conservatives by Paul M. Weyrich, February 1999.
Considering the many discussions I have seen on how to move forward, this man was well ahead of the game, ten years ago.
When I hear so many discuss the end of Christendom, from allies in the fight against the Global Hirabah, as well as the proponents of it, I often wonder. Is it not only important for Christians to keep the faith, but is it time for those who are not to consider looking into their own faith?
I found this story, which I think is funny and illuminating.
"The story comes from B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), the great Princeton theologian. It concerns a Christian man who traveled West during the days of the pioneers. One day he found himself in the middle of a gunfight in a wild western town. The whole town was in an uproar, but he saw one man who—despite all the commotion—remained calm, cool, and collected. The traveler was so amazed at the man's composure that he said to himself, “Now there is a man who knows his theology.” At this he walked up to him and asked the first question in the Shorter Catechism, “What is the chief end of man?” The man answered correctly, “Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”
I see my faith as being the foundation upon which Islam can never intrude, and will always be the source of my greatest advantage over it. It certainly helped in the past.
From the tiny acorn grows the mighty oak, the largest tree in the forest.
I'm surprised and glad to see what you all have made of my comment. I was in the midst of writing up an extended rumination on the same topic as the comment, and it seemed the appropriate in the thread, so you got a preview. Now with all the commentary I have even more things to add to it. Another article I'd recommend: Fjordman wrote a few years ago an article called Political Correctness--The Revenge of Marxism that informed my own thoughts about PC. Highly recommended.
no2liberals, good mention of Weyrich. He's new to me too. The thought of withdrawing from the enemy ground is intriguing. Homeschooling does it for K-12 school. Blogs replace old media's Stalinist bias. But what can be done for College, which is the belly of the beast? What can be done about Human Resources departments, about the legal profession, the UN, the entire bureaucracy of government? We cannot withdraw from our jobs, the law, our government, and soon if the UN gains tax authority through the Law of the Sea Treaty we won't even be able to avoid it, the new corrupt, international leviathan.
I think we have to oppose and overcome PC no matter how tired it makes us. Though we can homeschool around PC K-12 we cannot avoid it in most other situations. It requires a long march through the institutions to reclaim them for liberty and banish the collectivists.
PC, the ideology of the -68-moles, will fall in exactly the same way as the Iron Curtain fell in -89. A former East German woman once said in an interview: As reality slowly trickled through from the West the Party Propaganda became louder and louder and even more distanced from what could be perceived from those few other sources until everything eventually broke down. We are witnessing just that now. As reality gets more brutal and hardly no one is left untouched by islamic everyday terror, people are slowly snapping out of the trance.
It is important to understand cause and effect. See what Lawrence Auster has to say regarding the Fraser portion of the article here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009677.html
Post a Comment