Between The Lines: How to Battle Political Correctness

[Original here.]

[As always, my comments in blue. Alex Linder, 11-20-14]

How to Battle Political Correctness

by Philip Schuyler [never heard of, on my twitter, some kind libertarian I think]

Posted on October 14, 2014

When selling your home, be careful how you word the listing. Federal judges have ruled that the phrase "ocean view" discriminates against the blind; "family room" discriminates against singles; and "walk-in closet" discriminates against wheelchair-bound persons. The biggest, nicest bedroom is now the "owner's suite" or "bedroom one," but not the "master bedroom" because that phrase, it has been decided, is racist (recalls slavery).

Federal judges have held that gender-related terms like "foreman" and "draftsman" are discriminatory. Nursery schools have stopped singing "Baa Baa Black Sheep," replacing it with "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep." The term "brainstorming" is considered offensive to epileptics. (Now "thought showers.") "Easter eggs" are now "spring spheres." It's not just words but symbols too. In California, five students were sent home from school on Cinco de Mayo, Mexican Independence Day, for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag because it was "insensitive to Mexicans."

Insensitivity only works one way. It's always the hated group being insensitive to the protected class. Never is the minority/jew/sex-deviant being insensitive to the white/male/christian.

Fear of being labelled a racist gives the rules of political correctness clout. Anyone so labelled is shut off from television and major websites. If a message is not crafted to fit the rules of political correctness, it will get no airing other than social media, and there too, discourse is limited. For a severe violation of PCness, a person can lose his livelihood, his friends, and be sued.

Who is responsible for this? If we have a free press, how come it all agrees on the same taboos? How can it operate in lockstep if it's free? The libertarian refuses to name the jew behind PC. For, as Sobran said, Political Correctness is actually Semitical Correctness. Jews decide what's ok for Aryans to believe or say. Within their verbal slave's quarters, whites are free to operate. Outside them, whites will be whipped by the jewish overseer. Fired, shamed, ostracized - destroyed. What's the point in writing about PC without noticing or caring or mentioning who's actually behind it and what their actual agenda is? You can't defeat ether or fog. Just wait for it to dissipate. Is PC really like that? Or does it come from humanoid carriers, directed by identifiable minds? Explanations with the why left out are all the tamed right has to offer, and that includes all conservatives and libertarians.

The rules of political correctness are not based on equality or intent but on the reaction that "wrong" language is likely to trigger. A new rule sprouts when people who identify with some group notice that the group is being referenced in a callous or misleading way. They petition publishers and media outlets to use more sensitive wording. Television then promotes the change until it becomes the standard and the formerly-unnoticed language is rendered lame.

It's much deeper than that. Rather, the jews running things set out to demonize white men and to elevate all other classes - including white women, whom they deliberately verbally and legally separate from their natural mates and protectors. Similar or parallel to the way they denature the concept of free speech. They salami chop it over time (Oh, it doesn't include 'commercial speech'; oh, it doesn't encompass 'hate speech'). They shift its meaning from criticism of the powers that be to...pornography. They portray sexualized thought patterns as edgy free speech, put this absurd Sheeny puerility in the mouths of their popular characters and hosts. Society is mostly made of malleable, suggestible, not to say weak-minded individuals. Over time this mass-media-concentrated and disseminated puerility has its effect. People give in to it because they are weak, without imagination, and, after a time, haven't experienced anything else. Jew-puerility and sex-appetite-slavery for goyim is their entire world, and they forget, or never knew, it was or could be otherwise. This is where we are today. The libertarian Schuyler has it as though this PC stuff is driven by separate groups. Like there's no organizing mind behind it. Groups somehow notice things and get offended, and this somehow is taken up by tv and turned into taboos. But that's not how it's done. It's done Systematically. Only the people controlling the institutions, the politicians and the mass media have the power to implement it on the scale required to effect mass taboos. Which are then backed by legal power, through court decisions. We've now undergone decades of courts simply ignoring mass will (democracy) and dictating new interpretations of settled law per the leftist agenda. The success of PC is hardly grassroots from 'minority' groups, as Schuyler says, it is driven top down. The ruling elite set the taboos, promote the needed change through the various authorities. Anyone deviating from the party line gets crushed. That's straight from Lenin. Once the party line was set, no deviation allowed. That mindset informs Semitical Correctness. It is not a popular movement, it comes from the elite, from the jews and more generally from the leftists, and it is forced on the normal white majority. Which has no representation and whose attempts to organize are nipped in the bud. As they must be. It's the only way leftist minorities can rule. The attempt to enforce taboos is part of an attempt to create a new and better world through language. It can't win, but it can create a lot of misery in losing. It's already been in power for decades in America, and you can see how much better things have gotten. The shadow over the USA grows larger as the power of the No Second Opinion forces grows...

But television goes further, taking on each "injustice" as a cause of its own, which over time provokes changes in attitudes that are not always for the better. For example, TV teaches us that racism, and not innocence, is to be presumed. It teaches us that even being aware of a racial stereotype is wrong. And it treats all violations of PCness as equally odious. Appalled TV pundits don't distinguish between a tossed-off remark to a friend, a verbal shot in a moment of anger, and real racism ("We don't want them around here.") Television promotes intolerance of all non-prescribed views by labeling them racist, sexist, homophobic, or fanatical and it uses the accusation as a club, periodically beating someone to set an example, enabling television to restrict speech and opinions.

Who controls tv? Jews. Why won't this libertarian tell you that? The irony deepens. An article about a phenomenon in fact exhibits that phenomenon. Is the libertarian aware that he needs to go deeper? Is he aware that he's obeying the strongest taboo of all - the one against naming the jewish taproot of the PC problem? Who knows? It doesn't overly matter because in any case libertarians are dedicated to dogmatic individualism, in a way reminiscent of the Catholics. They win converts one soul at a time. They are dogmatically bound against noticing that certain souls combine into hostile groups, and that these groups can't be defeated by a bunch of individuals.

So people measure their words, fully aware that for practical purposes the First Amendment now only covers "appropriate" speech. (e.g. "My, the emperor's new clothes are gorgeous." "Isn't every religion just as wonderful as every other?") Authorities enforce the rules via college speech codes and laws pertaining to discrimination, "hate speech," and "creating a hostile environment." Said Jefferson: "I feel the blessing of being free to say & do as I please without being responsible to any mortal." Today, friends must whisper to one another to determine what it's okay to say out loud.

Who created and promulgated the bogus concept of 'hate' speech? Jews did. The ADL. Why doesn't this individualist libertarian notice or mention that? Who created this environment? Jews did. Once you bring that into the picture, then 'PC' becomes a much more serious, interesting and deeper question. In fact, it becomes a vital question - a matter of life or death for the people targeted for genocide - verbal, legal and racial. Safer to blind oneself to this frightening reality and pretend PC is a superficial verbal phenomenon, like word-eczema.

Political correctness began as suggestions for better manners - words and phrases to be altered or discontinued because some found them offensive. And it worked. PCness got rid of racial epithets and crudely racist or sexist jokes. Then it eradicated more subtle insults and it forced people to examine their language for inadvertent affronts. Next unfashionable observations came under fire. Then, unfashionable facts. Now, any reference to race or gender, even a relevant fact, raises eyebrows.

Not deep enough. PC is basically the verbal front in the #waronwhites. There is a war on the white race. It is carried on by jews, the people of the lie, the people who own the mass media, the people who celebrate holidays based on their destruction of entire races. PC is intended to make double-clutch instinctive in whites. To instill fear, uncertainty and doubt. To make them question everything they say, think, and do. To wonder if they are offending anyone. To fear their very thoughts. It makes whites prisoners not only in their own society, but in their own heads. It has absolutely nothing to do with manners, as the libertarian would see if he lifted his head. For while PC demands niggers be treated with consummate respect, no matter how niggery their behavior, it allows, nay, encourages, the verbal slighting of whites. White men in particular, but the white race in general. There is no epithet for whites that is not found daily in the PC press. There is no abusive, slighting term for whites that is not common currency on tv. Just turn it on or open it up and hear/read: white trash, crackers, crackas, rednecks, Eurotrash, shiksas, and on and on. So Schuyler is dead wrong here. If he's a jew, he's being deliberately deceptive in pretending PC is a matter of manners. If not, he's simply confused. Either way, he's overtly and objectively wrong. PC has nothing to do with manners, and never had. PC is attempted totalitarian mind and speech control. It is aimed at whites. To make it impossible for them to defend themselves as they and their society are opened up to jew-minority predation.

The trouble is that free expression and never giving offense are incompatible, especially since a person can take offense arbitrarily. (In a physical assault, the victim cannot simply "decide" that he has been attacked.) The option to take offense is the option to censor, and as that censorship grows, it forces people to replace their outward opinions with the recommended ones, creating a gap between what they think and what they can say, feeding their ire. When people can talk openly, they can attempt to resolve problems that currently can't be discussed or even mentioned.

All true. But the important thing is to locate where/whom this all is coming from. And whom it targets. Blacks aren't forced to comply with PC taboos. Unless they offend a group higher up the power chain. Namely, jews. Sometimes queers. Blacks and queers are on roughly the same level, but both are below jews. You can insult those below you on the chain, but never those above you.

PCness has already caused physical harm in at least one case. In November 2009 at the US Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, 13 people were shot and killed and 32 were wounded when Nidal Hasan opened fire, screaming "God is Great" in Arabic. Everyone who knew Hasan at the base knew of his anti-American views and thought he was a "ticking time bomb," but no one reported him for fear of being accused of the very un-PC act of profiling - understandably since the accusation is automatic.

This example itself is PC in that it ignores the fact that the people denying the Islamic motivation behind this crime are the same ones (jews) who let these bloodthirsty muslims into White America and white Europe in the first place. Decontexted examples like this actually serve the jews behind PC because they make it look like their enemies are the bad guys rather than they themselves. Schuyler follows the gelded-conservative and gelded-libertarian model: blame muslims for what jews do. Where free speech is under assault, as in Canada, you'll see the Schuylers point to some jew as the victim of speech tyranny when in every other example it is the jew promoting the censorship. Thus is reality veiled on the right. It's a limited hang out, as the CIA calls it. You're allowed to acknowledge that a phenomenon (like PC) exists, but not to fully describe and explain it. Half- or pseudo-explanations are part of the PC complex, in that they make it seem like you can get all the answers you need from one of the respectable parties within the system. But you can't. Take what Schuyler says above re being shut out of the mainstream media - that applies to his words to. He won't/can't mention what I am, that jews are behind PC, or he will get shut out of the mainstream alt-media. Drudge, for example. for another. It really is a funhouse. Before you try to understand things, you need to make a moral or intellectual commitment, if you want to be serious. You have to get to the actual bottom of things, not the false floor. Otherwise you're simply a clown or a stooge masquerading as an adult. Try this William Lind article on the origins of Political Correctness. It is not 100% correct, but it goes much farther and deeper than Schuyler does. It at least points to the jews as the source.

Political correctness inhibits free speech, but opposing it on that basis in personal situations doesn't work well. When someone accuses you of an impropriety and you respond with a free-speech argument, you're effectively saying, "I'm allowed to be a boor," which is true, but it's an unappealing position. To your accuser, you seem to want free speech specifically so that you can insult people.

First, take a moment to consider the accusation. It may be valid. You may have said something unacceptable without realizing it. But if the accusation is picayune, do not apologize. Political correctness thrives on acquiescence. Take umbrage and respond in kind to your accuser. Accuse him of speaking wrongly. Point out that he is offending you by presuming malice when there was none. Explain that although you know he has been taught to respond as he did, it was unkind. No one has to take offense. People choose to take offense. And they can choose not to take offense, as he could have.

In more severe cases, when it's clear that selfishness is masquerading as victimhood, you might suggest to the plaintiff that that he get off his high horse. Suggest that instead of trying to control what others say, he try controlling his reaction to it. Tell him you think he's collecting wounds, playing the martyr. To focus on something a person has said in order to deter him from saying it again may not sit right with you, but that's how the purveyors of PCness have spread it and it's the best way to contain it.

This is bringing a penknife to a gunfight. Does Schuyler not grasp that this stuff isn't just manners, it's legal? You're 'creating a hostile environment' in corporate world. If you're on the street, the nigger can say what it wants, but if you call it a nigger, a court may well back it if if murders you.

Regarding media PCness, challenge editors, producers, and journalists who go too far. Invert situations. Use analogies. Substitute races or genders to demonstrate inequities. React to each instance of television's double standards with the same outrage television tries to elicit from each race-related incident. The goal is to make it politically incorrect to penalize people for political incorrectness. (An opportunity to react to excessive PCness came in April 2014 when Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was forced to retire after it came out that he had donated to an organization that opposed gay marriage. His firing caused some commotion, but advocates of freedom of personal expression should have roared.)

So the enemy doesn't realize he's promoting a double standard? He doesn't realize he's being unfair? Of course he does. But this is the standard gelded-right assumption: bring evidence of unfairness and double-standards to the enemy's attention, and like a proper gentleman, he will rectify the situation immediately. He just never does. Because he's not a gentleman, he's a jew. He doesn't care about unfairness, he cares about what works. Refusing to call him by his real name and oppose him in his real game will lead only where it has: to his ISIS-like verbal domination of white society.

If you're a member of a minority and you dislike PCness, one way to contribute is to avoid taking offense. For example, if you're an American of Asian ethnicity and someone asks you where you're from, don't take it as an insult. Even if he's assuming you're from Asia, he's probably asking because when someone doesn't seem local he seems more interesting. It's like noticing a person's accent and asking where he's from.

The minority of minorities who want to fit into whiteworld can figure this out; the majority have no interest in acting civilized. If they could, they'd be civilized in their homelands. They instead came to America for her benefits, and Correctly intimidated white men have many to yield. Asking them to reason their way into backing off won't work.

No matter what your race, don't cry wolf unless there really is a wolf. There's plenty of real racism in the world; no need to manufacture it out of flawed manners or imperfect wording. It's America. Let people talk.

The term racism itself is the most successful fruit of PC: the concept that races exist, and that the white race is different and uniquely valuable has somehow become the worst thing in the world. But even this guy who affects to be against PC in fact promotes it: there is "real" racism out there, and it is a terrible thing.

For more on political correctness, see The Five Rights of the Individual.

[Back to home]