Political Correctness over Christmas cards on Russia Today
On the 9th December I was telephoned mid-afternoon by someone saying she was ringing from Moscow asking if I was happy to be interviewed by Russia Today that night on questions of political correctness about the way in which Councils are treating Christmas.
Naturally I said I was happy to do so. Initially I was told that I would have to go up to London to be interviewed at Russia Today’s studio at Millbank Towers. They then said that they would pay for the taxi, but not long afterwards she rang back to say it was going to be too expensive, as that day there had been a major crash on the M25 which had blocked roads in all directions for most of the day. I was therefore asked if I could deal with the interview on Skype. I said I was happy to give it a try and the results of the interview you can watch on the link below.
One comment I have already had is my office is obviously rather messy! However some people think I at least got over a good point about the importance of tackling political correctness head on.
What do you think?
Here is the link >>> http://youtu.be/L89xfCGQoXw
Robin. I assume that this will be on RT UK this evening. Russia Today carried an item last night about the BNP's Christmas Card which apparently wishes everybody a White Christmas and then continues about the removal of Christ and the nativity from Christmas to appease Muslims ( and presumably others, Marxists, Sikhs, Hindus etc. ) . This further fuelled my suspicions that the BNP has been infiltrated as such a greeting is very insensitive and over the top and designed to provide the people behind the Marxist multicultural revolution with the ammunition against the native English that they are more than happy to seize on. I smelled a rat and have always wondered about the Cambridge graduate Nick Griffin as to whether he is an MI6 plant. Perhaps I am not alone in my suspicions, indeed there are those that suspect that Nick Farage, as a scion of the City of London, might be there to ultimately discredit the English and do the bidding of the Crown Corporation.
ReplyDeleteI am constantly warned by a friend against possible "false flag" operations. Perhaps we have seen the latest in Australia where the Islamic terrorist who was shot dead by the police had been allowed to get up to all sorts of mischief unscathed until he was guided into performing an act of terror. The same question mark is over events in Boston, USA and in Canada recently. And of course over the killer of Lee Rigby who was followed for months by our security forces and was still able to butcher one of our soldiers. Why should they do this? Probably because support for the oil and Zionist wars in muslim countries in the Five Eye countries of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is waning so fear of terrorism must be stoked up in order to ensure continued support. Now we hear our soldiers are to be sent back to Iraq to fight the Islamic State that they have created, In fact I mused that the Five Eyes, who have the western world under total surveillance, including much to their chagrin recently Belgium, in conjunction no doubt with Mossad, are like the five points of the satanic pentogram with its heart either in the City or the Middle East. Further evidence of the Zionist angle came out yesterday when we learnt that Israel is the major producer of the drones that are being used by the Five Eyes to kill Muslims. These are drones that have been tried and tested in the killing of women and children in Gaza.
The "Politically Correct" hide behind a smokescreen of not "offending" people. I maintain that offence is not given, but taken.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate, I'm from Liverpool; yes, I'm a Scouser. I may encounter someone who takes a dislike to me and proceeds to harangue me with a tirade of abuse that includes questioning my parentage and blaming it on my having been born in Liverpool. (i.e. he calls me a Scouse B****rd.)
That would be offensive. However, I now have a choice. Do I take offence, or do I simply say, "Thank you! and good luck to you, too!" My choice would be the latter. As a result, he loses.
In the "Politically Correct" world, people are obliged to be offended (i.e. take offence,) at certain words or turns of phrase.
The end result is that the "Politically Correct" can silence anyone with whom they disagree by leveling insulting words such as "Racist", "Xenophobe", "Fascist", "Nazi", or, the umbrella word when the others don't quite apply, "Extremist", at them. (The "Politically Correct" can be as offensive as they please toward anyone with whom they disagree.)
It works like this. Someone tries to highlight the problem of uncontrolled mass immigration. The ears of the "Politically Correct" prick up and they label that person a "Racist". They bank on the general public to presume that "there's no smoke without fire", so they needn't listen anything else that he has to say.
"Political Correctness" is a weapon for the silencing of opinion - the stifling of debate.
The Clue is in the name. If you are not "Politically Correct", you are not just "wrong", you are Bad.
So yes, Robin, Opposition to the notion of "Politically Correct" needs to rise to the top of the English Democrats' agenda. It would have the added benefit of making us more distinctive from the likes of UKIP.
Clive,
Weston-super-Mare.
Good comments. I agree with everything you are saying here.
DeleteRobin. They did not seem to have time for you last night so better luck this evening. However, there was an item about a Roman Catholic School in Sussex that had been marked down by Ofsted for failing to espouse "British values". The lady who was interviewed was at a loss to see where they had gone wrong but assumed that it was because the school did not actively push a pro-homosexual agenda and support for gay marriage. Presumably they taught that the best environment for a child was in a stable Christian marriage of man and wife. I think that many people are beginning to realise that "British values" equates with Marxist values and nobody is able to question the Marxist one world agenda which follows from the Frankfurt School in the destruction of national European identity through mass immigration, the promotion of alternative sexuality and its teaching to children and the emptying of the churches. I am reading a book by Alan Skedelsky on how much wealth you need to be happy. One statistic he quotes is that in this country, even though per capita gdp since 1974 has increased dramatically - whilst the wealth of the top 5% is over 50% now and that of the bottom 50% a mere fraction of the total - overall happiness, according to surveys, has continued constant. Nowhere does he point out that during that period communities have been destroyed, especially that tribe writ large the homogeneous European nation state and people reduced to rootless multicultural all consuming individuals. This is in line with and the work of both globalising capitalism and Marxism and people are generally getting more and more unhappy as a consequence. One thing he did say is that religious minorities are often happier under the shadow of another large religious community than under "despotic secularism" which is an apt description of the Marxist horror.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, we learn that posters have appeared in London decrying the institutional racism of the Metropolitan Police and nobody knows who has put them up. My guess is the Marxist government. I would like anybody to prove that a pluralist society is a happier, more stable and cohesive unit than the homogeneous tribal states of the past.
Well said.
DeleteIt is difficult to sum up the evil that is "Politically Correct". A reasonable person can see that Freedom of Conscience/Freedom of Speech and "Politically Correct" are mutually exclusive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, such is the insidiousness of "Political Correctness" that it has, over a good half-century, infected us all.
Somewhere there are "Politically Correct" gurus who tell us all what we may and may not say and what we may and may not THINK!
No-one knows who these people are; they do do not seek re-election because no-one elected them. But, from behind their smokescreen of "We mustn't 'offend' anyone" they dictate what may and may not be debated.
"Politically Correct" recognises no shades of grey. You're either "politically correct" or you're wrong.
So, if someone expresses a point of view in favour of marriage, the "Politically Correct" will condemn them as being "anti-cohabitation"; it is presumed that they think ill of people who live together, unmarried. They cannot (or, more likely, choose not to) understand that it is possible to take a stance on human behaviour without thinking ill of people who take a different stance.
I am pro-marriage. I do not think ill of anybody who chooses to live with an unmarried partner.
So again I say, "Put opposition to 'Politically Correct' to the top of our election agenda." Explain the evils caefully and understandably and we can win the argument.
That you oppose something does NOT mean you think ill of people who do not.
Clive,
Weston-super-Mare.
There's a newish industry about called 'Minority Interests' and it makes the majority feel awkward,guilty or just plain confused about all manner of issues. PC is the route taken from cradle to grave, very much like Mao's Long March - only they are clever enough never to announce their plans or agenda. Who are 'THEY'? - who the hell knows...
ReplyDelete