Master List of Politically Correct Terms

[Alex Linder]

Here's one I came across in book about Shockley, something I had never thought about before - the use of the term sperm bank as opposed to gene bank. It's an attempt to make goofy and vaguely dirty what isn't.

[p. 42, "Shockley on Eugenics and Race"]

His antagonists in particular delighted to attack Shockley on his advocacy of quality gene banks as a counter-dysgenic measure. These they liked to describe, not inaccurately, as "sperm banks" since this sounded more "kinky" and morally questionable.

As a side note, students of PC will observe that altho leftists always disdain traditional morality, and work politically to outlaw it, they are, by the same token, always willing to use traditional morality if by doing so they can destroy a man or an argument opposed to their insanity.

[Kievsky]

Partner

Liberal heteros now refer to their boyfriend or girlfriend as "partner" in order to provide cover to homos.

This is because male homos don't want to say, "my boyfriend/husband" and female homos don't want to say "my girlfriend/wife."

Well, why not? If there's no shame in it, then why the hell not? Why the weasel word "pardner." What are they, fucking cowboys? Yep, that's Adam Steinberg and his pardner, Ira Levin. The partners got married at Beth Hell Temple in Manhattan last Saturday. Lovely gay jew wedding. One partner is an MTV producer, the other partner is a partner at Horowitz, Steinberg and Schapiro.

[Igor Alexander]

As a side note, students of PC will observe that altho leftists always disdain traditional morality, and work politically to outlaw it, they are, by the same token, always willing to use traditional morality if by doing so they can destroy any man or argument opposed to their insanity.

How true. There are numerous examples on the SPLC website of them trying to smear their opponents as queers even though the SPLC is pro-buggery and at least one of its founders is a poof.

Hypocrisy means nothing to a leftist. To a leftist, the ends always justify the means.

[Alex Linder]

denial / denier - ('holocaust' denial, HIV-causes-AIDS denial, global warming denial)

Any leftist verbal perversion that meets with success will soon extend its range to fresh fields. Next to the bogus concept of 'racism,' 'Holocaust' is one of the more successful leftist creations. 'Holocaust' successfully brands an imaginary atrocity, and then the leftist can smash down with denier on anyone who dares question the imposture. Control of the media means you never have to address logical questions. You define and destroy. Just as 'holocaust' 'denial' has been made a crime in many European countries, the left would like to see 'global warming' 'denial' made a crime. And now today, for the first time, I came across HIV-causes-AIDS 'denial' for the first time. The implication is that anyone who dares to question the media-spread and Establishment-backed/-funded claim that HIV is as invalid, morally repugnant, and potentially imprisonable as the evil rotters who 'deny' 'the' 'holocaust.' Sorting out the lies through all this is like trying to remove a triply impacted wisdom tooth with three inches of dental floss. More questions are begged than grains of sand on Daytona Beach.


The International Campaign to Destroy Medical Hypotheses

Recently the journal Medical Hypotheses, whose editor-in-chief is our friend and frequent commentator Bruce Charlton, a psychiatrist and a professor of evolutionary psychiatry at the University of Newcastle, accepted for publication a paper by the well known HIV "denialist" Peter Duesberg. AIDS activists and researchers hate Duesberg (who by the way has at least one Nobel laureate, Kary Mullis, on his side), and for the grave sin of accepting a paper that dares to question the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, have launched a campaign against Medical Hypotheses and Dr. Charlton.

The group AIDSTruth.org ("The scientific evidence for HIV/AIDS" - no other ideas allowed) recently featured the article Elsevier retracts Duesberg’s AIDS Denialist article, which sets out their successful move to get the publisher of MH to withdraw the article.

AIDSTruth has now opened a campaign to get MEDLINE, the bibliographic database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is fully searchable through PubMed, to deselect Medical Hypotheses from inclusion in the database. (The letter requesting this action is here in PDF.) There is now a Facebook page, Cancel your Medical Hypotheses subscription, which urges medical libraries and other institutions to rid themselves of this turbulent publication. Also of note, the group additionally accuses the journal of publishing "offensive" and "racist" articles, the latter of which of course places any publication beyond the pale of an enlightened people. (Funny, really, they missed James Watson's most inconvenient truth (PDF) by Rushton and Jensen. Normally that alone would have caused a massive raising of skirts.)

Dr. Charlton, who has more than doubled the journal's impact factor during his tenure as editor-in-chief, radically decreased author response time, and increased the number of downloaded articles to half a million annually, is in danger of getting the sack.

You can read the specious reasoning that comes out of AIDSTruth yourself, but this is obviously a concerted campaign against a journal and an editor who would dare to publish articles that question politically correct dogma. We've seen similar intellectual thuggery going on among the global warmers, who would shut down "denialists"; that the two groups use the same terminology of "denialism" speaks volumes about their common wish to shout down, silence, and destroy their critics.

AIDSTruth must not be allowed to destroy Medical Hypotheses, a journal unique in medicine, whose venerable tradition allows for the publication of "radical, speculative, and non-mainstream scientific ideas". These, of course, are what groups like AIDSTruth can not abide. Though I'm far from able to pronounce decisively, my impression is that MH commands enough prestige among the scientific community that this campaign will get laughed out of court. Let's hope so.

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/10/international-campaign-to-destroy.html

[Alex Linder]

offensive - as used in article above

Offensive, as used in the controlled media, always and only means opposed to the judeo-leftist agenda. Thus, homosexuals and their proclivity for sticking cocks in each other's assholes is never described as offensive -- even though it is to the majority -- rather, those who hold the wrong opinion about (homosexuals, homosexual marriage, anything leftists support) are. The left is big on dissecting power relations but this never comes into play when it's on top. Offensive = offensive to judeo-leftists. Not to normal people. They're just supposed to shut up and not impose their morality on (fags, queers, jews, muds) even as the leftists impose theirs on the normals. Anyone opposed to the leftist agenda is by that fact on the wrong side of history, and so his interests, tastes and desires need not be taken into account. The non-leftist is nothing but (as I was described by my college president) an example of "how far we have to go."

[Alex Linder]

[Comment taken from the link under the HIV-denial article]

Anonymous said...

People who object to AGW are now labelled "global warming deniers" or "climate change deniers" in some quarters.

This is obviously an attempt to link them to Holocaust-deniers and to indimidate others from considering whatever issue on its merits. Its going to be an effective shaming tactic unfortunately unless its met with recognition and denigration from conservatives willing to speak up and "name" what is being attempted when "denialism-branding" is being used. Its a form of marginalization-by-false-linkage.

[Good point, but if the commenter thought a little bit harder he might see that the fact that two true or at least plausible things are under fire by those who can't argue their position ought to lead him to question the third. That's where the concept of the Big Lie comes in. The commenter has no problem believing men could lie about Global Warming and HIV-Causing-AIDS, but he has not yet graduated to believing they could lie about something even bigger - ''the' 'Holocaust.'']