Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 1st, 2011 #21
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[remains astonishing how many different 'takes' there are on PC and what it is, what it means, and whence it originated]

catholic Kalb on PC (and his commenters too)
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2867
 
Old September 2nd, 2011 #22
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[remains astonishing how many different 'takes' there are on PC and what it is, what it means, and whence it originated]

catholic Kalb on PC (and his commenters too)
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2867
Interesting early comment on Seraphim Rose. He's highly thought of in Russian Orthodox circles (though perhaps only in America, contra the hype).

Rose was a kike from California who went through the usual rounds of philosophical questing, but instead of settling on Buddhism or Daoism, settled on Russian Orthodoxy!

Rose was also a faggot and died before he was 50 of 'lifestyle complications.'

I'm pretty sure this has all been excised from his wikipedia entry, iirc. I don't have any source to cite off-hand.

He wrote a lot of stuff on the dangers of 'political correctness,' in depth. Really a totally different quality from baptist stammering, which is what most like works are.

But in the end his is just like all other offerings: no mention of jews, at all. Rather, it's a long litany of them & they. . .the forever indeterminate 'other' who just happen to fuck us all over.

Rose's story of conversion could be legit. But he could also have been a placement to get jew-friendly memes into Orthodox thought, which is more jew-unfriendly than any other legitimate denomination, due to the Soviet experience.
 
Old September 2nd, 2011 #23
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Interesting early comment on Seraphim Rose. He's highly thought of in Russian Orthodox circles (though perhaps only in America, contra the hype).

Rose was a kike from California who went through the usual rounds of philosophical questing, but instead of settling on Buddhism or Daoism, settled on Russian Orthodoxy!

Rose was also a faggot and died before he was 50 of 'lifestyle complications.'

I'm pretty sure this has all been excised from his wikipedia entry, iirc. I don't have any source to cite off-hand.

He wrote a lot of stuff on the dangers of 'political correctness,' in depth. Really a totally different quality from baptist stammering, which is what most like works are.

But in the end his is just like all other offerings: no mention of jews, at all. Rather, it's a long litany of them & they. . .the forever indeterminate 'other' who just happen to fuck us all over.

Rose's story of conversion could be legit. But he could also have been a placement to get jew-friendly memes into Orthodox thought, which is more jew-unfriendly than any other legitimate denomination, due to the Soviet experience.
Interesting. Kalb's mention was the first I ever heard of the guy.

I'm getting close to writing an article about what specifically is wrong with christ-insanity from the WN perspective. It's partly a matter of doctrine, but more a matter of warped mentality. Maybe the German word 'weltanschauung' captures it - world-view. It's an entirely different mindset.

Before I do up that article, I'm going to be posting snippets from Kalb in that other thread, along with commentary. The guy's writing is bland as oatmeal. Some of it is nutritious. Much of it relies on assumptions, christian assumptions, he doesn't raise to the surface. He sees currenty symptom-problems of cultural decline as proceeding inevitably from liberalism, as its natural outgrowth. He specifically disputes PC comes from the top down. He's wrong about that. If I were cynical, I would say he argues as he does to escape the need to blame a group for imposing PC on the rest of us. That group is the jews, and as a Catholic paleocon, Kalb wimps out in the way they all do. Still, to the extent that PC involves non-jews, says WASPs, say Anglos, say secularized christians, he has a good deal to say. There is a logic to PC-liberalism that is inevitable, and he goes into this more deeply that others. It's just that he avoids discussing the carveouts for a certain group - jews. The jews alone are exempted from the principles PC enforces, but Kalb literally never, so far as I've read him, discusses this.
 
Old August 14th, 2013 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Frankfurt School
http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/
 
Old November 1st, 2014 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,374
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[superficial libertarian read on PC. writer doesn't understand PC as a part of a broader strategy employed by semites to crush all verbal and genetic resistance]

How to Battle Political Correctness
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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

http://philipschuyler.wordpress.com/...tness/#respond
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 PM.
Page generated in 0.11401 seconds.