Hillary’s speech at the DNC last night left me with nothing but more of the same:
The elections are a joke and the DNC/RNC are nothing but a side show, not to mention, a mouthpiece for the modern politically correct, liberal ideology—on the side of the Democrats of course. On the side of the Republicans, a faded remnant of an individualist ideology, perverted by religion and an insane commitment to mystical irrationalism. In either case, both are two sides of the same philosophical coin, in this case, the Altruist coin.
“For me, it’s been a privilege to meet you in your homes, your workplaces, and your communities. Your stories reminded me everyday that America’s greatness is bound up in the lives of the American people — your hard work, your devotion to duty, your love for your children, and your determination to keep going, often in the face of enormous obstacles.”
Your hard work…okay. America’s Greatness? Hmm. Determination, alright, okay. Love for your children? Eh, maybe. Devotion to duty??? NO WAY.
Ever hear a political candidate say something like:
“For me, it’s been a privilege to meet you in your homes, your workplaces, and your communities. Your stories reminded me everyday of what American values are all about: the can-do way of life, the commitment to achievement, hard work and creativity, knowledge and reason–all in the face of enormous obstacles.”
NO, we don’t. First of all we would never hear such indiscernible, foreign words as ‘knowledge’ or ‘reason’ even uttered lightly on stage. To boot, we’d never hear achievement in place of the value of children and duty, not to mention, a precarious mixture of these with religious ‘conviction.’
I remind myself that political candidates are salesmen, selling to the mainstream audience and salesmen of this sort, by necessity must appeal to the lowest common denominator.
But, I ask you, if a political candidate is now required to omit words even remotely associated with knowledge, reason, achievement, and creativity–what then–by necessity, is the nature of that audience?
A self-evidency is something that requires itself in order to disprove itself, in philosophy this is called a tautology–a definition which by its nature, in order to be demonstrated not to exist, one must endorse a self-contradiction.
It requires logic to deny logic. It requires existence to prove its not there. It requires consciousness in order to think about the non-existence of consciousness.
In a reverse way, it requires the omission of common sense attributed to objectivity in order not to have to be put into the position of disproving a self-evidency.
Yet, this is what people like Hillary Clinton, or virtually any speaker at the DNC must pull off in order to sustain their points in an non-contradicted way.
That is, it requires the omission of logic, in order to disprove logic.
The logic Hillary Clinton is trying to avoid, is the common sense we all know, yet in the face of the most virulently subtle social conformity are afraid to announce.
This type of conformity is called the notion of the ‘politically correct.’
Here I identify (by fact and opinion) many of the core ‘PC’ philosophical tenets, but in reverse. The ‘major announcements’ (truths) the ‘PC’ currently and implicitly, denies exist, and doesn’t want to face, could run something like the following:
-The correlation between intelligence and race is unknown.
-Affirmative Action has desimated the black family and culture.
-Welfare has created more poverty than it has eliminated.
-All humans are not born equal, far from it, and must rely on their volition and intelligence to sustain themselves.
-“Human intelligence is far from unencumbered at birth.” –Howard Gardner, Frames of Mind
-Humans possess the faculty of choice.
-Cars and oil based environments are far more contributory to cancer than smoking.
-Words don’t mean anything inherently, such as nigger, whitey, shit, fuck, sand-nigger, cunt, bitch etc.
-Pornography has contributed far more to the advancement of medicine and the saving of countless lives by means of advancing technology, than the entire Democratic party in its entire history.
-Pornography is probably good for children in the right social context.
-Children are sexual, far earlier than age 18.
-Talking about things must correlate with acting on what you say.
-Appearances and aesthetics are not reality.
-Women might be better at Linguistics than men, and men might generally be better at Mathematics.
-Female Suffrage has brought more suffering to women than male bigotry.
-Feminism destroys the identity of a female as individual.
-Selfishness is the base of all human behavior.
-the Alfred Binet IQ test is a farce for most types of intelligence.
-The American education, which is based largely on the conclusions of the Binet IQ test at present does more to cripple a child’s mind than it does teach it to think.
-Socialized schooling has destroyed education.
-Higher learning is a national racket which demeans education more than it defines it.
The opposite of the above are basically what identify the PC ideology.
Notice that these are all things that make living in a diverse environment, such as in the U.S., very difficult to face. It is this uncomfortability coupled with a 60’s blind notion of equality, that has lead to a static, authoritarian character to the PC.
Contrary to its alleged definition construed in theory, which began with the baby boomers in the 60’s–‘Politically Correct’ in actuality, that is, as defined by its actions rather than what people say it means–is in fact, social conformity characterized by appealing to the lowest common denominator, but as written into law.
That is, the idea behind the PC, is that we all must be accounted for, and all must be treated equal.
But since equality is a social impossibility, what this means in reality is that we must pretend we are equal–so that, somehow we all will become that way. This is from the failure to distinguish equal opportunity from simply ‘equal.’ As a side note, I might mention the striking similarity of the PC and the Bolshevik and Nazi movements.
If affirmative action were really geared toward equal opportunity, rather than ‘equalization’ or what it calls ‘equal opportunity,’ the government would construct laws that concentrate on helping to eliminate poverty and the causes of racist social injustice in a way that does not treat the individual as if he were responsible for the actions of his fathers. This, rather than canceling out the rights of other races in order to ‘make up for’ the years of oppression the blacks or whoever have endured.
The definition of racism is discriminating on the basis of race, and the very definition of Affirmative Action begins by– discriminating on the basis of race.
The failure to see the self-evidency of this contradiction comes from the failure to recognize that both work by means of the same principle, whether or not they operate for the same goals. Their intended goals are irrelevant if they both generate identical outcomes: in this case, more racism and now, a society, completely concentrated on resting its foundations on racism.
The smoking bans are perhaps one of the most unsightly PC violations of the spirit of the constitution of this country and a first real triumph for the war on The Age of Reason. This is on the basis of the denial that individual rights should exist, with the replacement of ‘human rights,’ which by the way enables certain humans to violate the rights of other humans.
Why for instance is it not rational to have restaurants and establishments declare themselves separately smoking or non? Why must it be done by entire district or land?
The alleged reason is because they are ‘open to the public.’ Yet, how does this make sense? I suppose one could fail to see the ‘smoking’ sign outside the establishment, identifying it as a purely smoking environment, catch a whiff and die instantly, but wouldn’t that then be his fault in the same way we have a disclaimer on a bicycle that reads: ‘Wear a Helmut.’ and ‘Don’t Ride at Night’?
The first failure inherent to the smoking bans is not recognizing that people are by human nature, volitional, and therefore have a choice to go into an establishment or not. The second is to overlook the fact that despite the fear of an evolving ‘unlivable environment,’ in the case that the majority chose smoking restaurants (therefore, making the demand for non-smoking restaurants low) I might mention that we live in a capitalist society driven by supply and demand, which in every other field, we are able to accept the consequences of this reality. That is, every field, but this field. The argument that smoking at all, creates a smoking environment is totally moot in the face of the fact that separate places for different smoking preferences would mean a total separation environmentally, and everyone knows it.
If it is true that segregating smokers by establishment would simultaneously protect the rights of the smoker and non-smoker, why in the name of all sensical reality, would we choose to violate the rights of a shop owner to make his own decision, when we could very easily have both?
The answer: there is more to the PC culture than meets the eye.
This is all because, the underlying motive of the PC ideology is not to protect non-smokers as much as it is to eliminate smoking. That is why France has banned smoking nationally and why certain towns in California don’t even allow smoking within city limits, even within the confines of a private home! Talk about a civil rights violation, this goes even beyond business, and I might add, is revealing of the nature of modern politics which works by group coercion–so much for the whole argument that leaving it up to the individual and his home, not the business owner, leaves the ban as a sound constitutional practice.
That is, since it is individual rights, not the alleged mere isolated issue of different smoking environments, that the PC anti-smoking agenda is targeting, it will only be a matter of time before smoking in private homes is banned nationally. Needless to say, it will also only be a matter of time before cigarettes are banned altogether.
But in all its variants, the most obvious reality the PC cultural ideology denies is the nature of human intelligence. This is because if a real, comprehensive, definitive idea of intelligence ever was scientifically viable,* and some political candidate made it known, our entire society right now, from top to bottom would fall to pieces.
(* I might mention the peculiar fact that the PC culture for the most part, has failed to challenge the IQ test, its standardized tests, and modern grading systems as even remotely false, and yet at the same time, maintain that there is no such thing as general intelligence! –When the ENTIRE Binet test is based on the opposite of that very idea.)
This is because the society we live in is grounded in the most basic idea of democracy: that majority rules. And this is why we originally had a republic, not a purely democratic state. ‘Majority rules,’ is just another variant of collectivism: the idea that individual human life, by necessity must be trumped by the group’s needs, failing to see that the survival of human life, isn’t any good without what we stay alive for–individual pleasure.
Collectivism always comes back to haunt us in times of crises and individualism, in times of prosperity. It was capitalism and respect to individual rights protected by the government that produced the prosperity individualism flourished in. Now, human life, by means of ousting both systems of thought, has invited poverty and the arrest of progress back into the mix.
By things like protecting the funding to retarded kids more than the gifted. By protecting technology without the arts, by Hillary’s own statement last night:
“You taught me so much, you made me laugh, and . . . you even made me cry. You allowed me to become part of your lives. And you became part of mine.”
“I will always remember the single mom who had adopted two kids with autism, didn’t have health insurance and discovered she had cancer. But she greeted me with her bald head painted with my name on it and asked me to fight for health care.”
“I will always remember the young man in a Marine Corps t-shirt who waited months for medical care and said to me: “Take care of my buddies; a lot of them are still over there….and then will you please help take care of me?”
“I will always remember the boy who told me his mom worked for the minimum wage and that her employer had cut her hours. He said he just didn’t know what his family was going to do.”
The single mom with two autistic kids–by choice.
The military private who needs her help.
The boy whose mom couldn’t find work.
Aside from these being the most boiler-plate statically conventional, unimaginative catch-phrases, I could say, okay, sure, fine, these may be in some degree important…
But do I ever hear her say:
“I will always remember the achievers who allowed computers to become reality, which has done vastly more than any charity could ever do for the vision-impaired, or for that matter, the hearing impaired.”??
Do I ever hear her say: “I will always remember the creators and artist’s who have made this country rich in spirit?”
What about the cafe’s, the nightlife, the chocolate, our earrings, our clothes, sex, love, rock and roll—all the things we enjoy??? Where are these?
The idea of the Politically Correct is probably the identity of the new face of tyranny. It is modern in that it is subtle, decentralized, abstract, and all-pervasive. It is implicit, not explicit, reactive, not active. And if anyone could speak out against it as I do, they would merely be talking to someone who’d likely say one thing or another depending on what social environment they were in.
As a brief example of evidence to this, consider the New Yorker Obama as Muslim’ cover and the fact that the New Yorker could actually get away with publishing this without destroying their customer base which is predominantly liberal.
Consider the fact that PC attitudes are explicitly against racism, tolerate different religions, yet simultaneously tolerate the predominantly rightist notion that people oppose Obama because he might be Muslim and that this has bearing on his ability to be president in the face of an era post-9-11.
I have seen this in liberals I have known personally, that tolerate very rightist notions, as long as the right social context remains status quo, without anyone left offended.
Another example more glaring is the simple fact that the liberals have increasingly interjected religious over and undertones into their rhetoric:
“That is our duty, to build that bright future, and to teach our children that in America there is no chasm too deep, no barrier too great – and no ceiling too high – for all who work hard, never back down, always keep going, have faith in God, in our country, and in each other.
Thank you so much. God bless America and Godspeed to you all.”
Religion, one of the oldest opponents of reason and science, not to mention racial tolerance, is being endorsed flagrantly by PC cultural representatives in order to appeal to the masses at the cost of their own integrity.
Conformity based in social equalization and ‘harmony’ at any cost, especially that of individual rights, is the message and premise of ‘the PC.’
And if Hillary’s speech is any reflection of the nature of its audience, it is everything but the values she did not mention– that is the precise nature of her audience.