0 comment Friday, November 21, 2014 | admin
Further thoughts relating to this thing called political correctness, some of them sparked by reactions to my previous post on the subject:
If there is something about Anglo-Saxons that fosters the attitudes embodied in political correctness, why did that something not appear in earlier centuries, or at least, not in the lethal form in which it appeared in the mid-20th century?
Another question: it's often asserted that Anglo-Saxon peoples, more than other European peoples, display weak ethnic identity or ethnocentrism. This is given as the reason why Anglosphere countries, particularly the UK, Canada, and America are being overrun by immigrants and opportunists, with the complicity of the native people. Yet at the same time, Anglo-Saxons have always been the recipients of sharp criticism by other ethnicities for being too exclusive, too dominant, too Anglocentric. This whole damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, line of criticism is reminiscent of the similar contentions made about Christianity: that Christianity has always been militant, crusading, intolerant, and a cause of bloody conflicts, and at the same time, it is said to lead to universalism, pacifism, and sentimentality towards the world's losers.
It would seem, in the case of the criticism of Christians, as well as Anglo-Saxons, that something happened which resulted in a marked change by the mid-20th century. I don't accept that the liberalism which is supposed to characterize Anglo-Saxon peoples and Christians in general is intrinsic to those groups. I think it is obviously a recent development, or perversion.
Secondly, I see that the discussion is causing discomfort on the part of some of my readers. I don't see how I could write an honest post on the subject without making some uncomfortable, although that was not my intention. As I wrote before on this subject, I feel compelled to follow the truth where it leads, insofar as that is possible, and if that steps on someone's toes, I can only say it's unfortunate. I cannot, in good conscience, decree certain groups to be exempted from examination or criticism. If I did so, I would only be yielding to the political correctness I so often deplore and rail against -- which would make me something of a hypocrite.
As I've said, civility and reasoned arguments are essential; make a civil, reasoned, argument, and your views will generally be allowed. If any object to those views, answer them with civility and reason. Refute them if you can. That's the best way, not flames or hurt feelings or offense-taking. So far, this has been the tone of the comments, with mature attitudes predominating.
I think those of us who see that our country, and Western Christian civilization are under siege and in danger realize that will never be equal to the task of defending our heritage if we are offended or made uneasy by criticism of certain groups, whichever they may be. Nobody should be above criticism or questioning. If some are not able to accept my approach, so be it. I have long since learned it's impossible to please everybody while pursuing truth and honesty.
Our society in the West is drowning in dishonesty and cant; I won't participate in it. I will tolerate a lot of things but I will not bow to the dishonesty and cant of political correctness. I have to repeat again what my kinsman (one of the non-liberal WASP New Englanders) wrote:
I never hated anything in my life except two things: dishonesty and the appeasement of evil. These I hate with every fiber of my being. I would rather face controversy and bitterness indefinitely than surrender to either one.'' - Carleton Putnam, Race and Reality
Political correctness has made liars and hypocrites of too many of us. We have made certain classes of people to be near-saints, while we ourselves are cast into the role of the perpetual villain, responsible for all the world's injustices and woes. Enough is enough.
Our founding ancestors sought to shed many of the habits of the old world, such as the belief in an aristocracy of birth. Certain people, by virtue of their birth, were entitled to greater respect and privilege and flattery. Political Correctness merely created a kind of upside-down aristocracy, in which the underdogs become the exalted class. I won't participate in that injustice any more. If all men are truly equal under the law, then no group or class, past history of suffering notwithstanding, has a right to be above criticism.
Some still cling to the habit of making excuses for the protected victim classes, maybe in a show of noblesse oblige, or maybe in an attempt to allay a conscience that feels guilt at saying 'mean-spirited' things about the victims of the world. But we are under siege; we are on the ropes. We don't have time to worry about the victims and the laggards and the losers of the world; we have to worry about us and our children and our children's children -- if we can last that long. And we will not be able to if we are still prone to take everybody's side but our own. To those of you who still have guilty consciences or tender feelings towards the others, what can I say? Sacrifice yourself and your children if you must, but don't hold the rest of us back, and don't try to impart your guilt feelings or your sanctimony to the rest of us. We can't allow ourselves to be hampered by foolish altruism when we are in trouble. Our misplaced altruism and concern for the world has put us in this dire predicament.
I notice that one or two of the bloggers who link to me are attempting to edge away and distance themselves as I post some of these controversial pieces. So be it; I can understand that some don't want to be tainted by association, even if only through a link on a blogroll, to someone who is pushing the PC envelope. If any of the faint-hearted want to de-link me, that's fine. My ancestors didn't shrink from controversy or opprobrium, and I don't either. I have to say what I have to say, and if I say it to an audience of a few, or nobody at all, so be it. I won't go along to get along, and I won't try to please or flatter anybody at the expense of truth.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said,
I will not hide my tastes or aversions...If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own.''
I suppose the very fact that I feel the need to say these things in regard to political correctness shows that even the PC scofflaws, like myself, feel constrained to offer justifications for our rebellion. And it shows that people who are ostensibly on the same side are still unable to tolerate speech that walks too close to the edge and defies the very powerful taboos.
At least this discussion will sift us, and help us decide who is who, and who is where. Examining reality honestly is never a loss.
For now, I'm considering a post on our politically incorrect founders and forefathers. Too often we are presented with a whitewashed view of the Founding Fathers and other great leaders, which bowdlerizes many of their politically incorrect statements. This is a distortion I would like to see rectified.
If there is something about Anglo-Saxons that fosters the attitudes embodied in political correctness, why did that something not appear in earlier centuries, or at least, not in the lethal form in which it appeared in the mid-20th century?
Another question: it's often asserted that Anglo-Saxon peoples, more than other European peoples, display weak ethnic identity or ethnocentrism. This is given as the reason why Anglosphere countries, particularly the UK, Canada, and America are being overrun by immigrants and opportunists, with the complicity of the native people. Yet at the same time, Anglo-Saxons have always been the recipients of sharp criticism by other ethnicities for being too exclusive, too dominant, too Anglocentric. This whole damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, line of criticism is reminiscent of the similar contentions made about Christianity: that Christianity has always been militant, crusading, intolerant, and a cause of bloody conflicts, and at the same time, it is said to lead to universalism, pacifism, and sentimentality towards the world's losers.
It would seem, in the case of the criticism of Christians, as well as Anglo-Saxons, that something happened which resulted in a marked change by the mid-20th century. I don't accept that the liberalism which is supposed to characterize Anglo-Saxon peoples and Christians in general is intrinsic to those groups. I think it is obviously a recent development, or perversion.
Secondly, I see that the discussion is causing discomfort on the part of some of my readers. I don't see how I could write an honest post on the subject without making some uncomfortable, although that was not my intention. As I wrote before on this subject, I feel compelled to follow the truth where it leads, insofar as that is possible, and if that steps on someone's toes, I can only say it's unfortunate. I cannot, in good conscience, decree certain groups to be exempted from examination or criticism. If I did so, I would only be yielding to the political correctness I so often deplore and rail against -- which would make me something of a hypocrite.
As I've said, civility and reasoned arguments are essential; make a civil, reasoned, argument, and your views will generally be allowed. If any object to those views, answer them with civility and reason. Refute them if you can. That's the best way, not flames or hurt feelings or offense-taking. So far, this has been the tone of the comments, with mature attitudes predominating.
I think those of us who see that our country, and Western Christian civilization are under siege and in danger realize that will never be equal to the task of defending our heritage if we are offended or made uneasy by criticism of certain groups, whichever they may be. Nobody should be above criticism or questioning. If some are not able to accept my approach, so be it. I have long since learned it's impossible to please everybody while pursuing truth and honesty.
Our society in the West is drowning in dishonesty and cant; I won't participate in it. I will tolerate a lot of things but I will not bow to the dishonesty and cant of political correctness. I have to repeat again what my kinsman (one of the non-liberal WASP New Englanders) wrote:
I never hated anything in my life except two things: dishonesty and the appeasement of evil. These I hate with every fiber of my being. I would rather face controversy and bitterness indefinitely than surrender to either one.'' - Carleton Putnam, Race and Reality
Political correctness has made liars and hypocrites of too many of us. We have made certain classes of people to be near-saints, while we ourselves are cast into the role of the perpetual villain, responsible for all the world's injustices and woes. Enough is enough.
Our founding ancestors sought to shed many of the habits of the old world, such as the belief in an aristocracy of birth. Certain people, by virtue of their birth, were entitled to greater respect and privilege and flattery. Political Correctness merely created a kind of upside-down aristocracy, in which the underdogs become the exalted class. I won't participate in that injustice any more. If all men are truly equal under the law, then no group or class, past history of suffering notwithstanding, has a right to be above criticism.
Some still cling to the habit of making excuses for the protected victim classes, maybe in a show of noblesse oblige, or maybe in an attempt to allay a conscience that feels guilt at saying 'mean-spirited' things about the victims of the world. But we are under siege; we are on the ropes. We don't have time to worry about the victims and the laggards and the losers of the world; we have to worry about us and our children and our children's children -- if we can last that long. And we will not be able to if we are still prone to take everybody's side but our own. To those of you who still have guilty consciences or tender feelings towards the others, what can I say? Sacrifice yourself and your children if you must, but don't hold the rest of us back, and don't try to impart your guilt feelings or your sanctimony to the rest of us. We can't allow ourselves to be hampered by foolish altruism when we are in trouble. Our misplaced altruism and concern for the world has put us in this dire predicament.
I notice that one or two of the bloggers who link to me are attempting to edge away and distance themselves as I post some of these controversial pieces. So be it; I can understand that some don't want to be tainted by association, even if only through a link on a blogroll, to someone who is pushing the PC envelope. If any of the faint-hearted want to de-link me, that's fine. My ancestors didn't shrink from controversy or opprobrium, and I don't either. I have to say what I have to say, and if I say it to an audience of a few, or nobody at all, so be it. I won't go along to get along, and I won't try to please or flatter anybody at the expense of truth.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said,
I will not hide my tastes or aversions...If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own.''
I suppose the very fact that I feel the need to say these things in regard to political correctness shows that even the PC scofflaws, like myself, feel constrained to offer justifications for our rebellion. And it shows that people who are ostensibly on the same side are still unable to tolerate speech that walks too close to the edge and defies the very powerful taboos.
At least this discussion will sift us, and help us decide who is who, and who is where. Examining reality honestly is never a loss.
For now, I'm considering a post on our politically incorrect founders and forefathers. Too often we are presented with a whitewashed view of the Founding Fathers and other great leaders, which bowdlerizes many of their politically incorrect statements. This is a distortion I would like to see rectified.
Labels: Free Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Liberalism, Political Correctness, Victimhood