by
Roger King
Politically Incorrect Facts
by
Roger King
Welcome to Politically Incorrect Facts. Hopefully you will return here often since there will be a wide variety of subjects appearing or being updated. Since we are deluged with "Politically Correct" facts every day, this site will deal almost exclusively with "Politically Incorrect Facts" that you don't hear from our media, scientists or politicians. As you read these topics, hopefully you will begin to understand the threat to freedom of speech and the immense costs inherent in "Politically Correct Thought". Since no one is really interested in my thoughts, this site is mostly a conglomeration of "quotes" from books and articles followed by the link to the article, as available. So let's begin and take a look at what "Politically Correct" really means.
Adolf Hitler was quoted as saying "The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." Throughout the various topics that follow you might begin to see these issues as holding more meaning than you might first think.
Encarta defines Politically Correct as "deliberately avoiding offense: relating to or supporting the use of language or conduct that deliberately avoids giving offense, e.g. on the basis of ethnic origin or sexual orientation."
Excerpts from Wikipedia says politically correct, (PC) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. ... Ruth Perry traces the term back to Mao's little red book. According to Perry, the term was later adopted by the radical left in the 1960s. In the 1990s, because of the term's association with radical politics and communist censorship. ... In Marxism-Leninism, the term "political correctness" is derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, and was used to describe the appropriate "party line", commonly referred to as the "correct line" Those people who opposed (or were seen as opposing) the "correct line" were often punished. A similar term has been used in Communist nation as the People's Republic of China.
Pat Buchanan, says, in his book The Death of the West: "Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism, a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy"
Political correctness implies censorship and endangers free speech by limiting what is in the public discourse, especially in universities and political forums. The real question with "Politically Correct" language is who will decide what is correct to think and say. Why the government of course, some would say. So would the liberals like George Bush to decide or would the conservatives like Hilary Clinton to make these decisions? The problem happens as the government becomes more powerful (Absolute power corrupts absolutely) we will lose control of our ability to make these decisions.
Trofimko Lysenko is not a household name; but it should be, because he was the model for all the Politically Correct "science" in the last hundred years. Lysenko was Stalin's favorite agricultural "scientist," peddling the myth that crops could be just trained into growing bigger and better. You didn't have to breed better plants over generations, as farmers have been doing for ages. It was a fantasy of the all-powerful Soviet State. Lysenko sold Stalin on that fraud in plant genetics, and Stalin told Soviet scientists to fall into line --- in spite of the fact that nobody really believed it. Hundreds of thousands of peasants starved during Stalin's famines, in good part because of fraudulent science. There is such a thing as pathological science. Science becomes unhealthy when its only real question --- "what is true?" --- is sabotaged by vested interests, by ideological Commissars, or even by grant-swinging scientists. Today's Global Warming campaign is endangering real, honest science. Global Warming superstition has become an international power grab, and good science suffers as a result. Link
Let’s examine in principle the concept behind Politically Correct. I’m sure that some well-meaning individual, who was fed up with negative aspects of America said, “All right, it must stop! This racism and bigotry has given America a black eye for long enough!” Damn good idea. The movement solicited government, the media (TV, newspapers and radio), and corporate America to climb on the bandwagon. If politically correct had been applied with a test of "resonableness“ to eradicate the destructive nature of racism and bigotry, it is likely that I would have supported it wholeheartedly. But that is not the case. The implementation of this concept, as with most “utopian” theories, gathered steam and went completely overboard. Whenever academia concocts a solution, its implementation must be 100% pure - the all-encompassing perfect solution. There is little thought of the people implications. That’s why many theories dreamed up by academians never work in the real world. You can’t say anything about gender, race, religion, culture, ethnicity, etc., etc. And whatever you do, don’t tell any jokes about the Irish, Italians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, women, men, and just about any other species. Are jokes about dogs allowed? Link
Consensus
Lets shift our focus to the word "consensus". Although we hear alot about there being a "consensus of scientists", this has never been part of true science and never should be. What if the "Politically Correct Police" had in 1633, decided to put Galileo Galilei on trial "for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many," namely that the earth moved around the sun. What if Copernicus, who disputed the fact that Earth was the center of the universe, was banned by the scientific community and not published because he was not part of the consensus. Any time someone, such as Al Gore says, "the science is in and the consensus says" or "there is no need for further studies", you had better start worrying and wondering what they really want. Let's take an example. Most people would say that gravity is thoroughly understood and accepted but some scientists are saying our gravity is weaker than it should be and is due to parallel universes. Link1 Link2. As a final segment lets look at
How to Create and Protect a
Consensus
Link
Excerpt: ... A book authored by Janis,
I. L. &
Mann, L. (1977) Decision-making:
A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment (New York Free
Press), explores the concept of ‘Group Think,’ which shows a remarkable parallel
with the way the climate science consensus is operated and protected. Eight
symptoms of Group Think are listed below:
Concluding Thoughts
Imagine living in a world where no one is allowed to think independent thoughts or take independent actions. Only pre-approved human responses would be acceptable. To break the rule and engage in forbidden thought would result in terrible retribution, perhaps leading literally to one's destruction. As George Orwell once wrote: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
The field of science is all about inquiry. Intolerance for questioning or even engaging in debate suggests a fear that a theory or hypothesis is not up to the test. Without challenging theories, we accept as doctrine that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth-or that, as Al Gore tells us, "the survival of our civilization is at stake."
President Ronald Reagan once said "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."