Hilarious conversation with Hazel Blears and John Humphrys about new policy against political correctness. (Inability to mention certain things.) This new policy of abandoning political correctness, (Unfortunately P.C. prevents us from saying out loud what we really mean,) is, for some coincidental reason, designed to prevent radicalisation.
Up till now political correctness has prevented us from making jokes about the Irish, Welsh or Scots. (To name just a few.)
“Of course we mustn’t allow racist jokes. People will say we don’t want any part of that. Because it’s not even funny’ (Well, not always)
“Muslims are not offended by us celebrating Christmas! We celebrate their rituals, after all.”
“Sorry, political correctness prevents us from telling us exactly who we’re afraid will be radicalised. “
Up till now political correctness has prevented us from making jokes about the Irish, Welsh or Scots. (To name just a few.)
“Of course we mustn’t allow racist jokes. People will say we don’t want any part of that. Because it’s not even funny’ (Well, not always)
“Muslims are not offended by us celebrating Christmas! We celebrate their rituals, after all.”
“Sorry, political correctness prevents us from telling us exactly who we’re afraid will be radicalised. “
sorry – link omitted :
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/02/bnp-culturist-or-racist.html
agreed, everytime I hear the bnp in the media, it is far right racist, i had a look on the site, they actually sensor racist comments. seems all is not what it is, no doubt any leftie would say I am a right wing scum, I am just a curious looker in fact. trying to find out the real truth, for the first time I think its cultural,too, a reaction against our country being thrown away, not just to cultures, but our jobs to europe, too.
I think we are in the death throes of the labour govt., and they sense that, along with the failed world order they have tried to impose on us, they sense its falling apart, and they are scared stiff.
Gunter, christians are just people, they think there’s is the right way, not cos they are arrogant or unthinking, just cos they are brought up that way, they believe the bible, perhaps mistakenly, too literally. at least their morals are good and our culture should have those at its heart.
I object to season’s greetings, winterval, at its extreme pc and secularism could even get you the sack in a council for saying merry xmas one day, its not inconceiveable, of course dogmatic opinions should be sensitive, but not banned as the secularists and leftists would want.
that’s why its so wrong and evil.
the basic normal white people just carrying on as normal may say something considered at best inappropriate, at worst evil, and be victimised out of all proportion and the results devastating, and destroying.
carol thatcher supposedly got death threats just for saying gollywog, for saying a word? how intolerant and evil is that, killing someone, that’s how intolerant and evil pc is, murder. no less.
and i object to the bbc and its style, too, the more I read and realise somethings not right, I find it offensive, but none take note of me, when I am going to be a victim, the white middling male? the most unprotected group there is now?
I resent the media ramming things down my throat every day, celebs, adverts, the whole media is offensive and its violence every day, yet it ignores me.
that’s what I find offensive. ahh, but I am an oppressor, so I don’t matter. shows doesn’t it?
Maybe I am pushing boundaries too far here but I think its unfair to dismiss as racist people who believe in the nation being a kinship group (and yes race is a clear indicator of who is and isnt kin). Its possible to make a distinction between nation and ethnicity but this if it works at all is a totally new invention that I think our ancestyors wouldnt comprehend (and frankly I struggle with). Its not how nations have ever worked before or indeed do anywhere else (thought the US is obviously an interesting possible exception, though obviouslty a nation of immigrants isnt comparable to our own)
If one does this it is at anyrate a reinterpretation of the words. Nation is (or can be) the latin translation of greek ethnos.
So the idea of the kinship group is what is taken fro granted through history and is tried and tested and is what is traditional in Britain. It is also what most British people grew up with. It si only those who want to destroy this ad build a bright new socialist future who ahve wanted to change this.
Agree or disagree its cruel to dismiss such thinking, which is natural and in no way intrinsically ad (as opposed to out of kilter with what the Marxists want) as racism
intriscially bad (not ad)
Anyway I am coining a phrase “liberal ethno-nationalism” to describe a civilised and tolerant sense of national identity that doesnt attempt to write out ethnic identity.
I believe this to be traditional in Britain – the way I see it until the MArxists started trying to wreck anything, for most of us state, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, national culture, country all overlapped sufficiently it wasnt necesary to think about them. Seemed to work rather well.
it may well make some sense to use some spin to change racism to culturalism, I don’t think of myself as racist, I enjoy a little diversity, but am uncomfortable, with what I believe a huge amount of the population is, about the islamification of england.
so we can spin it that way, its not as objective as plain racism where they by definition have won the argument already by ostracisation and a disgusting white supremacist minority opposing.
it IS a totally different thing, they would seek to tar with the same brush, but all with a brain know eliminating your culture and standing against that isn’t racist.
that’s perhaps teh starting point. semantics
why then do they want the multi-culturisation of england?
you see this thing everywhere ” we are a multi cultural society” are we ? who says?
its propaganda by the insitutions.
perhaps some of the reasons cosutme drama is so popular is there are few of the pc ordained minorities obliged to be in every one like in the cop programs, every cid room at least one minority, 2 or 3? is that representative? is it heck.
but why?
are they so naive they think islam can live side by side?
sharia law? chopping off hands, repressing women, capital punishment?
alongside liberalism?
is it purely mistaken naiveity or do they think it could work?
the juries out, but it does seem misguided and bizarre
no doubt the thought police will be monitoring this, you see there are visitors watching….
cheltenham?
looking for signs of anarchy opposing their establishment.
well it just may happen, I hope it does to scare them, large bnp vote, that would be fun…
Gunter | 25.02.09 – 9:53 pm |
I should point out that Nick Robinson never said anything about David Cameron seeking to gain political clout over todays tragic news, nor was it implied by Robinson that Cameron would not gain politically. The fuss being made over Robinson on Guido Fawkes is about the fact that Robinson mentioned Gordon Brown’s equally tragic loss – and some people thought that was trying to ‘spin’ the story somehow in favour of Labour. Robinson was clearly just pointing out the tragic link that exists between the Tory and the Labour leader.
I think you have it wrong. See my comment from yesterday:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3574328220266032774/#452569
Hi David,
thank you for the link. It is interesting, but you are stating your opinions and your interpretation of events, you are not referring to facts. You (nor I) cannot possibly know what someone means when they say something. The original point was that Nick Robinson was accused of bringing up the issue of political gain yesterday, and yet there is no proof anywhere of him doing this. If you have proof, a speech he made, or a video clip of him, then I will accept my mistake, but no-one has produced evidence of Robinson’s supposed comments yesterday.
Gunter | 26.02.09 – 4:40 pm |
Nick Robinson very clearly stated that, in the past, David Cameron did use his disabled child in a little political maneuvering. That’s not my interpretation, it is a fact. He looked up at the ceiling when he said it, almost hesitating, tried to minimize it, and quickly moved on. The video clip shows this clearly.
The BBC had the clip of Cameron’s speech about how his child’s condition affected him all cued up, and was used to support Robinson’s comments. It’s pretty obvious that Cameron’s use of the child as a political football was put on the agenda of the discussion beforehand.
Both Robinson and Andrew Neil made statements about how Cameron would not have met people of “certain backgrounds”, if not for his child’s healthcare needs, and both made comments about how Ivan’s humanized him. They were very clear about saying that Cameron’s background and social class would otherwise have made him less worthy.
After Gordon Brown made a political issue out of a child’s death during Prime Minister’s Questions (not my opinion: he made the point first, we all saw it.), Nick Robinson claimed that it was actually Cameron who had used a child’s death as a political football. He specifically blamed Cameron for making it a political issue. So he has form for making this specific ugly accusation of the Tory leader.
None of this is my opinion, but all things that Nick Robinson has said openly. There was clear intent – not by Robinson, I think, but by Andrew Neil and his producer – to suggest that Cameron might try to use his own child’s death for political advantage. They raised the subject, had the video clip cued up, and said that Cameron had form on using his child for political advantage.
As I said, it’s not quite how Guido’s inhabitants and others have described it. But it’s still very ugly business.
Another pernicious use of PC, especially when academics are involved, is the use of BCE and CE for BC and AD when quoting historical dates.
“No one is suggesting an end to christmas cards or decorations, no-one has mentioned anything along those lines.”
Well,yes they have.Nativity plays have been banned from some schools,likewise Christmas cards.Municipal Christmas decorations have been banned.
Many British customs have been banned for fear of giving offence.Political correctness at its best.
David Preiser (USA): There is no point trying to have an intelligent conversation with Gunter/Gunnar/Hillhunt/Colin Chase or whatever the retard is calling himself this week.
The BBC and Prick Robinson just couldn’t resist the dig at Cameron.
I never thought I would say this, but perhaps disband the bbc is part of the solution, its the govts. arm in propaganda, trouble is, some stuff is good, I do like some docs, nature progs, and drama, it does do that very well, but the notion of a taxpayer funded state tv service does belong to another era. perhaps a health service does, too, its nice to continue these institutions, but everything is change, and I can see it happening, the unthinkable.
yes pc at its best even seeks to make the word black in blackboard offensive, manhole, snowman, christmas, anything that is not white christian and male is good, anything else vile and evil and to be expunged.
wife is out, its spouse or partner, manning the phones is out, ours is a race of man, as in humanity, not huwomanty, its not that man is bad, comes from human, meaning man and woman, but feminists errontly see man as biased, but it covers both, person.
it excludes common sense things like a woman may not be able to do a job that’s physically beyond her as sexist but its not, its about biological differences, sure its one thing to say the womans place is in the home, perhaps it MAY? be better, a traditional way, women are biologically endowned to start kids off, but you could equally say the man stays at home, doesn’t matter to me, but pc says you have to be ashamed of anything said against any victimised group. anything at all and you are out and villified.
you may not even say about women and childbirth one day.
it gets rid of commonsense, like saying a pregnant woman shouldn’t lift beyond what’s advised, things like that.
The best definition of Political correctness I have encountered so far is “Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.” .