Multiculturalist Ideology (Part One): A Rationale For Race War Politics
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
The recent tragic events of the Capitol Hill protest, in which several lost their lives, including Ashli Babbitt who was shot dead despite being unarmed and non-violent, has resulted in President Trump being accused of primary responsibility.
This is like a stuck record. President Trump was similarly accused when he was only a candidate back in 2016. A blog post concerning that is below:
*****
‘A developed society, politically stable with a prosperous economy, can afford to tolerate alternative lifestyles, atypical activities, and dissent. This does not alter the fact that society did not progress and will not progress by people living in a hippy commune, for example. There needs to be a critical mass of those who are committed to patriotism and the advancement of civilization. No matter how disgruntled some might be at the imperfections of society, they should be on their guard against being used by others to promote dissent; and they should be alert to the consequences of a revolution that might transform Western democracy into, for example, a Sharia state or simply anarchy. Members of a minority should not acquiesce to pressure groups of zealots, corrupted by the receipt of public monies, to agitate endlessly on their behalf. The development of civilization is in the interests of all those who seek a better life.’
The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, by Michael William, – available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace
The recent mass murder in Orlando has, regrettably, once again seen a triumph for the ideology of political correctness. A great deal of effort by the media, politicians and pressure groups has been expended trying to blur the fact that this was an act of terrorism or, if it was an act of terrorism, then it was also a ‘hate crime’.
Much of the reporting in Britain on Monday was taken up with a snooty denunciation of Donald Trump. Allegedly, The Donald had responded to the murders in a manner that was not befitting a president; the tone of his response was wrong. In reference to a Donald Trump comment, Ed Miliband, a failed ex-Labour leader, wrote ‘Can there be a more heinous, self-serving, disqualifying statement about the murder of 50 people?’ A quick answer to the question is to cite the question itself.
In fact, Donald Trump has been proved correct in his determination to confront radical Islam and in his willingness to restrict immigration. This is a common-sense approach rather than a politically correct one. It is also one likely to attract voter support.
On Newsnight, a certain Pedro Julio Serrano (a gay activist from Puerto Rico and a ‘senior advisor’ at New York City Council) was interviewed. He regarded the mass murder as a hate crime, was hostile towards Donald Trump who he lumped in with those he regarded as perpetuating hate and hence in some way responsible for the hate crime. He pointedly rejected the idea that Donald Trump was right to advocate the restriction of Muslim immigration.
In Britain, one activist terminated a review of the newspapers on Sky and walked out in anger at the murders not being described as homophobic attacks. Another prominent activist has had pictures of him posted on the internet holding a placard proclaiming solidarity with Muslims against the English Defence League (which was formed in response to a demonstration of Muslim extremists as troops paraded after returning home from active service). Do these gay activists actually consider what they are doing?
It is now reported that the killer, who was from a wealthy family, had once been on an FBI watch list due to suspected extremism. The killer’s father fancies himself as being the president of Afghanistan (from where he originates) and has released extremist videos on YouTube (‘Our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up’ and, just after the murders, ‘God will punish those involved in homosexuality’). The killer rang the police three times just before and during the murder spree claiming allegiance with Islamic State and al-Nusra extremists, and was ‘laughing frantically’ as he murdered.
The killer is further alleged to have been using gay dating websites, and to have frequented the homosexual club involved where he had been trying to pick up gay men. In which case, the killer was not only a Muslim extremist but also an aspiring if not active homosexual – despite being married.
The evidence points towards the murders being either another act of radical Muslim terrorism, or else an extreme gay-on-gay act of violence, with the perpetrator being of dubious mental stability. It was not a homophobic attack by society in general on an oppressed gay community.
The attempts to impose a politically correct interpretation of what happened is wrong and must be resisted. It is the same reflex to impose dogma that led to the authorities, including the police, tolerating mass paedophilia in Rotherham; that has led to judges corrupting human rights legislation to facilitate people smuggling, despite the people smugglers including organized criminals and terrorists (including ISIS); that has led to mass immigration despite the deaths of immigrants trying to invade the West and despite the known hostility of many of those immigrants to certain groups in particular, such as Jews and homosexuals, and the West in general. The politically correct treat these consequences as being nothing more than collateral damage. For the communists, the revolution is all that matters.
Those gay activists who support other minorities in a hoped-for common cause against the host society, and hence support mass immigration of those who openly mean them harm, should take the trouble to rethink their political correctness. Those they claim to represent are being very poorly served. It is time that state funding for gay pressure groups was ended.
Political correctness does not legislate tolerance. It is the organization of hatred. The funding of organized crime and terrorist people smugglers, the deaths of immigrants trying to invade the West, the paedophilia, and the killing of Jews and homosexuals are not collateral damage. They are the true face of political correctness.
The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil. It is as clear cut as that.
posted by erc @ 2:53 pm
*****
This time, not only is President Trump under attack, but also many of his senior close colleagues as well as many YouTubers and bloggers. There is the real threat of impeachment. Another purge is in process, with many of the victims losing that which has taken them many years, time and effort to build up. Conservatives generally are being targeted.
The Frankfurt School, who are rightly credited with launching political correctness, placed great emphasis on the control of language, including all forms of communication. For example, Herbert Marcuse wrote:
‘It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights [including free speech] by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.’
For Marcuse: ‘Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.’ That is to say the Right should be denied free speech, whereas the Left, including anyone hostile to the West, should have the opinions positively promoted.
This ‘intolerance’ of ‘movements from the Right’ is what we are witnessing. We need to recognise this for what it is. It is communism.
So far as the Capitol Hill protest is concerned, that was in response to numerous allegations of malpractice and criminality perpetrated by the Democrats in certain key states in the presidential election. President Trump has a duty to respond to such malpractice – especially if the outcome was that the election was rigged. Had Congress agreed to an investigation, as had been proposed by Senator Ted Cruz, then the protest would have been unnecessary. But Congress, including both Democrats and many Republicans, refused. That refusal, coming after the refusal of many other authorities to act, notably, including the USA’s Supreme Court, was the root cause of the protest.