OFFENSIVE TO AGGRESSIVE LEFTISTS

"I have a habit of comparing the phraseology
of communiqués, one with another across
the years, and noting a certain similarity
of words, a certain similarity of optimism
in the reports which followed the summit
meetings and a certain similarity in the lack
of practical results during the ensuing years."
—Margaret Thatcher

"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading
as a contest of principles. The conduct of
public affairs for private advantage."
—Ambrose Bierce

WITH REGARD TO THE RECENT UPROAR in Davenport, Iowa, where the town fathers in their mid-western wisdom decided to rename the traditional Good Friday to Spring Holiday, thus causing local and national outrage, columnist Dennis Prager has offered up a concise summation of what is a self-evident trend now creeping across America.

1. There really is a war against Christianity.

Leftism functions as a secular religion, and its adherents understand that the major obstacle to the dominance of leftist policies and values is traditional religion, specifically Christianity. With the demise of Christianity in Western Europe, leftist ideas and values came to dominate that continent. America, the most religious industrialized democracy, remains the great exception.

2. Why not abolish Christmas?

If a religiously diverse population and the separation of church and state demand abolishing government recognition of Good Friday, why not treat Christmas similarly and rename it "Winter Holiday"? This was asked of Mr. Hart, the Civil Rights Commission chairman. His response, in the words of ABC, shows the level of thought that is characteristic of the politically correct: "The commission, he said, discussed changing Christmas, but decided enough other religions celebrate Christmas, too. Hart, however, could not name one."

3. Civil-rights organizations are not about civil rights.

The ACLU and other left-wing organizations that have noble-sounding civil-liberties and civil-rights names have a problem similar to the one the March of Dimes had once polio was conquered: What to do now? Civil liberties and civil rights are extraordinarily well-protected in America. If the ACLU and the innumerable civil rights commissions ceased to exist, and a few smaller and politically neutral groups took their place, civil liberties in America would benefit. As is obvious from the Davenport example, these groups do not really function as civil-rights or civil-liberties organizations. They are organizations that promote left-wing agendas. And no leftist agenda is greater than minimizing the influence of Judeo-Christian religions, specifically Christianity, on American life.

4. Good Friday as an American holiday reminds Americans that this is a religious society.

Leftism opposes America's three great values – what I call the American Trinity (see, for example, my video on the American Trinity at prageruniversity.com) – "E Pluribus Unum," "Liberty" and "In God We Trust." The left uses diversity and multiculturalism to undermine E Pluribus Unum ("From Many, One"). It substitutes equality (of result) for liberty, and the powerful state for the powerful free individual. And it seeks, perhaps above all, to replace "In God We Trust" with a secular society and secular values. If it had a motto, it might be "In Science (or Secularism) We Trust." The elimination of Good Friday as an American holiday is just one more such battle in this war.

5. Non-Christians offended by Good Friday as an American holiday are narcissists.

The left tells us that non-Christians are offended by the government celebrating Good Friday. As a Jew, permit me to say that any non-Christian offended by Good Friday or Christmas gives new meaning to the word "narcissist." To seek to erase the name Good Friday is an exercise in self-centeredness and ingratitude that is jaw-dropping. We non-Christian Americans live in the freest society in human history; it was produced by people nearly every one of whom celebrated Good Friday, and we have the gall to want to rename it?

6. PC (Political Correctness) should be renamed OTL (Offends the Left).

Most Americans will characterize the Davenport attempt to rename Good Friday "Spring Holiday" as political correctness. That it is. But the term itself is politically correct. Like everything PC, the term itself hides its true meaning, which is leftism. Political correctness is invariably produced by the left. The term, therefore, should not be PC; it should be OTL, "Offends the Left." It is very unfortunate for America that it isn't. Americans would have much greater clarity as to the Second Civil War now taking place – from San Francisco to Boston to, yes, Davenport, Iowa.

Mr. Prager's six point firing line spotlights precisely why the Left remains so fond of Islam. Both ideologies consistently pretend to be easily offended while simultaneously playing the "superiority" and "victimhood" cards.

The American political scene and each of the thousands of well-documented Muslim sharia and jihadist atrocities spanning the globe by both US allies and US enemies that—under duress of policy—are routinely ignored by the so-called mainstream media, bear witness to this fact.

This dualistic morality is further corrupted when these players also exhibit absolutely no self-consciousness much less remorse at the outrage and the offense they level at those with whom they disagree.

If you doubt these assessments laid out against the backdrop of the recent FBI arrests of so-called Christian militia up in Michigan, I suggest we talk turkey.

THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Columnist James Hudnall opines on the need to snuff out this miserable house called political correctness. His language may seem terse in places, but his arguments stand on their own two feet. Free speech must be protected that liberty might survive.

Of course, that colorful spate called "hate speech legislation" is a completely different box of crayons...

IN THE EARLY 20th century Marxism seemed like a good idea to many of the poor and downtrodden the world over. It hadn’t yet resulted in the untimely deaths of more people than all the wars of the 20th century combined.

Even so, radicals then were as annoying and crazed as radicals now. So the people weren’t universally jumping on their bandwagon. The Marxists couldn’t flip governments without the masses. So they worked on a system to undermine unity in society. The old adage “United we stand, divided we fall” was on their mind. They had to divide the people in order to tear society apart and remake it their way. Thus, political correctness was born.

This documentary does an excellent job of telling its story. PC is designed by German Marxists of the Frankfurt School to destroy Western culture.

It should come as no surprise the the destruction of the family is one of its goals. And as it gained in prominence, its goals have been realized. The polarization of racial groups, and even of
the sexes is another.

That’s plenty of reason to see it die a horrible death. Marxists have murdered many times more people than the Nazis. They have destroyed the livelihoods of people the world over and imprisoned many millions in gulags and work camps. The last thing we want to do is let them win here or anywhere else.

While it may seem communism is dead, communism, socialism, fascism are all part of a many headed hydra called statism. These are political systems which are all about empowering the state as much as possible. They name they go under now is “progressive.”

Many progressives on the ground think they are fighting for equal rights and social justice. The progressive elites know better. They want power and control over people’s lives. Political correctness is a tool to accomplish these goals.

It should come as no surprise that the oldest Marxist states threw off Marxism because it doesn’t work, and went with their own version of capitalism. Almost every single former Soviet state went gleefully to capitalism. Russia even has a flat tax. That’s a pretty sad comment on where we are right now when their tax system is simple and ours is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Political Correctness is hated by just about anyone you meet. The only people driving it are leftists and government bureaucrats, who earn a living from it. Pardon my redundancy.

Here are five good reasons Political Correctness must die.

1. It’s censorship: Point blank, that’s what it is. It’s used mainly by people on the left to attack people on the right, but not the other way around. When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, politely said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, the PC thugs proceeded to try to destroy her life. But when Obama said it he was elected president. It’s used to accuse people of racism even when there is no racism involved, It’s not only a scare tactic, but also a career-destroying move. And it’s a thuggish weapon of intimidation.

2. It’s bigotry disguised as manners: You may think all those touchy-feely names they come up with for various special interest groups are more sensitive and empowering than the “mean” names of the past, but most of them are patronizing and they segregating. When you separate people into classes, it’s creating a kind of caste system. History has shown us that caste systems are used to suppress and marginalize people by putting them in special groups. The insidious thing about PC is it claims to treat people better when it really does the opposite. It implies that people in these groups are somehow lesser and weaker and must be “protected”, presumably by the government, and then implies that they are not being treated well by other groups (namely white males) which is an inherently racist argument.

3. It’s an attempt at mind control: The goal of PC always has been to segregate people into classes, destroy the family by marginalizing and polarizing people from traditional values and culture. It also tries to rebrand things to force people to think along a different path. You might think that’s a good thing if it makes people more tolerant. While our culture is more tolerant than it was in the past there is no proof or evidence PC had anything to do with it. The fact is, lying to people (which PC does) and trying to destroy a culture by effectively brainwashing people is downright…

4. Evil: The textbook definition of evil is that which is willfully and maliciously harmful to others. What else do you call something that is used to commit so much harm against people and a society as a whole. It has become a rampant monster that destroys lives, careers, and society. It’s used by creepy, selfish people to hurt others. Race-baiters we all know and despise have been using PC for years to try to extort money from business and government by making up racist claims. That’s nothing but a form of extortion.

5. Why should we do what some faceless creeps tell us? Most of the time we were told what the new term for something is. In the ’60s we were told Negro is not acceptable anymore. We should say black even though Negro is merely the Spanish word for black. Then in the ’70s we were told to use “Afro-American” then later “African-American” even though that term is not only a mouthful it makes no sense. A lot of black Americans are simply Americans, many others are from the Caribbean. Or they are mixed race like our president. Who makes up these lame terms and why should we start saying them? Because “we’re supposed to” isn’t a reason, that’s more of a threat. Who says we have to? Why shouldn’t we say steward or stewardess instead of flight attendant? Because “they” say so? Why should we take directions from faceless entities who tell us what we can say? Why can’t we say whatever we want? Most of the terms these people come up with are retarded mentally challenged. See, they hyphenate you to separate you from the rest of us, We’re all part of the same country, but they want to make you feel aggrieved. Angry and unhappy people are easier to sway with propaganda.

TREASON AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Here's a strong argument against the tactics used by those who tout with positive spin the adage that WAR IS DECEIT simply because their warlord prophet told them so, published on Jihad Watch by a fellow writing under the oddly familiar non de guerre Hyman Roth:

CAIR and other enemies undoubtedly would like to take some of the comments on this particular thread to falsely proclaim that Jihad Watch endorses random mayhem against all Muslims. Robert S has mentioned that he is frequently on the defensive against this claim but addresses it this way:

To paraphrase, Jihad Watch does not endorse the viewpoint expressed by each comment, but allows a wide range of viewpoints to be expressed. However, comments which explicitly advocate such things as genocide against any group, including Muslims, are considered beyond the pale and, subsequently, deleted by moderators as they are observed. Therefore, claiming that Jihad Watch endorses or supports such things as genocide or other lawlessness directed against any particular group is false.

That is a defensive position, but I would like to suggest to Robert to supplement the position so as to push forward a solution. Namely, when accused of promoting "hate" or "genocide" or whatever, after first referring to the standard disclaimer above, turn it around as follows:

"What my esteemed and honorable opponents may be referring to as being hateful rhetoric emanating from Jihad Watch is actually constructive and rational discourse regarding enforcement of the law. Treason is a capital offense. When anybody commits treason, Muslim or otherwise, they should be punished accordingly. This is compatible with rule of law and, in fact, rule of law cannot survive as an institution otherwise."

I have a personal example of why I believe that this position may help to improve the debate as well as open people's ears. When I was a good "progressive" college student in the late 80's in History 101 or something, the subject of the Kent State shootings came up. I told the professor and the class about fascism, Nixon, republicans, etc., like a good little hippie wannabee. Anyway, the professor remained calm and explained the situation the following way:

First, the Kent State shootings were not a result of a top down order to kill dissidents but a result of itchy trigger finger and loss of control on the part of police and provocation by students. Second, the leaders of the student movement were advocating violent revolution--whether or not they could conceivably pull it off is another matter. In just about every case of recorded history, anybody who advocates violent revolution, regardless of their likelihood of success, has been considered a fair target by the existing authorities. By all historical and even contemporary standards, Kent State protesters and much of the rest of the radical movement of the 60's got off lightly. A "good" regime cannot survive if it allows people to openly plan and implement its demise. So even if, hypothetically, in the unlikeliest possible instance that America was led by a "good" regime (irony), that regime would be within its rights and even duty-bound, to punish and perhaps even to kill people who were acting to destroy it.

That patient explanation from a History professor whose name I've forgotten provided a little dent in the PC armor which had at one time engulfed my feeble little mind.

Now that my feeble little mind is no longer engulfed within PC, I can proclaim that anybody who wants to destroy my country should be killed. If they aren't killed, then they get off lightly. And the process by which they should be brought to justice needs to be done via rule of law. I say this with no hatred in my heart—with no desire to break the law—but only with a desire to urge our authorities in the most strenuous possible fashion that it is their duty to enforce this mandate in the most efficient, fair, and humane way possible.

Robert, Hugh, and so on, please consider supplementing the "standard disclaimer" above with something so that it can be turned back against CAIR. Since CAIR is unspecific about which comments they consider hateful or genocidal, use that lack of specificity to define what they "actually" mean. What they actually must find offense from is rational discourse regarding the consequences of engaging in open war, treason, and sedition, against established, traditional, and legitimate authority. CAIR is a front group for people making war against the United States and our allies and, as such, wants to minimize the just consequences of this behavior, which include banishment, imprisonment, or death, depending on the particular circumstances.