Political Correctness in the Age of Swineflu


Political Correctness, defined here:

“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.”

Listening to Fran Kelly on the way to work, she had some Somali community leaders on basically saying it was our fault this happened because these men found it difficult to integrate due to racism and Islamophobia.
She then had an ‘expert’ from London on who said that it was the US War on Terror that was to blame for Somalia’s problems today because the US didn’t want an Islamic state to succeed (inter clan rivalry had nothing to do with it)

So it is good to know that the West is still to blame for all the world’s problems…

The twisted reasoning of the left and their support for the soldiers of Allah

Al BeBeeCeera always supports the (false) claims of Muslim “victims:”

turning up the grievance volume: “Muslim women avoid reporting racism”

Tropsmurf of Cairns (Reply)
Thu 06 Aug 09 (07:07am)
Spencer de Vere replied to Tropsmurf
Thu 06 Aug 09 (07:49am)

Re “She then had an ‘expert’ from London on who said that it was the US War on Terror that was to blame for Somalia’s problems today because the US didn’t want an Islamic state to succeed “

I heard that…and wasn’t surprised.  It’s the ABC’s usual tactic of “balancing” negative news about the West’s enemies with some ‘expert’ skewing history to show that the West (usually the USA) is to blame for the horrors committed against it – because it opposed some lunatic Muslim regime somewhere, or because it didn’t do anything to oppose the lunatic regime, or because it sent the wrong diplomatic signals etc etc.

Some examples:

1.  The USA was responsible for Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide because Nixon authorized the “illegal” bombing of Communist santuaries in Cambodia and that drove Pol Pot & his followers to the radical extremes that resulted in genocide.

2.  Castro was a freedom-loving nationalist but the US trade embargo on Cuba radicalized Castro’s regime & he turned to the USSR for assistance and had to impose a Communist dictatorship because of the ever-present threat of a US invasion.

3.  The Japanese were prepared to surrender in early 1945 but the USA needed to use it’s new atomic bomb to cow the USSR into behaving in post-WW2 Europe, and so ignored the efforts of Japanese diplomats to bring about an honourable peace.

blogstrop replied to Tropsmurf
Thu 06 Aug 09 (08:03am)

The Attorney-general was on Fran’s show this morning saying something about better social support structures. On the evidence so far the “support” provided by some mosques and imams has proved to be less than wonderful. Blaming this country directly or indirectly for the bad behaviour of a so-called “small minority” is not going to wash with genuine Australians. We aren’t racist but we sure are ratbaggist.

If these young blokes have so little respect for our authorities why are they here? Oh that’s right, they are Australian citizens, they were born here. they blame marginalisation by the rest of us. baloney! these communities isolate themsleves. Islam teaches them that Muslims are the best of people (Mohammed’s own words) that we are filth (infidels or Kaffirs) and they are not to befriend us – unless it is to con us into thinking they mean no harm, and then when they have outnumbered us by outbreeding us or by immigration, they can destroy us (Mohammed did this with the Jews of Yathrib – now Mecca), sieze our property (which rightly belongs to them) and our land (which rightly belongs to Allah).
Neat, huh?

The Age of Apologies

Too late to apologise

To be honest, I don’t really see the point of these symbolic gestures in which people who aren’t guilty of perpetrating an injustice apologise to people who weren’t victims of it. So I shan’t be apologising at any point for slavery. I have never owned slaves, wanted to own slaves, or had the opportunity to own slaves. What’s more, I have never met a slave, and since slavery was abolished before my great-grandfather was born, I am unlikely ever to meet one. There may be, granted, some very old people alive today who may have been a child or grandchild of a freed American slave, but the point is that any apology would be a hollow gesture. What’s more, it would be a racist gesture.

It would be racist because it works on the assumption that one group of people are – whether directly or ceremonially is irrelevant – responsible for the actions of their forebears and that the distant progeny of those who have been wronged are, regardless of their own circumstances, capable and willing to serve as a proxy for the wronged and injured, rendering both groups eternal monsters and victims respectively. This is done solely on the basis of a sharing racial and cultural characteristics with the original people involved.

Similarly, I think it would be just as ridiculous for a person born in Berlin today to grow up thinking they ought to apologise to someone born in Tel Aviv in the same hour.

And it is for this reason that, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I shan’t be signing a new petition to urge the government to apologise to the late gay mathematician Alan Turing for his prosecution for homosexuality.

That is not to say it wasn’t a terrible, tragic and unjust case. Turing was chemically castrated and the humiliation caused him to commit suicide in 1954. I’m sure most people know that Turing was responsible for cracking the Nazi’s ‘Enigma’ code which saved many thousands of lives and helped the Allies win the war. He is also considered the father of modern computing. In short a genius, but sacrificed to bigotry and stupidity.

But what is the point of this government – which holds none of the attitudes of the government that persecuted gay men more than half a century ago – apologising to a dead man?

Were the government willing and able to (posthumously) pardon Turing as well as the scores of other gay men unjustly convicted of ‘homosexuality’ – many of whom are still alive – then that is a call I could get behind. Indeed, when a law is recognised as unjust, those convicted under it ought to pardoned and their names cleared.

If that were a principle of British Justice, we’d have real progress.