Archive for the ‘Political correctness’ category

Early and contemporary progressives – a comparison

June 3, 2013

I’ve just been reading Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism. The theme of Goldberg’s book is that modern progressives are just like the progressives of the early 20 th Century. According to Goldberg, all progressives like using government power to achieve their ends, so all progressives are “liberal fascists.”

However, this shallow argument is based solely on means rather than ends. Just because early progressives liked using state power doesn’t mean they wanted to achieve the same things that modern progressives do, or that they were authoritarian in the same ways that modern progressives are. After all, if today’s progressives are just like those of the 1920s and 1930s, then why is modern society so different from what it was 80 years ago?

Here’s some important differences between early and modern progressives which Goldberg downplays and ignores:

Early progressives generally believed in promoting the interests of the majority/Modern progressives promote the interests of minorities

Early progressives wanted to get more native minorities into paid employment so they could support their families and contribute taxes/Modern progressives actively support affirmative action across a wide range of training courses, jobs and political positions, for both native and immigrant minorities.

Early progressives distrusted the financial sector and many were actively hostile towards it/Modern progressives are generally supportive of the financial sector

Early progressives tended to support farming and manufacturing/Modern progressives are apathetic about farming and manufacturing

Early progressives had mixed views about nationalism and protectionism/Most modern progressives actively promote free trade, open borders and global government

Early progressives supported energy independence and aggressively promoted large-scale infrastructure projects/Modern progressive are apathetic about energy independence and are heavily influenced by the thinking of environmentalists

Early progressives had little interest in introducing hate speech laws and saw censorship as something that conservatives did/Modern progressives strongly support hate speech laws and PC speech codes, and many believe right-wing intellectuals, jounalists and entertainers should be actively discriminated against.

Early progressives were interested in discussing human bio-diversity/Modern progressives are not interested in discussing human bio-diversity and criticise or censor those who are

Many early progressives supported eugenics or had an open mind about it /All modern progressives are strongly opposed to eugenics and arguably support dysgenics

Early progressives believed in IQ testing and meritocratic education/Modern progressives are opposed to IQ testing and strongly support egalitarian dogma in education

Early progressives tended to be cautious about immigration and many were immigration restrictionists/Almost all modern progressives are strongly critical of immigration restrictionists, oppose building border fences and off-shore detention camps, and are uncritical supporters of UN refugee quotas

Early progressives supported traditional nuclear families with government subsidies/Modern progressives are often hostile to the traditional nuclear family and give state handouts to single parents

Early progressives had mixed views about women in the workforce/Modern progressives believe in equal pay and subsidised child care so women can compete directly against men in the job market

Early progressives weren’t very concerned about gay rights/Modern progressives actively promote gay rights and homosexual parenting

Given the big differences between early and modern progressives in terms of political views, it’s a big stretch to say that modern progressives have similar agendas to their predecessors

I’d argue the reason people like Goldberg fixate on progressive means rather than ends, it that they actually support many of the ends of modern progressives and see the ends of early progressives as too fascist, elitist or conservative.



So much for the precautionary principle

October 22, 2012

Given the speed with which Western governments are rubber stamping gay marriage and gay adoption legislation who would think there would be lots of social science data showing that gay adoption’s fine, and that the general public has nothing to worry about.

Unfortunately, though there isn’t much data – in fact there’s some pretty good data to show that it’s a bad idea, and to make matters worse, left-wing activists are actively trying to suppress it.

I wonder if gay marriage advocates stop to consider that it would be like growing up in a gay household. Imagine for example, being a  straight 14-year-old male and accidentally finding your two dads going at it “Greek style. ”

Catching straight parents having sex would be embarrassing, watching gay male parents having sex would be a different mindf–k altogether.

Attacking the soft white underbelly (of political correctness)

August 22, 2012

White nationalists may have a reputation for being violent and unpleasant skinhead types, but maybe that their biggest marketing problem isn’t that they’re too mean, but that they’re too nice – especially towards greedy and hypocritical fellow whites.

White nationalist types always tend to focus their political anger towards non-whites – Jews, minorities and foreigners, but this doesn’t seem to achieve much. Like white nationalists themselves, non-white minorities will instinctively circle the wagons and stubbornly defend their tribe when attacked by the hostile other, and despite frequently publicised belly aches from minority leftists in the liberal media, few non-whites actually go as far as leaving majority white countries due to racism from whites.

In fact, many minority activists relish being attacked by white nationalists and are dependent on them for their livelihood. Without the white nationalist boogeyman, groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center would quickly go out of business, so it’s in their interest to keep the tiny white nationalist threat alive.

Instead of focusing their political attacks on non-white minorities who are well schooled in ethnocentric politics, white nationalists might be more successful if they directed their hostility towards those white liberals who treat them with so much contempt. After all, it’s often easier to attack those who aid and abet an enemy than it is to attack a determined enemy in a frontal assault.

Think of the Viet Con in the Vietnam War. When they attacked the powerful American forces directly, as they did during the Tet Offensive, they suffered heavy casualties and came off second best, but when they refocused on attacking American sympathizers among their fellow Vietnamese, they soon bought about the collapse of the pro-American south.

The Italians communists took a similar approach following the allied invasion of Italy in 1943. Rather than join the allies and attack the heavily armed Germans, they focused their efforts on persecuting ex-nationalists and conservatives behind allied lines (a popular communist tactic) with an eye to (successfully) cementing their power base in post-war Italy.

Not only are hypocritical white liberals an easier target than tenacious ethnocentric minorities, but they’re also more likely to give in easily when faced with a real fight.

Consider South African white liberals for example. When questioned about South Africa, they go on about how unjust the Apartheid regime was, yet they’re also terrified of the new rainbow republic and most of them scarper overseas as soon as they get the opportunity. Ironically, it’s the conservative Boer farmers who are most likely to stay on as they’re better armed and less easily intimidated then white urban liberals.

As well as going for obvious targets like middle class liberal intellectuals, white nationalists should also start campaigns to undermine white businesses which promote increased immigration.

In Australia, Gerry Harvey, Gina Rinehart and a number of other prominent business people have made explicit statements in support of mass immigration, yet as far as I’m aware their businesses have never been picketed by white nationalists or immigration restrictionists.

Maybe it’s time for a change of tactics.

The Mainstream Media’s Phantom Nazis

May 17, 2012

Worried about premature mental decline? Don’t despair, as there appears to be plenty of employment opportunities for the cognitively challenged in mainstream journalism.

In today’s mainstream media, basic research, elementary logic, and accurate use of well known political terminology is optional, and unlike in the real world, no one will ever correct you when you get things wrong! Take for example the reports of a “Neo-Nazi” party getting seven percent of the vote in the recent elections in Greece.

Using my extensive powers of research (a five-minute search of Wikipedia) I discovered there is in fact no such “Neo-Nazi” party, only a common or garden bunch of populist/nationalists (albeit with the colorful name ‘Golden Dawn’) who are about as Nazi as the BNP.

In addition to inaccurately referring to Golden Dawn as Nazi’s on countless occasions, MSM journos have also inaccurately referred to their traditional Greek party symbol as a Nazi symbol, referred to their (pre-Nazi) Latin fascist salutes as Nazi salutes, and overlooked the fact that these guys are big fans of the Nationalist government of Greece which went to war with the Nazis in 1941. Unlike the Nazis they also have no intention of invading Eastern Europe for lebensraum so they’re no threat to the rest of the world anyway. Perhaps worst of all though, the MSM has failed to mention that a spokesman for the party have already told them they aren’t a Nazi party (journalism 101 tip – try interviewing your sources before you start writing about them).

Other than rank dishonesty and incompetence, what reason can the MSM have for continually referring to Golden Dawn as Neo-Nazis? Well, I think it has a lot to do to the warped mental logic which pervades mainstream journalism.

Instead of using the basic common sense reasoning that most relatively intelligent people use, members of the MSM makes sweeping conclusions based on obviously incomplete information, for example, in MSM logic, “some nationalists are Neo-Nazis, therefore all nationalists are Neo Nazis”.

Of course it wouldn’t be so bad if the MSM was at least consistent. If it was, then all left-of-centre mainstream parties would be labeled as cultural Marxists or liberal anarchists, but don’t expect logic or consistency in political reporting from people who don’t even know where Fascism actually originated.

German authorities crack down on religious right

April 1, 2012

For historical reasons German authorities have been pretty tough on censoring Neo-Nazis and violent left-wing extremists. But now it seems they’re turning on the traditional Christian right, which seems pretty over top given that it has no modern history of political violence in Germany (I think the last time German Catholics were violently inclined was way back in the 30 Years War of the 17th Century).

Apparently a German intelligence agency is “investigating” an “ultra-Catholic” website called The site apparently contains anonymous comments of a  “homophobic” and “anti-Semitic” nature

Presumably now any kind of “extreme” comment by a German is liable for censorship according to modern German law, even if the person making the comment isn’t bothering others and is no threat to law and order.

Subconscious racism – the eastern front of the modern left

March 15, 2012

Subconscious racism – the eastern front of the modern left

Having made conscious racism legally and socially verboten, left liberals are increasingly turning their attention to subconscious racism. Among their wackier ideas include treating it with drugs and discouraging whites from listening to rock music (apparently it implicitly promotes white identity).

There are however some pretty big stumbling blocks.

Firstly if something is only recognised subconsciously, then it’s hard for most people to accept that it exists. People can be persuaded that explicit things such as legal statutes may be racist, but how do you expect for example, to persuade a staunch white fiscal conservative that fiscal conservatism is sub-consciously racist because it indirectly benefits white people ? The liberal left relies for much of its power on shaming its opponents, but you can only shame someone into changing their views if you can appeal to their conscious. The sub-conscious has no shame.

Hence as the liberal left sends its panzers of political correctness across the vast steppes of the white subconscious, they’re likely to find a stubborn and bemused opponent that’s unwilling to surrender ground.

Secondly, they may well unravel a lot of information that’s just as useful to the right as it is to the left. For example, in trying to show that whites have sub-consciously racist voting practices they will also end up revealing that non-whites are just as sub-consciously racist (if not more so).

Thirdly they may end up alienating many of their own kind.

As Kevin Macdonald pointed out in his excellent essay on white ethnocentrism, liberals may not be quite as ethnocentric as conservatives, but they’re a lot more hypocritical. For example, they publicly promote egalitarianism and anti-racism, but in private they avoid sending their kids to multicultural schools, support restrictive housing regulations (making housing more expensive for the poor) and engage in the gentrification (or whitetification) of non-white inner city neighborhoods.

Similarly, liberal musicians in white dominated genres like rock and folk are hardly likely to appreciate having their funding and publicity undermined by over-zealous anti-racist campaigners.

As the recession-driven Occupy movement has demonstrated, liberal whites quickly start to lose interest in helping non-whites once their own economic interests are on the line.

Are left liberals bigoted?

March 11, 2012

In an article on the Sarah Maid of Albion blog David Hamilton makes the point that left liberals who like to use the word bigot are actually bigots themselves since a bigot is someone who won’t listen to other opinions and many leftists refuse to listen to non-liberal opinions.

Hamilton argues that leftists misuse the word bigot to make it seem that it only applies to right wingers with negative opinions of things like ethnic diversity, while ignoring the word’s original meaning.

I looked up the term bigot in a couple of dictionaries.

According to a 1981 New Webster’s Dictionary a ‘bigot’ is defined as:

“a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion or practice, a person blindly attached to any opinion system or party and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently”

A 2004 Chambers dictionary defines a ‘bigot’ as:

“someone who is persistently prejudiced, especially about religion or politics, and refuses to tolerate the opinions of others”

The Chamber’s Dictionary defines ‘prejudice’ as:

“a preconceived and irrational opinion”

Now clearly a bigot is not simply someone who is intolerant of something. A bigot is someone who is unreasonably and irrationally intolerant, and won’t change their views if new information comes to hand. And bigotry doesn’t just apply to issues of race and religion it applies to all opinions and belief systems. Therefore it’s just as easy for a secular leftist to be a bigot as it is for say, a religious conservative or ethno-nationalist, and given that many leftists wish to deny rightists freedom of expression, Hamilton can make a strong claim that leftists are today’s biggest bigots.

Interestingly the original French meaning of the term bigot is “a suspicious hypocrite” which suggests that bigots are likely to dismiss rational arguments they disagree with and accuse those who make them of bigotry – a trait which is rampant on the modern left.