XII
More examples of arrogance, and its
infectiousness, are seen in examples whereby the abused
become the abuser. In the arena of political correctness,
we encounter 'isms' of all shapes and sizes. Racism and
sexism being prime candidates of just such examples. In
both instances, the principles themselves were formed
from genuine cases of oppression whereby certain
groupings were oppressed on the grounds of their, in
their oppressors eyes at least, race, and or sex. In the
example of racism, we see genuine acts of oppression by
way of the slavery that was forced upon the blacks of old,
and in sexism, we see similar acts of oppression being
forced upon those of the fairer sex, no rights to vote,
little or no rights to well paid jobs etc. Though in
their acquisition of such rights, the people involved, as
they set about climbing the structures put before them,
invariably become tinged with their oppressors traits, as
they set about conforming to images placed before them in
their quest for an alleviation of oppression. As and when
such people manage to climb such structures and
experience the power which their oppressors of yesterday
enjoyed so much, they themselves invariably start
enjoying such power. So much so that, more often than not,
they set about tossing a few of their own rules and
regulations into the hat as they go, a la political correctness.
The principles behind political correctness
are, like all interactions between higher life forms,
bound by the same principles of power and oppression (control).
By taking a closer look at those that advocate such
principles, and more importantly their actions, we can
ascertain their current level of development, whereby,
more often than not, we see that they themselves are
guilty of everything they condemn.
In order to understand such principles as
racism, and sexism fully, we must first understand the
concept of elitism. Elitism in any of its guises is the
common key factor in any such claims of racism, sexism,
or indeed any other form of 'ism' you care to mention. In
short, elitism is the personal justification of any form
of control, by which the blame for the abuse and
subsequent domination of others, is placed squarely upon
the shoulders of those that are currently experiencing
oppression within that relationship. In the example of
sexism, the act itself would involve the domination of
one sex by the other, with the reasonings, and effective
gradings of any individual within that relationship,
being governed upon the basis of sex. In racism the same
true, only race being the key defining factor within that relationship.
When taking a closer look at sexism (in its
politically correct sense), and those that always revert
to yelling it whenever things don't seem to be going
their way, we see that they themselves are not the
oppressed within any given relationship, rather that they
are the oppressor. In the example of the politically
correct screams of sexism, we see women complaining that
they were called 'love', as in "Hello love", or
that they were subjected to a 'gratuitous wolf whistle',
accompanied by a cry of "Alright gorgeous". In
examples such as these, the woman wasn't actually
oppressed, nor subsequently controlled and therefore
dominated. More that, they weren't actually addressed in
a manner in which they deemed fit. Whereby there only
genuine complaint is that, in their opinion, they weren't
treated with respect, though in the real world, the
respect which they speak of isn't so much true respect,
rather than worship, i.e. you will address me in a manner
of which I have approved.
In the above examples, the offending incidents
weren't truly offensive, they were complimentary. Though
the upholder of correctness will scream offence, if only
for the fact that the offending individual was 'over
familiar', 'too friendly' etc. Clearly the only
perpetrator of any act of elitism, in the above examples
is the woman herself. She was the one who was offended
that somebody should swing around a scaffolding pole
shouting "Hello gorgeous". The alleged offender
was merely guilty of refusing to conform to the image as
set by the oppressor, or at least attempted oppressor,
within that relationship and, as such, must, in the
oppressors eyes at least, be punished until they do conform.
Again, a similar pattern emerges, when looking
at the examples of politically correct claims of racism.
As above, the guilty party is in actual fact, the alleged
victim. They themselves attempt to control, and
subsequently dominate, people with their 'new and
improved' images, with corresponding levels of reward and
punishment being dished out accordingly. It is here where
we see examples such as 'with or without milk'. Too
scared of being held up as an example of evil, whereby
they would subsequently experience punishment, people
feel compelled to comply with the rules and regulations
as set by the oppressor, whereby they must never mention
the word black, for fear of causing offence. And in the
above example of "How would you like your coffee?"
quite naturally feel obliged to refrain from saying
either black or white, despite the fact that they wouldn't
in real terms be guilty of anything aside form answering
a perfectly legitimate question with a perfectly
legitimate answer. As in the example of politically
correct sexism, the only real guilty party is the
purveyor of such actions. They hold themselves up as an
object of worship, and therefore must be obeyed. Failure
to obey will, as in all such instances, result in punishment.
It's also worth noting that in the cases of
the above mentioned interactions, and those of that type,
it is blatantly clear that the reason such levels of
control are forced upon individuals isn't, as in the
above instance, to correct some genuine wrong doing, more
for the point that the upholders of such virtues, enjoyed
controlling people to such an extent. A direct result of
which, means that even when the rules and regulations set
down by the controller are adhered to and adopted by
those they oppress, the controller will, to all intents
and purposes, move the goal posts, in order that they may
continue to experience that amount of power, whereby they
will find more things wrong with the world at large, and
therefore lay down even more rules and regulations and
images by which they may oppress their fellow man.
Humour is also a stage where such acts of
political correctness fester, especially with regards
race. With society ever more frowning upon such humour
that involves the belittling of people of a certain race,
or races that it has become unacceptable to laugh at, are
the minorities, with the majority being fair game.
It is quite a common sight to see those
telling jokes whereby a black individual is the brunt of
that joke, sneered at, and held up as being evil, and yet
when exactly the same person tells exactly the same joke
whereby a white person is the brunt, the exact same joke
suddenly becomes more then acceptable, and is embraced
with open arms.
It is also interesting to note, that as far as
power, and any subsequent attempt to control is concerned,
the first thing to go, is the sense of humour. The
individual holding themselves, and their subsequent
images up as objects of worship, will all of a sudden be
above being laughed at, they must be worshipped and
obeyed, and subsequently, any individual deciding to poke
fun will, in the eyes of the oppressor, be actively
exercising total disrespect for the oppressor and, as
such, must be punished.
This principle is widespread, in the arena of
sanitising humour in the name of correctness, where we
find that all of a sudden certain groupings within any
given society are somewhat strangely above being laughed
at, unless it is in a manner set by them, and with their
approval, leading to the modern day black joke suddenly
being out. And yet the fact of the matter remains, that
if the upholders of such correctness, are unable to laugh
at something so petty as the colouring of their own skin,
they then have little or no right whatsoever, to laugh at
anyone or anything else.
The act of humour is itself, more often than
not, the act of humiliation. Slapstick being a prime
example, people have a strange taste for witnessing the
ritual humiliation of their fellow men, slaps around the
head, custard pies in the face etc. This is shown in
general schoolyard bullying, a person slapping a fellow
pupil around the head, will invariably receive claps and
cheers from their assembled friends.
The same basic pattern of humiliation is also
forthcoming from members of the footballing fraternity
complaining about racism from the terraces. Bananas being
thrown to black footballers for instance. Whilst the
politically correct brigade start jumping up and down,
and stamping their feet at such gross moral outrages,
they seem, somewhat unsurprisingly, blind to exactly the
same pattern of behaviour being exercised against
individuals who aren't in their little pocket of pet
causes. For example, a particularly hairy man being
thrown a banana on the grounds of his appearance,
alongside comments of "Get back in your cage, you
bloody monkey", or even the fat man who gets a
packet of lard thrown at him, accompanied by shouts of
"Eat cake you fat bastard". The politically
correct lobby seem blind to the fact that whilst the same
act is being perpetrated in the above three examples (black,
hairy, fat man), the bleating footballer had no
legitimate cause for complaint, on the grounds that he is
probably receiving somewhere in the region of ten
thousand pounds plus, per week for his troubles, which is
more than enough compensation for being the brunt of
somebody else's idea of a silly prank. Whereas the other
two experience exactly the same act and probably receive
no more than a hundred or two pounds a week for their troubles, if at all.
As in all such instances of correctness, in
all of the above examples, bananas, coffee, complimentary
remarks, the only guilty party is the upholder of the
rules and regulations, the footballer being the classic
example. Of all the people in society who experience acts
of genuine oppression on a day to day basis, i.e. poverty,
black kids, and for that matter white ones too, living in
deprived council estates, single mothers struggling to
raise children on benefits with little or no real chance
of escape, how many would be willing to stand in a field
for ninety minutes a week, and have a few bananas, or
indeed anything, tossed in their general direction for a
basic fee of around ten thousand pounds?
We see the wheel really turning full circle,
when we see these exact same people, who sit around
stamping their feet with their stupid little cries of
"Why should I pay for those single mums kids? They
shouldn't breed if they can't afford to raise them",
"Why should I pay for that peasants health care?
leave them to die", "and the most sickening of
all under such circumstances. The single comment that
condemns them as being just as guilty, just as repulsive,
and abusive as their forefathers oppressors. When faced
with benefits of any shape, size, or description being
handed to any poor people, comes the final nail in the
coffin, "Let's make them work for their benefits".
It's slavery, that's what they're talking
about. The very thing which their forefathers fought so
hard to abolish. Forcing people to work for little or no
more than basic living expenses. Leading to just such
offensive little people genuinely transforming themselves
from the abused, into the abuser, adopting all their repulsive traits along the way.
Copyright Sean Copland 1995-2010
|