home

ps3

software

contact

newsfeed

archives
mental health problems
more lord mcalpine
more jimmy savile
these babies can read
first contact alien ufo
free charles bronson
my windows 7 advert
november tipping point
sex offenders register
beyonces better place
i facebooked your mum
mice and snakes
forty years on
free social bookmarking
war criminals out
obama dont multitask
hes got herpes
hamster fight video
carradine dead
european socialism
hi de ho from moscow
hello sooty
institutional racism
child abuse
credit crunch teens
portsmouth fa cup
white star cider
war sex traffic
first black president
michael todds apology
jersey child abuse
prozac bebo internet
kate gerry maddy
tiger tia copland
crimes against poetry
god bless 511
celebrity doss house
ten years on
hamsters attack
angry nhs doctors
ive been stabbed
rosa parks day
slave trade
you need terror
she wants it
its a whitewash
the deal is
move along
pedo loving sluts
wot no asbestos
i am not spastic
my toothache
ten years on
my tooth hurts
child killer
stop the terror
israels jfk
are you terrorist
your government
the cast
crucifixion
came for the porn
paedos out
catholic bankruptcy
farewell fucktard
stauffenberg
is it jesus
margaret hodge
new deal
blairs pedo sex rings
the brazilian
fuck id
its all over
cia car bomb
echelon
hilda murrell
newspaper spies
james rusbridger
sowan
subversives

Your Baby Can Read - Free Instant Download
name : email:

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.

 

<<< back

next >>>



© Sean Copland 1995-2014
evolution
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17



best blogs
davidicke
searchscripts
scriptsearch
radicalphilosophy
newsfly411
hotscripts
guerillanews
underground
coleman
angrycheese


linkswap