POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE CLOSETED MIND
by James Reed
Readers I am sure, will be pleased to know that “social inclusion is not just a policy, it has its own journal” (“Opening Closeted Minds”, The Australian, July 21, 2010, p.27) Former High Court judge and homosexual, Michael Kirby, has launched a new academic journal, Journal of Social Inclusion, based at Griffiths University. The journal will be “devoted to redressing social marginalisation”. I am surprised that given the multitude of journals like this, that yet another one is needed. It just shows how many politically correct academics are out there, scribbling away – well actually, they “bang away” on laptop computers, probably in trendy coffee shops or at home.
How about a Journal of Social Exclusion?
How about a Journal of Political Incorrectness? It would be nice to have a juicy government grant to set up such delights. Dream on James…
Where did political correctness, “the scourge of our times” come from? Raymond V. Raehn, “The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness” and Agustin Blazquez have given the same source: Marxism.
The Marxist roots of political correctness:
Blazquez gives this quicky summary: (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/121115.shtml)
It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the “Frankfurt School.” It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.
The problem? Why wasn’t communism spreading? Their answer? Because Western Civilisation was in its way. What was the problem with Western Civilization?
Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.
And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.
One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices. And call it something that sounds positive: “Political Correctness.”
Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930’s, wrote an article on the “correct” handling of contradictions among the people. “Sensitive training” – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.
Marxism from economic to cultural terms:
In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud’s psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.
But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.
Further reading: To trace the pedigree of Marxist ideas you need to read “Dialectics” by Eric D. Butler (Socialism IS Marxism). It is online for those with access to the internet; hard copies are available from both Heritage Book Services.
Another important read is: The Australian Heritage Series: “The Church and the Trinity” by Geoffrey Dobbs, especially the section dealing with Lenin and Manichaean Dualism.
WHERE ARE THE MEN OF GENUINE UNDERSTANDING AND REFORM?
It is so hard not to make rude remarks about the political and business dinosaurs that are given such media coverage in this day and age. I watched the ABC’s Q&A discussions where so-called leaders of this nation presented their particular slant on the dire need for large-scale immigration and discussed Dick Smith’s call for a planned immigration policy:
“We must continue to have large-scale immigration, full employment, economic growth at all costs and export all our resources overseas - if we are to remain financially viable, pay our debts, provide for pensions of the present elderly and future elderly, etc., etc.”
There was a much more realistic discussion in The New Times, of November 27-December 4, 1942. Please note that date - 1942 – sixty-eight years ago and during the war years at that!
It was a time when the Industrial Revolution was ‘kicking into very high gear’ because of the war in Europe and the threatened invasion of Australia by Japan.
A small nation of pioneering people, Australians, were going through a second war in the first half of that century, and, in between the wars, had suffered great hardships under the Bankers’ 1930s Depression. And, the Technological Revolution was yet to come.
Read article below:
THE FOUR FREEDOMS
The New Times, of November 27-December 4, 1942
by James Guthrie B.Sc.
“If the productive system is to supply you and me with the amenities of life with as little bother as possible, then obviously the best thing to do is to place first-class brains in charge of production and use the latest machinery and the latest inventions.
On the other hand, if our problem is to keep men and women constantly at work whether they are required or not - in other words, permit of no leisure: "no unemployment," as our politicians prefer to call it - if that is what we want: plenty of work; then there are four things we can do:
1. Remove all our best organisers and inventors from production and fill their jobs with half-wits. This will make more work for everybody.
2. We can export all our best butter, wine, wool, etc., abroad. This will keep us working all day and every day.
3. We can start another war and employ every man, woman and child day and night, presenting the enemy with shells and bombs, free, gratis and for nothing.
4. Or, we can put our young men back on the land to grow apples, and then dump them in the sea, as they do in Tasmania; or we can grow coffee and then pile it into a heap, pour tar over it and burn it, as they do in Brazil; or we could grow cotton, and then dig it back into the ground, as they do in the United States of America; or we could build huge Atlantic liners and then sink them, as they did in England; or we could breed scores of thousands of head of cattle, and then shoot and burn them, as they do in the Argentine.
Real problem is keeping them from getting the results
There are many schemes for keeping men working most of their lives; the real difficulty lies in keeping them from getting the results of their toil, in goods, services and leisure. Hitler solved this problem by war; our Government solved it by Marketing Boards. Hitler's way was much more successful.
I believe the Brains Trust is evolving a system of Marketing Boards which will keep every man, woman and child at work, eight hours a day, for 300 days a year, for fifty years, at union wages, the prices given to producers will be low enough to keep them working like niggers (in the original) to make ends meet; the price to the consumer will be high enough so that he will have to work all the year round to get enough money to buy enough to eat. The method to be used by the Brain Trust to dispose of the "surplus" production, and so prevent anyone getting it, is a closely-guarded secret.
The position is this
Most of the world's important industries - wheat, cotton, fruit, wine, sugar, tea, coffee, iron, steel, rubber, coal and engineering goods of all kinds, and transport services - all of these, every one of them, has had its production either limited or destroyed, or its plant sabotaged, - sometimes on a colossal scale, by financial manipulation and Government Boards.
Our powers of production have increased enormously in the last 25 years, and we have had large so-called "surpluses" of nearly every important commodity; and yet, side by side with this abundance, we have had men struggling as men seldom struggled before, to get their hands on these very commodities, which were being fed to the pigs or burned in great mountainous heaps. Everybody clamours for work at a steady WAGE; everybody has got it now - war has brought it, and only war and destruction can maintain the steady "wage system."
Wages system has broken down
It is absolutely impossible, with the power machinery we have at our disposal today - let alone that which is yet to come – to maintain a steady system of employment on the present scale. If the future is to have any kind of reasonable stability and any kind of real Freedom, then the ridiculous sight of ten men clamouring to do a job only requiring one man must be banished from this earth.
The wage system has definitely broken down, and is now only a system of servitude. The wages of labour must recede gradually into the background as its importance decreases, and its place must be taken by a National Dividend, paid to every man, woman and child. The National Dividend must necessarily increase as the machinery of production improves.
To-day it is possible to run quite a large factory by one or two men with the aid of automatic power machinery. Why should these one or two men receive wages and others receive nothing? What right have these men to monopolise the output of a machine which represents centuries of endeavour and invention?
The output of modern science and invention and automatic machinery is the heritage of every man, woman and child of this country, and neither the politician, the international financier, or the union boss has any right to say this man shall have a right and that man shall have no right to the production of machinery. (Remember, this is 1942…ed)
Those who wish to tackle the difficult tasks of this world have a right to a reward for their services; but let that labour be given freely by free men in a free community.
For over a hundred years we have tried the other way - the way of compulsion and ungodly and unjust punishments. That way has failed dismally; it has flung the world into one war after another and flung hordes of poverty-stricken and servile people into the hands of evil men who have used these helpless wage-slaves to attempt to destroy you and me and everything we hold dear.
The way of truth and freedom
We must try this other way; a way which is based on Truth and Freedom; it will be a little strange at first, but truth is sometimes very strange, and so is Freedom. We hear a great deal about the need for change, but I cannot find much sign of change in the changes that are being recommended by men in power today.
The Freedom we want has not been included in President Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms”. [Labor’s] Dr. Evatt seems to have overlooked it, too. I hope before the great men of the world impose their New Freedoms upon us after this war, that they will ask us what kind of Freedom WE want. After all, I think we should have some say in this vital question, don’t you?”
MEDICINE, MONEY AND DECEPTION
by James Reed
Trust Me I’m a Doctor Series: Leading medical journal, JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that in HIV tests, up to 50% of HIV positives are false (www.naturalnews.com, July 20, 2010). Patients exposed to a HIV vaccine tested positive for HIV even though they were not exposed to the virus, and some vaccines had a false positive rate of over 86%.
Natural news rightly observes that this shows the “lack of scientific credibility of common HIV tests” and the dangers of HIV vaccinations.
Natural News sees such vaccines as just a profit generator for the drug industry. Worse yet, this example shows how orthodox medicine causes disease instead of curing it: “It you get an HIV vaccine, chances are you’re then going to test positive for being an HIV carrier, and you’ll become an “AIDS patient” who spends your life-savings on needless drugs and other expensive treatments for a disease you don’t even have.”
And in the objective medical research department, over 90% of researchers who published studies which were favourable to the controversial diabetes drug Avandia, have had financial interests in it. The drug is believed to increase the risk of heart attack and death.
Mayo Clinic researchers have uncovered a major conflict of interest in research on Avandia. It was found that researchers with financial interests in the drug largely gave positive evidence while the majority of critics had no such financial interests.
(Source www.naturalnews.com, July 23, 2010). Ah! Objective medical research – trust me, I’m a doctor!
JEWS AND THE WHITE RACIAL APOCALYPSE
by Peter West
An interesting debate occurred at the alternative right site (www.alternativeright.com) “Is the Far Right Anti-Semitic?” The aim of the symposium was to see if a reconciliation between the far right (that’s us!) and Jews was possible. In particular, is the traditional right anti-Semitic?
Taki Theodoracopulos, “More Sinned Against than Sinning” say yes, but for good reason. Srdja Trifkovic, “Survival Strategy” thinks that as things get worse Jews will, for survival, come over to the far right for if European gentiles are destroyed, then so will they be.
Paul Gottfried, “Subversives and Shills,” himself a Jew, says that given the way many American Jews have exerted influence to move the US “leftward”, “it is entirely correct that there is no reason for the traditional Right to feel any affection for most Jews.”
However he points out in the past most Jews did not act as radical Leftist US Jews do today and there are a mighty lot of Gentiles promoting Leftist causes. Gottfried points out that many conservative Jews like himself have fought on conservative issues. He concludes: “Had the WASP [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] elite not gone soft in the head, then the Jewish left would not have swallowed up American culture and American education.”
Lawrence Auster at View from the Right dismisses this debate saying that Taki and Paul Gottfried have made “disgustingly” “anti-Jewish” statements. It is hard to see how this could be, given that, for example, most of Paul Gottfried’s article was about traitorous WASPS. The more interesting question is the one raised by Srdja Trifkovic, that ultimately the majority of Jews will abandon Leftism and turn to the right, or even far right as a survival strategy. On this question I maintain an open mind.
There are an increasing number of news reports that we do not see in the mainstream press, but which surface at www.jihadwatch.org, which should be alarming to Jewish people. For example, “Canada: Muslims Attack Israel Supporters with Machete” and “Sweden: Attack on Synagogue in Malmo”. In Malmo, a Swedish city with a large Muslim population, Jews are already fleeing because of a large number of anti-Semitic attacks.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islam, was recently touring Australia to promote her excellent new book “Nomad: A Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilisations” and she published a piece in The Weekend Australian, August 7-8, 2010, “Too Laid-Back about Immigration”.
The article says what Anglo Saxons are no longer permitted to say: it will be difficult to assimilate Muslims “whose culture is not only different but who may actually reject the Australian way of life”. Thus “Culturally incompatible Muslims could threaten Australian society and values”.
Open borders migration would clearly lead to millions upon millions of Muslims coming to Australia. Do the business elites want a population of 100 million, the majority of whom are Muslims? Wouldn’t the country implement Sharia Law after a certain critical number of Muslims was reached, for then there is no majority culture to assimilate to anymore? Should every Australian city become like Malmo? Should every city in the West be like Malmo?
IMMIGRATION, ISRAEL AND THE HIGH MORAL GROUND
by Peter Ewer
Another Saturday night in Tel Aviv and the Filipino women in low-cut tops are heading for the Bahay Kubu dance club, run by Charlene a transvestite foreign worker. As in Australia, foreign workers from Africa and Asia have flooded into the country: in a land of under 10 million, around 300,000 foreign workers allegedly do the jobs that Jews (for us, read “Australians”) don’t want to do.
Foreign Minister Yuval Steinitz has blamed foreign workers for a rise in Jewish unemployment and a “widening of social gaps”. Meir Yitzhak Halavi, the mayor of Gilat has called them a burden on the welfare authorities”. Worse yet: “They consume alcohol and have introduced cases of severe violence”.
Israelis fear that up to one million Africans may pour into Israel; even the UN High Commission on Refugees puts the figure at 45,000. The Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu is building two fences along the Egyptian border to stop the flow of “infiltrators and terrorists”. He said: “we cannot allow thousands of illegal workers to infiltrate into Israel via the southern border and flood our country”.
The African Refugee Development Center says that the real aim of the fences is to stop asylum seekers by imprisonment, torture and death. Source: E.R. Goldstein, “Does Israel Have an Immigrant Problem” Foreign Policy 25/1/2010.
As far as I am concerned, Israel sets the standards in morality, so, if it is good enough for Israel, it is good enough for us. Lifeboat Australia, here we come! Let’s build those fences, NOW!
SUPPORTING AUSTRALIA’S FRUIT GROWERS
The website/information www.truthinlabelling.com.au has been established by Senator Nick Xenophon in conjunction with the Citrus Reform Association. The website has been donated by concerned growers from the Citrus Reform Association and web design company, Muscle Online. The saying goes, 'you are what you eat'. Well, if that's the case, then we, as consumers, have a right to know what we are eating. That's why it's vital that we are able to trust the labelling on food products to tell us the ingredients, where the product was made and whether or not the product is fresh. But, believe it or not, Australia's current food regulations don't require this truth in labelling
Made where? Did you know that under the current rules, only 50 percent of the cost (content?) of a product has to originate in Australia for it to be called "Made in Australia"?
Putting the squeeze on Juices: One of the reasons orange juice is so popular with consumers is because it's touted as being 'fresh'. But did you know that some manufacturers are using aseptic juice and calling it 'fresh'?
Oils ain't Oils: Consumers are not being told the truth when it comes to the use of particular ingredients in products, such as Palm Oil, which many Australians are ethically opposed to.