Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.--George Carlin
The above quote speaks volumes in 72 words. The Language Police, those in charge of Newspeak and Proper Political Speak of the New World Order, want to assure the language we speak says nothing of consequence. Heaven forbid we should actually say what we mean and mean what we say. How could we progress in the world if we were understandable and we were seen as capable of free-will?
This whole mess started when we developed the concept of a hate crime and defined it as: “laws passed after the Civil war. The modern era of hate-crime legislation was begun in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to ‘by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin.’ The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general."--Wikipedia 2011
The question arises: who decides what I can or can’t feel in my heart? If you dislike me and refuse to sell something you own to me, are you practicing a hate crime because you think I’m a jerk and don’t want to benefit me in some way? If you do this because you recognize me as a member of another ethnic group, does that distinction make me any less a jerk in your perception? A jerk is a jerk and this refusal to recognize it because the person is a member of another race, creed, color or of another nation’s origin doesn’t change any of that. People’s espousal of certain ideologies different from mine doesn’t make them (or me) wrong; it means we think differently, that’s all.
But matters are judged subjectively instead of objectively. The individual case is narrowly judged according to broad understanding of the law as written. The law was written by lawyers and legislators. They have axes to grind and viewpoints, normally drawn from Progressive political educations and leanings. These same people seek control and direction based on their belief they alone understand the needs of man as he resides in any society.
If members of a specific racial/societal group call each other by socially unacceptable epithets, why is it okay for them to use the word but it’s reprehensible for a member of another race to use it? It doesn’t matter. Simply create an unenforceable law and look good while doing it.
Political Correctness tries to lock speech down by rigidly codifying the acceptability/unacceptability of any speech. It tries legislating the conduct of emotion. It promotes a rigidly defined sense of community where hermitage may be the individual’s goal. The state will decide who you like and who you don’t like based on race, creed, color or national origin. What the state defines as unacceptable becomes acceptable by governmental diktat. The same goes for political ideology. It’s like: “I’m Okay. You; not so much.”
This is being brought into the open as Obama and his merry band try to best capitalize on the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement. Obama’s supporters are trying to foment a Class War. This was the primary tactic used in Russia in 1917.
I know, I know. You’re saying Sarge has gone crack-pot conspiracy theorist on us. In response I ask: are there any similarities in history you can witness and acknowledge? If there aren’t; I’m cool with that. But, if there are any, it’s time for you to wake up to who it is trying to overthrow whom.
Lift the veil from before your eyes and think about this for awhile. The consequences are graver than you’ve imagined.
Thanks for listening
