Our Position on Political Correctness
“Political Correctness” is the name given to a set of political policies that have been promoted in Australia, New Zealand, Britain, the United States and Canada since the 1960s. These policies are constantly changing, and what is “politically correct” in 1972 may no longer be “politically correct” in 2012. People become aware of “Political Correctness” when they or someone else falls victim to it. Some examples of people who have fallen victim to “Political Correctness” are as follows:
- Farmers who have had their land, which has been in their family for generations, confiscated and given to the indigenous people.
- Relatives of murder victims where the murderer has been released on parole and the victim's relatives have met the murderer in the local shopping centre.
- Parents whose children have become homosexuals.
- Husbands whose wives have left them for no good reason and been given half of the husband’s property by the Family Court.
- Sporting shooters who have been prevented from shooting ducks by illegal protests, and whose guns are then confiscated on the basis that they can’t go shooting so they don’t need them.
- Children at government schools who are declared mentally ill by the school counsellor because they express political views that they got from their parents and that John Howard said he supported.
- Children who are not allowed to buy fireworks to celebrate Guy Fawkes Day, which children have always regarded as their second-favourite day after Christmas Day.
- Employees who have been sacked because of competition from cheap foreign imports.
The above examples show that “Political Correctness” is no laughing matter and is something that can affect ordinary Australians. In the 1960s, before “politically correct” policies were introduced, Australia had no significant social problems, and for that reason was known as “the lucky country”. Now, after 40 years of Labor Governments, Australia has problems like youth suicide, unemployment, a high crime rate, serial killing and pedophilia. All these things are the direct result of “Political Correctness”.
“Political Correctness” is constantly changing, based on how much the “politically correct” people think they can get away with. The way things are going, the following “politically correct” policies will be introduced in the near future:
- Making motor vehicles illegal unless you can demonstrate to a public servant that you have a “need” for a vehicle, since vehicles produce “greenhouse gases”, and we are obligated by an international treaty to reduce “greenhouse gases”.
- Making it illegal to drink beer, since after the Port Arthur Massacre they banned various kinds of firearms, and drinking beer causes more deaths through traffic accidents than firearms.
- Making pedophilia legal, since it is already legal for homosexuals to adopt children, which violates the right of children to be brought up as normal people, and since many of the political activists who promote “Political Correctness” are pedophiles.
You might say, don’t be ridiculous, they’d never make it illegal to drink beer. But a few years ago, who would have thought there would be a high tax on cigarettes, or a Gay Mardi Gras? All these things were unthinkable, but they have happened, and so will the other things we just mentioned, the way things are going.
The “Political Correctness” movement has appeared over the years in different forms, like different strains of a disease. The latest manifestation of “Political Correctness” is the campaign against genetically modified crops. In the 1980s and 1990s there was the Environmental Movement, the Animal Liberation Movement, and the Prisoners’ Rights Movement. In the 1970s and 1980s there was the Gay Rights Movement and the Human Rights Movement. In the 1960s and 1970s there was the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, the Women’s Liberation Movement and the Civil Liberties Movement.
All of these movements have a certain amount of merit. For example, the “Animal Liberation” movement is similar to the RSPCA, in that both seek to prevent cruelty to animals. But the “Animal Liberation” movement seeks to give animals the same rights as humans. The consumption of meat would be banned, and whales and dolphins would have the right to vote, just like intellectually handicapped people. They wouldn’t know what they were voting about, but that doesn’t matter, as it is their democratic right as intelligent creatures, according to “Animal Liberation”.
In the same way, there is merit in the Environmental Movement and the other movements. No-one wants whales, kangaroos and koalas to become extinct. But these “Politically Correct” movements distort these ideas to the point where they do more harm than good. What is the use of having a pristine environment if you have a low standard of living? The people who live in idyllic surroundings like Pacific atolls all want to come to polluted cities like Sydney so they can earn some money. If the Greenies’ vision of the world came to pass, you would want to go back to the way things are now.
These movements are similar to cancer cells in the human body. A cancer cell is a normal cell that has got out of control. The “Animal Liberation” movement is an out-of-control RSPCA. The other movements are humanitarian movements that have got out of control, and have caused a tremendous amount of harm to humanity.
“Political Correctness” arose in Britain during the Second World War. It was invented by propaganda experts working for the British Government, to discredit the Germans and Hitler. At the beginning of the War, the British public regarded Germany in much the same way as Australians have regarded Indonesia. Australians have been travelling to Bali with their families for many years, despite Indonesia having been a dictatorship. Hitler had imprisoned communists in concentration camps, but so had Suharto. The British public regarded Germany as a place where you could go to for a holiday, and where there was no danger of a law-abiding tourist being arrested.
At the beginning of the Second World War, it would have been extremely difficult for the British Government to run a campaign to discredit Hitler. This was several years before Hitler came up with the idea of exterminating the Jews. Running a campaign to discredit Hitler would have been like the Australian Government running a campaign to discredit former American President George Bush. Maybe in a few years’ time George Bush will exterminate six million Jews, but so far there’s no sign that he’s going to, and in 1939 people didn’t know Hitler was going to do that either. So how to you discredit someone who hasn’t done anything wrong yet?
The propaganda experts working for the British Government responded by inventing “Political Correctness”. By the end of the War, Hitler had been completely discredited, and was regarded as a madman and the embodiment of evil. Even if he hadn’t killed six million Jews, he would have still been seen as evil. By contrast, Stalin, who had also killed millions of Jews (or “Trotskyite counter-revolutionaries”, as he liked to call them), and a great many more Russians besides, was seen as a respectable international statesman. The reputation of Hitler and Stalin had nothing to do with what they had done, but was based on propaganda.
The method that the British Government’s propaganda experts resorted to, to discredit the German Government and Hitler, was the only method possible. They resorted to intellectual dishonesty. They would point out some policy of the German Government, declare it to be evil for no reason, and claim that it was further proof that the German Government should be overthrown.
The British claimed that the Germans were evil because they imprisoned people who opposed the government. But the British did the same thing, by imprisoning malcontents such as Gandhi in concentration camps, that were invented by the British. The British claimed that the Germans were evil because they wanted to develop a superior race. But the British had always advocated “effortless superiority” in their private schools, and sterilised the intellectually handicapped.
The British claimed that the Germans were evil because they wanted to take over the Ukraine, get rid of the Slavs, and settle the area with Germans. But this is what the British had done in Australia, in exterminating the Aborigines, and settling the continent with Anglo-Saxons. Hitler’s Nuremberg laws were based on Australia’s Aboriginal Protection Acts. Hitler’s vision of blonde surfers on Black Sea beaches was based on the reality of blonde surfers on Bondi Beach.
The technique used by the British Government to discredit the Germans is in use in Australia today. Before 1993, every leading Australian politician supported the Goods and Services Tax. Even the trade union movement supported the Goods and Services Tax. But after the Liberal Party announced that it would introduce a GST, the Labor Party decided to have the GST declared “politically incorrect”. They supported the GST, but thought they could get re-elected by attacking it.
The Labor Party and their media collaborators started attacking the then Liberal leader Dr. Hewson for supporting the GST. It was as though Dr. Hewson had committed some henious crime. Before too long politicians were announcing that they were against the GST. Even John Howard said that the GST went against his “core values”. Then after he was re-elected he dropped all pretences and introduced the GST with great success. Later he was the target of more “politically correct” attacks from the real authors of Australia’s economic misfortunes.
The underlying idea of “Political Correctness” is that German culture is evil. Knowing this allows us to predict what the next “politically correct” policy is going to be. For example, Germans traditionally approve of a GST, so a GST is “politically incorrect”. Germans traditionally approve of nuclear power, so nuclear power is “politically incorrect”.
Germans traditionally approve of corporal punishment, so corporal punishment is “politically incorrect”. On the other hand, Germans traditionally disapprove of homosexuality, so homosexuality is “politically correct”. Germans disapprove of multiculturalism, so multiculturalism is “politically correct”. Germans disapprove of euthanasia, so euthanasia is “politically correct”.
This is basically an ideology that says, whatever the Germans traditionally believe to be good is in reality bad, and you should think the opposite of what they think. Another name for “Political Correctness” would be “Anti-Germanism”. This, amazingly, is the official ideology of the Australian Government.
“Political Correctness” is an ideology, like Christianity or Marxism. Every human being on the planet has an ideology, even if they don’t call it that. It is your ideology that allows you to decide what is right and wrong. Everyday life would be impossible without an ideology. There are three main sources of ideologies:
- Popular customs
These are beliefs passed from generation to generation because they seem to make sense.
These are people such as Aristotle or Marx who work out what they think would be useful beliefs.
- Divine revelations
These are prophets such as Moses, Buddha or Mohammed who apparently heard God telling them what beliefs they should hold.
When the British Government’s propaganda experts invented “Political Correctness”, they weren't trying to invent an ideology. They were trying to “con” British workers to join the armed forces and die for their country, even though there was no threat from Germany. “Political Correctness” was never intended as a recipe for how a well-ordered society should be run.
Since “Political Correctness” was not intended to be used as an ideology other than for the duration of the Second World War, it has reached its used-by date and should be discarded. All “Politically Correct” ideas should be rejected as rubbish.
People tend to be over-awed by “Politically Correct” ideas because important and respectable people support them. For example, when John Howard said that he was against the Goods and Services Tax, before he did his back-flip, people thought, if a fellow like John Howard is against a Goods and Services Tax, it must be a really bad idea. Or they think, since Cheryl Kernot is against nuclear power, it must be a bad idea.
The reason why all these important and respectable people support “Political Correctness” is because during the Second World War, anyone who was against “Political Correctness” was locked up. They didn’t have freedom of speech during the Second World War. If they had been allowed freedom of speech, people would have said, “Why don’t we grant visas to allow all the Jews to leave Germany and settle in our colony of Palestine, and why don’t we let Hitler colonise Russia and get rid of communism for us? It’s obvious that all he wants is an empire for the Germans like we have.”
Let’s suppose that the British and Australian Governments had decided during the Second World War to promote the “Scientology” religion. Then they would have imprisoned anyone who was against “Scientology”, and spent a fortune on propaganda to make out that “Scientology” was a good idea. By the end of the War, all right-thinking people would have supported “Scientology”. And nowadays, people like John Howard and Cheryl Kernot would be telling us what a great thing “Scientology” is. Despite anything that John Howard or Cheryl Kernot may say, “Scientology” is a bloody stupid idea, and so is “Political Correctness”!
After the Second World War, the British Government went back to running their empire, shooting blacks, and the other sorts of things that the Nazis had done. They forgot all about “Political Correctness”. But their “politically correct” propaganda had fallen on fertile ground, that is, the Catholic population of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States.
“Political Correctness” struck a chord with the Catholics. The Catholic Church had for centuries shown a very tolerant attitude to sin. It was almost as though when you went to confession you had to have some sort of sin to confess. And if you hadn’t committed any sins that week, you would have to go out and commit one so as to have something to report. As a Catholic you had the feeling that there was something wrong with you if you weren’t an alcoholic, drug addict or sexual deviate.
On our Catholic Church Page, we consider the evidence that the Catholic Church is behind the spread of “Political Correctness”. The main evidence is that the activists in the “politically correct” pressure groups went to Catholic schools. We have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church made a deal with the Russians to spread “Political Correctness” to undermine the military preparedness of the West. The Catholic Church did this so that, if the Russians invaded the West, the Russians would permit the Catholic Church to carry on as normal, rather than suppressing the Catholic Church as they had done to the Orthodox Church in Russia.
The Catholic clergy were predisposed to go along with this plan because of their immoral tendencies. The Counterculture Movement meant that priests could get away with things such as homosexuality that would be unthinkable in the past. Also, the Catholic Church places much emphasis on “being kind”, and they think they are being kind by allowing people to indulge in vice. This is the main difference between the Catholic Church and other churches.
Despite the Catholic Church teaching “Political Correctness” in its schools, “Political Correctness” is incompatible with Christianity. Genesis chapter 19 relates how the city of Sodom, with all the homosexuals there, was destroyed by God with fire and brimstone. Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 reaffirmed the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Thus the earlier Jewish law banning homosexuality applies to Christians as well as Jews. But Jesus holds out some hope for homosexuals and other deviates:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. (Matthew 19:12).
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (Matthew 18:8).
It can’t be any clearer than that. Jesus is saying that homosexuals should cut off the offending member, and become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, to avoid everlasting fire. If Jesus thought that homosexuality was only a minor sin like the Catholic Church seems to think it is, then why would there be such a drastic remedy as castration? Obviously the position of Jesus is that homosexuality is completely unacceptable. As to the view of the Catholic Church that it is only a minor sin, Jesus says:
Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. (Matthew 15:6).
Christianity is also opposed to “Animal Liberation”. The Book of Mark, chapter 6 verse 41, tells of how Jesus performed the miracle of feeding 5000 people with two fish. Jesus would hardly be feeding people with fish if this was unethical. But according to “Animal Liberation”, eating fish violates their “animal rights”. Moreover, if it is all right to eat fish, some of which are quite intelligent, then it must also be all right to eat sheep and cattle, and even whales and dolphins. The Bible doesn’t say you can’t.
So the Pope is quite right to condemn homosexuality as being incompatible with Christianity. If only the Pope was sincere in what he says. If only he would get the Catholic schools and Catholic politicians in Australia which he controls to oppose homosexuality. But a leopard can’t change its spots, and we don’t expect the Catholic Church to start promoting virtue anytime soon.
Instead of promoting virtue, the Catholic Church is trying to destroy all conciousness amongst Australians of their ethnicity. If you go to Fiji and ask people what ethnic group they are, they will tell you either Fijian or Indian. But if you ask Australians what ethnic group they are, they don’t know. Some might say “mainstream”.
If you look at Quebec, people there speak French, they have French customs, and their ancestors came from France. It is fairly clear that their ethnic group is French. If you look at Brazil, they speak Portuguese, they have Portuguese customs, and their ancestors came from Portugal. It is clear that their ethnic group is Portuguese. And in the case of Australia, we speak English, we have English customs, and our ancestors came from England, so that makes our ethnic group English!
Such has been the campaign by the “politically correct” media that words like “English” or “Christian” are almost swear words. They have tried to make out that we are radically different from people in Britain, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. For example, they make out that we have unique customs, like calling each other “mate”. Well, if you go to Britain and talk to ordinary people, they will call you “mate”. And it’s not because they’ve seen “Neighbours” on television and thought they should copy our customs. It’s because they’ve been calling each other “mate” for hundreds of years. They didn’t get it off us. We got it off them.
“Mate” started as “matelot”, a nautical term for sailor. Then the working class started to use it to mean “friend” or “fellow”. In the 19th century Australian goldfields, aristocratic English migrants went into partnership with working class English migrants to mine gold and become rich. This is described in “The Miner’s Right”, by Rolf Boldrewood. The aristocratic English migrants copied the custom of calling people “mate” off the working class migrants, and soon everyone was calling each other “mate”. In England, though, upper class people think that “mate” is what they do to their wives at night, and they don’t like to call you “mate” in case you might take offence.
If Australians were to tell people that they are English, people might think that we were born in England. So it is better to say we are “Anglo-Saxon”, meaning the native people of England, including those who have migrated to places like Australia. “Anglo-Saxon” can also be used to include people whose ancestors come from Scotland and Wales and who have adopted English culture. Some people prefer to call them “Anglo-Celtic” for super accuracy. So mainstream Australians are Anglo-Saxons.
The “politically correct” media has tried to exaggerate the differences between Anglo-Saxon people in different parts of the world. They continually attack migrants from New Zealand who they portray as bludgers while ignoring bludgers from countries like Vietnam. In point of fact the New Zealand Government reimburses the Australian Government for welfare paid to New Zealand bludgers, something the Vietnamese Government does not do.
The attempts by the “politically correct” media to destroy our knowledge of our Anglo-Saxon ethnicity highlights the real purpose of “Political Correctness”. It is to destroy our mainstream Anglo-Saxon culture. That is why they are trying to “ethnically cleanse” the Royal Family. If you look at all the “politically correct” policies in their entirety, you see that they amount to genocide against Anglo-Saxon culture. Essentially, the ethnic minority group, the Irish Catholics, are trying to “ethnically cleanse” our culture and become the dominant culture. It is the same as with the Tutsis and the Hutus in Burundi and Rwanda.
Every night on the evening news we hear about the problems of the world: war, starvation, poverty, violence, hatred, disease. All of these problems could be solved if we got rid of “Political Correctness”. “Political Correctness” rules out solutions to these problems. Examples of solutions to the world’s problems are China’s One Child policy, Apartheid, nuclear energy, genetically modified crops, import restrictions, and oligarchy. These solutions have been ruled out by “Political Correctness”. To solve the world’s problems, alleviate the misery, and save our own culture, we must get rid of “Political Correctness”.