Wat is "PK"?    

"Politieke Korrektheid" is een van die gemeenste wapens van die aartsliberaliste, die kommuniste en globaliste. Dis tekenend van die "dubbelpratery" waarvan George Orwell in sy pragtige boekie, Animal Farm, gewaarsku het.

"PK" is natuurlik 'n mooiklinkende term vir Toegepaste Marxisme - ofskoon die meeste aanhangers van Marx stellig die Joods-Duitse skrywer nie behoorlik begryp nie! [In enige terme was Kameraad Karl 'n uitgesproke rassis en het geen geheim daarvan gemaak nie....] 

'n Groot ironie hiervan is dat die "pienkes", wat hulself altyd roem op hul  verdraagsaamheid vir andersoortige beskouinge, hulself tot die tirannie van haatspraakwetgewing wend om verdragsaamheid vir HUL vooroordele af te dreig en te dwing. Die klaarblyklik 'n kwessie van "misery loves company"!

"It is not by confining one's neigbour that one is convinced of one's own sanity" 
Feodor Dostoyevski

Hierdie insig het egter nog nooit op die PK-mu(l)ti-kulturaliste gedaag nie.

Vir 'n kortbegrip van hierdie jeugmisdadige psigologiese tirannie, sluit ons 'n Engelstalige artikel in uit die boek:

^{What Is Political Correctness?}
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the target of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

^{The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness}
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the communities safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny ( see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

^{Clear Inspiration For Political Correctness}
The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, none-whites, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War ), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation.

^{The Origins Of Political Correctness}
A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, tradition and law (See the law of reverse civilization). As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints which genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

• Dissembles the real nature of the claim
• Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
• Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name

• Different cultures are compatible.
• People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
• People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

^{From Bourgeois To Racist}
Naturally as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticised for being bourgois. George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois ( but labelled racist, sexist etc ) are losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street , risking judicial penalty and perhaps receiving death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.

^{Parental Values Always Attacked}
The inevitable target for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society's agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing off-spring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilization by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:

"For every democracy which has enjoyed property for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order,.."

^{Tyranny Grows}
Once a community embrace tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socialising and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another members performance were just labelled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracised. Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.

^{Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny}
In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the federal member of parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics. Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson's political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilized community. And any mob who chants "Burn the witch" (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry ) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.

^{Widespread Throughout The Community}
Revealing the extent of the mob's support, their sentiments ( suitably refined ) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties involved in the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.

^{International Experience Of PC Tyranny}
And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression. Bowing to the clamour of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson, paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington, USA confirm the hysteria is everywhere.

^{Inevitable Impact}
Recognising the pathetic nature of the hysteria that is taking over the community will not halt its impact. Once expression gets placed in a strait-jacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade, where reality shrinks, delusion thrives and terror rules.

^{Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech}
Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered, at least by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe. The SBS television program "What Ever Happened To Russia" which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik's oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series "Blood On The Snow" broadcast in March 1999.

^{An Old Witness}
Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognised, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad. The awful affect this had upon Helen's sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating, this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.

^{Political Correctness Is Social Dementia}
Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, or why they are saying it.

^{Social Decline Grows Worse With Each Generation}
Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behaviour less restrained and less rational.

Ontwerp & © Incitatus  ~ Webmeester:  impromptu@telkomsa.net