HOME - all posts interviews
TRUE CARING VS THE POLITICALLY CORRECT DOUBLE STANDARD
I'm writing to you because I've been caring for a tiny older cat, the Scaredy-Cat Princess. Quite a contrast with the "care" demands of the politically correct, with the rigid politically correct double standard. And then, that brings up an interesting question: how did this come to be? In other words, whodunit!!
The Scaredy-Cat Princess. She's one of my cats - a 13-year-old, sweet, gentle, very timid cat. She seems to be getting better now, but 10 days ago a vet thought it likely she had a cancerous tumor in one toe. Surgery was essential, in the vet's opinion, even if the tumor was benign. A friend recommended that, before going ahead, I get a second opinion from a naturopathic vet she likes. Yes, it said inside me - yes, get the second opinion, though this meant 4 hours of driving, 2 hours in each direction. The second evaluation: this wasn't cancer, didn't require surgery, and would respond to homeopathic treatment.
Why tell you this story? Because it shows a bit about my corner
of the world, in which a little cat is worth a lot of care, a lot of loving attention. So different from, say, what is happening in Aleppo. And also so different from politically correct "caring."
The basic politically correct stance: no matter what's being done for someone in a group designated as disadvantaged, it's never good enough; and anything uttered or done by someone in a group designated as advantaged is always in danger of leading to charges of hate speech, racial insensitivity, etc. A couple of days ago, into my inbox came news of the demand, on the part of a student with a disability, that the University of Ottawa dismantle and restructure its whole extensive and expensive system, set up to assist students with disabilities. The new system she had worked out would, according to her, guarantee that the education of all such students would be free of emotional pain. (I watched the video on this case - excellent - but it has now been classified as private:
Why the demand? One reason: the system accidentally did not work perfectly for her. She was offered several alternatives, was satisfied with none, and has gone to the Human Rights Tribunal of the province, now renamed the Social Justice Tribunal. The costly government-funded procedure is expected to take 4-10 days.
The second reason for the student's demand: there is a taxpayer-funded government program in place to deal with such demands.
The third reason: we're back to the sense of entitlement, encouraged by society, in this case for perfection from the so-called privileged.
Here's another case. The Canadian government has just dealt with a petition that would have made any so-called "Islamophobia" illegal. We were supposed to care utterly for the feelings of Islamics. The petition entirely disregarded the need to protect intellectual freedom, freedom of speech, and truth. The petition almost passed. But a handful of dissenting voices (Conservative) stopped it:
The demands for compliance by the politically correct seem increasingly out of control. In the States, 2 white students having a facial posted a selfie on Facebook of their faces lathered with dark facial gloop. There was an immediate outcry against the supposedly "racially-charged picture." The university president "blamed the students for 'failing to think about the implications' – of having a facial."
In Austria, the editor of Austria's largest paper was charged with '"hate speech" over an article on Islamic incomers. The result: "37 complaints lodged against Mr. Biro. He took four weeks off from his position at the time, claiming that he had lost perspective and proportion of the situation."
In other words, it sounds as if he had not realized how dangerous it was to speak out about misdeeds by Islamists.
Last time, I reported that,
in Canada, an article critical of Islamic incomers resulted in death threats against the writer. The journalist quit. Again, it sounds as if the journalist did not realize the forces in place to attack any public speech critical of Islamic people.
And in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, far ahead in the polls to be the next prime minister, is on trial - again for hate speech. No one doubts the truth of what he said. But truth is not relevant. And his brilliant defense of what he said is also not relevant:
The trial starts Monday, October 31. Geert has announced, though - in another brilliant statement - that he will not attend:
What seems important to those in most of the positions of power in the West is shutting down speech in any way critical of Islamic people - and also fostering the sense of entitlement among people designated as disadvantaged.
The care for my cat. Good care. It comes from concern and love.
The rigid demand for non-stop self-policing by the so-called privileged. No love or care involved in this. No fun. No playfulness. It's punitive, harsh.
The sense of entitlement fostered among people designated as disadvantaged - no care for facts, no care for those designated as privileged, no attention to what is feasible.
There's a blatant double standard. At the same time as the demand for complete abject compliance by the so-called privileged, some American athletes, from professional to high school, are not
standing for the national anthem. That's freedom of speech. Okay. But then doesn't posting a selfie on Facebook also fall under freedom of speech?Not if you're white. Also, some athletes and performers are expressing serious negative feelings toward and evaluation of the United States. That's freedom of speech again. Okay. But then what's the fuss about a selfie with facial gloop? And what's going with the charges against Geert Wilders?
That brings up an interesting question: how did this dangerous situation ever get put in place?
I'm finding a bit of the answer in Diana West's excellent American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character.
It shows the massive degree of Communist infiltration - and that the impact was on far more than ideology.
during World War II, resources desperately needed in the Pacific zone, notably Singapore, were funneled to Russia. Over 150,000 Americans and British people were not just stranded but abandoned. They fought heroically for half a year, believing efforts were being made to send help.
I knew nothing of this, though I knew of the suffering of the British people taken prisoner by the Japanese.
I also had no idea that the course of the war would almost certainly have been utterly different if resources had been sent to the Pacific zone. The Japanese might well have been stopped early, might never have taken Singapore. And the Russians would almost certainly never have gotten to Eastern Europe - meaning, there wouldn't have been almost half a century of Communist dictatorship in Eastern European countries.
Then how would Nazism have been defeated? Through Italy - a country that capitulated quickly upon Allied invasion. This would have been faster and more efficient than forces needing to come across Russia and through Eastern Europe.
The whole course of history might have been far less horrific. The war might have ended a year or 2 earlier. Millions of Jews would not have been exterminated.
It was Stalin, of course, who pushed for the course of action that was selected - all to Russia's advantage. And the American president, FDR, was totally behind the plan, behind the funneling of airplanes, trucks, armaments - everything - to Russia.
So, back to: what force is behind current political correctness? I certainly don't have all the answer. You may find part of it in American Betrayal.
I see a huge ongoing betrayal of truth, of thinking, of human rights.
Political correctness and Islam are part of this, but what has been happening recently has roots in very similar occurrences over half a century earlier.
There will be more about this is the sequel to the Big BUT System:
Whodunit and What Do We Do?
As always, all the best to all who care and dare,
posted October 31, 2016
True caring vs
the rigid politically correct
for those designated
from those designated
top of page
copyright © Elsa, 2012-2017 - all rights reserved
copyright © ElsasBlog.com, 2012-2017 - all rights reserved
All content of this website is copyrighted.
To republish, you must include the link to the webpage.
For any further information, please contact.