In the aftermath of the Pamela Geller event in Garland Texas there will be thousands of pusillanimous words written, most of them using the tired BBC template.
I will admit I haven’t bothered to check in on the Beeb to see what they’re saying this time. (and yes, I do see the irony of my complaints about all those “reviewers” of Diana West’s book who didn’t bother to read it. The difference here being that I read the BBC for a long time before I gave up on that lost cause). My aversion to the BBC/NYT/Pravda arises from a constitutional inability to stay awake watching them move their little clichés around one more time. Visiting BBC for cutting edge news is not likely to inflict any mortal paper cuts, but that “news” outlet proves that it is possible to be bored to death. I’ll bet anyone reading this post could write their own Beeb “take” without bothering to read first what the Beeb has to say on the subject —
Q: What is the difference between BBC reportage and parody?
A: Nothing. [Except intent, perhaps. No one sets out purposely to be a buffoon.]
Fortunately a fellow blogger sent us the link to Wretchard’s pellucid analysis of both the immediate situation and the larger context in which it occurred.
Here is part of what he says: [any emphases are mine]
All the best places chorus, “what me? Worry?” There is no war. There is no problem that a little silence, a little censorship and a little John Kerry won’t amend.
Yet no one is safe.
At this point no one expects Western leadership to have answers. But the public can reasonably expect the leadership to ask questions, at the least to face the facts.
No one wants war…
I’ll amend Mr. Fernandez’ declaration to say, No one in the First World West wants war. So right off we need to exclude South Africa’s current Communist-tinged, bloody and revengeful genocidal efforts against its white people. And don’t forget those parts of The Dark Continent controlled by Communism/Islam; they do indeed want as much bloody bellicosity as possible, the size of the conflagration limited only by the numbers of their cannon fodder participants. Nor should we leave out the more chaotic parts of MENA from that imperative, even if the West helped to bring on and sustain the chaos of the mendacious “Arab Spring”.
So let’s amend his common sense declaration to read “No one in the West wants war (except maybe some of our leaders)” or “No one in their right mind wants war”. However one only has to read the Koran to see that for some human beings the imperatives laid out in Islam’s Holy Book demonstrate war to be a first and favored response. Despite the Prophet’s warning that nothing was ever to be written down, his followers couldn’t resist. After all, those infidel Jews and Christians had their Book, could Mohammed’s disciples make do with anything less? So it came to be that we have in writing those final abrogations which command the imperative of war: on-going, global and eternal. Ummah vs Them.
But speaking of which, though some [wars] have been brought to an end by surrender, and others by victory, never in the annals of history has one been concluded by denial.
Everyone who thinks “I am safe” should remember that if the storm that is manifestly brewing on the horizon should rise to its full towering force and strike no one will be spared. To close or to open your eyes: those are the only alternatives on offer.
The crux of Islam’s problem – if we dare put it that way – is the old tribal sin of Envy. Sullen envy. The infidels have better stuff – kill the infidels but leave enough of them extant so they can run the stuff we take from their miserable hands.Turkey’s immense genocide against the Armenians failed to abide by that rule. Thus, in their frenzied emptying-out, the Young Turks left their whole country dumber, more deprived and poverty-stricken but genuinely more Islamic. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory…one that haunts their dreams to this day.
There is the notion, widespread among the public, that there exists a correlation between “what you do” and “what happens to you”. According to that theory, what occurred in Texas was somehow occasioned by what Wilders or Geller said. But that causality only holds in times of peace.
What distinguishes conflict [Islamic conflict – D] is that this causal linkage is suspended. We see this empirically time after time. For example, those killed or maimed in the Boston Marathon bombing were not interested in politics but that did not keep them from getting blown up. In conflict the vast majority of people who suffer will bear no personal guilt. Yet as with the Boston marathon casualties, innocence will not save them, because they are in the way of some poorly understood historical dynamic careless of individual fate; which for the time being has forgotten names, faces and homes.
Thus we have the sullen disapprobation of the citizens of Garland, Texas about the events in their town. Back in January they probably weren’t thrilled to be the place some Muslims chose to have their “annual” – one presumes “first annual” – Stand With The Prophet conference. Pamela Geller’s strategic decision to stage her “blasphemous” pushback in the same place was a smart one. Unfortunately for Garland, caught between the Constitution and the Koran, it smarted indeed.
To paraphrase Wretchard, just because you’re not looking for trouble doesn’t mean Trouble’s not looking high and low for you. He observes how difficult it will be to carve out a place where “individuality can exist again”. Indeed.
Sometimes America’s hyper-individuality leaves us with no real sense of community. That ludicrous “Gotta do my thing, man” 20th century mantra is surely one of the most inane and banal extensions of the ideal of personal liberty ever uttered in our country’s history by anyone over the age of 15. First we must recover from that cultural disorder before we can even begin to address the more pernicious, toxic and widespread political correctness choking public discourse today.
[A personal aside: When did you first become aware of the words or the concept “politically correct”? For the Baron and me, it came fairly early considering how far off we live from the beaten path. Ironically, our revelation came during a Hallowe’en Party in 1979. A fellow we both admired had ventured down to the Republic of Charlottesville from the Hive of Scum & Villainy to attend that party. I no longer remember his costume; it was the button he was wearing that compelled my attention, even though I was slow to pick up on the whole gestalt. There on his chest was a slogan proclaiming his “Political Correctness”.
We questioned him about the meaning, thinking it a joke. After his brief- and understandably somewhat bitter – explanation of what was to become of political and even social discourse, my world view wobbled a little. I hoped and prayed that for once he’d be wrong. Years later he was the first to tell us to watch the fellow then campaigning in New Hampshire. This Bill Clinton, he declared, was an “empty suit” but the media loved him and would make sure he was elected.
I owe this man a great deal for his on-going clarifications of difficult subjects. He made me grow up politically and leave go my naive views of economics. Was it sometimes painful? Indeed.]
In his post Wretchard makes a plea for renewal. He says:
Leaders knew how to keep the peace once, and failing that win the war. Now we seem to have forgotten how to do either; trapped in a Twilight Zone of our making, unable to see, and yet alas, too easily seen.
To which I would add, that “Twilight Zone” in which we find ourselves trapped is not of our own making entirely. And if we are so trapped, it will be those people with the audacity to punch through to the light, people like Pamela Geller in her own way, and Geert Wilders in his, and the Tea Party in theirs, who will bring Wretchard’s ideas to fruition.
People may argue among themselves about the wisdom of such action but it is not Geller, or Wilders, or Sabaditsch-Wolff or Marine Le Pen or Tommy Robinson who can be faulted for failing to act.
On the other side of this culture war I challenge every group or individual pushing for “Amnesty” and immigration to make good on their rhetoric, from President Obama on down. If they truly believe we must take Third World peoples in and if they preach this immoral position, then it is up to them to begin to resolve it. All they have to do is to practice what they preach by providing room in their own homes for these people. It wouldn’t be difficult to work out a manageable equation that figured out the square footage of each domicile assigning immigrants to those Amnesty true-believers, including those in the U.S.Congress, based on their home and income. Nancy Pelosi, with her millions and her vineyards and extensive properties, could house a goodly number. So could the Hollywood “personalities” who have publicly relieved themselves regarding their belief in Amnesty for All.
Pope Francis preaches this immigrant gospel all the time. More than most he has the room for a small number of the people who wash up every day on Italy’s shores. Vatican City could set the moral example of his social gospel and actively pursue new citizens for his town. Nor is there any reason he couldn’t rearrange his own quarters to accommodate refugees.
From the many words he has used to express his concern for these unfortunates, I’ll limit my choice to this, two years ago:
“I would like to ask you all to see a ray of hope as well in the eyes and hearts of refugees and of those who have been forcibly displaced. A hope that is expressed in expectations for the future, in the desire for friendship, in the wish to participate in the host society also through learning the language, access to employment and the education of children. I admire the courage of those who hope to be able gradually to resume a normal life, waiting for joy and love to return to brighten their existence. We can and must all nourish this hope!”
To which I reply, After you, Your Holiness, after you. If you go first, then your other socialist believers are more likely to follow.
What could possibly go wrong?
Hat Tip: Bill’s Comments
Indeed Dympthna, what could possibly go wrong after all the wrongs we have been forced to accept by a compliant media/political/business cabal that purposely pushes us all toward oblivion.
“Politically correct” in 1979?! I first encountered it in 1989, and have thought that a very early appearance, a time when it seemed no one had yet heard of it. And it was used in good-natured irony – at a vegi hippie snackbar calling its oevure “politically correct food.” That provoked a confused discussion by all in attendance about the funny term’s meaning.
Yes, the linkage fails where aggressive conflict exists. The reason for What Me Worry is that almost all our people have known nothing but the peaceful game rules. This is a danger of long prosperity and safety. There is such an unbridgeable gap b/t the majority against those relatively few who do personally know the conflict rule set. Such as returning front line soldiers who then attend a typical Western university (ackhh!). Or such smug university types judging Israelis or White South Africans, or decrying the “racism” of a Brigitte Gabriel, perhaps.
The army of “What Me Worry” scolds and resists the sober adults. Help.
Politically Correct is a term coined by Marxists in the early USSR
well, I swan…*early* USSR? When it arrive on the shores of the USSA?? And who picked it up and ran with it?
Oh…and do you have a source? I’d love to read about it by either the inventors/populators of the term or their obedient savants here.
Bill Whittle on The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness -> https://youtu.be/vrt6msZmU7Y
Wiki also has a brief mention of how it was picked up by leftists in the 1970s.
I am reminded of a conversation I had with my cousin’s husband in about 1990. He was a big wig in a school district in a tony community in IL and I was a mother of two young children in SoCal. At the time I was coming to the conclusion that my boys could not be properly educated by the public school system in CA because of the flood of non-English speakers and the emphasis placed on them to the detriment of native English speakers.
He rattled off a bunch of PC crap about how “every child needs to be educated” and I replied “how about I send ten thousand of them to your school district. Do you think that would enhance your academic program? How much money and attention would you be willing to take away from your native population to educate these children?”
His eyes literally rolled up…
I am not sure when I first came across the words politically correct, but I was aware of the actions in the late 70’s when my sister in law, now a sociology professor, would scold me for being ‘Judgemental’.
If we are all born ‘equal’ then there is nothing to judge is there?
except me, of course, because I was ‘judgemental’.
” [Except intent, perhaps. No one sets out purposely to be a buffoon.]”
This is one of those areas where it is incorrect to assess the behavior of others based upon what you would do and not do.
From nobler times, court jesters provide buffoonery as their job description, sometimes even putting themselves at risk.
Today we have MSNBC whose primary role appears to be to set a standard so that buffoons at the other outlets look in the mirror and say “at least you don’t work at MSNBC.”
My advice Dymphna, is never underestimate the ability of double-think and a comfy gig to make buffoonery seem not only acceptable, but as serving a higher power.
I first became aware of the concept in the early 1980s when a number of Local Authorities were reported as behaving in what was then a curious manner – generally to do with race and wimminz rights. Then, after a Labour landslide in 1986 at the Authority that employed me, our entire department was instructed to attend a one-day briefing on what they described as “equal opportunities” When I asked the course moderator what she meant by that expression, I was met with an embarrassed silence.
They then went into an expanded version of the victim mantra which concluded that all the trouble in the world was caused by white Anglo Saxon Christian males. For the rest of the day we were force fed a load of marxist claptrap and informed that this would be future Council policy and that any dissent would be regarded a gross misconduct leading to possible dismissal.
It took another two years or so before the term “political correctness” surfaced but by then, the signs were there for everyone to see, from the red flag flying from the flagpole where the Union Flag used to fly, to the establishment of such bodies as a Women’s Department, an Ethnic Minorities Department and a whole raft of other MC/PC initiatives.
The first thing an incoming Conservative council did in the early 2000s was to run up the Union Flag on the Town Hall building and pay off an Assistant Director who was particularly infected with political correctness. Pity the world could not react in a similar fashion.
Have you noticed how closely Alfred E Neuman resembles Tony Blair?
The article can be summed up in a few words: just because you don’t want war doesn’t mean that war won’t come anyway. And it has, in the form of a global jihad by Muslims against everything that is not Muslim. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Indeed, ignoring it merely makes the enemy more bold.
It’s a world war, yet no-one outside of the followers of Islam will admit that.
It’s high time that the free people of the world recognize that if their leaders will not act, someone else has to act to preserve our civilization from annihilation. Just as the IS did to Nineveh and Nimrud, so shall Muslims around the world will want to do with our monuments, museums, libraries and institutions.
Consider the free world in absolute denial about jihad.
Political correctness is cultural Marxism, Gramisci, etc.