by Chauncey Tinker – 22 May 2019
[Part 2 of a 2-part series on the subject of political correctness. You can find the first post here.]
Political correctness has been propagated in Western society by its supporters, who have for some time formed the majority in all the elite institutions that have influence over our beliefs – the media, academia, teaching, government, the judiciary, the police, the unions. They have also long formed a majority in the arts – film, theatre, music.
In a brilliant essay on the subject, Stella Morabito identifies 2 main features of the psychological manipulation practiced by the propagators of “politically correct” beliefs – saturation and suppression:
Public opinion is often molded through a calculated process of psychological manipulation that takes two main forms: saturation and suppression.
Saturation involves persistently repeating politically correct points of view, and suppression involves preventing other points of view from being heard, and suppressing facts. Suppression of “incorrect” opinions is achieved often by ostracism and slander when it is otherwise difficult to silence them completely. One example of a form of slander that is used in suppression is the deliberate confusion/blurring of the meaning of different phrases such as far-right, alt-right, racist, anti-immigration.
Ms. Morabito makes a crucially important point in the article when she points out that those who succumb to self-censorship are also helping to propagate political correctness. Here is her article in full:
Dissecting Political Correctness
The mainstream media throughout the West has long suppressed non-PC viewpoints simply by not broadcasting these viewpoints, or at least by only rarely broadcasting them. Sometimes other views are occasionally presented but usually with cues designed to suggest that what this person is about to say is racist/sexist! TV and radio presenters in the UK will often adopt a particular tone of voice when speaking to those they deem racist/sexist, and sometimes are quite rude to their guests. For example, in an interview on the BBC TV with Nigel Farage the presenter persistently rustled papers near her microphone whenever Mr. Farage was speaking. In another example the BBC TV were interviewing a Donald Trump supporter and they cut the supporter off mid sentence at the end of the interview. Of course either of these incidents on their own could have been a trivial simple mistake, but after you watch BBC TV politics programmes for long enough you start to see there is a definite pattern.
Another much more significant thing is the way the mainstream media has also adopted subtle techniques to suppress facts. For example, mainstream media has been routinely suppressing the fact that most of the migrants coming across the Mediterranean from Africa in the ongoing migrant crisis are fit young men. This was accomplished by repetitively publishing pictures of very young children and women in articles on the subject, rather than outright misinformation.
This example demonstrates just how dangerous political correctness can become. The motives of the migrants were obscured and Europeans were encouraged to think that they were welcoming in desperate refugees whereas they were in fact welcoming in large numbers of opportunistic economic migrants and criminal elements, many of whom have gone on to commit crimes including rapes and murders and even terrorist attacks.
If large numbers of young men travel long distances without females accompanying them, then it can be easily predicted that some of those young men will be sexually frustrated and some will commit sexual crimes as a result. Political correctness discouraged the mainstream media from informing the general public of these realities, for fear of being called racists for portraying this wave of immigration in a negative light.
In the UK, all the broadcast TV channels are quite obviously subscribers to politically correct ideology, and the BBC especially has a uniquely powerful position having several terrestial TV channels and several FM radio channels. For example, the Islamic religion has almost never been challenged to any significant extent on any mainstream TV channels in the UK. Only very rarely have opposing voices been heard. On one episode of Newsnight the critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali was interviewed by a presenter who behaved as if she were disgusted by Ms. Ali and rather spoke to her in the same manner that a BBC presenter would speak to a member of the BNP.
The only newspapers that fall outside the politically correct sphere in the UK such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are routinely vilified/derided by the rest of the mainstream media with phrases such as “the gutter press”. During the migrant crisis the Daily Express became my newspaper of choice because it routinely published important stories revealing the character of this wave of migration that were almost never seen in the politically “correct” mainstream media, for example:
Squalor on the streets of Paris as migrants turn capital into ‘APOCALYPSE’
A video clip embedded in the above article shows large numbers of migrants engaging in pitched battles with sticks and projectiles on the streets of Paris.
The Daily Mail is routinely derided on political and comedy shows from the BBC such as “Have I Got News For You”. In the Daily Mail some inconvenient claims were made about the father of a child migrant in Calais, who pop-singer Lily Allen had shed tears over and apologized to:
The father of the Jungle boy who made Lily Allen cry
The article states that the father was a commander in a group called Hezb-e Islami. Quote:
Hezb-e Islami was blamed for much of the terrible death and destruction of that period and was accused of appalling human rights abuses, including the assassination of intellectuals and throwing acid in women’s faces.
The story has neither been published nor disputed by the rest of the mainstream media. Compare the above article with this sentimental article from the BBC (published 6 days AFTER the Daily Mail article) which avoids mentioning any of the inconvenient claims quoted above:
Refugee who made Lily Allen cry’s ‘dream’ reunion with Dad
Another site going against the politically correct narrative is the Breitbart news website. This website rapidly gained readership during the migrant crisis, much to the consternation of the mainstream media, who routinely slandered it as “far-right”, “ethno-nationalist” etc.. Many people even on the right in British politics also deride Breitbart, but I have yet to hear any of them even attempt to give an explanation as to why, which makes me suspect strongly that they are simply succumbing to peer pressure in the process described in Ms. Morabito’s article.
I already mentioned an article published on the NUJ’s website in the first post in this series which showed the extent that the ideology of political correctness has taken hold of journalism in the UK. In the article it says:
We provide support to those actively fighting racists and fascists on our streets.
We must call on our politicians to explain why they allow racists on our streets and challenge them to not allow that in the future.
When we hear that demonstrations are taking place to “rid these islands of Islam”, we should all be very concerned.
Now why is a union of journalists getting involved in politics like this? Ever heard of the impartiality of the press? Surely journalists should be filming and writing about fighting on the streets, not SUPPORTING it? As I mentioned in the last post, the article seems to also tar the UKIP party as a racist organization. Is this NATIONAL union of journalists really sure they ought to be openly opposing (and slandering) a party that represented 12% of the UK electorate at the time.
There was a time when the NUJ had quite a lot of influence over journalism in the UK:
End Closed Shop Journalism
The good news is that this union has been losing support among the younger generation of journalists, at least if this is anything to go by:
‘Is the NUJ relevant to new generation of journalists?’
I already mentioned the creation of laws to enforce political correctness in the UK in the previous post. The laws include laws which have been used to prosecute non-politically correct speech, and so-called “equality” legislation that is in fact discriminatory against white males.
Perhaps the high-water mark of the era of political correctness in the UK has been the rise of Theresa May to be the (unelected) UK Prime Minister. The coverage of the leadership contest in the mainstream media was brazenly biased against the non-politically correct candidate, Andrea Leadsom. Leadsom was vilified in a series of phoney scandals which included “babygate” and “gaymarriagegate”. Leadsom had dared to mention the fact that she was a mother (contrasting with the childless Theresa May), this was the “scandal” called “babygate”. Leadsom had also dared to suggest that she might have doubts about gay marriage, this was the “scandal” called “gaymarriagegate”. Of course the mainstream media was also opposed to Leadsom’s candidacy because she had campaigned for the UK to leave the politically correct monster called the “European Union”.
In the most ominous sign of a drift towards a thought-police state, Theresa May advanced a “Counter-Extremism” bill that included a measure called “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders“. These orders were clearly designed to enforce political correctness through the law courts, particularly to suppress politically incorrect “Islamophobia”, but also to suppress other politically incorrect opinions – one conservative MP even suggested that the orders should be used against school teachers who dared to express doubts about gay marriage.
These techniques of suppression and saturation could only be applied as long as media was restricted to a relatively small number of organizations and (delivery platforms – printed papers/tv/radio) – and the PC brigade largely controlled the mainstream media. Now, thanks to the internet, anyone can publish information and opinions that the whole world can read and hear. Also very importantly, smart phones are now widely available that enable people to easily record video footage of events on the spot that contradict the mainstream media narrative and expose their suppression tactics. Those in power are trying desperately to clamp down on this explosion of truth telling and opinion sharing that is seriously undermining politically correct viewpoints.
It is too soon to be certain who will win this battle, but in my humble opinion the most likely winner will be the truth. In the internet age, suppressing such a large number of potential information sources is too large an undertaking to be practically achievable, at least in the West; only societies with no history of freedom of speech and democracy (such as China) can really hope to get away with the degree of state censorship that would be necessary to maintain political correctness.
Above all, as warned by Ms. Morabito, we must not succumb to the temptation to stay silent on important subjects, as in doing so we ourselves become silent participants in the propagation of political “correctness”. Saturation must also be met with counter-saturation, we must not hesitate to repeat ourselves.
Political Correctness Was Always Mad
Peter Hitchens wrote an article about political correctness in today’s police force in the UK:
The Origins of Political Correctness in the Police Force
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.