Explaining Political-Correctness

By James T. Moore

Where did this strange animal Political Correctness (PC) come from? Never in our history have we had to be afraid of what we say, write, and do.

We must not bow to that fear. Since PC tries to restrict our freedom of expression –particularly any form of dissent–it is imperative that we learn everything we can about it: more, for example, than it is simply a rebuke to various forms of bigotry.

In an address to academia in 1998, writer Bill Lind dissected PC from top to bottom. What Lind said is so vital, I will try, with implicit permission, to give you a capsule version of the five points he made.

First, political correctness is cultural Marxism. Although it’s everywhere, this socialistic idea is most evident on college campuses, where crossing the line set up by sainted “victim” groups gets you in deep trouble.

PC also thrives on lies. Let’s say you’re told that a certain fact is true. But reality contradicts that. So reality is forbidden, to make the lie seem true. And the power of the State is used to keep the lie alive. That’s why political correctness creates a totalitarian state.

Second, PC, like Marxism, uses a single factor to explain history. Marx uses economics, PC uses power. The power is determined by which groups have power over the other groups. With political correctness, nothing but power has any significant meaning.

Third, with PC, certain groups are deemed to be “good”. These groups, such as feminist women, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, etc, are considered “victims”, therefore “good” – whether they are or not. White males, of course, are the bad guys. Their “evilness”  is equivalent to the wicked bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both P.C. and Marxism take from one to give to another; (or keep for themselves. You can clearly see this at work in quotas, preferences, affirmative action, and other illegal transfers of assets from one group of citizens to another. The nice word for it is expropriation. The more accurate word is stealing.

Fifth, both political correctness and Marxism have a method of analyzing situations which automatically gives them the answers they want. This devious little process is called Deconstruction. Which simply means taking one text, removing its meaning, and re-inserting any other meaning desired.
George ORWELL did an outstanding job of this in his chilling novel, 1984. “Newspeak” gave opposite meanings to common words: War became Peace, Slavery became Freedom, Ignorance became Strength.

Orwell had unknowingly described political correctness when he defined the principle of Newspeak: The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of INGSOC (English Socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible.

Get that? Make all other modes of thought impossible! That bit of tyranny appears to be the objective of today’s PC crowd in Washington (or any western country). And if that’s true, it is the worst form of treason because it undermines the most sacred bastion of freedom we have: Freedom of Thought.

And no true American should hold still for that.



Political-Correctness Run Amuck

Jane Gardener


BLACK Slave Owners

During [America’s] period of slavery, many freed blacks worked for years to purchase the freedom of family members. But a great many freemen became slave masters themselves, and for the same reason as whites–to make use of slave labor for the sake of profits. Larry Koger writes, “By and large, Negro slaveowners were darker copies of their white counterparts.” Following are excerpts from Chapter 6 of his book, Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 [University of South Carolina Press].

Many historians have argued that the majority of black masters purchased their relatives and friends who were held in bondage. Being unable to manumit [to release from slavery] their loved ones, the black masters were forced to hold their kinsfolk and friends as nominal slaves. So they treated their relatives and friends as free persons, and whenever possible, they attempted to manumit their loved ones. Thus the dominant pattern of slaveholding that developed among free blacks was benevolent and based primarily on kinship. The chief architect of the benevolent interpretation was Carter G. Woodson, and his thesis has been accepted by most historians.

Yet the Woodson thesis has many weaknesses that have been overlooked or not fully explored by its supporters. Furthermore, the Woodson thesis has been overemphasized, while the other side of free black slaveowning has been characterized as a minor facet by many scholars. However, there is ample evidence which demonstrates that free blacks purchased slaves as capital investments. To many black masters, slaves represented valued property being used to produce more wealth. These slaveowners, therefore, bought slaves as commercial assets and used them to make a profit. In fact, the commercial side of free black slaveholding was more prevalent than previously maintained by historians. In short, the Woodson thesis that most free black slaveowners were benevolent masters may be a myth. . . .


For example, Richard Holloway Sr., a free black of Charleston City, bought a slave named Charles Benford in order that the slave might enjoy his freedom. Yet at the same time, he owned other slaves who were not treated so kindly. In 1834, for instance, he purchased a Negro woman named Sarah and her two children, Annett and Edward, from Susan B. Robertson for $575. Within three years after the purchase, he apparently became dissatisfied with the slave family and sold them for $945. Even though Richard Holloway, Sr., allowed a trusted servant to enjoy a greater degree of freedom, he was still a slaveowner for profit. So he sold and purchased slaves as an investment even while he held other slaves for benevolent reasons. To consider him a benevolent master would be erroneous because he also exploited other slaves for his own benefit.

Another example of the dual interaction between black masters and their slaves is the case of Rose Summers. In her will, she stated: “I desire as soon as it may be practicable that my Executor herein named will sell for money my four slaves to the best possible advantage together with all my household Furniture . . . .” While Summers requested that the children of her trusted servant Bellah should be emancipated, her other slaves were doomed to the auction block. In December 1840, her executor sold the slave woman Elsey; then the slaves Sam and Henry were auctioned to the highest bidder for $970.13 in January 1841. Shortly after that date, the slave woman named Harriet was sold by the executor of Rose Summers for $300. After the sale of the Negro slaves and the furniture, the estate of Rose Summers netted $1,334.79, which was divided among five colored women designated as heirs by the deceased woman. . . .

When Carter G. Woodson declared that “the majority of Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy,” he failed to consider that there were so-called benevolent masters who freed one slave and sold another slave for profit. Woodson’s perceptions of free black slaveholding were partially correct; however, when the totality of the institution is examined, his assumptions are revealed to be erroneous. . . .

Many black masters were firmly committed to chattel slavery and saw no reasons for manumitting their slaves. To those colored masters, slaves were merely property to be purchased, sold or exchanged. Their economic self-interest overrode whatever moral concerns or guilt they may have harbored about slavery. Since the black masters benefited from slavery, they rationalized that because the institution was profitable, they could not relinquish their valuable property without being reimbursed. So black masters continued to own slaves even when the Union army was preparing to invade South Carolina in 1864. . . .

The commercial impulse of black masters to exploit the commodity of slave property was recorded not only by the Secretary of State but the Master of Equity in Charleston District. In scores of reports, the black masters appeared to have used their slaves as commodities. . . .

George Shrewsberry and James Hanscome, both colored slave masters, argued over the ownership of three slaves in the court of equity. Rather than sue each other, they filed a complaint against the master of the workhouse because he refused to release the slaves to either of the men until the ownership of the slaves was established. In 1845, the two colored slaveowners filed a suit against the master of the workhouse and claimed that he refused to release their property. . . . The commercial impulses of both colored men are vividly illustrated by the court proceedings. Such cases are not isolated incidents; in fact, they are prevalent in the court records. . . .

For example, there were mortgages registered by free blacks who used their slaves as collateral to secure loans. In 1811, Philis Wells, a free colored woman of Charleston City, used her servant Mark as collateral to obtain a loan from Peter Desportes for $900. In 1823, a slave named Sarah was used as security by William Aiken, a free black and a carpenter of Charleston City, when he applied for a loan from Joseph S. Brown for $600. . . .>Full article HERE>>



North American White Slavery

Untold Story Of White Slavery

Irish Eyes Aren’t Smiling On Immigrants


By Kevin Meyers


Now look: I’m not a complete fool. People don’t turn to columnists to read the same stuff, day after day after day. Yet that’s what I’ve been doing, endlessly writing on this same subject.



No country has ever accepted, never mind assimilated, the volumes of foreigners now present in this state. We have some 400,000 legal immigrants; but everyone knows that the army of illegals, especially Africans and Chinese, is vast, and probably tops 200,000.

In all, Ireland has received at least 600,000 immigrants, most of them within the past FIVE years. It could be many more. No one has the least idea.

( Irish Population: 4,100,000 )——( Greater TORONTO Area: 6,000,000 )

In the US, such immigration would translate into an inward population movement of 45 million. In the UK, the figure would be nine million. Needless to say, neither state would be so idiotic or feckless as allow such vast numbers to enter.

Only Ireland would be so idiotic and so morally lethargic as to allow such massive inward population movements.

And of course, we haven’t got the resources to cope with the consequences of such an influx. But worse than our lack of resources, is our lack of courage in confronting the issue.

We do not have policies, but inept evasiveness: and perhaps worst of all, we have a posturing gallery of home-grown jackanapes ready to shriek “racism” wherever and whenever they see that things are not going quite the way that immigrants want.

Thus, on any discussion on RTE, especially from its newsroom, immigrants are never held responsible for choosing to come here. Instead, we hear endless complaints that Irish institutions had not prepared themselves properly for their arrival.

On the News at One on Monday, African after African in Balbriggan (Ireland) complained there were no places for their children in the existing local schools.

Not once was the question posed: what was the real reason for the Africans not having places in schools? Answer: they’d only just come here.

Instead, Africans who were just off the boat were allowed to accuse us of racism for not having school places awaiting their children.

There’s also the Paddy- factor in all this. It’s impossible for any outsider to understand that this state is almost pathologically incapable of planning anything.

This is the land of the Red Cow Roundabout and motorways without service stations, rest-stops or toilets. So how could we be expected seven years ago to have planned school-building projects in north county Dublin for Africans as yet unborn?

If blaming ourselves for our failure to plan for Africa’s educational needs were not fatuous enough, some poor spokeswoman from the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin had to defend the Catholic Church against an RTE journalist’s accusations of bigotry.

Naturally, in this unprincipled liberal Ireland, for the Catholic Church to insist that Catholic schools have a primary duty to educate Catholics is nowadays both racist and sectarian.

But of course, no one on RTE would ever dream of proposing that Islamic madrasahs should take in Jewish, Catholic or Hindu pupils: in the new Ireland, the only people who are expected to bend their own rules are the Irish Catholic majority.

Accompanying this presumption is the pious and all-prevalent dogma that immigrants will on arrival, abandon ancient loyalties and will promptly don a Hibernian mantle: hence the brainless cliche, wittered endlessly by journalists and politicians alike, “the New Irish”.

Sorry. This is conceited gibberish. Why would a Pole surrender something which the Polish people have fought for a thousand years to retain?

Why the presumption that an Asian Muslim who lives in Ireland is in any way Irish?

My (Irish) mother lived most of her life in England, but never for a second thought of herself as English.

The media should be asking the big question, ‘Why are we still admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrants?’

Instead, we are obsessing with the relatively trivial question of: Are the Irish people, who after all have admitted vast armies of strangers to their national home.. racist?

This is self-hatred at its most pathetic, and its most self-defeating.

Whether Irish people are “racist” is irrelevant. We have created a society whose apparent cohesiveness is totally dependent on immigration-fuelled economic growth. That growth must one day come to an end.

Then what, in Darndale, Coolock, or even Balbriggan?

Dublin Independent


Ireland’s Bogus Asylum Seekers

Ireland Fails To Deport Africans

Ireland’s First BLACK Mayor

Vanishing England

Africa — Not Our Problem

The Great Escape From Britain

“Institutional Racism” In Britain

JAPAN Simply Rejects Mass Immigration

Affirmative-Action Police

Police ALSO Looting Wal-Mart Store

By Walter Williams

Police departments must use race and sex preferences in hiring as a result of [U.S.] federal court consent decrees and political pressures. To meet these demands, many police departments have lowered, and in some cases eliminated, established standards for personal character and intellectual and physical capacity.

Jan Golab writes about this in “How Racial P.C. Corrupted the LAPD” in the May 2005 issue of The American Enterprise. While most of Mr. Golab’s article chronicles how Los Angeles damaged its police force in its quest for “diversity,” where it’s had to fire 100 police officers, identical damage has occurred in other cities. Washington, D.C., had to indict or fire 250 cops; New Orleans indicted more than 100 [officers]. In these cities, policemen have been charged with crimes ranging from murder and rape to robbing drug dealers and selling confiscated drugs.

Most policemen are honest, dedicated and hard-working people who put their lives on the line to protect us against criminals. A few, Mr. Golab reports, are no less than criminals themselves. In 1997, L.A. policeman David Mack was arrested for the armed robbery of a Bank of America branch in which he heisted $772,000. In the late 1990s, as many as 25 L.A. policemen were believed to have direct gang ties. A significant number of L.A. policemen had off-duty jobs providing security for hoodlums in the rap music industry deeply involved in drugs and gang violence. At least one policeman was arrested as a guard at a cocaine house.

In the wake of L.A.’s Rampart Division scandal, where 30 officers were suspended or fired, former LAPD deputy chief Steve Downing said, “Rampart wasn’t about cops who became gangsters. It was about gangsters who became cops.” Downing adds that elected officials refuse to acknowledge the obvious: Institutionalized racial preferences “allowed persons of poor character to be hired.” >more>>

[Here in CANADA, we have been accepting immigrants originating mostly from 3rd world countries for over two decades now. Every year since the late 1980’s, about 250,000 legal immigrants arrive in our country, the vast majority described as “visible minorities“. That translates into an astounding 90% of all new immigrants arriving in Canada year after year……are NON-white!

As a result, Canadian taxpayers are forced to support innumerable non-government organizations (N.G.O.s) catering exclusively to these special interest groups based on [their] race and/or religion.

In addition, by way of employment equity policies (affirmative action), our own Police services are also affected by racial hiring practices designed to reflect members of this massive load of “non-traditional” immigrants. Unlike the United States, and only until very recently, Canada has never had the need to implement such race-based policies….until we began importing vast numbers of non-white people.

Below, are some Canadian police recruiting websites depicting a noticeable absence of young White males in some sites, despite our own White Canadian proportional numbers being about 86% of Canada’s population, according to 2001 Stats Canada. –Editor-]

Ottawa Police – http://careers-carrieres.ottawapolice.ca/index.cfm

Peel Regional Police – http://www.peelpolice.on.ca/Employment/Uniform%20Recruiting.aspx

Toronto Policehttp://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/

Ontario Provincial Policehttp://www.opp.ca/Recruitment/index.htm

(Lead photo – Minorities Front & Centre with White guys in the back)

Royal Canadian Mounted Policehttp://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/recruiting-recrutement/home-accueil/introduction-eng.htm

“As the National Post reported on June 27, 2005, the so-called shortfall of qualified applicants to the RCMP academy was due to its gender and racial hiring quotas that required Canadian WHITE males to score 20% higher than women…… and 33% HIGHER than visible minorities on aptitude tests!

[Employment-Equity is a blatantly RACIST and unfair quota policy aimed directly at WHITE CANADIANS in their OWN country, and one that rewards recent NON-white immigrants with Canadian jobs. So-called “employment-equity” is nothing more than an ongoing injustice of itself!

White Canadian applicants who are guilty of nothing, are unfairly denied EQUAL opportunity to compete for scarce jobs in a tight labour market. So-called “employment-equity” is simply a racist policy specifically directed against White Canadian Males. (Some White females, too!)

Why aren’t White Canadians screaming racism here?

To assert that employment-equity (affirmative action) LOWERS the overall competency levels of new recruits….is a PROVEN FACT… when MINORITIES are judged NOT capable of achieving IQ test scores equal to their White counterparts!]

Any country which does not protect its majority population through limitations on immigration, invites the contempt of the immigrants who have entered its territory and who have become a majority in a part or the whole of its territory.”]

During the mid-90’s, with unmet racial and female recruitment targets co-existing with a five year BACKLOG of Caucasian male applicants, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had a quiet ‘no white males’ policy.” There’s no fairness in this regressive policy. [Instead the RCMP were placing recruiting advertisements elsewhere, such as HERE]

>more HERE>>


VANCOUVER Hires On Ethnicity

NON-Traditional Police Standards

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

TORONTO POLICE Celebrate ‘Diversity’

PHOTO: What’s Wrong With This Picture?



Racism – It’s Everywhere

What IS Multiculturalism?

Racial Diversity – A CON Game

Racism – The New Witchcraft Hysteria

WHITE People – An Endangered Species

Costly “$pecial interest” Groups

“Canada’s immigration minister [Diane Finley] and all Canadians have had to put up with more than the usual share of demands from some ethnic groups in the past few weeks. A Muslim Liberal MP seems to think that Canadians should have gotten used to these refrains, that they should expect many more in the future, and that they are obliged to take them. He refers to this as cultural sensitivity. His arrogance may be blinding him to the mood of many Canadians.”

“The Muslim MP made his comment in reaction to Citizenship and Immigration’s handling of the “Singh” and “Kaur” name issue which Sikhs have subsequently used to make other demands. Following in the Muslim MP’s footsteps, they have implied that if Citizenship and Immigration satisfies their demands, they will feel compensated for CIC’s alleged mistake with their names.”

So, what demand are they now saying Canada must satisfy? The answer is that they want [foreign interloper] Laibar Singh, who [was] scheduled to be deported to India on Monday, August 20, to be allowed to stay in Canada.” [Once again, Gutless Canada capitulated to the pressure from ‘special interest groups‘………he is still here. – Editor]


“A couple of months ago, Sikhs in the Brampton area were pressuring the [Canadian] federal government to give pensions to a number of their group who were clearly ineligible to receive pensions. According to them, only a small number of people were involved. And according to them, what harm would it do to throw a few million dollars their way?”

“Nothing was said, of course, about the fact that all other Canadians have to contribute to the pension system for many years in order to benefit from it. Nor was anything said about the distinct possibility that many of these potential Sikh recipients were some of the 20,000 elderly parents Canada allows in every year [repeat…”every year“]—supposedly because it is a cultural practice among Sikhs to have extended families living in the same house. And, of course, nothing was said about the fact that the sponsors of the elderly parents had earlier agreed to support their parents. According to the thinking in some of our ethnic groups, Canada is a bottomless pit of cash and they are going to do everything they can to get all that they can get.” [Also, no mention of the horrendous medical costs and extra hospital lineups attributed to these elderly foreigners who contribute nothing in taxes….and never will. –Editor]

[So, just how much has this Laibar Singh cost Canadian taxpayers after arriving here uninvited 4 years ago? Well, let’s start at a half-million dollar$ and move up from there. Read the entire article HERE.]



Fed-Up Canadians

No Punjabi, No Job For Nurse

Political-Correctness Unmasked

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

No Punjabi, No Job For Nurse


BRAMPTON, Canada – A Brampton woman who applied to be a registered nurse with William Osler Health Centre (WOHC) (<<contact them) claims hiring personnel denied her a job interview because she doesn’t speak Hindi or Punjabi.

The woman, who asked not to be identified, said a phone call she received from WOHC was quickly dashed, after she told the caller the only other language she speaks besides English, is French.

WOHC spokesperson Dawn Dunn said officials are unaware of the incident, but stressed that other than one program with a specific focus on the region’s South Asian population, the organization does not have a hiring policy that favours a specific ethnic group.

“I haven’t heard of that in a job requirement at all. The only area, which I might believe would have a limitation, is a specialized program like our diabetes education program; we have a specific South Asian program (where there is such a language requirement for the job),” Dunn said. “But unless the language was specified as a job requirement in the job posting it doesn’t make sense to me.”

The woman said she responded to an online posting on the popular job site Workopolis.com and sent her resume via the fax number provided. The woman said she was contacted by WOHC personnel at a later date and was surprised at the reason for her rejection.

“They said, ‘Hi I am just calling from William Osler Health Centre, the new hospital opening in Brampton, and we received your application,’” said the woman who graduated from an accredited nursing program in the spring. “They asked me if I (speak) any other languages. I told them I (speak) English and French and then they asked if I speak any other dialects like Hindi or Punjabi. I said no. They said at that time they were only hiring staff that could speak the language of the population that they were serving. It (the job posting) was on the Internet and it didn’t say anything (about speaking Hindi or Punjabi).”

The reason, as explained by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is some qualifications can “unfairly prevent or discourage people from applying for a job.”

Language, however, is a grey area. Afroze Edwards, communications officer for the OHRC, said an employer can ask questions during an interview about language ability even if those requirements may be indirectly linked to a person’s racial background, provided the language abilities relate to the job.

“In terms of the human rights perspective what they would have to do is show that the language requirement is a bona fide or reasonable requirement of the position,” Edwards explained. “So it could be a reasonable and genuine requirement for that position.”



Is Racial Diversity Good For Canada?

Fed-Up Canadians

Whites Fighting Back

More on language issues


Africa – Not Our Problem

By John Tyndall

Perhaps it is the summer season (2005) that brings with it outbreaks of universal silliness beyond the customary norm, but the last month has been especially trying for those of us who endeavour to keep our feet on the ground of reality. We refer here to the latest outburst of hysteria – voiced in chorus by all the mainstream political parties and mass media – over the fate of the poor in Africa and the presumed obligation of the advanced nations to do something about it. “Make poverty history” is the new (though in terms of meaning very old) slogan dripping from the mouths of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Bob Geldolf et al. But do these folks really believe they have some special touch of genius enabling them to alter one of the most basic facts of the universe we live in which is that the people of the continent of Africa, and most of the so called ‘Third World’ besides, have always suffered and will always suffer the most degradingly poor conditions of living by comparison with ourselves? They do so not because of either white capitalist exploitation, or the corruption of their own myriad dictators, but because of something that is deep and probably ineradicable in themselves. Our ancestors understood this and, while they and other Europeans ruled large portions of Africa and other backward regions, they attempted to alleviate the poverty as far as was humanly possible by sound and mostly in-corrupt administration and observance of sensible economic laws. With these responsible hands taken from African affairs, the descent into present chaos and misery was always certain. So why the universal shock and surprise?

Dictators just a symptom

One of the feeblest responses to what is now happening in Africa is the claim that everything would be all right were it not for the greedy and corrupt dictators who have emerged in the countries of that continent and are hogging for themselves so much of the little wealth that is to be found there. But just how and why do these tyrants perpetually come to the top – except by processes that are endemic to African politics and almost certainly products of the African psyche? We just do not seem to have learned the lesson that to Africans, as to Arabs, western style democracy is a strange and alien implant – utterly unable to thrive on the local soil. Get rid of one gang of corrupt tyrants, such as Robert Mugabe, and in no time another will take its place.

And even if it is accepted that the tyrants are hogging much more than their share of the wealth of the land (or of such aid as we may be sending them), just what difference would it make if they were not? Just supposing that the wealth Africans are capable of creating were shared more equitably, how much better off would that make them? They would still be living in the most grinding squalor by comparison with Europeans.

And by just what reasoning is it our obligation to lift them out of this squalor anyway? The old saying that God helps those who help themselves was never more applicable than here. Just why should Europeans – or for that matter the East Asians who have built prosperous societies by their own efforts – apply their brains and industry, seemingly forever, so as to make over a portion of their earnings to rescue Africans from the consequences of their own ineptitude?

Aid needed at home

If liberals and leftists are so desperate to dispense help to those in need, there are plenty of deserving causes here in Britain crying out for their attention. It is estimated that there are 5,000,000 people in the UK still living below the poverty line. There are pensioners who face a bleak future as a result of their funds being raided by this very Government. There are parts of the national infrastructure that urgently call for new investment: roads, railways, hospitals, schools, the armed forces and much more. Why must there be some special moral virtue attached to raising money to feed the hungry in distant climes rather than those in our own back yard? Blairs and Geldofs of this world take note!


Stagnating Black Countries

Black American Author Rejects Roots

Zimbabwe Expected To Collapse

Corrupting 3rd World Governments