neeta travels mumbai: Political Correctness

Political Correctness

There are real dangers In any democratic society where criticism has to be stifled absolutely. The alarming history of that outrageous process has already begun within the British Parliament, which, in recent times, has attempted to shutdown free speech and criticism of homosexuality per se. Hence attempts to introduce hate speech crimes. Dedicated professional gay activists continue to pursue the prohibition of public discussion that fails to support the contrived political rights of homosexual men and women.

This bizarre new gay gospel not only reflects a self-indulgent narcissism but it also masks the inherent histrionics of an irrational destructive sexual identity. As a consequence it obfuscates more than it discloses about homosexual behaviour to an extent that it serves to distract from the reality of gay politics and conduct.

Political correctness is about wielding power in the fullest civil and ethical sense, a matter central to the homosexual heart. This is pursued with a dogmatic intimidation and rigid subversion of established cultural, ethical and religious values. It is their intention to dominate political discourse and to determine events and issues and they are organised in small groups but in a big way to do this.

The hostility of political correctness is demonstrated by its lack of alternatives as it inverts logic, truth and reality. So, for example, gays conceal the fact they are in greater danger of molestation, rape and murder by other homosexuals, when the facts establish the opposite. It thus also exposes its intimidatory and intolerant nature.

What frightens people is that it is more negative that positive! And they have not yet woken up to the simple fact that political correctness is primarily about smoke and mirrors because its function is to distort.

Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that political correctness is ingrained in many of the institutions of science, academia and government. Indeed, psychology, psychiatry, social science and social work have been captured by the ultra-liberal agenda of cultural Marxism. Witness the unedifying preoccupation with political correctness, sensitivity and diversity. The professionalism of science and academia has capitulated to this questionable phenomenon. This will be examined in detail here.

If you want to experience cultural Marxism today, you couldn?t do worse that tune in to the BBC, now a pre-eminent cultural institution in Britain. Its influence is profoundly all-pervasive as it casts its relentless probing gaze on the Church, the Monarchy, the State and all the functions of government. Institutions like the police, the courts and parliament are subject to remorseless scrutiny. It dwarfs every other media outlet in the country and has a huge international audience. It is the largest employer of journalists in the world and 93% of the population use BBC services at least once a week. Generously subsidised by public taxation to the tune of ?3 billion plus each year, it has no real competitor. Insulated from public enquiry it is arrogantly self-serving and scathing of any criticism. Auntie knows best! It deceitfully pretends to be independent and impartial.

In his seminal book ?Can we trust the BBC?? (2007), former prominent BBC journalist Robin Aitken documents how the BBC has transformed from strictly reporting news to the more insidious concern of shaping and defining opinion and value.

He asserts that people at the top of the corporation are the baby-boomers of the late 1940?s and 50?s ? our Flower Power and Free Love generation. They championed an intoxicating explosion of youth culture, strident individualism, and material acquisitiveness as they challenged established authority. They rejected traditional sexual mores and adopted a liberal morality. Today, they control a powerful institution that tends to report less news but more manipulation of political and cultural value. Aitken documents, among other things, how undeserved support was given to the IRA and largely withdrawn from the Unionist during the battle against Republican terrorists. The impartiality of some leading news and current affairs programmes is questioned and the cosy relationship between the BBC and Labour is outlined. Currently, several prominent politicians previously worked for the BBC that reflected a left-leaning gay-friendly view of society.

Aitken tellingly observes, ?The BBC is passionately against racism, in favour or ?human rights?, supportive of internationalism, suspicious of traditional British identity and consequently pro-EU, it is feminist, secular and allergic to established authority whether in the form of the Crown, the courts, the police of the churches.?

Dominated by the young, feminists, homosexuals and those from the ethnic minorities it suffers from a deep-seated institutional bias that deliberately favours the liberal-left. It is anti-Christian and pro-Islam, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, anti-American and pro-Arab. One BBC member describes its core values as anti-racist, pro-abortion, pro-women?s and gay rights, pro-Un, pro-EU, pro-union and anti-big business, pro-high taxation, pro-government spending, anti-private education, anti-private health care, pro-local democracy, pro-multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, pro-foreigner, especially left-wing governments, anti-American, anti-monarchy and anti-prison. Another views their job, not as impartially reporting the news, but as directly brainwashing the population.

The BBC also came in for heavy criticism from Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail in 2007. Under the heading, ?The BBC?s cultural Marxism will trigger an American-style backlash?, he charged them with intolerance waging a Orwellian campaign against British values. He accused them for their anti-conservative stance, its hostility to British history and values, unionism, Europsceptism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values. On the other hand he observed they were sympathetic to Labour, European federalism, the state and state spending, mass immigration, minority rights, multiculturalism, alternative lifestyles, abortion and progressiveness in the education and justice systems.

The attitude of the BBC to the Israel/Palestinian problem which is notoriously reported in favour of the latter?s cause, may be a political correct reinstatement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?s political expedient assessment of the Middle East problem. Known as the ?Camel Corp? following its historical open sympathy for the Arab cause, the FO has never had much time for Israel which may increasingly have something to do with the fact it does not have an oil. The leading British historian Andrew Roberts make the remarkable observation that no member of the Royal family has ever been on an official visit to Israel Whereas the FO has managed over the years to send the Queen on state visits to Libya, Iran, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, The United Arab Emirate, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan and Turkey. Some of the worst countries in the world regarding freedom of speech, religious tolerance and democratic value.

Acclaimed author and social commentator Melanie Phillips has remarked, ?Over a vast range of issues ? big business, Conservatism, family values, America, Europe, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, climate change, abortion, multiculturalism ? the BBC fails to be dispassionate, objective or truthful.?

Then surfaced the unexpected revelation in 2010 of a Left-wing scriptwriter and an actor who had been hired by the BBC in the 1980?s to inspire a ?Tardis revolution? by injecting political propaganda into the television series Doctor Who to undermine Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In one series she was portrayed as a vicious egotistical alien ruler who used a secret police to oppress dissidents. Other thinly veiled plots supported the miner?s strike and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. At the time, Norman Tebbitt, Tory MP, claimed the corporation was in the hands of a ?Marxist mafia?.

Former ?Time Lord? actor, Sylvester McCoy admitted, ?The idea of bringing politics into Doctor Who was deliberate, but we had to do it quietly? We were a group of politically motivated people and it seemed the right thing to do.? Andrew Cartmel, the script editor, said he was quite open about his plans to mock Mrs. Thatcher when interviewed for the job.?

A BBC spokesperson subsequently explained bafflement, ?The BBC?s impartiality rules applied just as strongly then as they do to programmes now.? This was Auntie at her damn best!

Then came a rare refreshing moment of candour even though heavily guarded, resentful and partial. Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC made a remarkable public statement in September 2010 at a time when it was thought public funding for the broadcasting fat cats might be curtailed. He admitted the BBC was guilty of ?massive? Left-wing bias in the past, particularly during the Thatcher era. He went on to describe relations with the former Labour Government as ?quite tetchy?, but insisted that matters of balance had now improved.

Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail unimpressed retorted, ?For about 20 years, I and a few others have been pointing out that the BBC is biased on the Left, morally, culturally and politically.? He concludes, ?The BBC remains reliably pro-EU, pro-PC, anti-Israel, in favour of the sexual revolution, soft on drugs, fanatical about man-made climate change. It has partly cured itself of its crude anti-Americanism, and Mr Thompson?s confession is plainly a sign of a wider recognition that things have not been right, in both senses of the word.?

It?s fair to ask therefore, was the BBC the covert propaganda arm of the Foreign Office and thus, ultimately, the Labour Government? This has serious implications for the well-being of our liberal democratic society?

Within a couple of weeks of the statement of impartiality by Mark Thompson, the BBC declared war on the Conservatives threatening to black out coverage of the Prime Minister?s keynote speech at the Tory party conference and other important events. Well in excess of 10,000 BBC workers support such action and plan several walkouts to disrupt the Government. The threatened strike results from plans to change the employees over generous pensions schemes.

Criticism continues! Early in 2011, Peter Sissons, a former front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current affairs for 20 years, published a scathing book about the impartiality of the organisation. In his book, When one Door Closes he claimed that the Left-wing bias was hard wired in the BBC?s DNA.

Within a month, veteran broadcaster, Michael Buerk, slammed the management of the BBC for being woman-dominated, given to political correctness and preoccupied with employing Asians and lesbians.

In April 2011, The Telegraph newspaper reported on the scandal of the recent WikiLeaks which suggested a possible propaganda media network for Al Qaeda within e World Service at the BBC in Bush House London. It was also reported that as far back as 2006 the BBC were prepared to interview Osma Bin Laden and that he be given a platform to explain in his views. Subsequently, the BBC?s veteran political journalist Andrew Marr observed, ?The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It?s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.? He went on, ?It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.?

The rot continues.

In September, 2011, the BBC announced it will no longer use the Christian-centric concepts of AD (Anno Domini the year of our Lord) and BC (Before Christ) on its website. This is being done to reflect ?modern practice? and not that of popular opinion.

When the BBC Broadcasting House was first opened in1932 by its Director-General, Sir John Reith, a plaque was unveiled which inscribed the following words that reflected the aspirations of the Board of Governors, ?It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace and purity may be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.?

Sir John Reith must now be turning over in his grave.

It would be a foolish mistake, however, to think that cultural Marxism is simply confined to the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties. Aspects have been secretly absorbed by David Cameron and the Conservative Central Office.

In February 2002, a confidential blueprint was drawn up in secret by Michael Gove, MP, current Secretary of State for Schools and Dean Godson, a director of the favoured think-tank Policy Exchange. Their aim was to impose more women, gays, Muslims and ethnic candidates for future elections. The explosive six-page document entitled, ?Action Plan for Candidate Selection in Safe Seats? proposed the use of subterfuge to end the white, heterosexual, male and middle class image of the Conservative Party. The idea was to get rid of its demeaning description as the ?Nasty Party?. Some considered this group as political ?Dinosaurs? and later in the shire constituencies as the ?Turnip Taliban?.

The report fully accepted that most of the talented candidates where white males because they were the best available. They proposed a radical change to include a greater cross-section of society even though they may be inferior. They argued that their findings should remain secret and that changes be introduced by stealth. They observed. ?The more the profusion of women, black, Asian or gay candidates appears to be the result of spontaneous open-mindedness on the part of the grassroots activists the greater will be the accolades.? Gove deceitfully observed, ?Like a conjuror, we?ll get more applause If the audience cannot see how the trick is performed.? The underlying assumption to this is that women, gays and ethnics are by their very nature progressive and liberal which should reflect well on the party. Reality suggests they can be just as reactionary as anyone else.

In January 2010, David Cameron took ?emergency powers? which allowed him to impose short-lists of ?suitable? candidates on reluctant local party activists. This draconian Marxist measure has subsequently incensed local party members up and down the country. Now a so-called Central Office ?A-list? is fast-tracking women, ethnic and gay candidates, most of whom are politically inexperienced with little local constituency knowledge. The result is mutiny, tears and resignations by the party faithful that have rocked Cameron. Rows erupted throughout the country and he has been warned that this controversial measure is alienating tens of thousands of activists.

Then there is the sinister and troubling behaviour of the police who have been taken in by the pink politics of the gay parade, even to the extent of proscribing behaviour outside the law. Admittedly, some laws regarding homosexual behaviour are now legal, but the police exceed themselves and embrace gay rights with an overwhelming gusto. The unnecessary and undignified arrest and charge, or its threat, of social commentators and others in society has led to an insidious groundswell of fear deep within the heart of the community. Gays keep recklessly pushing at the parameters of public discourse by feigning insult, injury and injustice in a relentless effort to smash any criticism. Equally, precipitous, presumptuous and prejudicial investigations by the police have resulted in stifling public opinion on any issue involving homosexuality. This, as will be detailed here, has drawn cutting censure from both Houses of Parliament.

Whether they like it or not, the police are unwittingly embracing a false moral panic about gay victimhood by demonising traditional values and concerns and by exaggerating societal homophobia and violence without tangible data. In doing so, they abandon their historical role as impartial guardians of law and order and, instead, enter a world largely determined by sexual politics. Enough to make their founder Sir Robert Peel, turn in his grave!

Interestingly, a survey of 2,000 British men in 2008 found that two thirds ?felt handcuffed? by political correctness and that it was safer to conceal their opinions. More than half thought society was turning them into ?waxed and coiffed metrosexuals?.

So, as far as Joe the Plummer is concerned, it is safer to say nothing.

Recall for a moment the Frankfurt School notion that the white male was to be singled out as evil or bad. Now consider this! Over the last few decades laws have been enacted in the UK which protects certain groups who are seen as victims of discrimination. According to David Green of Civitas, these groups include women (51%) of the population, ethnic minorities (4%), the disabled (11%) male pensioners (5%) and homosexuals (2%). Minority groups thus represent 73% of the population. Unprotected, the hapless white male is now in a miserable minority of its own.

This does not cater for potential multiple discriminations. So, for instance, a one-legged black lesbian could claim discrimination for being disabled, a woman, black and homosexual in one foul swoop. When multiple discriminations are considered they amount to a total number which is greater than the whole population. It is right to point out that contemporary victimhood is antithetical to our traditional notion of equality before the law, which in turn undermines liberty and democracy. It?s not quite that obvious yet, but the best intentions of our politicians have paved the way to a future hell especially when, with increasing frequency, free speech becomes hate speech.

The shallow callow face of political correctness can now be witnessed within the corridors of power at Westminster. In November, 2009, controversial plans were revealed by the House Of Commons Speaker?s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) which recommended plans to force political parties to make Parliament less white, male, middle-class and heterosexual. The intention is to make all political parties publicly declare how many women, ethnic minority, gay and disabled applicants they reject as potential Parliamentary candidates. Former Tory Minister Ann Widdecombe MP described the proposals as ?insulting?.

It is astonishing, in one sense, how people will totally ignore, or even deny knowledge of the self-harm some people do to themselves. The effect of this is that destructive behaviours are overlooked in a conspiracy of silence.

For example, the singularly pernicious sexual debauchery of Hollywood superstar Marlon Brando, whose instant sexual gratification with men and women is well publicised in glossy magazines, has entirely escaped public censure. Similarly, the insatiable sexual appetite with gay men of flamboyant Freddie Mercury of the Queen pop group was of no significance other than the fact he died of AIDS. Indeed, recent events involving Boy George and George Michael; both here and abroad; hardly warrant attention once sensational media reporting has died down.

Leading actors and comedians of stage, film and television, classical and pop musicians, influential members of business and entrepreneurial captain?s of industry are constantly ?coming out? ? disclosing their homosexuality and no one bats an eyelid. Why should they because it?s now respectable? This holds true for prominent politicians and Ministers of State, including at least one who, elevated with a peerage, is HIV positive. Indeed, some MP?s have been exposed by the press for furtively using rent boys and in one case, another was found scantily dressed soliciting for anonymous gay sex on a homosexual dating website. Contrast that with the case of one MP who quickly resigned following disclosures of a ?moment of madness? on Clapham Common. Notwithstanding, he may subsequently have thought his resignation was unnecessary and so he unsuccessfully tried desperately to get back into national politics. None of this has, however, hindered any political career In contrast, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, who admitted an extra-marital heterosexual affair was demoted from his ministerial position in the local government and communities department.

Instead, we ignore their sexual deviations because in the public?s view, sheer inspirational artistic talent or self-determination outmatches their narcissistic self-indulgent behaviour. And when numerous homosexual Minister?s of State enter into gay marriage we rush to congratulate them for their sheer bravado.

They In turn, and with increasing frequency, tell us that being gay is great and that those who think otherwise are detestable dogmatists who declare deceitful doctrines that are destructive and dangerous. In the new order of things, these critics are the real deviants who should be ostracised from the communion of public discourse. Hence the potential for hate speech crimes!

This is evidence of an attitudinal revolution in sexual mores whose source is directly related to the sexual rebellion of the Sixties. The Free Love movement, of men who loved women, is now exacting an unintended consequence of men who love men and the emergence of widespread catastrophic incurable diseases in the form of multi and coinfections. Gays thus irresistibly embrace an unambiguous deathstyle, which explains their addiction. More remarkable, indeed disturbing, are those known as ?bug chasers? who actively pursue it In a grotesque death-defying danse macabre with ?gift givers? at gay HIV positive parties.

Yet, even here, society is largely in denial about the emergence of these calamitous infections because they readily embrace the toxic source of its vulgar pathological cause. This is crass stupidity! It is like encouraging a person suffering with lung cancer to continue smoking, or giving whiskey to an alcoholic in the hope of sobering him up.

Nevertheless, without public or political opprobrium, the deadly inexorable embrace of Mother Nature has determined the painful and prejudicial parameters of Gay Pride. For the Grim Reaper is the ultimate arbiter that stubbornly mocks at the fortress-like door of the primeval pagan temple of strutting hedonistic gay hubris and self-indulgent human rights, for disease and death are doggedly a function of gayness that is far from carefree and merry.

The gay conspiracy is real. It involves political objectives in an effort to establish the supremacy of homosexuality and its related lifestyles in our society and culture. Sexual orientation policies like gay marriage, adoption, theology and the introduction of hate and speech crime neatly point to a future homosexual-dominated social order. Homosexuals define their personal identity by their sexual urges and desires. This causes them to believe that advancing the gay agenda is a fight for life. Their emotional urgency about their agenda, combined with a sense; fostered by their own propaganda; of being victims of injustice allows them to justify the use of any political tactic against those they perceive as enemies.

The homosexual lobby in the United States and Western Europe has achieved most of its political objectives over the last 60 years. The only major institution that currently stands as a threat is the Christian church. A key tenet of a liberal society is that it grants religious organisation the freedom to practise their religious faith. Any measure that prevents this is profoundly illiberal and oppressive.

The creation of a British Equality Commission is a reflection of Labour?s ideological agenda to eradicate prejudice. It also exposes Labour?s intolerance to the Christian church which is demonstrated by the fact they propose to force religious organisations to employ homosexuals even in cases where such groups view it as a sin.

Sadly, we observe a deliberate decline into decadence and cultural genocide.

Finally, during this discourse we will encounter many types of denial that characterise the culture of homosexuality. It will be observed that gays deceitfully create falsehoods to win over public opinion. This battle of wits is not entirely successful though, which explains why the exercise has to be repeated ad nauseam. They aim to desensitise public opinion with repeated expressions of gayness-in-your-face ? gay pride events, gay history months, gay pride awards, gay safe spaces, gay holding-hand events and memorial days for gay holocaust victims. They really want you to ?Get over it? because if do not ? your? re homophobic.

This is another good reason why their distortions should be challenged and exposed.

Nat Wei CAMERON PUSHED HIM INTO THE HOUSE OF LORDS?.NAT WEI HAS SINCE RESIGNED THE POST DAVE GAVE HIM- YET HE?S NOW A LORD FOREVER AND ALL THAT ENTAILS?????????????????????

ukpropaganda on 15 Oct 2010

The Big Society Network?s executive chairman (Lord) Nat Wei ( who also has dealings with the National Citizen Service for 16 year olds ) hints at possible violent times ahead.
Just WHAT is he predicting?

Category:
Non-profits & Activism

HoL OVER A THOUSANDS?.WHEN PREVIOUSLY WE HAD A COUPLE OF HUNDRED?.CHECKS AND BALANCES VIA CRONIES?.NO WAY!

Nat Wei has also had his sticky? little fingers in helping design the new Hitler Youth?er?er I mean National Youth Service.

Man of many talents, or co-orchestrator of a much larger agenda?

ukpropaganda 1 year ago

Video to prove the ?Big Society? agenda is NOT David Cameron?s idea, nor that of his party.
Here we see him get us used to the term ?big society? by mentioning it in the Conservative election broadcast this year ( plus the overuse of the word ?society? throughout the video).
Next we see him ?launch? it at a press conference shortly after winning power.
Thirdly, we are treated to his appearance at the ACTUAL LAUNCH of The Big Society well in advance of the coming general election and the CLAIMED launch on 19th July 2010.
David ; it isn?t your idea, so why don?t you remind people so?
You refer to it as ?an idea? and don?t actually claim it is your own doing, but you do not let people know much detail about WHO runs it and WHAT ITS REAL PURPOSE IS.
Police state coming : http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/county_news/8811014.Traffic_wardens__bus_insp?

Category:
Non-profits & Activism

IDEA- SAUL ALINSKY!!

THE PR MAN SELLING YOU ENSLAVEMENT!

loadpot on 27 Apr 2010

The English Nation and her people are being deliberately & systematically destroyed by Marxist traitors from within our political elite. This is a call to arms, the prelude to lawful action under Magna Carta ? Article 61. Democracy will be restored and these treasonous individuals and organisations will be removed!

Category:
News & Politics

OPEN BORDERS- DESTROY CHRISTIANITY AND THE FAMILY- MARXIST TO THE CORE!