You have to know when blood is in the water and that blood is yours

American free-thought alert! (Act now while supplies last, I'll be on a watch-list until I surrender my ethics.) I'm also a discriminator. That's right, I make choices every day, even about right and wrong, and thus I discriminate. (And anyone who discriminates is guilty of being prejudiced, and anyone who is prejudiced is unfair, and anyone who is unfair is a bad person...)

Carrie Prejean, a.k.a. Miss California, showed great wisdom in declining taking part in the filming of a new public service announcement fawning over the great "diversity" of California. The effort was touted as an idea to help repair the image of the California - now propaganda disguised as pageantry. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519468,00.html

When diversity is perversity, and nobody speaks how they really feel, you're wise to stay out of the chum-filled water. That tart standing next to you is not your chum but you are standing in chum. If diversity is to be so prized in this country, e.g. a free marketplace of ideas, then why are all the discontented newspapermen, political machines et.al. so opposed to a non-gay viewpoint?

We no longer cry for unity - maybe because the Cold War is over? - but only the empty drone of "Diversity." The more it's repeated, the less we question it. Diversity training exists in almost every institution today. But why and to what extent - that people with what were once considered to follow societal mores, such as aversion to perversion - are marginalized and unable to stand on any legitimate position without vilification in the American mass media. (See my earlier post on normalizing political correctness, http://makalakapisei.blogspot.com/search?q=normalizing).

More and more I'm starting to think I, like many of these idiots in California, was a victim of cultural programming in high school when I was taught that McCarthyism is a bad thing: It was the blacklisting of Communist sympathisers in Hollywood. The domestic reactions to the Cold War were an overall cultural rejection of the moral iconoclasm that is so prominent today. The pendulum has swung in the other direction and as I've heard, there is this sort of "reverse McCarthyism going on in America." We'll save Britain for another post.

Diversity has become... perversity.

Keith Lewis, co-director for Miss California USA says, " We are just trying to move forward in what is the best way for the organization, the women, the titleholder and the state. Carrie is still Miss California USA, but right now she is not acting in the capacity of Miss California USA. She is acting as Carrie Prejean and working on things that are important to Carrie Prejean."

Diversity has become... perversity.

Miss California isn't entitled her opinion, and the loudest and most obnoxious have turned on her. I don't know how anyone can resist this drumbeat of cultural re-programming, from public schools to the new concept that the "United States never was a Christian nation." http://www.google.com/search?q=the+united+states+was+never+a+christian+nation&hl=en&rlz=1T4GPEA_enUS307US307&start=20&sa=N

I've read some points that expose the truth of the matter on the Prejean controversy, and I'll end this entry with them.

-------------------------------------------

IonBeam2: Gay people already have the right to enter into something that they can call whatever they want to- including marriage. It's when they force everyone else to call it marriage when the problem arises.

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: But there were plenty of ways to politically sidestep that question, but she's another dumb ass blonde bigot parroting the same shiat that her parents drilling into her head.

Steelpeg: So, the younger generations believe that being "politically correct" is more important than voicing a person's true beliefs and free speech. And she is a "dumb ass blonde bigot" because she doesn't share your beliefs in ghey marriage? Do you know her? Do you even know her parents? Do you even know the definition of bigot? You are sounding like a pot calling the kettle black.You've even got that liberal Roland Martin on CNN advocating Carrie Prejean's right for free speech and dissing her detractors for how they are acting - CNN (new window). But Roland is probably a bigot too. Carrie did nothing wrong, she was asked what she thought and give an honest opinion. It was a stupid question asked just to forward a judge's own agenda. I know, lets just get a ghey judge to ask a question to Miss California, who happens to attend a Christian College, a question on allowing ghey marriages that was recently put before the voters and rejected in an election in California 52% to 48%. Why not just have David Duke ask her about minority rights? Or how about the CEO of planned parenthood asking about her opinion on abortion? How about illegal immigration questions from an illegal immigrant? Loaded questions do not belong in a "beauty contest".

Atomic Spunk: Homosexuality is a choice. As a society, we have the right to discriminate against groups of people who make choices we don't believe in. Homosexuals should never be allowed to marry. A majority of people in this country believe the same way I do. It's useless to debate this because everyone has their minds made up, and their is no convincing argument one way or the other.

Article: 'Normalizing Key to Political Correctness' by William Lind

Friends,


This is one of the most important and controversial articles you will ever read on Grey Complex. The precis: William Lind writes about the chilling modern practice of 'normalization' of radical behavior. Alarmingly, one of the milieu most unenlightening w.r.t. freedom of thought is said to be the college campus. Lind examines P.C.'dom's philosophic roots and offers a solution in the "conscious intellect." No matter how on/off the mark it may be, it's worth reading.


Excerpt:


As students on any politically correct campus know, this is no longer how it works. What he gets instead is personal vilification, threats, and sometimes charges before some college kangaroo court, all accompanied by a howling chorus of whatever PC "victims" group he has dared "offend." Political Correctness itself is subject to no rational examination or critique; it must be accepted as a given, like the facts that the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese.
How then does political correctness advance itself in an academic setting, if it will not engage in rational discourse? The answer is, through psychological conditioning.


https://web.archive.org/web/20021226093405/http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/november_1998_3.html

Corned beef hash

   I'm thinking about language, manners and civility as they relate to politics.  I was outside Home De-pot the other day. A Philly cheesesteak outfit has set up shop out front, and we decided to stop by. A mid-40s looking, hairy white guy in a yellow tank top walks up with his son, under ten.

   "Sup, dawg?" he says to the cheesesteak guy.

[Sound of needle violently skidding off of record player]

   "Good evening, Sir."

   Thugged-out Hulkster wannabe orders SIX hot dogs (no, make that seven, I'll eat one on the way home), shops, returns, and 'Sup dawgs' again. The vessels in my head want to explode. I pity the boy in tow.  I just read somewhere that the English language is undergoing its most significant evolution (a major overhaul, a mutation of cultural transmission and redefinition) since Shakespearean times, some 500 years ago.  However, this does nothing to soothe me nor defy the terrible irony that this unseemly gent just engaged in the lowest form of street English.  Why did he do it? 

-----------------

SIDEBAR 1: Linguistics
Article:  "Texts, e-mails and t.v. slang transforming English"

• Webpage: The Bad Linguistics Page - offers counterpoint on the premise that English is degenerating, discusses foreign language aptitudes

• Forum: From a discussion on a NYT article regarding students' declining scores
  "Hell, this is a culture (from what we are being fed through music/movies/entertainment which I know is not always an accurate depiction of real life but it's what we are being shown as the way things are) that prides itself on ignorance. A culture that puts pimps, drug dealers and the 'thug life' as what is to be aspired to."
  
  "And we wonder why the kids from this environment don't care about education."

------------------
SIDEBAR 2: Political orientation, taboos, and the awkward, polarized disaffection we find ourselves in:

• Forum: From a discussion on the first lady of the U.S. attempting to shake an Indonesian Minister's hand, which is taboo in a Muslim country:

   "I personally find it useful to think of it automotive terms. The 'left' of the political spectrum is the accelerator, the 'right' is the brake. Neither is the answer by itself, you can accelerate out of control and crash or you can never get off the brake and go nowhere."
   "The majority of people in any given society just want predictability. They just want to have a job and a family and a reasonable expectation that they will still have those things tomorrow. Call them conservatives."
   "Others agitate for change in pursuit of ideals. The ones who want to turn the world on its ear in order to right injustice. Those are liberals."
   "The problem is that we'd never have come down out of the trees if we followed the first camp and we'd have a new government every other day if we followed the second."
/being a whole-hearted adherent to either side is stupid

   Sure, but like restoring works of art, don't we want to keep the institutions in good order that keep civility intact, repudiate ignorance, and make our nation strong?  How did we find ourselves reversing everything we knew to be good and true a decade ago, normalizing political correctness, and so cowardly to appease that we embarked on a national apology tour?  That we forbade a 13 year-old from riding a bike to school that flew a small U.S. flag, lest we offend someone?  And so on, and so forth. 

--------------------

   So I'm at Applebee's the next day:  men eating with hats on?!  (Backward baseball caps) Take your damn hats off at the dinner table.  Set an example.  Care.  I went to a Ryan's Steakhouse buffet once, and after the lady tending the buffet got done sharing a parole story, I noticed that dad, elder son, youngest son all sat in a row like birds on a wire, each with ball caps donned and elbows on table.

   Don't say, "'Sup dawg!" and expect to be taken seriously!

   Moving on up the chain...  if you're a president or first lady, GET YOURSELVES A PROTOCOL STAFF. The principals were not "keepin' it classy, keepin' it real" because they invited Hollywood over to the W.H.  And our leaders don't belong on talk shows.  We should not tolerate Jon Steward calling our president "Dude."

Getty Images

 It's a noisome, fatuous trend.  Look at some notable recent fauxs pas:

- Don't make people take down the cross when you elect to speak in their offices
- Don't make the Dalai Lama walk by trash at your state visit
- Don't try to hug the Queen of England
- Don't repeatedly exclude the "God" part of the Declaration of Independence

• Related article: "Freudian slips may hurt Obama"

  And the worst of all:

- Obama: "We are not a Christian nation." by John Eidsmoe (Author's final line: "America’s generosity is a response learned from our Christian heritage.")

   Tell me, on whose authority did the noble community organizer pass that dirty lie?

   I don't mean to only call out the White House, but we need a return to civility, common ideals and common ground.  Instead, we focus on what makes us different rather than what unifies us.  Why do we pride ourselves on ignorance?  Why are so many forces complicit in standing up to traditional values?  Why don't people dress the way they did to ride an airplane 30+ years ago, and instead wear pajamas, flip-flops, and other underwear in public?  Why do we have a http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ website?  Why are we racing to the bottom?  If you dropped a stone, would you hear it hit?

L.A. Times immigration article is classic example of modern journalistic demagoguery

The article: "Kern County sheriff a defiant California maverick on immigration" by Kate Linthicum, published April 9, 2015.

http://www.latimes.com/local/great-reads/la-me-c1-kern-sheriff-20150410-story.html#page=2


So he's a maverick.  Is that good or bad?  Does the media take an implicit role in normalizing illegal activity and the Malthusian issue of illegal immigration?  Well, assuming you'll have to read through to find out, the author will have achieved her objective of planting her liberal seed unless you maintain a critical eye - something that the media relies on you NOT to do, and what I estimate 3/4 of the U.S. population doesn't care about anyway.

In the above linked article, a California sheriff retains his prerogative in areas where state and federal laws don't mesh on the deportation of illegal aliens, and the journalist ends her article with this quote:

"If everybody thought the same, this would be a pretty boring place," Youngblood said. "This is where I learned my behaviors and my thoughts and my beliefs. None of which make me right." 

It's sadly conventional wisdom that journalists harbor an iconoclastic ethos in order to dismantle traditional values and institutions of the American republic.  [The American Journalist - Pew Research Center]

This article's hidden agenda is exposed at the end:  Vilify any figure opposed to liberal runaway detrimental policies supporting illegal immigration, with subtlety or not. 

Here, the author ends with a sentence that was cut-off mid-stream.  Backing up, the core of her article was how an illegal was severely beaten, and afraid to ask for help due to the possibility of being deported - in the grand scheme - due the sheriff's obedience to the rule of law.

The final part of the story focuses on seemingly mute details, such as the sheriff's traditional hearth, and the conservative presence within. 

Building up to that point, she ends the article with, "None of which make me right," prompting the ordinary reader to wonder what the sheriff said next.  Surely the interview didn't end there, with the sheriff contradicting himself. 

Congratulations - by cutting off there, the sheriff never gets to complete his thought, and the reader will walk away thinking, "Oh, the sheriff just said he was never right," assuming the litote is true: the affirmation of the negative.  A strong negative at the end of the article isn't an explicit claim that the sheriff is wrong in any conservative practices, but it is a great example of how the media conditions the public, has shifted from taking neutral positions to aiming at conservative values, and debunks common sense.