Photo by Rosemary Ketchum on Pexels.com
The other day I was listening to one of the recent speeches of the newly appointed President Joe Biden. He was doing a speech in an event in Tulsa commemorating the 100th anniversary of the “massacre” that happened in the city where 300 African Americans were killed. One of the highlights of his speech was the following statement: “The most lethal threat to the US are the white supremacists”.
Wow. Very strong accusation to be made by a privileged, ultrarich white man. Although I do not live in America, I like to keep an eye on American politics because I think that wherever that country is heading, the rest of the world follows. So, I became more curious about what is going on there. Did he say that because of Donald Trump? Whom we know, the democratic party and the mainstream media have been trashing as much as they could… or is there more behind? Is Biden just interested in trashing Trump, or is he attacking as well the 75% of white population living in America? (worldpopulation review)
Inevitably, other ideology came to my mind: Black Lives Matter, which it became an emblem of the current administration. So, for now on, only black lives matter, but white lives not? Or, more correctly said, persons of color matter more now? Isn´t that also racist and a threat to a true peaceful democratic society?
Unfortunately, this was just the top of the iceberg. It turns out, this racial intolerance talk is just one small part of a bigger agenda. There seems to be a series of strange ideas penetrating the West ideologies of freedom, reason and true liberalism. A parasitic phenomenon of “Political correctness” is repressing people from their freedom of expression and their right to have other opinions that do not go along with the “Main narrative”.
Dr. Gad Saad, in his book “The Parasitic Mind” identified a series of ideologies that have been spreading in universities in Canada and the US; all of those seem to be reinforcing eachother now to become the “new truth”. I will discuss a few of them here.
Radical feminism
The feminist movement has been around for decades and there is no doubt that protesting for more equal rights have improved the life of many women worldwide. However, recently, what started as a movement to ask for equal rights between men and women, became actually a weapon of victimhood which increases the repression towards men.
Nowadays, men must be extremely careful not to be “Too toxic in their masculinity” because that may represent a threat of sexual harassment. It turns out, there is an “Ambivalent Sexism Inventory” (ASI) a test a man has to take before getting in contact with a woman, in order to scale his “degree of sexism”.
An aggressive sexism behavior would be an obvious direct harassment or sexist comments like “men are smarter than women” or the sort. But there is also a scale that measures a “benevolent sexism” and those behaviors could include something like: Men idolizing women, proclaim their lives are incomplete without them, or saying that a woman needs protection from a man, or he can be sexist if he says a woman is needed to form a complete and healthy family!
So, be careful if you are a man and you tell your girlfriend: “I can´t live without you” because this may be classified as benevolent sexism!
By the way, all the songs, poems, movies and pieces of literature ever written about Love between men and women might have to be subject to a change, to avoid any benevolent sexist claim.
Candace Owens, the famous conservative activist and author of “Blackout”, also made an interesting observation about this absurd feminism phenomena. She argued that behind all the fuzz and scandal of the #MeToo movement actually the real agenda is designed to protect privileged liberal women. From her book:
-Movements like #MeToo provide little more than political advocacy for their wealthy liberal sponsors. Actress Jane Fonda acknowledged the inherent privilege of the movement in an episode of All In with Chris Hayes back in October 2017. Speculating as to why #MeToo had suddenly gained so much momentum, she remarked that it was “too bad that it’s probably because so many of the women that were assaulted by Harvey Weinstein are famous and white and everybody knows them. This has been going on a long time to black women and other women of color and doesn’t get out quite the same.”-
Perhaps, that’s why “Black Lives Matter” also came in a similar timing, so that the so called “Black Community” also recognizes a double victimhood story? Although Black Lives Matter started with the story of a white police man killing a black man, caught by someone who recorded the precise moment of the murder… there you go. Double threat: a white man, killing a person of color, and if you would be a woman, you should be extremely terrified because you have a double risk: being black and being a woman!
Culture of Victimhood
I have been hearing a lot about a term called “Hate Speech”. I was not sure what it exactly meant. I just have seen the phrase coming often for example, as accusations against former President Donald Trump after him saying something provoking or not politically correct.
In Universities, according to Dr. Gad Saad, a hate speech is associated with any form of micro-aggression (what the F* is a micro-aggression?) apparently, anything that hurts your feelings. Yep, plain and simple. If your feelings were hurt because of someone’s harsh comments, like “you look fat”, or “This is a girl’s game” or whatever. For curiosity, I went to an official webpage to see if some information is displayed there or, it is just a hype, a new trend of social mannerism. Surprisingly, I found the below “definition” in the webpage of the European Council, under the section “Freedom of Expression” (coe.int) :
“Hate speech has no particular definition in international human rights; it is a term used to describe broad discourse that is extremely negative and constitutes a threat to social peace. According to the Committee of Ministers, hate speech covers all forms of expressions that spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance. Along with the development of new forms of media, online hate speech has been brought about. Hate speech in the online space requires further reflection and action on the regulation and new ways for combating it”.
Hmmm interesting. Isn’t the phrase “White Supremacist is the biggest threat to America” said by President Joe Biden also a form of hate speech? It is directly attacking a person of white color. Or the term “toxic masculinity”, isn´t that also part of hate speech? It is directly accusing that some elements of the “Masculine” character are toxic. For some mysterious reasons, those are not part of Hate Speech according to the media. It seems like only what Donald Trump or his supporters say is considered Hate Speech.
Donald Trump must be a true evil, isn´t he?
And that takes me to the topic of….
Political correctness
Talking about the “evil” Trump, I just jumped into an interesting article from The Guardian, which was written back in 2016. The article assures that the term “Political Correctness” was actually invented by Donald Trump and his right supporters, because he needed a “Phantom Enemy” as an “excuse to keep breaking rules regarding what public figures can or cannot do and say” (The guardian.com).
Okay, wait, let me get this straight. So, there are things that a politician should not do and say. Trump dared to say, according to the article, that the greatest problems facing Americans were “special interest, the arrogant media, and the political insiders. They don´t want me to talk about the crime that is happening in our country…they want me to just go along with the same policies that have caused much needless suffering…”. There you go. He condemned the media and the political establishment for putting their vested interest before the people. This is considered unacceptable to be said in public, and who attacks those claims as unacceptable is the same ghost of “Political Correctness” that the same Trump and his supporters invented? Well, honestly, I’m not surprised.
Everything that is wrong in America since 2016 (even before then…) is Donald Trump to blame, so the democrats say. Our world would be by know a peaceful place filled by abundance, light and love, if it wouldn´t be that this evil interrupted the world peace and endless prosperity path and ruined everything.
Apparently, being politically correct is not just affecting the arena of politics, but also the arena of science. If you are a scientist in the 21st century and you have to testify in front of the supreme court of a government that humans are sexually reproductive species, which are composed of males and females and that there are biological and cognitive differences between them, you could end up being censored or at the worst, they can take away your credentials. That happened to Lawrence Summers, president emeritus from Harvard University, who dared to give a speech that suggested that innate differences in sex may explain why there are fewer women in science than men. It really didn´t matter whether the claims were rigorously backed up with scientific evidence. The sole reason that he dared to mention differences between men and women is blasphemous, sexist and criminal. (Ny Times).
Gender Equality
I’m honestly not sure what gender equality means anymore. In the good old times of common sense and scientific reason, we had just two genders: Male and Female, so just she/her, he/him. And gender equality meant to reach equal rights for men and women.
Now this is outrageous and discriminating. You are not including the gender-neutral human beings, that have the right to self-identify themselves with something else than being a “man”, or a “woman” (are there other living entities included? I don´t know). Nowadays, if you want to make sure you are being inclusive to everybody, you have to use neutral pronouns.
I came across a list of 78 pronouns you can use, according to a new American law. Some of those are:
He/She — Zie, Sie, Ey, Ve, Tey, E
Him/Her — Zim, Sie, Em, Ver, Ter, Em
His/Her — Zir, Hir, Eir, Vis, Tem, Eir
His/Hers — Zis, Hirs, Eirs, Vers, Ters, Eirs
Himself/Herself — Zieself, Hirself, Eirself, Verself, Terself, Emself
So now if you want to write an email to someone you don´t know, maybe is wise to ask them which pronoun they feel identified with, otherwise you will hurt his/her/hirs/eir/em/x/z/y feelings. Don´t ask me when to use which pronouns. I have no clue. Maybe you can freely choose? Maybe if I suggest you one or two, I’m being already a criminal discriminator?
If you want to go to the safe side, just identify yourself with your pronouns, to encourage the other person/being to share theirs. Do not force them, because it may hurt the feelings of the being… and be careful, because according to the Washington post, you can get sued if you use the wrong pronoun.
To make my point clear: I have nothing against LBGT or any person’s gender and/or sexual preferences. But going to the extreme of denying the truth of basic human biology seems to me a bit too extreme.
In a Nutshell:
The rhetoric of postmodernism which claims that there are no objective truths but just relative ones according to the narratives of the moment, denying universal truths sustained in pure science to add social constructivist ideas, and the partially banning of free speech because is considered harmful, aggressive or “immoral”, is a threat and a direct attack to the real elements of a free a modern society which should be based in freedom of speech, scientific discoveries based on the scientific method, work ethics and hierarchies of competence based on true qualificators.
There are more of those parasitic ideas going around. Another one I did not discuss much here is the “Critical Race Theory” which apparently is part of the academic agenda of all American public schools. It basically argues that the term “Race” is a social construct and this has caused profound patterns of discrimination throughout history. I think it’s important to understand our history and the consequences of racism, but, isn’t it an act of racism by itself to have a class about “Racism theory”? What about simply deleting this term and act as if (which, I guess is the goal) all humans beings are fundamentally equal, regardless of any physical differences? – This topic is worth of a deeper discussion in a later post.
I don´t know about you, but all these ideas seem to be very bizarre and not really helping to solve the real problem we have as humanity. The real problem is that we keep digging in the holes of division, instead of acting in unity. Those ideas which are sustained in the political realms, claim that you have by yourself no expertise on who you are, and they know better. That’s why you are being policed in anything you do, say or even, think. Direct confrontation, arguments and heated discussions, which were once natural and healthy elements of living in a free speech “society” are now attacked under the premise that “it’s hurtful”.
As Dr. Saad says rightfully: “A system that is built in a false understanding of human nature is doomed to fail”.
Humanity is competitive, hierarchical, creative and bounded to the universal truths of all living species of this planet. This is a truth that cannot be denied and if we do, we will suffer the consequences sooner or later.