Dialectic (n) Art of investigating the truth of opinions. Testing of truth by discussion, logical disputation.
Dialectician (n) A person skilled in critical enquiry by discussion.
(Note that a dialectician is skilled in investigating the truth of ‘Opinions’. Not the Truth per se.)
For a description of how dialecticians work I will now lean heavily on the writings of Nobel Prize winner and Polish intellectual Vaclav Havel who experienced dialectics first hand when the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) extended the hammer and sickle into Eastern Europe after World War II.
Now that it is becoming clearer (after forty years) that political correctness is a tool of socialistic control, someone like myself might ask – why is it necessary and where is it leading? Haven’t we got a good life now? Ah yes, we in the West have, but what about all those millions of people who have not? They must also be brought into the socialist fold, and you can go out into the fields to grow grain for them also.
Political correctness leads to dispossessed thinking. But since people cannot rid themselves completely of their former beliefs, they become schizophrenic. They try to hold in their minds two opposing ideas as of equal value. The internal dissonance brought about by these two opposing ideas is the field to be sown by dialecticians. The seeds to be sown are those of socialism.
Socialism: Political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, distribution and exchange.
(Note also that Socialism is the first stage to Communism and that Communism must be Totalitarian.)
Communism does not advocate that the community as a whole should own anything. Everything is owned by the State. The State is Totalitarian. A Totalitarian State does not permit any opposing party. A Totalitarian State demands complete subserviance of the individual to the State. End of Democracy.
We have come by easy stages to a lack of a common system of thought. This common system of thought is what holds families, communities and eventually, nations together. In all people there is an internal longing for harmony and happiness that lies deeper than ordinary fear or the desire to escape misery or physical punishment. Religion, which once provided this sense of harmony has been replaced by dialectics and dialectics has strayed into spheres increasingly less accessible to the layman. Out of this lack arises a painful sense of detachment. A sense of the hopelessness of striving for a better life permeates the mind. Why bother? In a Totalitarian State you will be told what to do at every stage of your life. You will eat a diet considered best for you by the dialecticians. Art and Literature there will be, but it will conform to Socialist Realism which will be defined by the dialecticians. You will not travel unless you have permission from the State. Your children will be educated in subjects once again defined by the dialecticians. From the cradle to the grave (does that sound familiar?) you will be monitored by processes developed by socialist dialecticians. You will think thoughts as defined by the dialecticians. The very alienation Marx denounced will take place not where you work, but in your mind.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
My Analysis of Political Correctness
For me, political correctness made its first appearance around 1976. I don’t think it was called political correctness then. I was working hard. I was studying for a degree which was intended to get me out of the type of work I had been in since I was fifteen, and working, and running a house and raising three daughters. It is surprising I noticed anything, but I was also involved in the Women’s Collective so, when the appellation ‘Ms’ was mooted as an alternative to ‘Miss’ or ‘Missus’ for women it was certainly brought to my attention.
Now the use of ‘Ms’ is not necessarily politically correct, but there were also other uses of language which were under scrutiny by feminists (feminine diminutives, the generic use of ‘he’ for example) and because my attention was caught, I remember mostly this particular appellation. I was in favour of its use.
My second memory at about this time (because I was doing an English degree) was the demand by feminists for greater inclusion (in university courses) of the study of women writers, also the proliferation of crèches (or day nurseries) and a general demand that women be given more respect on the street and in the home. Domestic violence, which was endemic in New Zealand at that time and had been for decades, was being addressed and women’s refuges set up. All of these things I was (and still am) in favour of.
Parallel with feminist demands were demands from people of colour for the same type of linguistic changes. They too wanted rights and respect. Then homosexuals and lesbians wanted rights and respect. And so it went on until practically anyone who wasn’t white and male had a gripe they had to have satisfied within the law.
The problem with liberalism is, by virtue of its name and ideology, it has no boundaries. Once liberalism takes hold nobody seems able to be illiberal. Liberalism snowballs, as it has, into ludicrous situations. Well, we thought it was liberalism, until recently, when it seems all the changes which have taken place in societies since the early 1970’s are not actually liberal at all. We are being choked by change. We are confused and unhappy. We now live in a world which is threatening and uncertain, a world where to tell the truth may lead to a prison sentence, a world where to tell a joke or draw a cartoon may lead to death.
Young people, born since 1970, may not notice too much difference but I do. I once worked (1965) for an engineer boss whose father was a Protestant clergyman. My boss knew I had been convent educated and many were the Protestant/Catholic jokes told in that office. I wouldn’t dare do that now. It is politically incorrect. Even if I worked for the same boss, neither of us would dare laugh about something like that anymore in case ‘someone’ overheard and took offence.
What has happened? Political correctness has morphed into something else. That ‘something else’ has entered every area of life – into schools, hospitals, the workplace, entertainment, everywhere I can think of. It is no longer political correctness, although we think of it as such. It is now dialectics.
to be continued...
Now the use of ‘Ms’ is not necessarily politically correct, but there were also other uses of language which were under scrutiny by feminists (feminine diminutives, the generic use of ‘he’ for example) and because my attention was caught, I remember mostly this particular appellation. I was in favour of its use.
My second memory at about this time (because I was doing an English degree) was the demand by feminists for greater inclusion (in university courses) of the study of women writers, also the proliferation of crèches (or day nurseries) and a general demand that women be given more respect on the street and in the home. Domestic violence, which was endemic in New Zealand at that time and had been for decades, was being addressed and women’s refuges set up. All of these things I was (and still am) in favour of.
Parallel with feminist demands were demands from people of colour for the same type of linguistic changes. They too wanted rights and respect. Then homosexuals and lesbians wanted rights and respect. And so it went on until practically anyone who wasn’t white and male had a gripe they had to have satisfied within the law.
The problem with liberalism is, by virtue of its name and ideology, it has no boundaries. Once liberalism takes hold nobody seems able to be illiberal. Liberalism snowballs, as it has, into ludicrous situations. Well, we thought it was liberalism, until recently, when it seems all the changes which have taken place in societies since the early 1970’s are not actually liberal at all. We are being choked by change. We are confused and unhappy. We now live in a world which is threatening and uncertain, a world where to tell the truth may lead to a prison sentence, a world where to tell a joke or draw a cartoon may lead to death.
Young people, born since 1970, may not notice too much difference but I do. I once worked (1965) for an engineer boss whose father was a Protestant clergyman. My boss knew I had been convent educated and many were the Protestant/Catholic jokes told in that office. I wouldn’t dare do that now. It is politically incorrect. Even if I worked for the same boss, neither of us would dare laugh about something like that anymore in case ‘someone’ overheard and took offence.
What has happened? Political correctness has morphed into something else. That ‘something else’ has entered every area of life – into schools, hospitals, the workplace, entertainment, everywhere I can think of. It is no longer political correctness, although we think of it as such. It is now dialectics.
to be continued...
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Cirrhosis of the Liver
I don't know where the NZ Herald gets their information from. Coffee helps prevent cirrhosis of the liver. Actually, it is eating which helps prevent cirrhosis of the liver. Partway down the article they actually ask themselves - why don't all alcoholics get cirrhosis of the liver? Well, here's the answer dipsticks:
Alcohol is a slow poison, but its excessive consumption of not the cause of cirrhosis of the liver which, incidentally is not the only location this condition can strike. Cirrhosis of the liver is basically a form of acute malnutrition caused by protein deficiency; it is only common among alcoholics when they ignore food in favour of drink. The disease is endemic to famine areas, the inhabitants which drink no alcohol at all.
If anyone drank coffee and didn't eat, they would get cirrhosis of the liver as well.
Alcohol is a slow poison, but its excessive consumption of not the cause of cirrhosis of the liver which, incidentally is not the only location this condition can strike. Cirrhosis of the liver is basically a form of acute malnutrition caused by protein deficiency; it is only common among alcoholics when they ignore food in favour of drink. The disease is endemic to famine areas, the inhabitants which drink no alcohol at all.
If anyone drank coffee and didn't eat, they would get cirrhosis of the liver as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)