Prologue

Two of the stupidest things I have ever heard were on New Zealand's National Radio programme, which is grossly politically correct:

1. In the then Soviet Union, some years ago, there was a coup d'etat against President Gorbachev by the Communist old guard. This was described by a Radio New Zealand newsreader as a "right-wing coup". This description was, of course, quite ludicrous, because the Communists were far to the "left" of Gorbachev. The reason for this error was that Radio New Zealand is politically correct, and, according to their mindset, right = bad. They also knew that coup d'etats were bad. It was therefore almost inevitable that they would describe any coup d'etat as "right-wing". In later broadcasts, they changed the description of this coup d'etat from "right-wing" to "conservative", which is an only slightly less misleading description.

2. Recently, on Kathryn Ryan's Nine to Noon show, I heard Kathryn Ryan discuss statistics about the journalistic profession with a guest. The Nine to Noon show -- I must explain -- has been hosted by three Feminist women in a row. There is probably a ban on men hosting it, because it is an influential current-affairs show. Anyway, Kathryn, or her guest, mentioned that the latest statistics showed that most journalists were female. Of course, if most journalists had been male, the discussion would inevitably had turned to how this involved pernicious discrimination against women. But, since most journalists were female, Kathryn Ryan asked, in a doubtful tone of voice, "That's OK, isn't it?" (or words to that effect). To that, her guest (a male) replied something like: "Yes, I am completely in favour of diversity." In other words, most journalists being male is not "diverse", but most journalists being female is "diverse"!!!

    

   Paul McCartney

   I do not claim to know much about the marital affairs of Paul McCartney, but they have been in the news lately -- see, for example, http://fametastic.co.uk/archive/20061022/3021/heather-mills-abused-paul-mccartney-not-vice-versa-claims-source/ . What I find interesting is the fact that Domestic Violence law in the West has been fashioned by the Feminists so that it is presumed that there is just one perpetrator. Of course, the Feminists assume that this perpetrator will usually be the man -- or, at worst, a Lesbian. The fact is, however, that women are just as violent as men: See: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm .

   In fact, however, both parties are likely to be abusing each other in various ways. But the legislative and popular culture emphasis on the notion of one person being the perpetrator and the other being the victim forces each party to deny committing any abuse, while concentrating on proving that the other party was abusive. For example (from the above gossip page):

   “For Paul the gloves are really off now, and he’s ready to trash her in court. He refutes her lies and is is preparing to detail HER appalling behaviour...."

   This legislative and popular culture myth not only makes it hard for courts to establish the true facts -- this myth seriously disadvantages men, because they are not encouraged to think of themselves as victims of female abuse, whereas popular culture (i.e. the media and education system) encourages women to see themselves as victims of male abuse. So a man will have much greater difficulty in perceiving and portraying himself as a victim in court, whereas a woman has a ready-made popular myth of victimhood to slip into, like a custom-made gown.

    

   Gated Communities

   Political Correctness has a similar effect with respect to race. It emphasises group rights over individual rights, and pushes the multi-cultural model of competing and mutually-antagonistic ethnic communities over the previously fashionable assimilation model.

   Political Correctness assumes that racism is what the White Majority feels and/or does to minority ethnic groups. Just as Feminists do not actually deny that women are violent -- they just don't mention it, until forced to -- so Political Correctness does not actually deny that ethnic groups are racist -- it just doesn't apply the term "racist" to ethnic minorities, except on rare occasions, such as when accusing New Zealand Maori politician Winston Peters of racism towards Asians.

   I recently saw a documentary on a Californian gated community, in which the White journalist casually described the residents (most of whom were White) as racist -- on the basis of little evidence. On the other hand, when it was pointed out to him that, all over the United States, ethnic communities grouped themselves into communities, there was no hint from the journalist that this might be racist!

   Yet, all over the World, ethnic groups are, and have been, fighting each other -- presumably partly because of racism. But, when these same groups settle in rich countries with a White majority, the notion that they might be racist just does not occur to the Politically Correct!

   In New Zealand, there was a court case concerning some Pacific Island males who killed a Chinese male pizza-deliverer for money. They appealed, and page 5 of the judgment (Rapira Riki v R CA318/02) states:

   "Casie Rawiri, who at 20 was the only adult involved in the planning, had stipulated at an early meeting that the robbery was not to go ahead if the driver was a woman or a Pacific Islander."

   That is clearly an example of racism and sexism, but I have never heard or seen anyone comment on that. There is just no indignation about ethnic minority racism or about anti-male sexism. It is as if it did not exist.