Cultural Marxism
Dr Simon Newman has an excellent blog on the Tory blogsite today in which he elaborates on the roots of political correctness in cultural Marxism. He asks whether Simon Heffer and Peter Hitchens are right to think that Cameron Conservatism is cultural Marxist Conservatism or whether he is simply "reframing classical-liberal values in cultural Marxist terms, in order to appeal to a British public conditioned by the media and education systems to think in cultural Marxist terms, but which retains a desire for liberty imcompatible with the cultural Marxist project." He adds that DC's political positioning is very clever regarding the BBC as constitutionally they are unable to criticise anybody who's soft on crime and immigration, who's a Europhile or overly pro the environment. (Is that true?)
posted by Whispering Walls at 2:30 pm
1 Comments:
Oh, come along now, you really are far too clever to be mixing with those eejits Heffer and Hitchens.
Boris has a better class of friends and a bigger tent, including Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty [fighting pygmies like Blunkett et al over 90 day detention] & people sticking up against that ID card 'bo!!*ck$'.
'Political correctness' is a lazy short hand for people not liking a diverse society, or people trying to impose their views on others. It is never used in any communications by corporations or government departments. Only by the 'Daily Mail' and the sub-literate class that read it, mistaking it for quality.
A couple of points.
BA 'crucifix' row. This wasn't 'PC' - this was just stupidity by BA.
'Diversity'. This isn't 'PC' - if a company was discriminating against a particular race or sex, they wouldn't be getting the most talented people to do the jobs. And they might get sued.
'Winterval'. This isn't 'PC' - just gross stupidity by Birmingham City Council 5 years ago. There are no 'PC' thought police enforcing this tosh in wider society.
I guess your point is that 'someone, somewhere' decides what is 'the PC way' and it is imposed on others regardless of their wishes, with no right of appeal. I don't generally think this is the case, but the recent 'gay equality' legislation is, I concede, an exception.
'B&Bs' - My view is that B&B owners should have a right to turn down people who are smokers/have kids /are gay without a 'legal sword of Damocles' coming down on them. It achieves nothing, as they won't be persuaded to change their views, and they may just give up their business.
'Gay adoption'
Whilst I have nothing against gay people, and don't want a return to the hatred and bitterness against them, I cannot believe they have a right to enforce their views on Catholics who simply have deeply - held views which are fundamental to them.
This addresses the far wider question of how far religions, particularly Islam, should have a right to opt out of 'human rights'. There is a wider debate about 'multiculturalism' which is another can of worms.
But Brian Walden has done a great 10 minute talk [BBC website] which argues that whilst we have always been a 'multicultural' nation [Anglo/Saxon /Celts /Normans /Romans] the 'ism' at the end is about giving one lot a set of 'rights' over the others which is going to cause a load of problems...
Post a Comment
<< Home