Political Divisiveness NOT Correctness


Have you heard the news? Liberal progressives (yeah, right) have just woken up to the fact that identity politics is divisive and counter productive. That is, a form of politics that divides people according to race, gender and sexual preference turns out to be divisive. It appears that people prefer to be judged on the content of their character rather than on superficial identity categories. Well, well, who would’ve thought it?

Political correctness isn’t going down quite so well now either, because, much to the chagrin of its enforcers, it’s apparent that we’re capable of treating one another fairly and politely without having our language and thoughts scrutinised from above. And you know what, it wasn’t really about those things anyway, that whole line is a distraction. PC’s less thoughtful adherents are just now making the connection that political correctness is, let’s see… political.

So please, spare us the whole “what’s wrong with being nice to people anyway?” fallacy. Modern political correctness is a means of coercion, a way of leading people down policy paths they haven’t consented to by preventing them from expressing legitimate concerns. It isn’t racist to question immigration policy. There’s nothing bigoted about criticising Islam.

And then there’s the current, wearisome trend for unrestrained catastrophizing. Constantly. About every decision that doesn’t go the ‘progressive’ way. But the gasping hyperbole isn’t working anymore, if it ever did. It’s to be hoped that the frantically jabbering oracles of doom are noticing, finally, that there’s a majority of voters who prefer to base their political decisions on logical reflection, rather then hyper-ventilated, unformed emotion.

Breaking down in tears because the UK is going to leave an undemocratic, federally-dreaming EU is ridiculous behaviour. Across the Atlantic, burning flags, throwing insults and tantrums, and holding campus cry-ins because you don’t like the new president appears unhinged. These cloying, snotty-nosed attention seekers have finally lost the plot, and you know what? Nobody cares, snowflakes: your sickly, overwrought feelings are irrelevant.

At City University in London, home of one of the best journalism schools in the country, the student union has just voted to ban three of the most popular newspapers in Britain—the Sun, the Daily Mail, and the Daily Express—because they disagree with their editorial lines.

Ordinary citizens up and down the land now line the streets in celebration at this brave stand, as huge bonfires of tabloid filth burn triumphantly in the Autumn… oh no, hang on a minute….

No, it actually seems that most people are stunned by the utter, shit-for-brains ludicrousness of banning newspapers from a journalism school.

You might think, though, that by now we’d be used to such jaw-dropping campus childishness, what with Oxford University law students being given trigger warnings during parts of their studies, so that the delicate future lawyers won’t collapse like fainting Victorian ladies during lectures. In case you didn’t know, studying law involves READING ABOUT CRIMES, and crimes tend not to be very nice.

Presumably, legal chambers across the land have been stocking up on colouring books and Um Bongo to soothe the fragile nerves of their future new employees. Courts are to be redecorated with Peppa Pig wallpaper, and the Thomas the Tank Engine theme music will be piped gently through the air to take the edge off harrowing witness statements.

Don’t be alarmed if you look up in court and your brief has their fingers in their ears and their eyes screwed shut—they’ve been triggered, that’s all, a quick back rub and a little lie down and they’ll soon be back in business.

But of course, mentioning these things reveals my callousness, because the liberal progressives hold a permanent monopoly on kindness. Anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their politics is beyond hope—amoral at best, sadistically cruel in most cases. Such dissenters from the Guardian line are poised, salivating and giggling, in anticipation at ripping up the social contract and inflicting misery on the bewildered, Murdoch-controlled masses.

Meanwhile, spiritually flawless metro-leftists, virtue-signalling like holy beacons, attach consecrated safety pins to their robes, tag their entire beings with #NeverTrump, #StrongerIn and #HopeNotHate, and await beatification.

Other Sam White articles can be found by using the search box below and typing in Sam White and also by looking here

8 thoughts on “Political Divisiveness NOT Correctness

  1. In one incident the abusers targeted both white people and black people, so yes I did. Interestingly I never mentioned the skin colours of the target of abuse. Trump “claims” many things,it is the political pundits who claim that he represents or motivates “white disaffected males” to vote for him. So define “political correctness” and what is being a “normal human being looking out for his fellow man”, the latter being a gender assumption, as those being abused in one incident were both male and female. One thing my long career in regulatory law taught me was not to make assumptions…

  2. No, that has nothing to do with political correctness. What you’re describing is being a normal human being looking out for fellow man.

    Would you have reported the incident if the victim was a white male? I’m certain Trump doesn’t claim to represent idiots on the Tyne & Wear metro, fwiw.

  3. On two occasions have witnessed overt, aggressive racist comments directed unrelentingly at people using the Tyne and Wear Metro, I had no option but to discreetly report these incidents; the perpetrators (is this PC?) looked and sounded like those classic white ” disaffected males” whom Trump claims that he represents. Would love to know what a “genuine” case of racism is, as opposed to a spurious one…

  4. Good summary. Political Correctness very likely never prevented a single instance of racism. More likely it simply exacerbated the problem. After all, when many people hear words like racist, their first thought is often ‘Oh no, not another bleeding heart’. Thus, genuine cases of racism are treated in much the same manner as the boy who cried wolf.

  5. Why waste “hours” (?) of a life penning stuff like this, the freedom to ban newspapers is just that a “freedom” get over it! What “freedom” do the non PC brigade want? My experience of twitter that I deactivated was that aged 70 I did not need the input into my life of, I have to say those, on the twittering right, who seemed to think that puerile abuse such as “loon”, “potty” and the extraordinarily inaccurate “sad, little old chap” enhanced debate. The fact that Gina Miller requires protection is something to be proud of? Law students at Oxford, what is that all about? Some half baked, hearsay version of events? Or can we have a corroborated evidential “link” please. My take is that this piece exhibits all the alleged traits of those whom it purports to criticise, but then I am a solid, sensible,spiritually flawed, down to earth dweller on Tyneside, who has pricked himself on a health and safety pin, and is trying to light his “holy beacon” with an electrically unsafe counterfeit product made in a Country that I dare not name, because I am so PC….

  6. “The liberal progressives hold a permanent monopoly on kindness”….so true. That is what they think. They have had their turn and screwed up.

  7. Dividing people according to race, gender and sexual preference turned out to be divisive. Yes. But the PC brigade thought that they needed to divide people so the people recognised they were different. Has this stopped racism, sexism or gender related hate crimes? No. But it helped. Someone, daresay Trump as leader of the Free World, has to draw a line and explain that we got the message now we want our freedom back. PC is a barrier to freedom. Well destroyed, Sam.

Leave a Reply