by Michael Kennedy

In part three of the “Theology of Political Correctness”, we will look at the unwritten code that is characteristic of many religious belief systems. Political Correctness is not just a moral code, it’s a religion and a politically active religion at that, as most powerful established religions inevitable end up becoming. In parts one and two of “The Theology of Political Correctness” we looked at the concept of “Original Sin”, how white people, and only white people, are held responsible for the actions of our ancestors and how we ‘inherit’ the guilt of our forebears and must atone for it by giving intellectuals power over Western societies and through their prescriptions for our society, forfeiting our continued racial and cultural existence by surrendering it to the ideological weapon that is multi-racialism. We also looked at the messianic predictions of “Progressivism”, how following Liberal ideals will supposedly lead us to a utopian promised land of tolerance, understanding and peace. All of this is of course based on a faith, and that faith is in the religion of Political Correctness.

The Political Correctness Mythology

Much like any religion or belief based political movement, at the centre of such a belief is the mythos, the foundational myth upon which the movement is built and with which its adherents identify by. This mythos is what unites people in belief, it is the centre of the belief system, the proclaimed reason for the movements existence. All political movements, even those based on religion are struggles for power. They are the manifestation of Nietzsche’s “will to power” in an institution. They provide the wave of human energy and movement which propels those who preach the mythos into a position of power and by connection, those who take part in it. A movement such as a religion is based on belief in the mythos, in the mythologies promise of the future, in its unifying past. The mythos not only captures the now but the before and the after. It is complete from the beginning to the end of time, from Genesis to Armageddon. It is itself, just like those who exploit it, totalitarian in its reach over time and space. It is also, just like those who exploit it, not rooted in reality but in fanciful ideals which exist separately from the machinations of the physical world.

Political Correctness maintains its own mythos which helps form the mythical foundation for Liberalism. In the centre of that mythos is equality, liberation from nature, a unity of the working class and a utopian society run by intellectuals. The “promised land” is where progressivism is supposed to to take us, where black and white, gay and straight walk arm in arm confidently towards a future where history has ended, tribalism, greed and intolerance have finally been defeated after a long class struggle against particularism and authority and where people are free to do as they wish, when they wish, to whoever they wish. Here in this mythical future, humanity has realised that cultural and racial differences and gender differences were just imagined, invented and propagated for the purposes of power, and now they are gone and exist solely in the history books, like a bad memory. Knowing the totalitarian nature of Political Correctness, it would probably be a future where the very concept of race would have been eradicated from the present and the past. Men and women are now just individual humans who just happen to have different bodily parts, and white people are now just history, a bedtime story for the children in books of old, in paintings in museums and strange people who live in far flung regional backwaters, far from the enlightened and cosmopolitan concrete jungle. That is, if in this future it hasn’t been deemed prudent to excise this from history books, in order to give the appearance that the progressive multiracial society has always existed from the beginning.

Like it or not, this is the prescribed future, as imagined by Political Correctness. This future, this goal which is the end result of progressivism is built upon its foundational myth that humanities destiny is in this future, that we are all identical and must transcend nature and transcend our own individual inherited identities. Like Christianity, Political Correctness asks us to transcend our physical existence, to look to a higher spiritual plane where biological realities no longer exist and where only the will and desires of the mind matter. Christianity however has the good sense to offer this in the afterlife, in another realm where indeed physical realities and limitation may very well not apply. Liberalism however, standing in opposition to Christianity, is more foolish. It offers a world where the considerations of the real world and our identity are no longer deemed relevant or necessary, but it offers those in this world, a world which is governed by realities and laws in a Universe which doesn’t care for political ideology. It is all very well to offer another world, with different laws where our actions and responsibilities count for nought, but in this reality, Political Correctness has to deal with trying to create a utopia based on ideals and an understand of reality which is contradictory to how our world actually operates. Political Correctness has to convince people of an impossible future.

It was once a requirement of Political Correctness to say that men and women were identical in every way aside from bodily appendages. To say that men and women had different physiologies, different psychologies and innate biases was a heresy. The Politically Correct religion had as part of its mythos the idea that men and women are born free from any natural division and differences. This is contrary with reality, and now it has become more acceptable to discuss the differences between men and women. It is no longer the damnable heresy it once was to suggest that men and women think differently because our brains are different, but this makes Liberalism uneasy, because its mythos, its seductive trapping is to offer people freedom from gender roles. It is also worrisome for them, because if indeed the assertion that gender differences are purely imaginary as was confidently asserted by the educated Liberal establishment was untrue, then this could apply to racial differences as well. In fact, this already is recognised in anthropology, medicine and forensic science, but it cannot be recognised officially. As Bob Whitaker says, “In order to graduate a forensic specialist must spout the Politically Correct line that there is no such thing as race. But to keep his job he must be able to tell the race of the most damaged victim of which he has only decayed scraps.”

So created belief systems will always come head to head with reality. One’s understanding of the real world is something that needs not be maintained, it is self evident. Any belief system based on reality is also in need of no maintenance, no force. But those belief systems, those religions and institutions based on a created mythos must reconcile themselves with physical reality. They must be able to continue to exist despite people who hold these ideas experiencing a reality which is contrary. A belief that men and women have no innate differences or preferences must continue to exist after those who have raised children witness otherwise. It is not enough for a religion to have a story, a mythology and its own reality, it must maintain it, and as it’s not based on reality and therefore able to maintain itself, it requires the expenditure of intellectual energy and the use of force to continue to exist. This is an observed commonality between all institutionalised belief systems, the necessity of applying energy and force to maintain it, to overcome the entropy that would otherwise occur as the foundational myths and ideas fall one by one due to people becoming aware of a contrary reality.

Communism collapsed because its foundational myth, that a workers paradise would be created when intellectuals control the economy no longer had the necessary level of energy and force applied to maintain it. The death knell of Communism, its eulogy was written long before 1989. It was written when it became apparent that such a system couldn’t survive as it was based on something other than reality and was just silly. From this time, the Communist regime needed force and tyranny to keep the system alive, which was soon after its implementation. Indeed, in Eastern Europe Communism HAD to jail dissidents, HAD to send those who question the system to re-education camps or the Gulag. The self evident failure of the system and the quick realisation that it was indeed a flawed ideology was met with greater and greater tyranny and authority. It was known long beforehand that the system couldn’t work, wouldn’t work, and the system existed solely for the power of the party members. However one could not say that it didn’t work. Compare this to modern day Political Correctness, which is a similar manner, sentences people to re-education should the express a non-Politically Correct sentiment or say something about the Holocaust which falls afoul of the expected attitudes towards it, or even jail. Political Correctness must use force, indoctrination and a mas of propaganda and social control and shunning in order to keep the mythos alive.

The purpose of the unwritten code in institutions

But how to keep the religion alive and maintain it? How do two Politically Correct people engage in conversation which remains logically consistent, without having to bring up in conversation the discrepancies which belie this consistency? How does a person who’s belief system contains logical contradictions converse with someone else, who has these same contradictions, without ever having to acknowledge or address them? This is indeed one of the challenges with such belief systems having such a mythos. It is no good for a group of people, adhering to this belief system, believing in it and its promise talking to each other and criticising these inconsistencies in each other. This would therefore result in self criticism, and the destruction of the belief system which is the source of identity to those who participate. Self criticism would lead to destruction of the belief system.

People adapt to this through a hidden secret code, an unstated truth that is understood by all and said by none. Such a secret code is an internal understanding amongst believers that never needs to be taught, only understood. Many Christians will say that the Bible is the word of God and will stress the importance of the ten commandments, and depending on the branch of Christianity, the importance of other statements such as condemnations of homosexuality. But the Bible also allows the selling of your daughter into slavery and states that those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. Would any Christian in this day and age ever dare suggest that someone should be put to death for working on the Sabbath? Very few would, and those that did would be condemned by most Christians and even called unchristian. Yet this is the world of God, and just as valid as other prescriptions in the bible which they do consider relevant. But no Christian needs to be taught which of Gods commandments must be followed and respected and ones which must be ignored. Yet they all pretty much agree. The members of a congregation need never discuss this double standard and need never teach it or explain it. It is never written and there is nothing in the Bible itself to serve as a guide as to which moral prescriptions can be ignored. It is an unstated code and the fact that its unstated gives the foundational myth of the religion the strength it needs. As its unstated, its unsaid, and self criticism through contradiction in conversation can be avoided. For if a Reverend ever had to explain why Homosexuality is against Gods will, but putting people to death for working on the Sabbath is, then the institution, the religion is weakened. Such a thing in a successful religion is never stated. It is identification and membership of the religious culture that creates the understanding of the unwritten code. Anyone can believe in Christ, but when it comes to identifying with organised institutionalised religion, this acceptance of Christ as ones saviour comes secondary to understanding the unwritten code, the allowable transgressions.

Liberalism has in the same vein, Politically Correct unwritten rules. There are rules which every Liberal, every Westerner is required to abide by, but they are never stated. For if they are stated, the mere fact that it is discussed would reveal instantly the double standards, the hypocrisy and logical contradictions of the Politically Correct belief system. It would reveal externally that Political Correctness, at its centre is something other than what it proclaims to be, it is in many ways, the reverse of what it claims to be. Ever Westerner must know this code, but never has to teach it, and never has to be explicitly taught. The belief system must allow transgressions if its own belief and moral prescriptions to remain externally coherent, and it is these allowable exceptions which quickly become the reason the ideology gains adherents. The unwritten rules evolve from a necessity understood by its adherents and over time becomes the primary reason for its existence.

This Politically Correct unwritten ‘code’ therefore must be exposed on order to destroy this religion. What is unstated must be stated and what is untaught must be taught.

Political Correctness says that race doesn’t exist and every Liberal, and by extension, any Westerner that wants to be considered ‘decent’ by Liberals, a requirement for general social acceptance, must also agree. However, the very same people who speak about the non existence of race must be able to identify ‘racism’, an ‘ism’ that can only exist with race being real. The fact that racism cannot exist without race existing is something that Liberals must never discuss, and few Conservatives bring up, as they also seek social acceptance by Liberals.

Likewise, every Liberal must know that race DOES exist under other circumstances, for instance, when arguing that White people have committed race crimes against other peoples of the world.

The unwritten code of Political Correctness says that “race” only exists when it can be used against white people. When a white westerner might oppose multi-racialism and argue against his or her race being assimilated out, every Liberal need to know to argue that “race doesn’t exist”. Change the argument to indigenous rights, and every Liberal must know to treat indigenous people as an identifiable ethnic or racial group. Change the argument to “Genocide”, and race again is real.

So no one is ever ‘told’ explicitly that anti-racism means being anti-white, but this is at the heart of the unwritten code of Political Correctness. Non-whites have ‘homelands’, whites don’t. Non-whites have indigenous rights, whites in Europe don’t. Non-whites have labels which specifically refer to their race, such as “Aboriginal” or “Native American” which are racially exclusive, whites can’t use identification labels in a racially exclusive manner. The term “European” must apply to everyone who lives in Europe, regardless of race, but no Australian automatically becomes Aboriginal simply by being born in Australia. A French person cannot refer to “French” as a national lineage which is specific to the French people, but a Tibetan or a Jew can. Aboriginal are entitled to a term which identifies them as a race, and this is applauded by Liberals, but Whites who may seek to identify as per their racial groupings are positively evil. Such a contradiction is simply ‘understood’, whether the person is aware of it or not.

The unwritten Politically Correctness code also has a hierarchy. Racism trump sexism. It is wrong for a man to subject a woman, but it is even more evil for someone to disparage a culture or religion on its treatment of women, as that’s racism. When Politically Correctness comes across a conflict of interest, it simply looks up the hierarchy. Genital mutilation of women is now occurring in the UK because of increased numbers of Africans bringing the practice to the UK? Do you be ‘racist’ and condemn the practice for the sake of gender rights? No, as racism trumps sexism, you be silent. Do you speak against Halal and Kosher slaughter? Again no, racism trumps animal rights. In fact, racism trumps everything else. Racism trumps children’s health.

Another unwritten rule is that of white supremacy. Every Liberal must state that all races are equal in ability, that Western civilisation was just luck, exploitation and chance, and that everyone else on the planet is just as able to create the same standard of living. If you were to say otherwise, you would be an evil racist of the higher order. But as part of the Politically Correct code, you are not supposed to believe this. The Politically Correct code says that you SAY that races are equal, but you insist that ALL and ONLY white nations must open their borders to the third world to give them a better chance at life. The Politically Correct code does not require, and does not expect at all, wealthier non-white nations to take in the third world, or share in the global burden of supporting all of humanity. The unwritten code is that all races are equal, and that non-whites could only ever hope to have what Westerners have, if they move to a country created and run by whites. The unwritten code is that no non-white country should make the same contribution and further to this, you can’t expect them to ever hope to be able to make the same contribution. Do you have to ‘explain’ to a Liberal this? No, of course not.

The Left of politics has had to acquire an anti-white bias, because as part of Leftism, is the fear that whites may be superior. It is this fear which left wing Liberals have, which drive their anti-white, anti-western feelings, and give a basis for the anti-white biased hidden code. Liberals fear that true racial equality may not happen, and they must both put down and attack ‘whiteness’, while proclaiming racial equality. The unwritten code allows Liberals to allay their fears. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white.

The Unwritten code and Conservatives.

Renown trend forecaster Gerald Celente aptly said that “Liberals lie and conservatives believe”. Many conservatives seem to fail to understand that Liberalism and its foundation myths of Political Correctness is a religion, and like a religion an as unwritten code to keep its mythos alive. No Liberal actually truly believes that race doesn’t exist, as they must also argue it does exist when talking about Genocide against non-whites or the Holocaust. They only need know when to say it exists and it doesn’t exist. No Liberals can ever say “Asia for the Asians, African for the Africans, White countries for everybody” because that’s the unwritten code which must remain unwritten and unsaid. No Liberal would say that Tolerance and “Diversity is our Strength” is just an attack against white people and that anti-racism really is just code for being against white people and turning a blind eye to other acts of racism. Liberals understand the unwritten code, and understand you never discuss it or analyse it, just as no believer goes to Church and questions why the congregation doesn’t kill people for working on the Sabbath. Liberalism, like any other mythos, isn’t just true now, but all of humanity since civilisation began has been a struggle to realise the Liberal promise.

But as Celente says, Conservatives believe. Mainstream Conservatives believe in Political Correctness. These mainstream “Respectable” Conservatives talk about how Aboriginals should just consider themselves “Australian” and give up their separate identity. This is what Liberals demand of whites, but “Respectable” Conservatives think this means it applies to all. This is what Liberals say will usher the promised ‘race free’ utopia of the future with no inherited identities. But “Respectable” Conservatives don’t know of the unwritten code.

“Respectable” Conservatives talk against Aboriginal privilege without understanding that the Liberalism they now superficially support never ever intended to have racial equality for all. “Respectable” Conservatives criticise racism against whites calling for greater “tolerance” without understanding that “Tolerance” was never meant to be for all. Yet they continue to be bewildered as to why they are attacked when they talk about immigrants not ‘assimilating’. They don’t understand why despite Liberalism constantly saying intermarriage is good, and that Whites should mix themselves out if existence, why saying that non-whites should also assimilate themselves out is tantamount to Genocide. The “Respectable” Conservative takes at face value the morality of Liberalism, and when they take it seriously, they draw the wrath and criticism of Liberalism. Bewildered as to how they can be called “bigot” despite being just as vocal against Nationalists and other heretics, they flounder because they are doing something that all Liberals know NOT to do, to take Liberalism seriously, as its advertised.

The oddities of Political Correctness makes much more sense when you know the unwritten code. Just as someone who follows an old holy text “knows” which moral prescriptions are not relevant and which are, Liberals “know” that their demands for tolerance, assimilation, open borders and the destruction of racial and ethnic identity and traditions only apply to White people and White nations. Liberals know when they talk to each other, than when they might discuss for instance, indigenous tribes preserving their identity and autonomy, this is something they should applaud and encourage, and they also know then when they talk of Whites preserving their identity and autonomy, that this is racism, ignorance and bigotry. The unwritten code says white autonomy bad, non-white autonomy good.

Socialists can freely support Palestinian Nationalist causes and attack White Nationalist causes, and no Liberal ever criticises this, because they know the code. To those who don’t understand the politics, this seems a contradiction they must be unaware of. In the story of the Emperors New Clothes, every one in the crowd both had to recognise that the Emperor was naked, and say that he was wearing the finest clothes of the finest fibres if asked. This was the unwritten code, an understanding that everyone had, until the little boy spoke up and revealed it.

Philosopher Slavoj Žižek states a system has as a condition of functioning that its own ideology cannot be taken seriously. The ideology must not be taken seriously, as taking the system seriously exposes its contradictions and what he calls its “hidden reverse”. The ideal subject he says, is one who understands the irony of the system and understands that the system allows for transgressions. Žižek states that the real form of conformity to the system, to the ideology, isn’t identification with its public image, with how the system presents itself, but with the “hidden reverse”, with the allowed transgressions within the system.

Indeed we see that true identification with Liberalism doesn’t come from opposing racism or supporting gay rights. There are many self identified Conservatives who are just as zealous in “anti-racism” and who for libertarian purposes support gay marriage. But the anti-racist socially libertarian Conservative identifies with the publicly proclaimed face of Liberalism, not with its unstated reverse, the unwritten ‘code’. Despite their support of Liberal ideas, their commitment to tolerance, it matters little to the true adherents of the system, and these hapless Conservatives are nevertheless still the subject of character smears, defamatory statements and accusations of bigotry. There is no level of tolerance and acceptance which a non Liberal can practice which will stop Politically Correct Liberals accusing them of bigotry, racism and xenophobia. They are the ‘out group’, the ‘other’, not because they reject the ideology, but because they don’t identify with its allowed transgressions, they don’t identify with the unwritten code. They don’t understand that anti-racism is a code word for anti-white, and if they did, they would be dangerous as they would say so. They foolishly apply racial equality to all races, unaware that one doesn’t have to apply it to whites. The argue for cultural preservation for all races, or alternatively, advocate assimilation for all, unaware that the hidden code, the real source of identification in Liberalism is a hatred of whites. A hatred which is practised through the unstated transgressions that are permitted in Liberal ideology, namely through the promotion of ‘white guilt’ and the forcing of multi-racialism as a racially and culturally destructive weapon against whiteness.

Revealing the Code.

To eliminate the destructive influence that this Politically Correct theocracy as over us, we must reveal this hidden code. It’s power over people exists because it is not discussed, because it is unwritten and unstated. As long as it is unwritten and instated, it serves it purpose to keep the Politically Correct mythos alive. It, as long as its unwritten and unstated, as long as its hidden, allows Liberals to perpetuate their false ideology without criticism of its obvious flaws, as it protects these flaws. The Emperor was fine with being naked, as long as he believed that everyone else didn’t think he was naked. Likewise, Liberals and the priests of Political Correctness can state all manner of anti-white, anti-western and anti-Australian sentiment as long as they believe that everyone else will believe what they say. They will argue directly for our demise and against those who wish to preserve our heritage without shame as long as they believe that everyone else will play along with the unwritten code.

But expose that code the fact that the Emperor has no clothes is revealed. No longer does public discussion with Liberals mean accepting what they say at face value, but with understanding that their sentiments and ideas have this unwritten code at the core. No longer do we all have to pretend that its about tolerance, but we can now realise that anti-racism is indeed a code word anti-white.

So to remove the yoke of Political Correctness from your neck you must speak up. Point out this very code to a Politically Correct Liberal when they argue with you, as you understand now why they have double standards. Reveal to the world the reason that everything they say invariable ends up being biased against whites and like all other totalitarian belief systems, it will fail, unable to find the energy to keep it alive.

 

One Response to The Theology of Political Correctness: The unwritten code.

  1. […] Theology of Political Correctness Hi Australia, below is another interesting article titled: The Theology of Political Correctness: The unwritten code. Its the 3rd in a series that can be found at Nationalist Alternative. " The Political […]