DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT INCORRECT -- ONLY LEFTIST THOUGHT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY PERMITTED

The Broward County School Board plans to suspend its Diversity Committee after a few members made inflammatory comments about gays. "I think we're all in agreement about that," Board Chairwoman Stephanie Kraft said Tuesday. Members of the gay community had approached the board once again with demands to disband the watchdog group.

The 19-member Diversity Committee came under fire this summer over its treatment of the Anti-Defamation League's We Are Family video, which features Barney, Kermit the Frog and other children's characters singing about their friends. While discussing the video, committee member and radio host Steve Kane said he worried it could be used to promote a pro-gay agenda and introduce children to homosexuality. He resigned last week.

While applauding Kane's departure, Katy Peterson, a minister at the Metropolitan Community Church in Palm Beach Gardens and a supporter of gay rights, said there are other anti-gay committee members who "take the School Board's thoughtfully crafted and progressive diversity policy and use it for toilet paper." She wants them to leave as well.

Kraft said the School Board would hold a special meeting after a workshop Tuesday to decide the Diversity Committee's fate. It will hold another meeting in September. Until then, most board members said, the committee should not meet again. "I don't want this committee to meet until we have a workshop," Board member Maureen Dinnen said during the meeting. "I'm tired of this board being branded as bigots. I am not a bigot."

It's possible, however, that the board won't be able to suspend the committee. School Board lawyers warned that the Diversity Committee was created several years ago as part of a settlement of a discrimination lawsuit, and it might be impossible to simply tell members to stop working. Diversity Committee chairman Bill Rettinger said suspending the committee also would be a practical mistake. Rettinger, who plans to quit in November, said committee members are in the middle of an upcoming report on whether the district provides equal facilities to minority and non-minority children. He said removing members could force the committee to start over again. "The board might not even get next year's report," he said.

Source



POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MOTIVATED BY DESTRUCTIVE URGES

Some excerpts from an article by evolutionary psychologist John P. Smith

Today’s revolutionaries are hell-bent on transforming as many family women as they can into solitary women. This is why, in a modern republic, a woman can have children outside of marriage and, with the help of her government, see those youngsters grow up whole. But the chance of this actually happening vis-à-vis her married sisters is only somewhat better than for a lioness living without a male in her life. Yet, television programming and the daily newspapers continue to glorify sex outside of marriage. Sex without a husband, they tell our young women in so many words, is liberating. They are rarely, if ever, told how destructive such a lifestyle is – for the woman, for her children, and for society.

Revolutionaries come in active and passive styles, much like the would-be killers of the father-in-the-sky. Active revolutionaries are the ones who shoot guns and throw hand grenades. They’re not a big problem in most republics – yet. Passive revolutionaries, who work covertly, are a huge problem and reprogram the minds of their fellow citizens to unwittingly take part in their own destruction.

Whether a revolutionary is active or passive, he should be thought of as a destroyer. He aims to destroy your world, either through violence or through subterfuge. The citizens who oppose him, wishing as they do to maintain the society in which they find themselves, should be thought of as preservers. Destroyers – always first with the catch phrases – traditionally described preservers as “authoritarian” and themselves as “revolutionary”.

Unfortunately, there is this destructive element in every society, even those in which the element has been muted as a result of either social pressure or governmental threat. As we have seen, it is in the nature of mankind to rebel against authority. And to rebel against authority is, in most instances, to destroy society.

The destructive elements, whether active or passive, invariably go on to cast themselves not just as revolutionaries but also as liberators. Liberty-Equality-Fraternity was the rallying cry of the French Revolutionists, who actively destroyed French society as it existed at the time. Similarly, “freedom fighter” has become the handle of today’s active destroyers around the world, whether in Cuba before Castro or in Vietnam before Ho Chi Minh. In crying out for freedom, they gain sympathy and support from ordinary citizens who, like people everywhere, rarely feel quite free enough.

The passive destroyers covertly undermining the Western republics have a tremendous advantage over the preservers of these nations. They know full well that the average citizen is a rebel at heart, and they take full advantage of this fact by constantly appealing to his (and her) rebellious side.

When a man and woman get hitched, society always plays a role, unlike wolves or gibbons or swans. Governments everywhere realize (theoretically, at least) that their citizens are motivated not to play by the rules, which is why there are state marriage licenses, as well as state prisons. The marriage license works to prevent bigamy and thereby ensure the rearing of the next generation as best a society can ensure such an outcome.

The two families involved in the marriage, as well as the couple themselves, similarly realize that human beings are motivated not to play by the rules – especially when it comes to sex – which, in the specific case of marriage, means cheating, deserting and/or divorcing. Large weddings and receptions are attempts to ensure that these eventualities will not come to pass. Even at a small wedding, the bride and groom each swear in public to stick it out faithfully for the rest of their lives – for worse, for poorer, or in sickness.

Those same wedding vows also include ‘for better, for richer, and in health’, but these three phrases are included just for the sake of poetic balance. No one is expected to break a wedding vow because the other person has become better or richer, or remains healthy. But everyone knows that a spouse who becomes diminished, as it were, makes breaking the other party’s wedding vows that much more attractive to someone already inclined by nature to act in ways contrary to the survival of society.

Weddings, receptions, and marriage licenses notwithstanding, psychologists and other systematic destroyers of modern societies never tire of assuring us that we human beings do not have to play by pre-ordained rules in order for our species to survive, the way the lower animals have to. We humans, gratuitously placed at the top of the food chain through the miracle of evolution, are in a position to establish our own rules for survival.

Psychology has come to call this kind of thinking moral relativism. In other words, a given behavior is right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Moreover, it often devolves to the person himself to makes this determination, except where the intelligentsia has already ruled on the matter, as in the cases of abortion, school bussing, and fathers’ rights.

The principal protagonist for moral relativism was HRH Ashley Montagu, cultural anthropologist and immigrant gadfly. Lordly Montagu did his pontificating from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, where he was paid in American tax dollars to destroy the society that had taken him in and then supported him. [On a personal note, the journal Science was good enough to publish this writer’s letter exposing charlatan Montagu back in 1964.]

Destroyers, it must be noted, do not want anarchy. Abject destruction of the host society has rarely been the goal of revolutionaries. What they seek, rather, is to be in charge of a reconstructed society that they are presently bent on destroying in its current form. This desire of theirs is perfectly consistent with the need for independence . Feeling controlled from time to time, human beings often attempt to rid themselves of this annoying feeling by rising to the top of the group in which they find themselves. [Others seek a feeling of independence through creative endeavors, curing the ill, and so forth.]

The students who took over universities during the Vietnam War certainly did not want to destroy those institutions. After all, they were there for the purpose of obtaining degrees, and a destroyed university would not be in a position to oblige them. No, they took over universities to take over universities – that is to say, to see those institutions run the way they wanted them run. The ultimate goal of any society's destroyers is to rebuild the society they destroy, with themselves or their proxies in charge. The "liberal" politician who votes to raise your taxes intends to benefit from that tax increase. He will become more powerful as you become less powerful.

Besides having the ability to choose the most seductive terminology and then blabbing it from the rooftops ad nauseam, today’s destroyers, as opposed to some earlier revolutionaries, appeal to our base nature. They realize that deep down, most of us want free sex even more than we want lower taxes. They also realize that to interfere with a society’s sexual functioning is to destroy it without a shot being fired, whether it’s a society of humans or a society of gibbons.

One reason why destroyers are so attuned to the base nature of human beings is that they themselves usually are debased – certainly the passive destroyers working with pen and microphone rather than gun and grenade. While they pose as sophisticated, learned saviors of the oppressed, you don’t have to scratch them very hard to find rot.

Destroyers are also – as one might expect – much more subject to the need for ultimate independence, than are preservers. A compelling interest in pornography is only a symptom of this deeper and much more significant character flaw. They are only a small step from sociopaths. Destroyers know enough to appeal to our angelic side, as well as to our prurient interests. They show us photographs of gassed Kurds and starving Ethiopians and tsunami-ravaged Indonesians. These pictures tug at our heartstrings. The destroyers' real intention, though, is not to help those unfortunates but to make us as interested in the plight of foreigners as in the plight of our fellow citizens, thereby reducing our nationalism.

In addition to his attacks on society via the constant weakening of the family, the modern destroyer works without letup to flood society with strangers. While he sings the siren song of sexual license, he also waters down the gene pool. How can we deny entry to refugees? Let us share our good fortune with the less fortunate. Why pay top dollar to our homegrown gardeners, when you can hire them from across the border for half as much? Americans won’t do that kind of work. [Not for coolie wages, they won’t.]

The pseudo-science of orthodox psychology, which lacks even the ability to explain why the chicken crossed the road, is concurrently intent on obscuring the reality of all group differences, even the differences between men and women. Such differences, they maintain, are illusory and simply the temporary results of differing environmental factors, such as education, religion, nutrition, and climate. Give the world a constant environment, they preach, and see how we turn out to all be the same under the skin. Their brochure, “Racism and Psychology”, begins with a denial of race: “Racism is based on prejudice toward so-called racial groups.” Now, how can there be racism unless there are races? Yet, just a few lines later, we read: “It is the biases of individual Whites (who are reluctant to rent apartments or sell houses or loan money to African Americans) that lead to individual acts of discrimination.” The medical profession, by comparison, has accepted the clear reality of race and racial differences. Physicians are beginning to prescribe medication on the basis of race.

A naturally formed society, as opposed to one that was formed by mandate (as sometimes happens after a war, for instance), contains people who are genetically similar. Examples abound throughout the world, and always have. The citizens in these societies have similar personalities, a similar appearance, and the same worldview. Attempts by intellectuals to deny this fundamental reality, whether with respect to one particular society or to human societies in general, simply constitute one more effort from their seemingly bottomless arsenal of destructive weaponry.

Some naturally formed societies nevertheless take measures antithetical to their own survival. Such a measure occurred in the American Colonies when, on the basis of pure greed, many wealthy colonists, listening to their need for ultimate independence, bought human beings captured from another society, and then continued to enslave them within their own borders. The inevitable result, of course, has been a clash of peoples that leaves a fault line running through American society that constantly threatens our destruction, the passive revolutionaries among us notwithstanding.

The psychological establishment in America is a leader in efforts to exacerbate this fault line. Rather than accept the handicap under which America must labor as a result of her early brutality, these self-appointed experts on human relations deny the reality of this handicap just as they deny the reality of physical handicaps, insisting against all evidence to the contrary that the small and the weak be hired by fire and police departments and that the dull and disturbed receive unlimited time when taking employment and school-admission tests.