Nothing human is unbiased.

Re: "political correctness:" As I wrote in my (biased) essay on the man:

Of those Western ills he almost always refuses to name them, let alone explore them. Yet something else I’m told by his acolytes, is that Top Lobster bravely rejects the dictates of Political Correctness — or in the increasingly mainstream lingo, he’s politically incorrect. What people mean by this is nebulous, ranging from “why must others stigmatise me for being thoughtlessly and needlessly mean?” to “the prefabricated and conditioned phaseology by which ‘we’ (and it’s always ‘we’ in regular PC talk) express and imbibe the politics of the permissible”. That second definition was provided by Christopher Hitchens and is the best I’ve encountered. At one point, he meant the established precepts that allow military Keynesianism, the illusion of ‘Western’ exceptionalism, and an overbearing, unlawful national security state, to go unchallenged in the mainstream media. Little has changed.

Here again we come to a question of emphasis and priorities. To borrow Orwell’s expression, of all the things it wouldn’t do to mention in our culture, are the ‘racial’ differences in IQ, the downsides of Islam, and the biological foundations of gender really the least permissible? Are those issues really the ones in greatest need of courageous spokespeople — regardless of the inherent validity or otherwise of them — and therefore the most in want of protection? To my mind those matters get a fair amount of coverage, and, thanks to earlier neoconservative efforts, even sympathy for the less ‘progressive’ interpretations of them in the mainstream. How many people, to take an example, are familiar with Herrnstein and Murray’s shady conclusions, compared with the excellent rebuttals provided by Stephen Jay Gould? And when was the last time you heard “religion of peace” pass lips not contorted into a theatrical sneer?

___

The mouthpiece of contemporary corporate capitalism *is* politically correct.