“The former Danity Kane member dug herself into a hole Monday night in a heated debate on Fox News' "The Sean Hannity Show" when the 25-year-old singer spewed out claims that both Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro were "brilliant" men." (Click link to see the video of the show with Aubrey.)
The PC media is saying “Aubrey O’Day put her foot in her mouth,” but it’s the culture of conformity that really has this time, not Aubrey.
More news:
“Aubrey O'Day calls Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro 'brilliant' men on 'The Sean Hannity Show’
-Aubrey: "As someone who has met [Castro]... I met him and worked with him while I was in Cuba. I'm not defending his behavior, but in many instances, but I do have to say, I will 100% agree, he's an incredibly brilliant man, he has outlived tons of our Presidents," O'Day said.
When Hannity gave the pop singer a second chance to clarify her point, O'Day reiterated, "I'm sure many murderers are brilliant people."-
"Was Hitler a brilliant man?" Hannity asked.
"I don't condone Hitler one ounce, but yes, he was a brilliant man," she said. "He ran a country and convinced everyone of horrible things."-
Is this really, in reality, all that controversial?
Was not Hitler a brilliant, yet diabolical man? Nearly all intellectual authorities on WW2 and Hitler, by the way, would agree that he was both brilliant and evil, and YET in our culture, this is viewed as absolutely bonkers and at the very least, out of the question.
What is even more astonishing is not so much that she actually said these things on national TV, (though it is perhaps rare and brave) but that her points, even upon being fully clarified that she did NOT support Hitler or Castro, we’re taking to be ‘extreme’ unreasonable, and even controversial. The fact that her words were taken without analysis represents a step toward idiocracy that is finally beginning to show its true colors.
Just because men may have been ‘evil,’ does this make them automatically stupid barbarians? Can we not see historic individuals in the light of what they really were? Must we defame our ‘enemies’ as us- being the victors by censoring their complexities? And if we do, are we any better?
The politically correct culture of the 2000’s certainly thinks otherwise.
On the other hand, you know when a mainstream pop culture celebrity such as Aubrey O’Day makes a stand against the PC culture, citing figures like Hitler and Castro by pointing out that “one does not almost take over the world, by being stupid,” --that change may very well be in the wind.
I am not defending Hitler or Castro, and neither was Ms. O’Day—as she said. And yet, to say it again, the media is implicating that she was ‘defending murderers.’
For a related reason, this makes me remember when a book was censored upon featuring the word ‘nigger,’ in its title, a book that came out a while ago (90’s) in public schools. The school system told the publisher they had to get the ‘N’ word OUT or they wouldn’t distribute, as if the very word itself, despite the overall intent, were a sanctioning of racism. In fact, the book was about racism, not a condoning of it.
When words themselves are seen apart from their intent and definitions, how can are we supposed to conceptualize?
And isn’t this so extremely similar to ‘news speak’ in Orwell’s 1984, by which the government came out with subsequent dictionaries that were even more abridged by each edition, the number of words progressively shrinking and yet seen as advancement(?)
My point here, as I’m sure was also O’Day’s intent-- is to speak out against the PC hegemony of ignorance via sacred cow.
The PC culture that dominates America and even world culture in many ways is based upon a series of sacred cows:
A sacred cow, if you aren’t totally clear on its explicit meaning, is an unspoken agreement of unquestionably in regards to a certain topic. It is the notion that ‘we don’t talk about that,’ and implicitly: ‘our position on this topic is right, absolutely right, and beyond analysis and doubt.’ In behavior the PC ideology can be observed in the resistance and ‘glossing over’ of anything that ‘rocks the boat,’ because its prime motivation is social accord via conformity.
Up until now, some of the major sacred cows of the American PC include:
-Race, religion, creed, sexual preference—(as unquestionable, the notion that any of these affect on the individual.)
-Affirmative Action: Fighting racism by means of ‘quotas,’ (to produce reverse racism.)
-Feminism
-The less advantaged, the ‘meek’ i.e. retarded children. (Any notion that more public funding go to gifted kids rather than to the retarded is OUT of the question to the PC.)
-The notion that all men are equal. (When there is much evidence to support biological ‘encumbrance’ at birth.)
-Modesty and humility (vs. confidence, i.e. confidence is labeled arrogance.)
-The current political system.
PC ideology implicitly opposes:
-‘Radicalism’ or ‘extremism,’ in any fashion, for any reason, rational or not.
-Objective thought in the realm of philosophy.
-Achievement as an individual accomplishment.
-Any political movement opposite a liberal or so-called ‘legitimate’ ‘conservative’ agenda—in other words, any political thought outside the established system.
As I stated, at its base, the ‘politically correct’ is conformity, its excuse philosophically is the notion of cultural relativism: the belief that all cultures and points of view are of equal validity, save those cultures that are convenient to oppose: i.e. Extinct cultures like Nazism, Castro’s Cuba, and even the Soviet Union, etc.
The PC culture would have us believe anything about its enemies, and that’s exactly what Aubrey O’Day courageously (and albeit, perhaps unknowingly) stood in stark opposition to in stating that Hitler and Castro are to be considered in a complex way-- for their validity as well as their flaws and downfalls.
What’s the big deal about that?
“But they’re murderers,” the Fox commentators kept prattling in the attempt to smear her. Because the population of the US is so PC itself, it seems to have worked. In researching this ‘incident’ I couldn’t find very much to defend O’Day.
“How can you call figures like Castro and Hitler brilliant when they are murderers?”
Lest we forget that the United States of America is responsible for SO many atrocities in much the same way and even the same degree as the Nazis, take your pick: The Tuskegee Experiments, and the raping 3rd world countries for better prices on oil or coffee by supporting and even funding right wing dictatorships, i.e. El Salvador, and Iraq---just to name a FEW out of a hat!
O’Day, the singer and model, didn’t really fully comprehend the magnitude of the Elephant the reactions of the people on this Fox show, represented.
I believe, however, that she is probably one of the first in recent days, in mainstream culture to actually come out in defiance of the PC in a showy and explicit way. A celebrity has much to risk in taking radical political stands at any time, and she certainly did, unabashedly. It helps I think culturally, that she is not an intellectual, but seen as what could be anybody, defending basic rational common sense.
I applaud you Aubrey O’Day.
The PC of the modern day prevents real self-cultural examination and is to be categorized as an implicit tyranny ruled by unspoken edict.
Hats off to you Aubrey O’day, change may indeed be in the wind.
