Why is the West going South?

The fundamental reason the West is in decline is that common sense has been abandoned as a way of dealing with reality, in preference of wooly thinking known as political correctness. One striking example of this advancing madness is reported here for your enjoyment.


 A captain lost control of a passenger plane after his artificial arm became detached as he was coming in to land, an accident report has said. The detachment, on a Flybe flight from Birmingham, came as the Dash 8 aircraft, with 47 passengers on board, was approaching Belfast City Airport in gusty conditions.


Captain Ian Baston, Flybe director of flight operations and safety, said the company was proud to be an equal opportunities employer. ‘This, in common with most airlines, means we do employ staff with reduced physical abilities. Where appropriate, and in accordance with Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requirements, this does include pilots.’

To me this is crazy because amputees clearly do not have the same ability to operate controls or respond to emergencies as proud owners of all limbs. The nuttiness of the aviation rules allowing this nonsense must have stunned quite a few people because BBC felt obliged to publish a piece explaining how amputees fly planes.


Of course a much more poignant question would be not how but why they are allowed to do it and these concerns are mentioned in the article.

But Dan Collins, who used to fly passenger planes and still flies light aircraft, admits he is surprised to hear amputees are allowed commercial licences. “I wouldn’t have thought that a pilot could get a class one medical. It is very rigorous testing, for example if you fail the colour blindness test your licence is restricted or not issued.”

Then the BBC gives an explanation of the idiotic aviation rules.

For single arm amputees, it is relatively straightforward to get a commercial licence. But it must be proved that a failure of the prosthesis – if it fell off the stump for example – would not result in loss of control of the aircraft. Amputees can, for instance, demonstrate that they are able to control the yoke with their remaining arm, as with the pilot of the Flybe plane.

Is it not common sense that regardless of what an amputee pilot demonstrates to the instructors an artificial limb is a handicap in the context of operating the airplane controls? But then, when you thought we have reached the limit of craziness, it gets even worse!

Double arm amputees are also allowed to fly. Their prostheses must be inspected to the same standards as aircraft parts.

For leg amputees there are different rules, depending on the type of amputation. Single below-knee amputees can wear their prostheses to operate the foot-controlled rudder – which changes the direction of the plane – and brakes. Somebody with two below knee amputations will usually have an additional hand controller that operates the same functions as the pedals.

So, the next time a pilot gets into the cockpit of a 747 about to take you across the Atlantic in a wheelchair rejoice that the airline you are flying with is an equal opportunity employer!

As described in the book “1984” by George Orwell, changing the language is an essential component of engineering a new society. The next example shows how, in the West, we have become masters of linguistic deception.


The issue is a non-apology apology. Yes, I have not made it up – it is a proper term used to describe the PR manoeuver where, after a stuff-up, someone fronts the media to deliver an apology but without actually apologising. Wiki defines it as follows:

A non-apology apology is a statement that has the form of an apology but does not express the expected contrition. It is common in both politics and public relations. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry not for a behaviour, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been aggrieved is requesting the apology.


An example of a non-apology apology would be saying “I’m sorry that you feel that way” to someone who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and additionally, it may be taken as insinuating that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place.


The expression “mistakes were made” is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by using the passive voice. The acknowledgement of “mistakes” is framed in an abstract sense with no direct reference to who made the mistakes.


Attorney and business ethics expert Lauren Bloom, author of The Art of the Apology, mentions the “if apology” as a favourite of politicians, with lines such as “I apologize if I offended anyone”.


Speaking to journalists, Mr Evans said he had “wanted to acknowledge fault where such acknowledgment is appropriate.”

You may think this is a trivial matter but our thinking is shaped by the language used to express ideas. The thinking behind non-apology apologies is not only deeply conflicted but plainly dishonest.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: