In the West, we have been pretending that we can both have the liberal ideological state, and also have a comfortable place to live like we always have. Most people are unaware that these two things are at odds with one another.
The liberal ideological state, as demonstrated by the worst theorists of Sweden who quickly took over that country because people are pathologically afraid of being seen as discompassionate, is opposed to any kind of native culture, individual feeling, or hierarchy.
Despite its creepy organic posturing and loudly shouted greenish noises, the liberal establishment advocates industrialization of the soul, a world of interchangeable equal parts administered by a central machine, with the end goal of producing identical citizens.
Not content with a world governed by natural law, which is what brought us from primitive chimpanzee state to our slightly more advanced human state, the liberal establishment aims to take a single, crowd-pleasing, unrealistic, pandering idea — equality of all people — and turn it into a means of total control.
This is why a storm is coming. The two forces — those who want to be free to evolve, and those who oppose evolution in the name of equality — are gathered, and are finally realizing that their dream of “coexistence” was a pleasant-smelling lie with foul innards. It cannot be.
“We have to tolerate also views we don’t like,” he said. Later, he said that no one should confuse openness with naiveté. – NYT
Political correctness is a nonsense ideology. Its idea — that we can avoid offending everyone — rests on the basic concept of equality. It also demonstrates why equality is perpetually dysfunctional: if every opinion is equal, none can be chosen.
The result is a paralysis of all higher functions of society while the lower functions — industry, bureaucracy, commerce and socialization — go on, but at an accelerated pace in order to fill in for the missing higher functions.
The only safe policy in a time of political correctness is to do nothing and have no opinions. Go to your job. Have hobbies, in your own home or in socially approved activities. But don’t suggest changes to the inertia of modern society. Someone will be offended, and it will cost you.
“…the [United Nations Human Rights] Committee made clear that limits on freedom of expression for these reasons can only be in the very exceptional situations laid out elsewhere in the (ICCPR) that deal with incitement to hatred and discrimination on religious or racial grounds and so forth.” – IPS
No red-blooded person would ever tolerate such insanity. We have stopped leading ourselves, and are letting our tools (industry, technology, democracy) lead us to places we originally had no intention of going. We have pushed reality away in favor of what is socially popular.
The backlash is not people coming from the right-wing, but moving into the right-wing. They were originally leftists of various stripes, or mainstream conservatives, but eventually saw that those paths lead to the ultimate fusion of 1984 and Brave New World: the postmodern totalitarian state.
Political correctness, instead of being an innocent attempt to be nice to other people, is a form of thought control that is forcing those who are not yet neutered to lash out and fight back. They are not fighting the symptoms of their upset, but the causes:
In the end it was not Norway’s immigrants or Muslims that Breivik chose to assassinate, but people who came from the same background as he did and whose parents were almost certainly Labour Party supporters like his own. But the fact was that by last Friday, Breivik felt not only that he no longer belonged to his own people, he had come to detest them with a virulence that was unprecedented.Is Norway’s ostensibly tolerant social model partially to blame? – The Independent
We are kept at bay because the modern liberal ideology is intentionally paradoxical.
It tolerates anything, except that which criticizes the tolerance of anything. It supports all freedoms for the individual, and none for the group or for individuals who want an organized, functional, values-centered society.
It is deconstruction enshrined as wisdom, a complete breakdown in social values and even social concept, leaving us with alienated, atomized, isolated, selfish, oblivious and resentful people alone in their apartments and homes. They can shop, and they can socialize on a plastic surface level, but that is all.
This life is ugly and paranoid. It is hollow and unsatisfying. It is without any kind of real satisfaction. But it hides this under a surface composed of both an absence of certain “great fears” and an ability to indulge in personal desires.
The great cold lie at the heart of present-day America is that the nation will magically benefit if we each single-mindedly pursue our self-interest to the exclusion of all else. The idea has a sleek quasi-free-market sheen, as it borrows the market’s “invisible hand” and applies it to social, fiscal and environmental policies.
That is a magical-thinking fantasy. If I pursued only my own self-interest, I would dump the toxic effluent from my factory right into the river ( a la China’s very laissez faire economy) while I lived far away in an exclusive community far from the stench and poisons. Why pay for costly remediation when the “free” river beckons? After all, it all works out wonderfully if we each pursue our own self-interest with methodical, nay maniacal, single-mindedness. – Zero Hedge
This is exactly what Immanuel Kant warned us about with his theory of radical evil: the problem is not Satan, or intentional evil by fiendish masterminds, but the daily small evils we commit by being oblivious to reality.
Intentional evil provides a convenient symbol, or scapegoat, but doesn’t describe how evil truly comes about. We think if we avoid evil intent, we have avoided evil; the truth is that unintentional evil is the biggest threat to us.
Evil comes about through selfishness, like that which powers both crime and deceptive business practices; it also comes about through willful ignorance of the consequences of our actions, or tolerance of actions by others that will result in bad consequences.
Garrett Hardin upgraded Kant’s formula with his Tragedy of the Commons. His point is that self-interest, because it places the self first before the world at large, is a form of unintentional evil and we encourage it with our equality, democracy, consumerism and social popularity cult.
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. – “The Tragedy of the Commons,” by Garrett Hardin
Rationalism is the art of deconstruction. Instead of trying to take in the world as a whole, we set up a little mental sandbox and we focus only on its contents. This lets us simplify and also misleads us with the nature of symbols; they are not the whole, although they represent it.
Part of this deconstructive logic allows us to put blinders on to any consequence of our actions that we are not officially instructed to address. We delegate leadership to democratic rulers who, by reacting to our desires instead of our needs, allow us to act through them.
We then have an army of bureaucrats, cops, firemen, activists and other service-roles who we assume take care of the problems we create. They’re paid to, after all. As a result, we push awareness of those issues right out of our minds and focus on what we are delegated to address, which is our personal desires.
This explains how with the best of intentions, we achieve the worst of results. Acting as granular individuals, we become like yeast: we eat up all the resources and then die. Unified under an intelligent leadership, we can plan for our future as a group and thus do better.
What opposes this is the anti-group, or the Crowd. Composed of individuals who want nothing to obstruct their own desires, this group acts to remove any standards, hierarchy, collective leadership, culture or common sense. Its goal is anarchy, protected by the guise of being in a group.
The most recent effort of this group is political correctness. It wants to obliterate any type of thinking that offends any one person, because if it allows such thinking, it no longer controls discourse. The Crowd wants to control discourse so that it can reject any collective standards except those delegated roles mentioned above.
As a result, we live in a time with freedom toward any deconstructive activity, but ultimately, a totalitarian system blocking our path from making any qualitative changes to our own society — having standards, values, culture or even common sense.
The only remaining option is conflict:
Can you think of an effective AND acceptable way to publicize his views and ideologies?
He could not have gone via the mainstream media route, because of the politically incorrect nature of his ideas.
If you ignore morality or ethics, his actions were infact rational and logical. He chose to do something that would guarantee two outcomes.
1. Widespread notoriety and exposure to his ideas, which were well laid out.
2. A government security-law overreaction which will end up pushing moderates into extremism.
To put it another way, he chose the “V for Vendetta” approach right down to bombing the prime minister’s office and his verbose manifestos. You know something else- he might ultimately succeed even if he does not live to see that day. – A.D.
We are facing an age not of lesser terrorism, but of more terrorism. The centralized states are too powerful to oppose militarily; what force could defeat the USA, Russia or China through power of arms? None that was averse to high casualties, certainly.
The great conflict that has been brewing since 1789 is upon us. Are we with the people who want to adapt to our world and evolve, or those who want individuals to be able to live in a mental fugue composed of desires, notions, jingles, memes, anecdotes and most of all, a feral anarchistic desire for no common sense?
Al-Qaeda, Ted Kaczynski, Tim McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik are simply the vanguard of this coming storm. They want a choice of type of civilization, not more meaningless personal choices and hobbies.
Those that oppose them are afraid, as well they should be. Liberalism in all forms leads to society deconstructing itself and ending a ruin; however, those who espouse liberalism are too personally unstable to care. The only option left is extremism, and it is not the right that has forced it — it is the left.