Furthest Right

How Political Correctness Led to Censorship Wars

Political Correctness is a variant of Control: banning certain methods so that people must choose from the remaining list of “safe” methods, which in turn shapes their thinking around those “safe” methods. The recent censorship wars came out of this 1980s invention which followed successful Communist shame campaigns in China and Vietnam.

If you wonder whether Communism has an Asiatic origin or not, consider how successfully it took hold in Asia, and how well it follows the Chinese and Mongolian pattern of censorship. Anything which offends the authorities cannot be mentioned, so people choose the best option from what remains, and over time, come to demand it.

As this Communism came into the West, it adopted the methods of its fellow travelers in Revolutionary France and embarked on an ambitious program of censorship. The difference: instead of censoring outright, it first declared some things like noticing racial differences to be “antisocial” and banned them for the public health or reasons similar.

Consequently, the bloated and fatuous mental dependents of democracy did not see it coming. Political Correctness removed all the difficult stuff — how many schools have copies of The Bell Curve or The Blank Slate? — and replaced it with lots of happy stories of virtuous comrades overcoming discrimination.

The pushback against that has accelerated with a removal of anti-White propaganda:

The research team found that people of color are several times more likely to be the authors of banned books than white authors and that a considerable proportion of banned books, both fictional and historical, feature characters of color.

About 37% of banned books were children’s books with diverse characters, including both LGBTQ+ characters and characters of color. A further 22% were non-fiction books about social movements and historical figures.

Somehow it shocks the herd that anything but inertia might be the program, but our inertia was leading us to having total Leftist propaganda in the schools. Instead of insisting on equal shelf time, knowing that those books would become “lost” or “damaged” in the time-honored methods of Leftist and union sabotage, conservatives turned to censorship.

In a way, they are mirroring the Left back to itself, but this misses the point that what conservatives are doing is stopping a Leftist program from going too far, instead of arbitrarily deciding to censor the Leftist propaganda. The only way to really achieve this goal is to end the public school system and the Leftist parasites it supports.

However, as part of our national conversation on our future, conservatives are attempting to reverse polarization and self-censorship brought upon by the inherently divisive force of diversity:

Fear of government repression for speaking one’s mind is not a major factor leading people in the U.S. to self-censor. Rather, it’s fear that expressing an unpopular view will result in being isolated or alienated from family or friends.

Self-censorship may be a survival strategy of sorts in a culture that a new book calls “toxically polarized,” in which different camps see themselves as aggressively divided on an increasingly broad range of issues. Say the wrong thing, and you risk identifying yourself as part of an “enemy” camp on any issue in the news, such as COVID-19.

In a toxically polarized society, you either join with the dogma or represent the opposition force. Neither side will tolerate the other since to each, the other side is immoral and insane. The Right likes realism, the Left demands individualism. These two are incompatible.

Diversity makes this worse. You either endorse diversity-is-our-strength or you are an uneducated impoverished inbred slave-owning bigot who wants to genocide six trillion Black Jews. You either repeat the dogma that diversity is our strength or notice that 9/11 was our first warning that diversity is our genocide.

We might view our society as existing in the grips of anxiety; people suffering from constant destabilizing fear and insecurity tend to be over-excited and raving mad, leading to pathologies like Leftism:

Described as the Yin and Yang of the brain, researchers have found that too much excitation or excessive inhibition can be harmful, leading to a higher risk of developing brain disorders, such as autism, Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. In less severe situations, someone with too much excitation might overthink in social situations, resulting in anxiety. Indeed, a common drug for reducing anxiety symptoms is Xanax, which increases neural inhibition, thus reducing neural excitation. In more severe scenarios, over-excitation can cause an epileptic seizure.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, too much inhibition indicates an absence of brain activity, effectively putting the person in a vegetative state. Therefore, inhibition is needed to balance excitation. Overall, a balanced E/I ratio is important for a well-functioning brain.

In my view, the scientists have it backwards here: over-excitation does not produce anxiety, but anxiety produces over-excitation. It is another form of “self-stimulating” by focusing on what is known instead of what is unknown, and hyping it into over-importance so that it can take the place of the ambiguous and therefore actually very scary.

The brain balances between states of inhibition and excitation. Excitation in nature responds to threatening stimulus; not surprisingly, when nature is mostly out of the picture, this becomes fixated on fears and neuroses. Inhibition takes over when the anxiety becomes too much.

Diversity, by its very nature, increases fears: members of the founding tribe are surrounded by those who wish to dominate the founding tribe. Therefore, they exist in a constant state of fear which cannot be articulated in public, producing anxiety and paranoia.

Because the fear is so widespread and grounded in reality, censorship inevitably occurs to stop people noticing the actual source of their fear. Instead, they project their fear onto non-issues, which causes a steady flow of trends and panics to distract from the actual lurking fear.

For diversity, they give up the stable mental state created by a lack of overdose of excitation or inhibition as conveyed through pure and high-intensity emotions:

“Not only did we find brain activity that was correlated with mixed emotions, but we found that it held steady over time,” says Anthony Vaccaro, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Neuroendocrinology of Social Ties Lab at USC Dornsife. Vaccaro recently completed his PhD in psychology at USC Dornsife. “You’re not ping-ponging between negative and positive. It’s a very unique, mixed emotion over a long period.”

An average day for healthy people involves both joy and sadness. Some things work out, some do not. In this state of mixed-emotion the person is able to achieve balance because they are not trusting in the promise of unbounded joy (talisman) or organizing their lives around fear (scapegoat).

“Ping-ponging between negative and positive” describes modern people. They hate the scapegoat and rage against it; then, they race toward the talisman and its bright new promise of Utopia with ideas that are thousands of years old and failed. No wonder modern people are so neurotic.

Neurosis makes people miserable, and it turns out that lack of positivity makes people less able to understand each other:

Mentalising describes the act of attributing and understanding mental states (such as thoughts, feelings or intentions) in other people and in oneself. Researchers at the University of Birmingham have been able to show that changing people’s brain dopamine levels affects their mentalising abilities.

Dopamine, in addition to making us feel good about ourselves, also allows us to be in a cheerful enough mood to interpret others as possibly not all bad and therefore, lets us make the effort of understanding them. Better than empathy and altruism, this fair consideration makes us able to see others as making logical choices based on what they know.

Political correctness exists to defend liberalism because liberalism is conjectural. “If we achieve equality, then we reach Utopia” summarizes most Leftist thought. Conjectural beliefs are open to subversion by the existence of any other plausible way of doing things, so censorship becomes a norm.

In turn, however, this mentality of censorship leads to a deranged mental state. People chase trends and idealistic hopes while fearing hobgoblins and living in a state of constant anxious paranoia. To avoid this process, we should avoid diversity and ideally egalitarianism/liberalism as well.

Tags: , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn