Monday, March 28, 2011

Occam’s Scimitar

Ottoman wintering in Toulon

On last week’s open thread — which has accumulated more than 250 comments, and still growing — Sagunto suggested that a new topic be established to discuss Hesperado’s analysis of Politically Correct Multiculturalism (PC MC). Hesperado indicated that he might not be available for much discussion in the immediate future, but we might as well go ahead and get started without him.

We can all do warm-up exercises until the coach arrives. And if I get the introductory material wrong, Hesperado can set me straight when he shows up later.

Before getting down to the topic itself, watch this news report of a schoolyard incident as a case in point. The clip concerns an Australian boy who had been picked on and bullied at school for years, until one day he snapped and retaliated with disproportionate force against one of his tormentors. A cell phone video of the event went viral over the internet, and as a result the kid is unlikely to be bullied again anytime soon.

Those of us who grew up during the pre-PC era would consider this to be a just, equitable, and optimal resolution to the victim’s dilemma. The rules have changed in recent decades, however, and what the boy did is now considered doubleplus ungood — both children have been suspended from school, establishing the familiar moral equivalence between an aggressor and a victim who defends himself.

However, rather than focus on the issue itself, I’m more interested in the PC mindset that is so much in evidence in this story. When the victim’s father is interviewed, he says, “It’s nothing to be proud of.”

Oh, really? Why not?

If it were my kid, I’d certainly be telling him how proud I was of him, and that what he did is the only effective long-term deterrent for bullies. This father, however, is quite a bit younger than I am, and presumably grew up in an age of universal political correctness. Like the rest of us, he has been bombarded daily by relentless indoctrination from the media, the government, and public institutions.

And it may be that the father really is proud of his son, but knows the rules so well that he dare not voice his pride in public. This demonstrates the uncanny resemblance between political correctness and Islam — absolute public compliance is required, and ordinary people are well aware of how dangerous it is to say the wrong thing when the guardians of orthodoxy may be listening.

And consider the final quote from the victim himself. He doesn’t say, “You don’t have to take it! You can fight back, like I did — it’s the only way to stop a bully.”

Nope. He knows the rules, too. He says, “School ain’t gonna last forever.” In other words, “You just have to hunker down and endure it until you can get out of there.”

Such is the force of political correctness in all modern Western societies.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Throwing Multiculturalism into the PC mix described above has created a toxic brew that is now in the process of deconstructing Western Civilization.

My description of PC MC will draw on Hesperado’s excellent analysis, but may differ in some respects. His basic thesis is that PC MC is not the result of a deliberate plan by a secret cabal of powerful elites who intend to use it to abolish the Western nation-state and establish a globalized new world order. Instead it is a widely-diffused ideology that has its origins in traditional positive and well-intended Western ethical principles. All those good intentions have mutated and metastasized into a deeply irrational parody of the original, and are now embedded throughout the culture at all levels.

PC MC is fundamentally incoherent, but since most people never examine it in detail, or even consciously, the essential irrationality never has to be addressed.

Some highlights:

  • No culture is better than another — but modern Western culture is bad, and all non-Western cultures are superior.
  • To consider the distinct characteristics of different genetic groups is racist — but white people are inherently xenophobic and intolerant compared with “brown” people.
  • Islam is a religion, not a race — but people who object to Islam are racists.
  • Violence, even in self-defense, is never justified — yet the violence of Muslims and other “brown” people must not be judged, but rather understood within its cultural context.

And so forth.

PC MC requires its adherents to practice doublethink constantly, in order to entertain all these diametrically opposed notions. All races are equal, but white people are especially bad. In order to promote equality, we must treat people unequally, with straight white men receiving the worst treatment of all.

An ideology of such raging incoherence can only be enforced subliminally, through social pressure, ostracism, and the tacit implication that no good person could ever disagree with it. Because it owes its origins to worthy social goals — ending Jim Crow, not repeating the Holocaust, establishing equal rights for women, allowing equal opportunities for all races, etc. — PC MC continues to enjoy widespread societal approval, provided that its premises are never closely examined.

This allows the vast majority of well-meaning Westerners, whose moral compasses are otherwise sound, to embrace such an irrational and destructive intellectual construct. Those who may not feel totally at ease with PC MC — or who even oppose it — know better than to voice their objections except among people they can trust. Adherence to the secular credo is reinforced by formal and informal penalties for violating it — anyone who values his career, his social position, and his financial solvency is well-motivated not to oppose it.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The organic growth of PC MC ideology in Western societies is a deranged viral meme that has infected the public information space. Although it has been expedited and accelerated by those who stand to profit from it — politicians, academics, trans-national corporations, etc. — it owes its success to the popular appeal of the original good impulses that lay behind the prototype versions when they emerged fifty or sixty years ago.

This explanation appeals to me, because it doesn’t rely on a secret conspiracy by an elite cabal. Resorting to conspiracy theories to explain observable phenomena generally violates Occam’s razor, which states:

Never multiply entities needlessly.

Or, more clearly but less succinctly:

The simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis.

Secret cabals and huge conspiracies violate Occam’s razor.

Of course, a hard-core conspiracy buff might counter that Occam’s razor is a false principle designed to hoodwink the gullible, and was inserted into European philosophy by a cabal of International Zionist Illuminati Trilateral Commission Bilderbergers — or something similar. Who can argue against that? Some theories transcend mere logic.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

PC MC is a mind-parasite that has afflicted much of Western culture since 1945, but it is not what is destroying us, not directly. The proximate cause of our imminent demise is a virus of opportunity known as “Islam”.

PC MC has disabled our ideological immune system, and Islam has quickly taken advantage of the failure of our defenses. The heart of the citadel is now open and exposed, easy pickings for the desert bandits who have fourteen centuries of experience in plundering and enslaving a weakened enemy.

If we are to re-establish our resistance to the invasion of such a destructive ideology, we must first overcome our own collective madness. It’s time to pick up Occam’s scimitar and shave away all the cant and nonsense that has long straitjacketed our ability to protect and defend our civilization.


ZZMike said...

To borrow a phrase from "Dune": PC is the mind-killer.

Added to "multiculturalism" - which seems to be the view that all cultures are better than ours - it's a killer of not just the mind, but the People.

“You just have to hunker down and endure it until you can get out of there.”

And in doing so, teach the bullies of the world that they can get away with it, that they can bring it into the real world when they graduate.

The simple truth is that bullies have to be stopped. It might be painful (and not just to the bully), but people have to make a stand.

It's probably worth asking where bullies come from. The obvious answer is, their parents, who teach them it's OK (or don't teach them it's not).

Michael Servetus said...

PCMC has elements both of free will and of an affliction, like a delusion someone suffers under. If we take Islam for example, a little of the mystery disappears when we consider the education and propaganda that has been disseminated for so long about the evils of Christianity and a incomprehensive history of what is taught to be our reflex assumption of the inferiority of others, all others, everything that is not us. We thought of the Indians as savages, the blacks as savages, the Muslims as savages and ourselves as worthy of reigning supreme. Leave aside the fact that this way of evaluating is not properly nuanced and that it is probably true of almost every people on earth when it compares itself to others in competition. But what if we happen to be the best? This is never considered. Someone can be the best, we see it all the time. Would it be a lie or a wrong for the best golfer to say he is the best according to his record compared to anyone else? Must he lie and say he is not the best but others are just as good?

Now those who are exposed to this way of reading history are taught this with a mixture of religious zeal and self righteous moralizing which really burns it deeper into the brain and entangles it with emotion. It is then always assumed that is exactly what we are always doing, when we find ourselves evaluating foreign ways and cultures, in other words the moral outrage and indignation almost automatically kick up, instead of evaluating things as they come. As a part of this it is considered our obligation to be more patient and kind to others that are difference in order to guard against repeating our past sins. But remember those “sins” would mean as much if they weren’t preached up everyday in school textbooks. It is believed and swallowed completely that all things are more or less equal just different. These are cliché memes. That this is the cause of wars and the way to avoid them is to make friends and peace.

That no one will attack you if you don’t tango with them. It is the wholesale idea that a war takes two belligerents, that you cant have a war if one side at least is not willing to engage in hostility, therefore any war is the fault of both parties not just one, it could never be one.

These are like meme viruses that invade brain and take over shutting off access to all arguments and common sense. They are set on being peacemakers at all costs, in a obsessive way, to prove something to themselves, to touch the flame. The irony is that the meme functions the same way that racist and conspiracy loon memes do, only the content is different.

continued below

Michael Servetus said...

continuation of above

..Why are these memes so powerful and able to resist immunization vaccines? They destroy the immunity defense system by labeling anything that comes to your common sense defense as hypocritical and self justifying, it masks it as a wrong answer by default, as coming from the racist liar that you are and so evades and denies access to it as a enemy intruder blocking its entrance.
Where did it come from? Its origin, is it feminine in origin? Does it have its birth and sympathy in that environment where all viruses and bacteria must flourish, the brain and soul of women? (Just kidding)

This thought virus as it progresses like a Democrat and takes over leads to the idea that everything bad is good just previously misunderstood. Is this a necessary chain or is this unique? Is it that this virus disables all distinguishing, shutting it off, as the enemy to its own life, much the way enemy bacteria fight and block against their counterparts?

There is no total reason or rational structure to it, some of it must be attributed to biological functions, if only because it resides and has its life in a living soul or animal. Something are just animal functions and drives, not logic.

These sorts of things only receive their rationalizations after they are felt and given place by their own power. Just as with diseases, some people are immune to these thought infections. These people are compelled to it like junkies, they don’t do it completely willingly, and they are driven. I’m afraid then that the only choice we have is to chop off their heads people. That is the only solution I see. Just kidding again. I hope you think that's funny.

Michael Servetus said...

Beside the historical and pedagogical roots to the PCMC virus. I think there is also a much simpler and common one amongst elites who like Aristocrats of the past wish to distinguish themselves as if in a competition, with ridiculous manners.
The elites have created a standard of behavior and if you ask, how they did it, I would say the same way they did it in the past. These people like to separate themsleves and set themsleves up as better in morals and look down upon other who ar filled with anger and rage and ignorant racism in theri conceited judgement.
So out of this pride, arrogance and self righteousness comes PCMC. The difference is Aristocrates of old were in many cases actual warrirors and brave. Our group of effetes and wannabe Aristocrats, who I endearingly call our castrati, have set up a game or competition, making who can be the most effete, non chalant, appeaser the winner. They can afford to do this because they do not live in the real world where the consequences of their ideas of social etiqutte as a substitute morality do not work so easily as from the safety of their protected enclaves.

JS123 said...

Someone needs to make the following argument. The evil of genocide is more than the sum of the murders that compose it. Therefore, the existence of ethnic groups is a good beyond the existence of the individuals who compose the group. Ethnic groups exist by cultural transmission of genes, traditions, emotional attachments to a distinctive history, beliefs, etc. to descendents. If an ethnic group fails to pass down its character through generations it ceases to exist. This has the same result as genocide and so groups must be allowed to take steps to ensure this transmission and be free from all interference in cultural transmission. This includes having a safe domain (country) where the transmission can safely occur and the members of the group can be safe from demographic annihilation.

Blogger said...

I think the "2 boys" incident and PC are two separate issues. My son has had aggression problems almost since he was born, and has a developmental disorder. Now, before you say "oh, but he's different from the normal kids", no he's not really. He's just an extreme version of normal. After a lot of heartbreak and soul-searching, we have come to the conclusion that "no violence - no matter what" is our rule with our son, now 11. We even have the quote; "Violence is the refuge of the incompetent" stuck on the fridge. Noone has to prove themselves.

The boy who got thrown could easily have broken his neck and, as a nurse, I know how this could have affected him, ie being stuck in a wheelchair all his life just because of one small retaliation. The human body is not as tough as it's made out to be in movies. Even one punch can kill someone, while in movies it shows people being punched in the head, and then standing up again, perfectly rational with no concussion. Sorry, that's not how it is in real life!

Islam uses violence to solve problems. We can do better!

Blogger said...


BB, can you create a forum page similar to the Faith Freedom one?

Dr.D said...

Baron, I think you are in error when you say, regarding PC, "Because it owes its origins to worthy social goals — ending Jim Crow,..." It is commonly accepted that Jim Crow was evil, but I can tell you from my own experience, I think most blacks were much happier under Jim Crow than they are today. They lived lives of low expectations, they were not expected to compete with White people at every turn, and it suited their capabilities very well.

When I was a child, Jim Crow was very much in effect, and I knew a modest number of blacks. They were not angry, upset, churning as we commonly see today. Rather they were generally happy, go-lucky people, the more ambitious ones ran small businesses, there were fairly stable black families, the black church was strong, and they had their own schools where they were not asked to compete academically with white kids. It was a happy enough, segregated existence. This is the era in which Thomas Sowell managed to rise right on up to the top because he had the brains to get what he wanted, so that was possible for the few who were capable. There were very, very few.

Forced integration has created a nightmare of bitterness and dissatisfaction, anger, and hatred that may never go away. Oh, what a GOOD idea that was!

Hesperado said...

Thanks Baron, I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to put up this article for discussion.

I will be back shortly for more substantive engagement -- hopefully, if time permits, for more than my usual "sideline sniping" (as Marisol and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch summed me up).

For now, I'd like to link a couple of my essays that deal directly with this issue:

PC MC: Neither Left nor Right but Ambidextrous

The Pretzel Logic of PC MC

The Logic of the PC MC Paradigm

EscapeVelocity said...

"H[esperado's] basic thesis is that PC MC is not the result of a deliberate plan by a secret cabal of powerful elites who intend to use it to abolish the Western nation-state and establish a globalized new world order. Instead it is a widely-diffused ideology that has its origins in traditional positive and well-intended Western ethical principles. "

It's not one or the other, it's both. The Left is capitalizing on Western guilt and loss of confidence. Without the Left aiding and abetting all "Others" in advancing their grievances against the West, to make the indictment, we would be a lot less further down that road.

The Left sensed weakness and it filled the void. Both the Left and that weakness are contributors to our current self emolating zeitgeist.

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

Your latest one on color blindness is also good.

Michael Servetus said...

Good summary with which I agree nearly down to the letter. If we have to choose between a secret plan being brought out or a natural abberation of good morals I would lean more towards the latter. But that is when it comes to origins. I never thought of PC MC as coming from an effete elite completely and directly for some nefarious purpose. No I have always thought of it, in some hazy way as arising out of over-do- goodism,busybodiness,babying, coddling and being more over refined to the point of absurdity by others. There are probably at least two different strands of it and a little of it in all of us but limited to where and when we think it is appropriate with measure.
You had a few great lines in there like this one:
"All races are equal, but white people are especially bad. In order to promote equality, we must treat people unequally, with straight white men receiving the worst treatment of all".

Thanks that was very good.
I have a suggestion though. Lets define PC MC even further. I don't think calling it PC or MC is really helpful. I think we have to find a name that highlights its negatives succinctly. PC is rather bland and with all you wordsmiths here I think we can find a good one.
Multi-cultism is easily understandable it is like polytheism. PC though is not and even when you highlight some of its charactersitics and its most popular forms of expression still it doesn't capture what is its goal? What is the point of being PC, what the reward the intention the aim? Is there any clear goal in the mind if its believers? How did they get that goal?
Also one last thought. I have never like using the phrase liberal elites because I think it is not critical enough. Perhaps liberal effetes or something a little more derogatory.

Anonymous said...


My dear departed mother had her own take on the concept of "disproportion". It went, "So, sonny jim, it looks like you got more than you thought you had bargained for."

Anonymous said...

Regarding the video, I'm surprised it was presented in such a fair way. The father's disclaimer is half-hearted, and elsewhere he does express approval of his son's actions, by describing how it's been good for him. And the kid doesn't apologize. His observation that school doesn't last forever is self-aware and mature.

I can see the school authorities pressuring the two boys to discuss things and then shake hands. That would be really sick, of course, but that's the conventional view nowadays. This video is unusual for not going there. Amazing that it appeared on mainstream American tv.

Anonymous said...

Blogger wrote: Islam uses violence to solve problems. We can do better!

No, we can't. In some cases, non-violence works, for instance Gandhi's non-violent and successful resistance against British colonialism, and M.L. King's non-violent civil rights movement. But successful non-violence requires a civilised opponent.

Grade school kids are often not much more civilised than Muslims. Violence can be justified in some cases. The bullies can get hurt, but too bad for them. If the aggressor had spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair, he would have brought it on himself. And other guilty parties would have been the parents and teachers who brainwashed everyone that violence is always wrong and we have to do better. That policy only enables bullies, at the expense of fat kids (or polite Western people).

Hesperado said...

Again, another brief response for now:

Baron, your introduction to the issue is quite good and, unlike with other articulations I have read by others, I have precious few reservations. Really only two that I can see now:

The first may only be a matter of perspective and dot-connecting opinion: While I agree that some among the Western masses who are PC MC have been more or less culturally cajoled into being functional enablers while in private they may demur, I tend to think that the vast majority are sincere true believers.

Secondly, while I appreciate the Occam's razor metaphor applied here, my main reason for rejecting conspiracy theory is my conviction that the West is a healthy democratic civilization -- imperfect, of course, but nevertheless the healthiest in history. And since a chief facet of sociopolitical health is the representation of the people as broadly and as substantively as possible (with, of course, always room for improvement), it seems highly unlikely that on an issue of this gravity, notoriety and widespread relevance, a relatively small group of people would be able to exert the type of effects which PC MC shows all over the West in nearly every venue, from news media, to entertainment, to academe, public schools, public officials, politicians (not to mention fellow citizens one talks with). In an unhealthy polity (e.g., a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime, a Muslim country), such a scenario would be likelier, and the evidence of the unhealth that makes it likelier is massive and conspicuous.

That said, it seems that Baron's Occam's razor metaphor is pertinent here -- though someone may be able to argue that in fact a conspiracy would be a more elegant explanation for why the entire West is failing to grapple adequately with the problem of Islam. Even if they did, I would reject it, however.

The two points above also would benefit from an elucidation not explicit in Baron's introduction: When I refer to PC MC, I refer to one (important) subset of PC, which itself is a constellation of different givens and axioms about various sociopolitical issues, most of which have little or nothing to do with Islam. On non-Islam issues, I would wager that fewer Westerners overall are PC (though it's complex: any given person can be PC about some things, but not PC about others, in a multitude of combinations). The key point here is that of all issues in the PC orbit, the one that seems to have the widest swath throughout the West of true believers -- including people of all walks of life and economic status and on all points of the political spectrum from Left to Right -- is the relative whitewashing of Islam.

Hesperado said...

Michael Servetus,

I've tried to think of another term for the sociopolitical process I call "PC MC", but haven't been able to yet. Whatever term we use, it has to (among other things) indicate a distinction from Leftism -- otherwise, we have no good explanation (other than something conspiratorial) for why George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, McCain, and innumerable other supposed conservatives all continue to parrot (and, I think, really sincerely believe) the First and Second Commandments of PC MC about Islam:

Thou Shalt Never Condemn Islam Itself

Thou Shalt Only Condemn a Small Minority of Muslims.

Obviously, Leftism isn't the problem here. Leftism is a factor, of course, but not one to be exaggerated into a civilizationally effective project -- particularly with regard to such a dangerous and anti-liberal problem as Islam.

You go on to ask:

" ["PC MC"]doesn't capture what is its goal? What is the point of being PC, what the reward the intention the aim?"

That's easy. The aim of PC MC is to better society, to make us all nicer, better, more tolerant, more diverse and more ecologically sensitive beings. Its goal is Modern Progress. And in that scheme bigotry and racism are major signs of Regress -- and so are "bigotry" and "racism" with scare quotes (i.e., excessive concern about Muslims). Needless to say, PC MCs don't distinguish between racism and bigotry, and "bigotry" and "racism".

Hesperado said...


"Your latest one on color blindness is also good."

Thank you.

Sol Ta Triane said...

Baron and Herperado and all

PCMC is the TECHNIQUE used by selfish people to try to get stuff and ruin other stuff. PC and MC are not a cause, they are a strategy, or technique.

You can't catch PC MC. You have to have the raw material of evil, of selfishness. THEN, someone shares with you the gospel of nihilism: and you are saved, you have your method.

Selfishness is the cause. Political correctness and Multiculturalism are merely the popular way to express selfishness in such a way that you believe you don't have any.

I agree, there's no conscious conspiracy.

Seems to me that PC-MC is logical and perfectly coherent strategy and on it's way to the accomplishment of it's user's goals. However, seeing PC-MC as a basis or cause would be illogical.

If you wish to discuss PCMC as a disease, then shouldn't we be discussing what makes some people predisposed to it and others immune?
That would be more effective IMO.

Baron said:
"The organic growth of PC MC ideology in Western societies....
owes its success to the popular appeal of the original good impulses that lay behind the prototype versions when they emerged fifty or sixty years ago."

I don't think it's an attraction to good impulses as much as it is a mockery of them. Real good is never wasted. But the wolf always does better in sheep's clothing. Just before a surprise attack it looks like a beautiful day. Evil's best hiding place is behind good.

Nothing new, er, well, maybe it's the new wave of evil technique, but it's really nothing new if you know what I mean.

So, what are their real aims, those who USE PC MC? Their subconscious aims? NOT their stated motivations. Let's try to look at their underlying actual motivations:

1. The type of person inclined to joining in the worldwide PCMC activities is

a. Psychologically rooted in selfishness, pride, greed for power and wealth, AND

b. Is a nihilist (no matter what they claim, such as "I'm a Buddhist, or I'm a Baptist")

2. The impetus of false charity (taking up PC-MC) is not, as you suggest, based in caring ideas, it is merely cloaked in them. It is not compassion, it is not love, not wisdom. It is an illusion of charity, an illusion created purposefully, mentally and imitated EN MASSE for two purposes.

a. To demand empathy and thus compliance.

b. To comfort themselves with a pseudo-meaningfulness which conceals their own wrechedness.

Therefore, PC MC constitutes a most excellent strategy for power-grabbing.

And it worked on you too if you think they have any significant degree of depth or honesty whatsoever in their motivations. I'm probably in the minority in this idea.

Potential greed and desire for power could take over most anyone. It doesn't take much to get that greed rolling down the hill. It's been going on since time immemorial.

Think of what is happening, tens of millions of people with the qualities I mentioned above, working together (sloppily, like kids in a bounce house) to accomplish what they see as the wondrous destruction of the traditional West.

Anonymous said...

Ahem, What was that about a New World Order, Hillary?

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton damaged the administration's credibility even more by opining that as long as international bodies approved of America's kinetic military action, the president didn't even need to pick up the phone to call Congress. Consider what that reveals concerning the administration's mindset about America's sovereignty and prerogatives."

"Outsourcing is hiring someone to do your bidding, but in Libya, 'we're hiring ourselves out to do what somebody abroad wants.' Indeed, one might consider our military the new mercenaries for foreign governments."

The Method to O's Madness

Hesperado said...

You New,

I would say you are confusing PC MCs with Leftists. What you are describing in my estimation fits Leftists -- and not even all Leftists, but a more egregiously radical wing of Leftists. Since I maintain that a majority of Westerners are PC MC (given the delimitations I articulated in one of my previous comments), I think it is too cynical to hold that so many millions of Westerners are selfish nihilists to the degree that you are positing, such that they would countenance (passive-aggressively at best, knowingly at worst) the mortal enemies of their own societies and of mankind. Such a magnitude of cynicism seems to suffer from roughly the same sort of Gnostic alienation which inspires the conspiracy theories.

In sum, I don't see dark pessimism as much of a civilizational antidote to a putative civilizational nihilism.

Sagunto said...

And so it begins..

First of all, I'd like to thank the Baron for graciously providing us with the opportunity. The public discussion of this important and influential thesis on PC MC in a special topic (and perhaps more than one) seemed justified and warranted, so I coined the idea in the discussion thread mentioned. Secondly I say thank you to Hesperado for participating is this "warm-up" topic.

There is of course a goal behind my request - free of any conspirational tendencies I trust, and that is to broaden the scope of the thesis and enhance its explanatory power. So obviously I think there are some important improvements that could be made and I hope this discussion will contribute to that goal.

My own summary of the thesis would be that:
PC MC consists of a convoluted set of ideas - elaborate in some and considerable less in others, based on an all pervading sense of white guilt, that underlies the public narrative of "equivalence", specifically in matters pertaining to culture and "ethnicity". As the example of the Baron shows, the equivalence component can easily transfer or "spill over" to all kinds of situations that entail a perpetrator and a victim.

Since this is supposed to be a constructive critique of Hesperado's thesis, I'd like to distinguish two aspects of it that I find wanting from time to time.

The way the thesis is defended.

The "character" of the thesis, which is upheld by assertions combined into a structure. This structure is built upon inferences that are strengthened by a very appealing way of unflinching logical reasoning.

Before examining the first point, let me briefly tell the interested reader about one non-specific but very good aspect of Hesperado's PC MC thesis, and then what is so specifically useful about the thesis that could make it an important ingredient of a genuine theoretical framework in the service of the CJ-initiative or AIM if you will (still inchoate or not).

What I like about the thesis, is that it provides an antidote to the oft heard claim among some anti-Islam activists that we need to focus on socialism (for instance) as the main culprit in lowering our defences to the Islamic invasion and aggression. Of course the people who follow this line are no socialists themselves, and the temptation is to blame "the others" for the ascendancy of Islam. Sometimes one wonders if some are really interested in resisting and fighting Islam, or maybe more in fighting the "lefties". Same can be said of those whose main interest would seem to lie in denouncing all religions wholesale, instead of focussing on Islam. And so on and so forth. And here is where this PC MC thesis proves its worth, in broadening our horizon and prepare us for the view that the weakened resistance to Islamic aggression can be found all over the political and cultural spectrum.

To me however, the special and specific quality lies in the assertion made time and again by Hesperado that whilst resisting Islam, we shouldn't resist examining our own weak spots for PC MC. His thesis thus not only broadens the horizon of our predicament, but it also appeals to healthy self-criticism, in contrast to the unhealthy and often hypocritical "self-criticism" of the West.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: I have read quite a lot of your essays before this thread and tonight. You are an important thinker! :)

For me, your PC MC theory is compelling for asking (and de facto answering) the rhetorical question: If the majority of Western common people have evil motivations for PC MC ideas and behavior, then why would Western civilization be worth saving?

However, there are at least three weak points in your PC MC theory for me:

Anonymous said...

1. Your PC MC theory posits that people who accept your theory are smarter and more self-aware than many or some of the great leaders of our time in every field - who have access to more and better experts, information, and statistics that are denied to the common man (i.e., see Wikileaks on Islam). P.S. I have the same problem with atheists who, in my personal experience, often express that atheists are "smarter" than Christians.

Wikileaks Exposes Muslim Governments Hypocrisy

Anonymous said...

2. If your underlying premise of leadership ignorance is incorrect, and many or some of the great leaders of our time do indeed understand the dangerous stakes with regard to Islam, then your theory fails to provide a reason for WHY smart and self-aware great leaders persistently import and facilitate incredibly high levels of Islamic immigration, indoctrination, and violent criminal behavior.

Do the great leaders have an end game unrelated to PC MC that is opaque to the common man but clear to them (i.e., need to secure scarce oil resources, avoidance of Islamic terrorism, implementation of an unelected totalitarian form of government like the European Union, etc.)?

Do the great leaders who are fully aware of the dangers of Islam have positive or negative governance plans for the majority of goodhearted PC MC Westerners?

Anonymous said...

3. Your PC MC theory attributes positive motivations to PC MC ideas and behaviors that may be neutral or even negative.

When a Western common man refuses to engage regarding the dangers of Islam, that refusal may actually indicate intellectual laziness, moral cowardice, or just conflict avoidance rather than an inherent nobility springing from a blind acceptance of PC MC views. Many people just want to think about "happy" things and avoid being "depressed" about Islam.

Additionally, Western leaders may have negative motivations to use PC MC to further governance that the common man would regard as evil (i.e., New World Order).

Blogger said...

No culture is better than another — but modern Western culture is bad, and all non-Western cultures are superior.

LOL. Yes, this is the "Noble Savage" myth that linguist Steven Pinker has debunked. Most of our modern theories in psychology in western society are based on the 'Noble Savage' myth.

Sagunto said...

Due to time constraints and the pressing need to switch off to the analogue world, I want to leave some preliminary remarks with regard to the two main lines of critique that I mentioned earlier. I also hope to provide some illustration of why I think that specific support of Hesperado's thesis is up for debate.

I. The way this PC MC thesis is defended

II. The structure of Hesperado's thesis, with special interest for some basic assertions

A few observations on point I.

- The defence of this PC MC thesis sometimes still holds some highly idiosyncratic elements that in the long run could be a hindrance for this thesis to become part of a larger theoretical framework. The need to be concise now may make this sound a bit blunt at this moment, but I think these elements need to be discarded for this thesis to become more widespread and productive.

In concreto, I am thinking of instances where criticism of the thesis is made to look unfounded and dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy thinking" or "doomsaying".

Furthermore, I am thinking of a treatment that sometimes seems reserved for high profile leaders in the anti-Islam movement. I am referring here to instances where anti-Islam politicians are accused of catering or succumbing to PC MC sentiments.

Thirdly, it seems that Hesperado has wedded the PC MC thesis to his particular view of the West. This characterization is placed as "optimism", antagonistic to "doomsayer" argumentation. I think this places an unnecessary burden on the thesis. Urging for the need to view the West in a positive light isn't bad in itself, but what are we talking about? Does this positive view include politicians, for instance? Sometimes that seems the case, but I wonder if that is the point of the thesis, so more clarity would be nice.
I think everybody in the CJ initiative would agree that Western Civilization is worth defending. Some dissent would already ensue over the question whether Western culture today is still upholding and nurturing traditional values of Western Civilization. This is where some of the cultural pessimism starts flowing, and some of the indicted "doomsayers" appear who mine this tricky field, and are sometimes unnecessary chastised for their warnings about a disparity between culture and civilization.

Let me sign off with a few examples:

A quote by the Baron:

"His basic thesis is that PC MC is not the result of a deliberate plan by a secret cabal of powerful elites who intend to use it to abolish the Western nation-state and establish a globalized new world order."

My reservations for supporting Hesperado's PC MC thesis for this reason, lie in the fact that what the Baron says is I think partly true, insofar as one doesn't need to presuppose some worldwide conspiracy, but this is not the sole function that Hesperado brings to the front by invoking the label "conspiracy". There are many instances that I could (and will, later on) provide in which the charge of conspiracy thinking is used primarily as a means to discredit opposition, even when it is plainly obvious that there is no talk of smoky rooms (itself a conspiracy against the all pervasive smoking ban) filled with conspiring "elites". As a side note: the latter term, elites, often seems to trigger the "conspiracy"-response. This, to my opinion, is not to be preferred as a way of defending the PC MC thesis under analysis.

To be continued..

Sagunto said...

Pertaining to my second major point, the premises of Hesperado's PC MC thesis, I have some further thoughts on a few quotes:

"PC MC continues to enjoy widespread societal approval, provided that its premises are never closely examined." [Baron]

"PCMC is the TECHNIQUE used by selfish people to try to get stuff and ruin other stuff. PC and MC are not a cause, they are a strategy, or technique." [You New]

"If we have to choose between a secret plan being brought out or a natural abberation of good morals I would lean more towards the latter. But that is when it comes to origins." [Michael Servetus]

"Your PC MC theory attributes positive motivations to PC MC ideas and behaviours that may be neutral or even negative." [Egghead]

The first three are concerned with the pervasiveness of PC MC ideas in Western society. And I agree about the widespread weakening of the resistance against Islam that results from it.
To Michael Servetus I would submit that indeed an aberration of "good morals" seems a factor of special importance here. But I'd like to add some doubt about one central premise in Hesperado's thesis, that it is PC MC that is so widespread among the people. Speak of PC MC and one sees it everywhere, analogous to the sport that followed in the wake of Freud's "phallic symbols". Every object that was or could be erected, came to be seen in this light.
But seriously, I won't repeat the quote by Chesterton that I like to use from time to time, but I think that it points towards a deeper understanding of ideas among ordinary folk that have the superficial appearance of PC MC, and are certainly similar, but could well prove to be different in character.

To You New I would grant that the PC MC thesis shouldn't preclude the search for a wider foundation of the Western predicament vis a vis Islam, though I'm not convinced that greed is the culprit here. Greed has also been invoked as the main cause of the current economic crisis. If that were the case then we would be in a permanent state of economic depression. Same goes for the basic substrate of PC MC among the populace. I think Hesperado's thesis is lacking in this regard, and in fact not at all wide in its scope. I hope to clarify that aspect of the PC MC thesis in later contributions.

The point that Egghead makes is an interesting one as I see it closely related to the claim that the main part of the Western populace has supported PC MC due to inner conviction, "PC MC and proud!", so to speak. The PC aspect is thus twisted ever so slightly away from the usual notion that political correctness is "saying things that you know ain't true". I think this is debatable, and will try to contribute to that discussion in further posts.

That's it for now. Hope to catch up in a few days.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Baron Bodissey said...

You New --

Selfishness is the cause. Political correctness and Multiculturalism are merely the popular way to express selfishness in such a way that you believe you don't have any.

I don’t agree. The explanatory power of the PC MC thesis is greatly reduced if one relies on this assumption.

It especially doesn’t help explain how so many good, kind, well-meaning ordinary people have become infected with it. This is particularly true of people I know personally, some of them very good friends. None of them holds his PC MC sentiments cynically, to pursue selfish goals. Some of them are even conservatives, to varying degrees.

No, we must look elsewhere for explanations of why so many people — the majority of the population, it seems — are in thrall to PC MC to at least some extent.

I agree with Hesperado: the West is full of decent people who have good intentions and noble goals. PC MC has subliminally perverted these laudable impulses, and most of the people affected have no idea of what has happened.

This is the simplest explanation to fit the observed facts. It therefore satisfies Occam’s scimitar.

Lawrence said...

When the victim’s father is interviewed, he says, “It’s nothing to be proud of.”

Oh, really? Why not?

Because in Australia then don't have the same freedoms of speech as we do here in the U.S. Hate crimes of speech are dealt with harshly.

If the father had said anything publicly in defense of his son's actions it could have been considered illegal.

So the father new what the politically correct culture there wanted to hear, and that is what he said, publicly.

But Australians as individuals aren't pansies, so I'm not sure that's what he actually told his son in private.

Nick said...

The issue about the victim (of bullying, assault etc.) being punished alongside the perpetrator is not new.

Under Scottish law if one is assaulted, then one can use reasonable force to defend oneself & put a stop to the assault. This means that you can do what is necessary to stop the attacker, i.e. knock him down or kick him in the balls. But if you go beyond stopping him from attacking you, and dish out some retribution or punishment (so he won't do it again), then that's when you can end up being charged.

I know.

Hal K said...

In response to the following:

"Although it has been expedited and accelerated by those who stand to profit from it — politicians, academics, trans-national corporations, etc. ..."

This overlooks certain categories of people who stand to gain from PC MC, which include everyone outside of the central "bad" group, consisting of white males. (I am leaving out religious and sexual orientation categories here, but it should be clear how they could be added.) Most people who are outside of the central "bad" group, including women and nonwhites, see it as being in their interest to enforce PC MC. They take any challenge to PC MC as a personal threat. This is the main reason why it is so difficult to overcome PC MC.

EscapeVelocity said...

Couple of quickies...

This article portends to some of what we are talking about...

The Origins of Postmodernitis

Cultural relativity: How did we get from there to here?


And also, Alinsky's Rules for Leftist Radicals....which states to use the opposition's (Western European Christian Civilizaiton) proclaimed principles and morals against them. In other word's push your agenda within the system. Christianity is a very liberal system with proclaimations about high morality, so you can see that both Slavery and the US Black Civil Rights Movement were advanced under its rubrik.

This isnt to say that we should jettison Christianity, but merely that this is a tactic which is used for both good and ill. Non violence was a successful tactic against European Christian Civiliztaion because it operated within that ciivilazations values, appealing to them. Unfortunately that tactic is much less successful with regards to Islam, which doesnt have the high morality and value for every individual soul on Earth as does Christianty.

Sorry for wandering.

Carry on.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto: Thanks! :)

You New: Great name! My quick thoughts on your comment:

1.a. Pride is a large motivator for the educated common man. Educated people are very smug in their being better than me - a person sounding like Hitler for criticizing Islam (according to them). It is PC MC to be smug about moral superiority over fellow whites against Islam.

2.b. All people sin due to human moral failings. PC MC support of Islam is a quick and easy way for sinful Westerners to feel smug about their personal morality.

Anonymous said...

2.b. For example, a Western man who commits adultery might feel good about the fact that he refuses to condemn polygamous Muslims. Yet, Muslim polygamy also makes the man's personal sins seem tame in comparison, so the man has a psychological interest in supporting people more sinful than himself. The smug interior moral judgment is: At least I am NOT as bad as polygamous Muslims.

In the anti-Islam movement (AIM), some Western men would "take away" the right of women to vote, but at least women could still keep their clitorises; so see, by comparison, these Western men MUST be "better" than primitive Muslim men that we are importing to the West, right?

Hesperado said...


Many thanks to you also for helping to put this discussion on the table. I appreciate the consideration.

Thus far, however, your critiques have not really had any meat for me to sink my teeth into, as it were. It might help if you were to use actual quotes from me as contact points for some of the more important among the various assertions and allusions you have made about the weaknesses of my thesis. I look forward to a more concrete critique.

I also would think it helpful not to have to continue to cover the same ground -- thus, for example, you raise again your complaint that I too broadly dismiss any mention of "elites" by associating such mentions with conspiracy theories; but when you raised this recently on a previous thread, I responded in some detail. Rather than simply repeating your complaint, and expecting me to repeat my response, it would save time to critique my response which I already wrote.

Baron's last post to date here sums up nicely one of the crucial points of my thesis which I notice so many people here (and on other AIM threads) have such difficulty with: they cannot grasp the notion that many PC MC can be decent and intelligent (relatively, of course, with the usual human warts we all have to one degree or another).

It also helps to clarify what exactly the content of PC MC is whose various conjectured causes and effects we are disputing.

I am not centrally talking about the whole constellation of the broader phenomenon of PC; nor am I directly focused on some of the related axioms of the subcategory of PC -- namely MC (multi-culturalism). I precisely refer to the two "commandments" of PC MC I noted in a previous comment above:

1) Islam itself cannot be condemned.

2) If any Muslims are condemned, it can only be a small minority (and, of course, pace #1, their condemnation obviously has nothing to do with Islam qua Islam).

Just as we see many people in the Center and on the Right (including many even within the ragged borders of the AIM) parroting PC MC statements about Islam (all revolving around the nucleus of #1 and #2 above), so too among them we see many people who seem otherwise politically INcorrect about many other social issues (gay marriage, abortion, gun ownership, immigration, etc.) suddenly manifest PC MC with regard to the one issue of Islam and Muslims.

I'll offer some anecdotal evidence: I had a long phone call last night with an old friend. He is un-PC about a whole host of social issues -- gay rights, feminism, abortion, gun ownership (he owns 3 handguns and regularly shoots at a range), tougher sentences on criminals, votes Republican, etc.; and he is a decent and intelligent person. But as our conversation unfolded into the problem of Islam, while he sounded many of the right notes, at one point in our conversation I was, alas, wearily unsurprised to hear him state in no uncertain terms: "I'd say that about 90% of Muslims don't really believe in what their extremists believe and if given the choice in the right circumstances, would be grateful to live and let live and accomodate themselves to our Western ways."

I asked, how can you be so sure? He said, "Well, it's just human nature". I.e., it's human nature to be un-fanatical, like (most of) us Westerners. He also said there are many bad things about Islam but that he vaguely "respects" Islam.

[continued next]

Hesperado said...

[continued from last]

Of course, it depends on how you define PC MC. Many in the AIM are quite lax and generous; if they see someone proferring the measly crumbs of vaguely negative statements about "radical extremists", that's enough to cheer them up. The point, however, is to measure all seemingly Islamocritical statements against the white-hot standard of those two "commandments" I noted above, and to expect nothing less than their obverse.

At the end of the day, however, neither side of this dispute (insofar as we have in fact delineated "sides" with clarity relative to a mutually agreed understanding of the relevant terms) has solid proof to substantiate their sweeping claim:

My sweeping claim is that the majority of Westerners are PC MC about Islam.

The sweeping claim of my detractors is that the majority of Westerners are in fact not PC MC about Islam.

Absent solid proof, there seem to be more problems with the counter-thesis of my detractors:

If the majority of Westerners throughout the West are not PC MC then why aren't they showing it? Why have there been no mass rallies (of more than a couple thousand at best) in major capitals throughout the West against Islam? Why are movies, television and cable shows which are nearly universally PC MC about Islam (whenever, that is, they treat of the subject in drama, comedy or documentaries) continuing to sell? Why do the executives in charge of such media, who care chiefly and ruthlessly about the bottom line, seem obviously to think that the public doesn't want to see an anti-Islam film, show or play?

All indications continue to point to the reasonable inference that only a minority (and a small one at that) of Westerners are not PC MC about Islam. I believe that minority is growing in numbers, but still at an unacceptably slow pace. We see polls, for example, where something like 57% of those surveyed don't want to see a giant mosque built in their region. Aside from the fact that such surveys usually don't frame the questions with sufficient specificity to elicit whether those responding are really anti-Islam and anti-Muslim, there is the larger absurdity they reveal, which can be illuminated by an analogy.

Imagine a survey, taken in any Western region, where 57% of those surveyed answered that they "oppose killing, raping and cannibalizing the flesh of random little girls". Obviously, such a slim majority would not be cause for optimism, and anyone ignoring the outrageous problem of the other 43% would be clinically insane. That is not only an appropriate analogy for Islam -- I would propose that Islam is worse than that theoretical survey question.

At any rate, my detractors have answers for such questions that revolve around why the Western masses don't behave as they supposedly are (and there are more beside these), but those answers have to account for such facts by constructing hypotheses for how they are only seeming facts, but that some truth not in evidence on the surface is really explaining them. This I suppose is what Baron is getting at with the Occam's razor metaphor. To explain a massive and complex fact (or constellation of facts) by recourse to a hypothesis of what is "really" happening behind the scenes and beneath appearances (i.e., by recourse to facts not in evidence but only to inferences based on suspicions) is to get ahead of ourselves.

Aside from the logical problem Baron sees, I see the psycho-logical motivation behind such a recourse: a dismaying readiness to impute grandly cynical and pessimistic forces to explain the current Western paradigm.

Hesperado said...

I posted a "part one" to my last "continued" post. I hope it makes it back from the outer darkness of the "spam folder" or whatever.

jwenting said...

The kid is lucky that the bully was also suspended...
When I was in school still I was constantly bullied, and well aware that if I responded in any way I'd be punished instead of the bullies.

In fact at one time a friend of me who was also a victim of bullying did strike back (with proportionate voice, he punched one in the nose, didn't even break it) and both him and me (by association apparently, I'd been nearby and noone believed I wasn't involved when the bullis claimed I had been) were suspended while the bullies were commended for standing up to agression.

Such is the lessons one learns in school: bullying in fine, responding to it in any way, or even being associated with one who responds to it, is a crime.

Michael Servetus said...

Pertaining to the two great commandments as it relates to Islam I offer the hypothesis that any deviation from that view throws the general progressive liberal leftist view and philosophy about everything into jeapordy and would seem to validate many ancient views and concerns which are at present seemingly almost done. PC advocates consider this a battle against forces of racism which they think seek to use Islam as the way back in. I think people listen to advisors who tell them this is what is going on.

Michael Servetus said...

Some disparate contributing factors that amount to what we experience as PC-MC

PC is wrapped around the idea of justice, equality, fairness, liberty and open-mindedness. These are very significant Western social and political and religious terms. Many people have adopted this PC unification of them as a quasi-religion of sorts if not a religion exactly and in much the same way a religion is held onto, because it is believed in, so is this held onto with zealous faith even to the point of guarding it against denigration(blasphemy). These behaviors are natural to man and whatever he adopts in the religious, traditional , moral sense. In this way liberals are conservatives for PC-MC, it is their religion, their morality, their idea of righteousness that must be sacrificed for, suffered for, defended etc… Understanding it as a substitute for religion for a being who cannot live without religion but is nearly defined as a religious moral animal helps to understand why this has happened. As traditional religion has waned PC has increased its grip as the new morality, without the balance that traditional hellfire and brimstone religion used to provide to concepts of kindness
If we look at the patterns of social behavior associated with religion and morality we will find , I think, a similar pattern here.

Associated with this are also ideas that stem from these seminal terms listed above. Some might be ideas such as, all religions are peaceful, we must not jump to conclusions, all religions have their fanatics, Islamic terrorists represent a tiny minority who distort the true teachings of their religion(though those who say this obviously know nothing about the true teachings), those who are against Islam are just haters and have no good reason, they know nothing about the religion more than I do(that is what people like Hollywood celebrities tell themselves)
Some of this can be attributed to people who are unable to handle an education and yet receiving one and only being able to memorize catch phrases, bromides and clichés. They remember the easy stuff to remember, the scandalous stuff but the hard work of investigating they never do-- to actually think for themselves and find out if something they have been taught is true and properly characterized. They remember all the gossip and dirt, all the calumny and scandal of history as of extreme importance and neglect all counter arguments. This I attribute to a low mind and sort of slave mentality. These people learn of a new twist on the settling of the US of A and drink in the scandal mongering as the audience on a Jerry Springer show, they love to learn “facts” and they are called students, but their taste and culture is one of low living and limited to scandal mongering, it is the only thing that excites them, this drama and shock. So they embrace the jaundiced view of America and the West as that of higher learning and something that makes them, the simpleton followers, smart by default as they consider themselves now cognizant of the inside scoop, and they consider it their wisdom for life. Never mind the proverb that says, the first to speak always sounds right until he is cross examined.

Other problems are, to begin with many people really don’t think Islam is a problem or a threat and see those of us who are warning about its behavior as it relates to their numbers, as alarmists acting on our inherent racist hatred and ignorance. Why do they assume that nobody knows what they are talking about ? Perhaps also there is something to be said about people being generalists and it being hard for many to accept the exception to the rule.

Hesperado said...

Michael Servetus,

Everything you say is cogent -- except for one theme running through your comment (and previous comments) like a leitmotif: that the problem of PC MC is a Leftist or liberal problem.

That is precisely to miss the point: the problem of PC MC is precisely that it affects so many people (both elitesa and non-elites) who are not Leftists or all that liberal. If the problem were confined to the Leftists of the West, it would be a problem of considerably smaller and less effective proportions than it evidently is.

Closely related to this what I consider a lacuna or myopia in your analysis, is the proposition that modern liberal progress is some kind of aberrant process or disease -- albeit a strangely massive and effective one. This too I believe is to miss the point that PC MC is solidly and organically ensconced in the process of Western moral and sociopolitical progress. Indeed, one could say that PC MC is the latest expression of genuine Western progress.

The problem is more of an intricate knot that has to be untied, where some would rather take the Alexandrian short cut and just cut it out with a sword, thus (to mix metaphors) throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Michael Servetus said...

Thanks for your constructive criticism, I will certainly ruminate on it. I mention the left because, while I see your point about PC-MC being a sort of natural evolutionary outcome and stsge of Western progress, it seems to me that some of us have seen the error of our ways and rebelled against such progress for quite a while now, extending into past gnerations. So it is not a unified Western phenomena but limited to a specific group now who are continuing on that path as though there is no reverse only forward no matter what, or in this case lateral. Also there are such things as mutations and aberrations both biological and psychological and I do consider PC to have at least two major strains. One is as you describe, part of the Western tradition or at least closer to its genome type than the other and this is held by the majority, though still I believe it is an error to some extent, because some sort of controlling or governing influence has been lost. The other is the leftist strain which I think influences politics very much. The reason I think it influences politics more directly and finds explicit expression amongst the liberal effetes is because I think this particualr strain or mutation of hyper PC matches too well the political leftist type and I do believe there is evidence that many political advisors and think tanks of influence are controlled by it. It is hard to tell which is the cause and which is the effect.
What is the point of insisting on your fine distinction? What do you think is gained or saved by it besides sheer accuracy which would be a good enough reason, I am curious.
Perhaps it would be better to say that some are more conscious of it than others and some are just products of conformity.
You know a religion can be pervasive in two different ways amongst the people of a nation. Religion can be held seriously and with missionary zeal and conviction by some and by others it is just a superficial yet mildly influential cultural thing.
In any case I will be more quicker to listen an dslower to speak now and try to understand where I am being myopic in my view in order to correct it and attain the truth.

Michael Servetus said...

note: I usually don't correct my many typos but "more quicker"(above post) cried out for clarification. I didn't intend to put it that way. I had two expressions in my mind at once and started it one way but finished it another.

Hesperado said...

Michael Servetus,

"...some of us have seen the error of our ways and rebelled against such progress for quite a while now, extending into past generations. So it is not a unified Western phenomena..."

Yes, there exist Westerners who to one degree or another are breaking away from PC MC, or have already broken away.

I never said they don't exist, nor that they are a static number that will never grow. Just as the development of PC MC into mainstream dominance over the past 50-odd years was a dynamic process, so too the breaking away from PC MC is a dynamic process, and will likely continue to grow (particularly with the unpleasant "incentive" of the metastasizing problem of Muslims).

I don't know what it is that makes one person able to free themselves (more or less) from PC MC, while others persist in supporting it. The answer is not that they are different types of people, because often I have met people whose personality type, whose politics, whose social status, etc. do not sufficiently explain why they remain PC MC. Even with the latte-drinking NPR-listening Jon-Stewart-approving "liberals" who are not flaming radical Leftists supporting some kind of Chomskyite-Trotskyite Revolution, I don't consider them to be alien beings, but more or less normal modern Westerners like me. Whatever the explanation is, it has to factor in the fact that I myself have PC MC inside me. I certainly was more inclined to be PC MC years ago, reflected in various givens and axioms I believed and parroted. And I still recognize I have residues or echos of it inside me. Anyone who can sincerely enjoy watching "The Simpsons" (to take one example out of thousands from pop culture) obviously has some PC MC inside them. PC MC intextricably involves, or convolves, normatively good values and ideas, and is the current spearhead or vanguard of Western Progress itself.

While it is a kind of disease, the cure is a more organic "lifestyle change", rather than invasive surgery to chop out some malignant throbbing tumor. The latter cure presupposes that PC MC is detachable from the good of the West.

Unfortunately, however, while the West may continue to work out the problem of PC MC, deadly Muslims are afoot, so it's likely that our Western process of deconstructing ourselves will not unfold relatively calmly, but will rather be convulsively "jump-started" by a series of horrific attacks on us by Muslims over the coming decades.

Anonymous said...

Michael Servetus: "You know a religion can be pervasive in two different ways amongst the people of a nation. Religion can be held seriously and with missionary zeal and conviction by some and by others it is just a superficial yet mildly influential cultural thing."

Michael, do you see the irony that the idea of your statement about PC MC is the exact idea that PC MC supporters uniformly convey about Islam? Namely, that (a tiny minority of) Islamic jihadis are different than (the peace-loving modern-Western-society-compatible majority of) mainstream Muslims.

Michael Servetus said...

Yes but not so much really. There is truth to it. It is a undeniable reality that many people hold their beliefs to varying degrees. It is true in our culture and of Islam as well. I do not have to deny truth in order to make myself right, like a Democrat or liberal or other PCer.
Then there is the other truth, the more important and controlling truth about the nature of Islam that factorsd into the general cultural one that I just stated and stand by. That is that Islam is unique in its prescriptions of violence and that always remains the same no matter what. Whether you hold closely to it or not at any given moment Islam and Islamic pressures in a society under its wasting influence permit and even commend violence as a means to an end especially towards others who are not believers. So I see no contradiction just a different animal.

Michael Servetus said...

Furthermore Islam always at bottom militates against everytyhing not Muslim, so that even if a individual unicorn Muslim wanted to live at peace which to be honest I am sure there are plenty of, Islam doesn't permit that, it doesn't permit you to take friends of Jews and Christians which are open to expansive interpretation to include all westerners even atheists. So those people will always be fighting against and denying their own religion. It is not a happy or trustworthy or confidence inspiring situtation, due to , as you know, SJS.

Zenster said...

Violence, even in self-defense, is never justified — yet the violence of Muslims and other “brown” people must not be judged, but rather understood within its cultural context.

Right here emerges one of the most fundamental and lethal of all category errors.

A direct implication is that:

Violence [by White people], even in self-defense, is never justified — yet the violence of Muslims and other “brown” people must not be judged, but rather understood within its cultural context.

A corollary of this is that White people do not have any cultural context. Only "brown" people can have any such context, much less one that admits violence.

This simply reeks of the whole “Noble Savage” farce a currency which remains in thoroughly active circulation among modern Liberals and the entire PCMC crowd. It also underscores their intense racism as they continue to infantilize people of color by, not just by excusing their very worst traits but, elevating their barbarity as some sort of glorious tribal tradition.

There is no better example of this than, supposed ultra-feminist, Germane Greer defending the practice of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) ― a crime that is perpetually, and deceptively, mischaracterized as “female circumcision” ― as “an attack on cultural identity”. She even manages to top this repugnant feat by attempting to draw moral equivalence between voluntary body piercing and FMG ― typically a very involuntary and brutal process ― by saying: “One man's beautification is another man's mutilation.”. She even goes so far as to label FGM as some sort of “body decoration”, as if these horribly maimed women were merely getting a tattoo.

By infantilizing so many Third World cultures with undue respect and unearned accolades, Leftists not only retain their undeserved perception of moral righteousness but justify their aching need to unburden themselves of their supposedly ill-gotten and disproportionate wealth. There are two distinct mechanisms at work.

First, that White culture largely subsists of what was robbed or, at best, “borrowed” from other ethnic groups. The persistent myth of Islam’s supposed contributions to European culture is a prime example of this. The more modern Communist-bred Zero Sum Game of First World cultures having stolen all of their wealth from Third World countries has served to largely replace the original White Man’s Burden of colonial enslavement, despite the historical record showing Islam as king of all the slave masters.

Again, it is this wholly unjustified exculpation of backwards, colored cultures while, at the same time, denying the entire existence of White culture which serves as a Möbius shaped substrate of pure hypocrisy for modern Liberals. There are no two sides to the coin of Liberal hatred for White culture.

Zenster said...

Second, having ostensibly robbed the Third World of its human and natural resources, these conscience-stricken Liberals feel obliged to do penance by routinely delivering up billions of dollars in wealth, year after year, to be abjectly mismanaged by these incompetent savages. There is another factor at work which is far more difficult to unseat and even more damaging. It is, perhaps, one of the most insidious and lingering aspects of misinterpreted Christian doctrine that still runs amok in modern times.

This relief of needlessly guilty conscience and unnecessary redistribution of Western wealth is all religiously condoned under the auspices of saintly altruism. Few more originally decent aspects of civilization have been so totally perverted than altruism. From its humble Samaritan origins, it has engorged itself upon generation after generation of cringing believers, fearful of enjoying their worldly gains as ill-gotten and gluttonous indulgences of the mortal flesh. Too often, we are told, the only good thing a person can do is something for someone else. Doing a kindness to oneself is evil and egotistical. Finally, here the mask slips and the smug, sanctimonious visage of self-effacing Christianity reveals itself.

Hatred of the human ego drives much of modern altruism. No one person is allowed to excel above the rest. We must all be forcibly equal despite nothing of the sort being true. We must all be interchangeable despite how that turns our world into a gigantic livestock pen of human cattle. The modern practice of Social Advancement furnishes our society with illiterate high school graduates. In an effort to preserve the fragile self-esteem of so many underachieving children, some administrators and teachers even seek to do away with the entire letter grading system altogether.

How dare anyone excel and hurt the feelings of video game addicted layabouts! How dare anyone demonstrate mastery of a subject and thus provide the one thing detested above all else in these modern times, true leadership by example. Do not mistake this for the current epidemic of "follow the leader" which has absolutely nothing in common with its more honest and worthy predecessor.

A single cursory glance at the political leadership of America and Europe reveals the truth of this. Quality leadership is at an all time low. Incompetence is now routinely rewarded in the hope of making it into a virtue.

Modern art is a perfect mirror of this phenomenon. An authorized copy of Marcel Duchamps “Fountain” recently sold for $1.76 million dollars. Tracey Emin’s used condom and empty liquor bottle strewn tableau, titled “My Bed” was exhibited at London’s prestigious Tate Gallery, shortlisted for the Turner Prize and eventually sold at auction for almost a quarter million dollars.

Art, by its very definition, is supposed to imply a mastery of expressing beauty with such skill that it inarguably evokes human emotion. Duchamps’ “Fountain”, in a moment of penultimate irony, so inspired the duo of performance artists, Cai Yuan and Jian Xi, that they employed the “sculpture” for its original purpose while it was on display at the Tate Gallery. Perhaps one of the most enduring offenses to artistic sensibilities and the entire questionable practice of government funded art was Andres Seranno’s “Piss Christ”.

Zenster said...

Again, we see in action, the great leveling of human endeavor by Liberal minds. Urinals, stained bed linens and a crucifix immersed in urine are supposed to rival Rembrandt, Van Gogh and Da Vinci. John Cage’s famous work 4’33”, despite being in three movements, is devoid of any musical content. Hilariously, Mike Batt of the “Wombles” proceeded to compose an equally mute piece titled, “A Minute’s Silence”. This led to a pinnacle of absurdity when Cage’s publishers, Peters Edition, accused Batt of breaching copyright and the John Cage Trust eventually went on to collect a six-figure settlement in the matter. One can only suppose that listening to the vacuity of Cage or Batt still would be far more preferable than enduring the monotonous, juvenile spewing that is passed off in the name of “music” by today’s rap “artists”.

The broad reach enjoyed by this illogical equivalence extends well beyond art or music to embrace both culture and morality as well. The latest and most obscene trend involves not just a balancing of opportunity but the equalization of outcome. Few things are more emblematic of this equality by fiat than Affirmative Action, despite how it lowers standards of quality for vital public safety services like fire prevention and law enforcement which, in turn, endangers us all. Equality, no matter the hazard to life, limb or mind, is the watchword for modern Liberals.

Nowhere does this cultural and moral equivalence or relativism threaten us more than in Liberalism’s abject refusal to accept that other cultures may not just be less advanced that those in the First World but violently inimical to us. Attempts by Liberals to artificially equalize quality of life are routinely converted into a most abject sort of farce by the objects of their attention. Cosseted immigrants burn down modern homes by starting their cooking fires on hardwood floors. In total contravention of health and sanitation codes, animals are raised and slaughtered in back yards. The list is as endless as it is varied in its incompatibility with modern civilization.

In vogue among Liberals is a conviction that the primitive is most authentic and what is natural is most genuine. The atonal blaring of crude aboriginal instruments is seen as more “realistic” than the harmonious counterpoint of an orchestral symphony orchestra. The daubing of an illiterate nomad draws greater notice than the subtly evocative work of talented oil painters. Buried deep within the mediocracy of Liberal minds and their Socialist-type governments is a virulent hatred of their most dreaded enemy, the genius.

All races are equal, but white people are especially bad. In order to promote equality, we must treat people unequally, with straight white men receiving the worst treatment of all.

A brief examination of which gender and race dominates the Nobel Prize lists makes clear the reason for this. Simple statistics gathered between 1901 and 2009 indicate that White males have won over 90% of all Nobel Prizes. It is largely these same White men who are responsible for building modern Western civilization and creating many of its most enduring engineering or artistic legacies. Those who wish to deconstruct Western civilization must begin with its prime mover, the Pale Male™.

Zenster said...

PC MC continues to enjoy widespread societal approval, provided that its premises are never closely examined.

Who might be more disposed to closely scrutinize, not to mention find dire fault with, the rampant cognitive dissonance known as PCMC than its primary prey, White males? As a fountainhead of genius, they are at once an object of venomous hatred and endless resentment amongst the less accomplished or congenitally incompetent. What better way to erode their position of leadership than under the auspices of equal opportunity?

What people could be less disposed to engage in autoscopic thought or personal introspection than those raised without the benefit of such vital intellectual tools as critical analysis and deductive reasoning? Even as those priceless thought processes are being de-emphasized in the West so are we seeing the importation of untold millions of technologically illiterate Third World barbarians who have been specifically instructed against employing independent thought or self-determination of any sort, literally, under pain of death.

These are the new breed of Vandal and Huns being unleashed upon us by the looting warlords of Islam with the full consent and approval of Western deconstructionists.

This allows the vast majority of well-meaning Westerners, whose moral compasses are otherwise sound, to embrace such an irrational and destructive intellectual construct.

Here is where this entire meme begins to take on water. There is a leak in the ship of Western state. After generations of being captained by uninspired leaders, the armada of modern civilization is in danger of being sunk ― not just by the torpedoes of Communist subversives but ― by the ballast of its very own accumulated treasures. Modern medicine and industrial scale agriculture have made possible the continued existence of countless millions who would never have been able to survive life in the pre-industrial age, much less in a wilderness environment. These unproductive millions of tax consumers are barnacles clinging to Western economic vessels that threaten to sink them as they drag them to a stop and rot their hulls.

Lack of intelligence no longer carries the harsh penalties it once did. In a similar manner ― through corrosion of society’s collective moral fiber ―lack of character enjoys an immunity to public censure or approbation unlike at any other time in history. While these two retrograde forces have only been accelerated by the PCMC mindset, they may have already in play before its arrival on our shores.

In some small part, renegade altruism helped to encourage these negative characteristics. They were also exacerbated by the atomization of kith and kin through a much earlier Westward expansion along with increasing mobility of later automotive transport and, finally, urban anonymity that derives from the eventual need for privacy in densely crowded cities.

Lack of moral fiber and character combined in a one-two punch that saw ― not just education itself falter but ― the overall value and esteem in which knowledge or learning was held eventually become degraded as well. This was a primary malfunction of the West’s moral compass and it was all the more difficult to detect because a growing number of people could not even read that directional instrument in the first place. It was already happening, to one extent or another, before the infection of Western academic elite levered this small avalanche into a full-tilt downhill slide.

[to be continued]

Nick said...

The previous posters are definitely on to something when they talk about lack of character nowadays. At one time in the UK it was an easy matter to find someone to do a job for you. When I worked as a marine engineer, skippers would ask specifically for me and my apprentice to work on their boats, because they knew that a) the job would be done before they went back to sea, no matter what it took, and b) they wouldn't have to get it re-done at a later date, because it would be done right the first time.

Today finding a tradesman to do the simplest of jobs properly and on time is almost impossible. (Thank you Maggie Thatcher for dreaming up YTS schemes!)

There is a general feeling throughout the UK that standards don't matter. You don't have to actually do any work. Turning up is enough.

cont ...

Nick said...

This is not a failing of the working class - as in, look at all those lazy people who won't want to work. Although that is obviously true to a large extent.

No, the problem runs very deep. Walk into an office anywhere in the UK and ask management to do their job and you will be sorely disappointed. Throughout British society today, supposedly educated people in positions of responsibility just aren't interested in doing a days's work. This is especially true in state sponsored entities.

It's all too easy for people within government bodies to 'pass the buck' and avoid making decisions, managing projects properly, fulfilling legal obligations, etc.


Nick said...

There are people throughout Britain today who are not interested in the truth, who cannot or will not think rationally, who have no sense of right and wrong, and who have absolutely no work ethic whatsoever.

And these people are rewarded for their lack of morality, their utter incompetence, and their willingness to go to any lengths - any lengths - to avoid doing anything meaningful. And by that I don't just mean a refusal to carry out work, but a blanket refusal to even discuss anything in a meaningful way in the first place. Not only is meaningful work an absolute no-no to these people - discussing what needs to be done in a proper, logical, goal-oriented manner is absolutely not on! They just won't have it!

cont ...

Nick said...

And people of this sort are rewarded. I've seen people who I would use the term 'evil' to describe, and that's not a word I use lightly, actually being given awards within the organisation they 'work' for. I've seen people employed by the government at a high management level being given other projects and departments to 'run' because of their 'experience' elsewhere. The higher up the ladder you go, the more people of this sort you will find in Britain today.

How then, can 'PC-MC' be discussed in a meaningful way in today's UK? Who's going to do it? Who's going to listen? Who's even capable of understanding what's said?

What exactly are we fighting to defend here? Something that's already gone?

Anonymous said...

Part of it is due to socialism, not formal leftist socialism, but the cultural socialism also known as noblesse oblige. People who have a little extra of anything: brains, money, food or whatever, are supposed to share or else they're selfish.

It's extortion, but it's so pervasive, people aren't aware of it. People on the right have this cultural value as much as people on the left, or centrists.

It starts from the cradle. Children who have toys have to let others play with them, or adults tell them to (or they're selfish). Gifted children are often drafted to tutor the less gifted for free. (Or people will think they're snobs or have a bad attitude.)

By the time people are adults, they're fully socialized and don't even need to be shamed into voting for immigration, foreign aid, "affordable housing" projects in middle-class neighborhoods, etc. It's not so much a political problem as a cultural problem. Ordinary good manners have turned cancerous.

I think this is part of the reason that the bullying video has caught on. Even the most polite and socialized people have this core of resentment against all the things they're obligated to do. When someone violates the code, people have a moment of clarity.

Professor L said...

If I might start by observing that the greatest problem we are facing is a lack of thought on the part of people. Whereas once the ability to recite mounds of data was viewed as far less useful than lateral thinking, the rise of the pre-prepared essay for exams (memorised points, quotes, etc, anticipating the question) and other such techniques means that lateral thinking is far less important. All that matters is the mark, not one's ability to think.

So, as an attempt to rectify this solution I propose that we simply ask two questions. And don't take any answer. The object here is to make them think. The questions are:

Who are you?

What do you want?

You can find plenty more on Youtube (JMS seemed quite fond of these in Babylon 5. For those interested, there are called "Armour piercing questions").

Now, I would also suggest that many here have taken a load at Christianity for its altruistic elements. And they are right to - when divorced from wisdom, misplaced altruism can be the ruin of both the object of the charity, and the origin of it.

But Jesus also said that the workers should not be denied their wages (He was speaking in parable, with the workers working the field for God's harvest). We ask God to give us our daily bread in the Our Father.

And ultimately, our sins are forgiven us through Jesus' death and resurrection. It's powerful to realise that Jesus died in our place (for the price God demands for our atonement is blood. Pure blood, untouched by sin. Hence the elaborate plan with Jesus).

As the bishop of my diocese wrote in the Lectio Divina for Lent, "without forgiveness, societies lack the energy and freedom to heal, restore and grow in peace and plenty." He's right, and this is fundamental to our present crisis. Christianity has become associated with the West, and thus with the sins of the West (e.g. the Holocaust). We've forgotten that we can be forgiven, and leave the past behind us.

And the greatest of good deeds is not giving to charity - it is obedience to God. Again, in the Our Father, we say Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Personally, I also reckon that's the prerequisite for Man's return to Eden, but that's delving into an unrelated topic.

Finally, if I can say that much of the appearance of a conspiracy regarding the present popular paradigm of PC MC thought can be explained away by the term synchronicity - the meeting of desire with opportunity. The West's crisis of confidence has left it vulnerable to Islamisation, which the Muslims are taking advantage of, copying each other in a Stand Alone Complex (a set of copies with no original). There is no great leader leading the charge in, just a bunch of Muslims saying the same thing. On a smaller scale, it's also why the PC MC paradigm has become so widespread - the opportunity was afforded to those with the desire to affect the change.

Hesperado said...

"...the West, and thus with the sins of the West (e.g. the Holocaust). We've forgotten that we can be forgiven, and leave the past behind us."

The West doesn't need forgiveness for the Holocaust, because the West fought, and spent blood, sweat and tears opposing the perpetrators of the Holocaust. To speak of a need for "forgiveness" in that regard is bizarre and grotesquely perverted.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

Concerning your misgivings about the comment of LAW Wells, why the heavy-handed denouncing, as if you didn't know what he meant to say?

And what are you saying, by the way? That one shouldn't regard the German perpetrators of the Holocaust as also being part of the West? The extended family of Socialism, that German National Socialism was a part of, not the result of an invention of Western political philosophy? Surely you don't mean to turn a blind eye to the Western roots of Socialism?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sol Ta Triane said...

My answers to Hesperado's response to my criticism were eaten by Blogger, so I try again.

I suppose I should first say that all of the inferences that Hesperado assigned to me and my statements, three in number, are entirely false.


In one brief response you were able to mischaracterize both me and my statements, not once, but in three different ways. Quite simply, you are an obsfucator through intentional mischaracterization.

This style of attact seems like that employed by those of the PC MC pursuation? Look in the mirror Mr. Hesperado.

It's not really necessary to smear people, Hesp. I agree with many if not most of your points. If I see you do this again I will call you out again. Your statement to LA Wells, above is also quite ham-fisted.

In general, when I read your writing I invariably think of the Indian parable of the "The Blind Men and the Elephant." You are one of the blind men.

Zenster said...

You New: Selfishness is the cause.

There is nothing wrong with the self. It is the platform upon which consciousness and personality are built, Ergo, selfishness cannot be the real problem. You are conflating selfishness with a far more serious character defect more typically described as “greed”.

The same goes for “self-centered”. There is nothing inherently wrong with being self-centered. Again, you are the center of your universe and there is nothing wrong with using it as the focal point for your frame of reference. The bashing of self is the same antagonism that is currently being shown towards ego.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with having a healthy ego. In fact, much of the societal malaise we see arises from people having very unhealthy egos. In the same manner, being egotistical is not a problem either. We must all base our judgment upon perceptions that are made using our internal framework of which the ego is a part.

My own term for this problem ― and it is one I hope others will consider adopting ― self-absorption

Far too many people are simply incapable of thinking beyond their own skin and make all decisions based almost exclusively upon their own betterment, even to the detriment of others. The entire “greed is good” mentality epitomizes this exceptionally toxic mindset.

Self, selfishness, self-centeredness, ego, egotism, being egotistical are all good by comparison to being self-absorbed.

Sol Ta Triane said...


Thanks for the critique of my statement and all your contributions for that matter. You are right, I shouldn't have used the word "greed." What I mean is the gestalt of all human ignorance, I merely chose the word "greed" so I wouldn't sound vague. But in retrospect a bad choice since greed is only a part of it.

Buddhists like me believe that there are hundreds of forms of human afflictions, negative ways of being, and diseases. They all come from what the old teachers called the "five poisons," uncontrolled passion, jealosy, greed, pride and stupidity"

In turn, all these five are nothing but the outgrowth of ignorance! Just ignorance, but a profound definition of it must be understood. Ignorance is defined as based in grasping pessimism and idealism (nihilism and eternalism), which is is an equivalent to self-grasping/aversion.

Occam's Razor is even excess fat and has to go. The essential spiritual teachings are the ultimate neo-gnosticism killer.

If somehow PC MC was 100% erradicated overnight, it would be reinvented by opportunists, in a new form, in no time!

Of course not in the form of Nazism, not Communism, not current PCMC, ....maybe a millitary with pink helmets and pantaloons? Wait, I think they already do that.

Evil is semi-intelligent and so it morphs endlessly to stay in power. One minute PC MC is anti-war, the next it must do "humanitarian intervention."

This moving target is incoherent and immpossible to stop. Don't cut the weed off, pull it out by the root.

I'm interested in ending the problem once and for all, so that means I'm going for the jugular.

In the mean time, I fully support those who attack problems in less holistic, yet effective ways.

But if we don't nurture and stray from the enjoyment of our nature, which is non-conceptual wisdom/God, we will become what we abhor.

Sol Ta Triane said...

"There is nothing wrong with the self. "

Hi Zenster. I agree 100 per cent!

Please read what I just wrote to Sagunto about "greed". "Selfishness also applies that way too and I didn't explain myself very well.

"It is the platform upon which consciousness and personality are built, Ergo, selfishness cannot be the real problem."

I'm a Zen Buddhist Zenster.
We don't buy that stuff. We work in a laboratory every day studying this self you mention and none of us have found it yet. Self is a concept, a very complex one connected to problems for most people, but for buddhas it's a very flexible thang. Thinking things is not negative in Buddhism. We just shouldn't think that dreams are ultimately real.

"You are conflating selfishness with a far more serious character defect more typically described as “greed”.

Thanks for pointing that out. You are right and I am very well aware of that. I only meant negative form of selfishness, excessive selfishness, for example, hoarding. That would answer you point about self-centered too. Same applies.

The discussion of the word "ego" is very complicated so I won't comment here on that, but I get you point but I think I could suggest some new ideas on that.

"My own term for this problem ― and it is one I hope others will consider adopting ― self-absorption"

Excellent word! Self-absorbtion!
See, Zenster, now you are saying that "self" CAN get you into a heap o' trouble! Maybe you are a Zenster after all.

Thanks for your comment and I look forward to possibly discussing this more with you in the future and believe that good things can come out of it.

Michael Servetus said...

Evil is semi-intelligent and so it morphs endlessly to stay in power. One minute PC MC is anti-war, the next it must do "humanitarian intervention." This moving target is incoherent and immpossible to stop. Don't cut the weed off, pull it out by the root.--You New

Ah the many faces of evil. Different packaging one underlying spirit and human nature. Of course we should expect to see such strategery even if only subconsciously, just like there is only one human body but many modes and style of dressing. So there is a limit to variability and nothing new under the sun when it comes to human activity. If this is so can we think of another name, synonymous action and goal for PC for then according to such a spiritualising account it would be more likely than not, that this is a repeat of history.

Michael Servetus said...

For even Satan himself comes disguised as an angel of light and servant of righteousness. Whether you believe Scripture tells the truth or not, it here delivers a very interesting way of thinking of things. It doesn't readily accept things at face value but attributes much to hidden realities. That being the case Christians such as myself often see things as malevolently misguided and PC as something like evil with a Smiley face on it not some innocent forage into the wilderness of uncharted morality but as a consequence of throwing off the yoke of the Son of God. I wasn't planning on going there but I thought I'd just throw it out as chowder for thought.

Zenster said...

You New: I agree 100 per cent!

You are right and I am very well aware of that. I only meant negative form of selfishness, excessive selfishness, for example, hoarding. That would answer you point about self-centered too. Same applies.

Agreed. Yet, it still remains that only when it is in excess (or out of balance) ― as with any good thing, even oxygen or water ― that an aspect of the self can become negative.

Excellent word! Self-absorption!

I'm very glad you concur. The popularity of this one single malaise also goes to the root of why PCMC is on the rise. People want external circumstances to conform with their own personal map of reality. Too often, reality has nothing to do with the internal frame of reference that many individuals have. This is why I continue to bang on the drum of Magical Thinking™.

This Liberal modus operandi is responsible for a huge amount of modern travails. It is also capable of posing tremendous resistance to the previously accepted norm of empirical thinking and critical analysis. If anything Magical Thinking™ is the escape hatch whereby Leftists manage to subconsciously avoid the otherwise disturbing self-revelations that such rigorous introspection might reveal.

Zenster said...

Speaking of Magical Thinking™:

Egghead: The Method to O's Madness

Examine the language being used to describe Obama’s motivations:

If you understand Obama's thinking, it all makes sense. He obviously believes it is in our interests to act in ways that don't fit the conventional definition of national self-interest. In his worldview, our conventional self-interest is selfish and imperialistic. For too long, America has looked out for its own interests and has exploited the world, its people and its resources. With these unrelenting overtures denying our self-interest, Obama hopes to show the world that the new America – Obama's America – is different and moral.

In the meantime, we may very well be propping up coalitions of jihadists in both Egypt and Libya and who knows where else, but that's OK because Obama and his fellow liberals have "good intentions."

Now, compare the previous analysis with that of Magical Thinking™. The similarities are more than striking. In fact, author Kelly O'Connell goes on to note how:

The unrealistic thought pattern of Magical Thinking now informs American public policy and statecraft at every level—on economics, foreign relations, rule of law, environmentalism, etc. It is a world-view based upon the notion the “right” people will provide successful leadership for America, simply because they are “good,” and not the old “bad” leaders. Most intriguingly, this outlook is characteristic of not just children, but also sufferers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which Dr. Ali Sinan believes is a diagnosis fitting Barack Obama. [emphasis added]

Sagunto said...

You New -

You Buddhist, me "hardcore scientific reductionist (HSR) due to professional deformation". This is how I am often described by friends to complete strangers ;-)
This way of introducing corresponds with my conviction that - besides an "I" - in social situations one often is a "You", which might be more important as a cognitive intermediate translating incentives for human action that the "I", if you know what I mean ;-)

You're a good sport, taking my critique the way you do, and yes, I see what you mean when you speak of evil. May I add to that the observation that the "need to do good", felt by many throughout human history, resulting in hubristic attempts at the betterment of the human condition, has lead to as many or maybe even more nefarious consequences than the vices in all of their many guises.

This might be a proper moment to bring one of my favourite quotes to bear on the subject. Many will undoubtedly know this evergreen by now, but nevertheless here goes.. Chesterton:

"I could not express myself more exactly than by saying that he [G.B. Shaw, the socialist] has a heroically large and generous heart; but not a heart in the right place. [..] And this is so of the typical society of our time.

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful..."

From Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" (1908), Ch.3: The Suicide of Thought

The above quote can also serve as a road sign, pointing in a direction that I think might be worth travelling when we examine whether PC MC itself has been an inherent feature of the largest part of the Western populace, or if there might be building blocks, however scattered, that if properly examined reveal themselves as sentiments and views that resemble doctrinary PC MC, as it appears in politicians and true doctrinaires, but are yet - in spite of close appearances - something different altogether, like there's a difference between ideas represented by the "nature" of the common man, and those pushed forward by progressive activists under the banner of "environment".

I would therefore tacitly submit, that the PC MC of the average established politician in Europe and the US, is different from the widespread "PC MC" that Hesperado discerns among common folk in the West.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Zenster said...

You New: Thanks for your comment and I look forward to possibly discussing this more with you in the future and believe that good things can come out of it.

It would be remiss of me to have let such an optimistic and encouraging statement pass unnoticed. Please be sure that I look forward to more exchanges as well. Thank you, too.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: (per Chesterson) But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful..."

Sagunto, you have posted this Chesterson quotation before and it continues to resonate with much of my own message.

I do not seek to damn Christianity so much as the way some of its doctrines have become unmoored from their original context and are now running thoroughly amok in modern society.

I would therefore tacitly submit, that the PC MC of the average established politician in Europe and the US, is different from the widespread "PC MC" that Hesperado discerns among common folk in the West.

When time permits, please elaborate on this a bit more. I think there are some important differences that might help to isolate these two strains of PCMC. Most likely, they require slightly ― if not dramatically ― different inoculations and clearly identifying them would vastly improve any chances of success on both fronts.

At some future time I would like to share with you my own views on what Chesterson refers to as science's 'pitiless truth'. My theory of "Hot Logic" is meant to debunk the entire, and frequently wrong, myth of supposedly "cold scientific fact".

Sagunto said...

Zenster -

I have often pointed to the dangers of some forms of "cultural" Christianity (mostly of the calvinist variety) that run the risk of becoming willing vehicles for Progressivism, as was demonstrably the case with for instance the whole phenomenon of the "Social Gospel" movement in the US at the time of that evil do-gooder and arch Progressive interventionist, Woodrow Wilson.

What I suggest, is that residual Christian sentiments - not necessarily held by Christians themselves - of isolated and many times wild and deranged altruism stand to doctrinal PC MC, as common conceptions about "nature" among Westerners (peace and quiet, birds singing.. little cabin in a remote quasi-heavenly place, surrounded by lush vegetation and towering trees) stand to politically polarized ideas about "environment".

Activists tend to exploit the naturally occurring sentiments and convictions among the general public to sell their similar sounding, but synthetic concepts, meant to promote a sense of "progress" (an artificial label, where "growth" is the more natural sounding version).

Let me add to Chesterton's vision of pitiless truth of science, that it was with a clear eye on the main "science" of his days, which was the eugenics and the concomitant progressive idea of "the Superman" (Übermensch) that was promoted by all kinds of socialists including Hitler, who came a bit late to the stage of genocidal socialism. Chesterton debated Shaw, mentioned in the quote, fiercely in public about this "science" and "progress", but always in good spirits. A true warrior and gentlemen he was.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sol Ta Triane said...

"You Buddhist, me "hardcore scientific reductionist (HSR) due to professional deformation"."

I let out the weirdest series of snorts upon reading that. Fortunately only the wife heard me, and she already knows I'm crazy.

"the "need to do good", felt by many throughout human history, resulting in hubristic attempts at the betterment of the human condition, has lead to as many or maybe even more nefarious consequences than the vices in all of their many guises."

On that we agree excepting that I do believe the motivations for "the need to do good" are largely not good motivations at all. If the good isn't really good, we need to say what it is, Sag.

There is such a thing as the real thing. Kindness, compassion etc? Neo-gnosticism creates a fake version of science, religion and of kindness. But the real one is still there. Buried somewhere underneath.

Still reading your post.

Sagunto said...

You New -

While you're reading, I tend to agree. We should never stop digging for the truth and the real.

To quote some familiar Westerner:

"Ut testimonium perhibeam veritati"


Sol Ta Triane said...


You seem to believe that the motivations that look positive are positively motivated.

Let me check. My bullshite meter says that it's 75% faked compassion. Most of the rest are kids.

If things look "good" but are actually motivated in mere self glorification, absorption and justification of neo-gnostic intelligence, then they ain't really good in the first place, are they?

As I said before, it's of great importance that they create a bubble in their sense of compassion and intelligence FOR THEMSELVES and THEIR OWN SENSE OF JUSTIFICATION and MEANING. This negative-egotism is evil pretending to be good.

The Chesterson quote:

"I could not express myself more exactly than by saying that he [G.B. Shaw, the socialist] has a heroically large and generous heart; but not a heart in the right place. [..] And this is so of the typical society of our time."

This type of insight is the day to day work of zen Buddhism, that is noticing bullshite and letting it go. I think it's important to simplify what Chesterson is, I believe, trying to say but can't quite:

G.B. Shaw seems compassionate, but he's not.

We need that kind of clarity

PC MC seems compassionate but it's not.

Communism seems compassionate but it's not.


The Tibetans have a term for "fake compassion." If they have one, why shouldn't we? I would like to propose one for us:

Fake compassion. (rim shot)

Sagunto said...

You New -

No, your interpretation is precisely what Chesterton is not saying. If he had said, that much of what presents itself as good is in fact evil, I wouldn't have bothered to use the citation.

My goal here, as I have stated in my first post, is to critically examine Hesperado's PC MC thesis, and I think, but that's for Hesperado to answer, that Chesterton is hinting at the core of the thesis under scrutiny, being Hesperado's assertion that these PC MC convictions and intentions are basically considered and felt to be good, genuinely and heartfelt good.

The main bone of contention here would be his claim that politicians, activists and what have you display a PC MC that is in correspondence with, and therefore not opposed by large segments among the general public.
I beg to differ.

Kind regs from Amsterdam (where it is past bedtime, so goodnight from the city of Van Gogh, Theo that is..),


Sol Ta Triane said...


Once again, thanks for the correction regaring Chesterton. Sorry, I hope I didn't confuse the point.

I think your Chesterton quotes might help hash out some new ideas. Thanks.

"Ut testimonium perhibeam veritati"

Michael Servetus said...

Sagunto said "I would therefore tacitly submit, that the PC MC of the average established politician in Europe and the US, is different from the widespread "PC MC" that Hesperado discerns among common folk in the West."

I agree. I think Hesperado is correct to highlight the pervasiveness of what appears to be PC and does differentiate between types and various expressions of it but I still think there is something symbiotic between leftist politics and hyper PC. Conservativism obviously does not share that same link. Something is missing in PC and liberal leftist and that would serve as a bridle and

Now let me add this as a possible clue to the difference between the PC strains. Remember that leftist politics and morality are according to classical notions not virtues, they are the negation of traditional mores. In short along the same vein as You New,it stands up to reason to think that PC ism is moral corruption masquerading itself as morality when we know or at least once knew and forgot it is empty nihilism and destruction masking.its own corruption by going through the motions.

Hesperado said...

You New,

"all of the inferences that Hesperado assigned to me and my statements, three in number, are entirely false.


In one brief response you were able to mischaracterize both me and my statements, not once, but in three different ways."

It would help if you would actually list those three ways I supposedly mischaracterized you, and then briefly showed why they are mischaracterizations.

Sol Ta Triane said...

I thought that, if this one element of the form of neo-gnosticism that we are calling PC MC, could be noticed, it might clear up the picture a little:

That would be: defining aggressive and passive versions of PC MC.

A. Aggressive

B Passive
PC MC FOLLOWERS (majority)

These two groups have varying characteristics.

The PC MC LEADERS enjoy figuring out how to control others with techniques, schemes, and try to shame. (Shame, shame, shame!)

The second group, the FOLLOWERS, responders, imitators of the leaders, heavily prone to group pressure, wimped out churches, business-backed infiltration, unions and pop culture AND of course respond with MC pride to the PC MC message of the day as presented by the PC MC LEADERS.

What ch'all think? If somebody already did this, sorry in advance.

Hesperado said...


On LAW Wells's post and my response: when for example a gang of black teenagers lures a 11-year-old girl into a rest room and gang-rapes her (as happened recently in southern California), is the surrounding white society in which those black teenagers where raised supposed to need forgiveness? Or is the blame for that evil solely on the shoulders of those black teenagers (and their black subculture)?

Then, suppose further that those black teenagers made a habit of preying on little girls and had done this numerous times; and then members of the surrounding white society formed an alliance and beat the crap out of those black teenagers and made them stop forever.

It would then be even worse to invoke a "need for forgiveness" on the part of the surrounding white society for the evil of those black teenagers which was stopped by members of that surrounding society -- indeed, sucn an invocation would be bizarre, and grotesquely perverted.

Zenster said...

LAW Wells: If I might start by observing that the greatest problem we are facing is a lack of thought on the part of people.

This is why I pointed out how modern education no longer inculcates students with any reflex to engage in critical analysis or independent thought. It is yet one more demonic convergence between the Left ― in this case, its academic cadre ― and Islam, which has its own tradition of rote memorization and taqlid (“blind obedience” or “imitation”).

Similarly, lack of autoscopic thought or introspective self-examination makes it all the more possible for Western Liberals to hold entirely conflicting views without any sense of cognitive dissonance. Much of Liberal dogma cannot withstand even mild scrutiny and the Left’s handmaidens of Media and Hollywood literally cultivate the soundbite mentality that is suited to those with the attention span of a fruit fly.

Modern technology is only exacerbating this abbreviated mental cycle time with moron applications like Twitter. Over-reliance upon Google and other features of the Internet may also be impeding our ability to perform rapid complex deductive functions as well.

Now, I would also suggest that many here have taken a load at Christianity for its altruistic elements. And they are right to - when divorced from wisdom, misplaced altruism can be the ruin of both the object of the charity, and the origin of it.

Please take notice of how I argue against altruism in its currently distorted form. While passing through its theocratic phase, the Christian Church put in place several “people control” or “organizationally sustaining” portions of dogma which have gone on to do a lot of harm.

Making kindness to oneself some sort of sin is an example. The whole “judge not lest ye be judged” is another millstone around society’s neck. People make hundreds of judgments every day that their lives often depend upon. It is prejudging people that can more easily be a sin.

I continue to have a major problem with the entire doctrine of Original Sin but will leave any dispute of that to another time.

Michael Servetus said...

I think what Law Wells was saying is that the West through the confused thinking of some,has been led to self abnegation, self condemnation, guilt and self flagellation, not rightly but by misleaders who have somehow seared their moral consciences. Wells is just pointing out that we or they all of is need to get over that or help others to do so and one mechanism which readily presents itself as offering the forgiveness of sins without condemnation is the Gospel of Jesus Christ andwithout it men are stuck trying to atone for their own sins through destructive suicidal paths. That's what I understood by it.
This worldly, mental, socio-political confusion reigning supremely in the left and to a lesser extent on the so-called right is, I boldly submit to you, indicative of moral confusion, as I believe the foundation of learning is morality and judgement not money or professional educators and a good education is first of all a godly Christian or moral one. This needed to be established before science and was I think in many ways the first love of man as a moral social being. The left happens to be filled with people who rebel against these notions and the idea of a right and wrong way but then, as You New forcefully brought out, they immediately proceed to judge others and have this strange new construct of a morality which is really a subconscious strategy to protect immorality. That is what PC does it protects, if you think about it,, it doesn't allow judgment, which is its enemy and the beginning of morality. PC is the rule of amorality which explains why it lets so many strange things through. By protecting the immorality of others it thinks to protect its own and so it refuses to judge between things like Islam until it is absolutely forced to and finds a way to do so in its own best interest which is to protect its own.

Professor L said...

Hesperado - I'm surprised you misread my statement. The Holocaust was but one example of a civilisational sin of the West. Others include the internment of Japanese and German Americans in WWI and II, the Colonial Age, and even Western supremacy itself that enabled all of this.

Basically, I refer to the so-called sins that You New's Aggressive PC MC leaders use to shame the rest of us into following along with whatever scheme they have up now. Whenever someone says "Never again", they're invoking the memory of a "sin" that is still raw. Our society has stopped being as Christian as it once was, but the importance of sin (Zenster - Original Sin is washed away in baptism, FYI) remains in our subconcious, because Christianity is such a core part of our culture.

A society capable of critical thought and knowing that there is forgiveness available, as Michael Servetus said, is one that will find itself far less influenced by such coaxing.

Zenster said...

LAW Wells: The Holocaust was but one example of a civilisational sin of the West. Others include the internment of Japanese and German Americans in WWI and II, the Colonial Age, and even Western supremacy itself that enabled all of this. [emphasis added]

The West's supremacy supposedly being a "civilisational sin" is something that I find to be outrageously funny because the ability of these monumental whiners to protest just about anything at all wouldn't even be an option if the "sinful" West hadn't set about securing and defending that specific human right by voluntarily suffering millions of wartime casualties.

The words "pissy little ingrates" spring to mind.

Original Sin is washed away in baptism…

Not that I don't appreciate your clarification but a lot of good that does us Agnostics. Sounds like some sort of exclusive theistic country club to me.

Hesperado said...

LAW Wells,

It's all well and good to have a heart open to the need for forgiveness, and to the grace that gives it. However, it is reckless and pointless folly to open one's heart in relation to things that need no forgiveness -- such as every one of the things you listed. They were good things, not bad things.

Hesperado said...

LAW Wells,

Sorry, I hit the "Publish" button too quickly. Obviously, I don't think everything on your list was a good thing. Let's clarify:

"The Holocaust was but one example of a civilisational sin of the West."

The Holocaust = bad thing, for which the West has no blame, since the West fought and stopped it.

"...the internment of Japanese and German Americans in WWI and II..."

Internment -- a good thing.

"...the Colonial Age..."

Western Colonialism -- a good thing.

"...and even Western supremacy itself that enabled all of this."

Western "supremacy" (i.e., its unremarkably reasonable self-understanding as obviously superior to all other cultures) -- a good thing.

Michael Servetus said...

Here are some excerpts from the article that Escape Velocity left a link to over at Pajamas Media, providing helpful historical analysis and academic overview.
From "The Origin of Postmodernitis"

What we now call postmodernism is essentially an anthropological concept, harking back to one of the greatest thinkers and practitioners in the field. It owes its origin to Franz Boas, who developed and established the concept of cultural relativity as an ethnographic tool to aid in the unprejudiced survey of exotic tribes and cultures. In The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas wrote that all cultures should be regarded with sympathy, that we should hold the conviction that all “races” —today we would say “ethnicities” —have “contributed to cultural progress in one way or another” and that they are equally capable of “advancing the interests of mankind.” No particular culture should be considered as better or superior to any other since all cultures participate, each in its own way, in the human adventure.
Similarly, in such tomes as The Savage Mind and Tristes Tropiques, the structural anthropologist Claude Lévy-Strauss argued that the savage mind and the civilized mind exemplified the same set of basic structural features for parsing the universe, though differing in content, beliefs, usages, and empirical knowledge. Disparity is predicated on semblance. Because of this morphological unity —“Each is doing the same thing as the other,” as he writes of Buddhism and Marxism in Tristes Tropiques —the Western intellect was in no position to “talk down” to primitive man or members of other, presumably less “advanced” cultures. The diversity of cultures that stipple the planet are, as cultures, equally advanced, just as the myriad languages that proliferate around the globe are commensurate artifacts of communication fulfilling their several purposes —an idea put forward by Edward Sapir, who was trained by Boas, in his Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech.

Continued below

Michael Servetus said...

While acknowledging the fundamental identity of mental processes, these thinkers concurred in denying or doubting the universality of Western norms and principles, a caustic suspicion which has gradually but decisively penetrated into the zeitgeist of the West, culminating in the amorphous yet potent cultural amalgam of postmodernism. As Margaret Rose points out in her The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial, postmodernism (affectionately dubbed PoMo by its proponents), comes in a range of flavors —reactionary postmodernism, consumer postmodernism, architectural pastiche, literary parody, etc. I would suggest, however, that among its many avatars, it is distinguished by two constitutive ideas.

1. There is no such thing as a master narrative, only local explanatory chronicles whose reach is confined to the groups that hold them. This notion is associated with the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard who, in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, writes: “I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.” Rather than the implicit, all-encompassing back-narrative by which a civilization or a people tries to understand itself and others as part of a historical dynamic, there are only “many different language games” —an idea Lyotard derives from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations —that “give rise to institutions in patches,” in other words, to a “local determinism.”

One can readily see where such thoughts and prescriptions are leading us. There is no “world” as such, merely regionalisms; no superlatives, only comparatives to be assessed non-judgmentally; no history, only a flux of explanatory fables. “What remains,” writes medievalist Paul Zumthor, somewhat ruefully, in Speaking of the Middle Ages, “is our myths as we recite them [and] our need for the imaginary rather than the intelligible.” Psychologist Kenneth Gergen in The Saturated Self goes even further, defining the postmodern sensibility as “the loss of identifiable essence…the erosion of authority [and] the growing disregard for rational coherence.” The emphasis falls on the fragmented, the eclectic, the centrifugal, the play of reference and citation rather than on totalizing projects and models of continuity intended to unify and control the boundaries of “conceptual space,” whether theoretically or politically.

Michael Servetus said...

Here are some more great excerpts from the excellent "Origins of. Postmodernitis" over at PJ media. They really do capture the essence of what we are all talking about. After reading it I am more open to the idea that PC ism and MC mandate are logical steps and more natural outgrowths of Western Civilization as I think Hesperado puts forth yet I still don't think they are entirely explicable as such. There has to be something that makes some more prone to it and others less so. I. tend to believe that in our case that something is religion which those who are full blown PCers lack and notably reject, I do not count liberal churches as real believers or faithful. While conservative Christians and traditionalist are obviously less prone or open to such, perhaps it can be said because they are already filled not empty vacuum s and voids. Because I think we have to admit PC ism has a certain appeal, logic and maybe even theoretical semblance to truth and it is only resisted on the basis of emotional visceral and instinctive loyalty for its own sake. A sense of honor loyalty plays a large role I believe in resisting PC. Whereas it would seem the PC crowd feels no such loyalty. On not saying it is just blind loyalty for no reason other than bias but loyalty based on comparison as well. Anyway here are the excerpts.

Continued below

Michael Servetus said...

Cont. from above , we are all brothers and sisters who should live in amity with one another by not interfering in the practices that have been adopted under unique and intransitive circumstances. The fact that our brothers and sisters may have other ideas about concord, tolerance and mutual understanding, about master narratives and truth claims, does not impact the postmodern sensibility in the slightest. It’s all good. It is evident what this means for the once-cherished and increasingly threatened values that are intrinsic to the Judeo-Christian armature of Western civilization. The idea of universal rights and common ethical principles has gone by the board; they are re-interpreted as merely demotic convictions of no ecumenical merit whatsoever. What we call “freedom” (of conscience, of speech, of assembly, of religion) has no plenary application. The same goes for gender equality, the rule of law, habeas corpus, or traditional matrimony as pertaining to one man and one woman, which are portrayed as sub-cultural attitudes or culture-specific assumptions that do not apply to all human beings.

It is this relativistic sentiment that informed President Obama’s Cairo speech. Alluding to the muddy concept of the “will of the people,” Obama deposed that “Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.” Barack Obama is America’s first postmodern president. There is nothing permanent about our culture, lectures philosopher Richard Rorty in his major work, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity; instead it is subject to constant re-invention, the critique of old stabilities, the striving for fresh tropes and the disenchantment of the past. We should try “to get to the point,” he urges, “where we no longer worship anything…where we treat everything—our language, our conscience, our community—as a product of time and chance.” This is the philosophical re-statement of Milan Kundera’s best-selling novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, which depicts a condition of transience and uncertainty we must learn to bear bravely and with spirited exuberance. Everything is in play..

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

In one of the other threads, about one month ago, I presented you with some problems regarding claims derived from your PC MC thesis, the main star of this topic.

I think this might be a good place and time to repeat these challenges in their entirety, but first let me start with what you cared to answer in that particular thread:


I've been having computer problems in the last 24 hours, so I will only post this for now: [..]"

And then no specific answer.

So here are my observations once again:

I'll rephrase your message as follows:
"political PC MC is and has been willingly supported by the electorate of Holland, because the Dutch have voted for political parties spreading PC MC."

Problem 1)
All parties in the Netherlands promoted some form of multiculturalism from at least the mid-seventies onwards. So what was the initial choice? (the Dutch didn't vote on MC issues anyway in that period, but that's not the point).

Problem 2)
You have not provided proof that they voted for those parties because of multicultural issues. Existing proof points to two factors, still very influential today. Firstly, people voted predominantly along "traditional" lines. This is something quite different from US practise. People voted for a catholic, a protestant, a liberal, a "classical liberal", a communist, a social democrat, and 110 other parties because their parents had done so, belonging to one of the many "pillars" in multi-faceted Dutch society. Traditional voting took a pomo beating in the 70's and '80s, but it was influential nevertheless, until this very day. Secondly, if and when people voted on issues, the prime one by far was, no.. not PC MC related, but economy. It is only testimony to the perceived threat of Islam that this situation has changed dramatically in Holland since the early nineties. On denouncing the religion of peace by high profile politicians, the US still has some 20 years of catching up to do.

Problem 3)
History shows that multiculturalism wasn't at first recognized as a vehicle for islamization, otherwise things might have played out a little sooner, as they do now. Holland was a former colonial power and experienced a first (actually second) massive influx of real foreigners in the mid-seventies when Suriname became independent (formally). Before that, "racism" was not an issue in say, Amsterdam politics, but that changed rapidly. This set us of on the false track of foreigners vs. natives, handing to Islam a shield to hide behind.

Problem 4)
As soon as people in the Netherlands were offered the opportunity to vote for the anti-Islam ticket, they did, massively, from the nineties onwards (Bolkestein, Fortuyn, Wilders), in spite of the supposedly widespread and deeply engrained political PC MC. Is this a case of "Dutch exceptionalism" or might there be some element in your scheme that resists application to day to day practise?

Problem 5)
Yes, in some cases there actually is an influential part of the Dutch electorate that votes for the most Islamo-friendly most politically PC MC party on offer. So that lot might confirm your thesis (shared by some eager to blame decadent Europeans for choosing the wrong representatives). Only problem is: they're Muslims. And yes, enter the progressivist "cabals" who have noticed the electoral advantage of playing to the Muslim vote. So yes, in that sense the "Dutch" have voted for pro-Islam parties, but those "Dutch" with the power to tip entire elections, as has been the case in our most important cities (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, the Hague), are Muslims.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Professor L said...

Hesperado, again, I'm not saying those "sins" are actual sins, or have anything to do with the West. I'm saying that they are portrayed as sins for which we must do penance unto our own doom, lest we repeat these "sins".

I'm not speaking for myself here because you're right - they are not sins which we need to atone for. But others disagree, and this explains, in large part, how your thesis of a widespread popularity of PC MC thinking among the general populace can take place while also upholding the assumption that such people are

Hesperado said...

LAW Wells,

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Hesperado said...


Your post is somewhat curiously elliptical. If you wish to contend that the vast majority of the people of the Netherlands are not PC MC, then just say so and offer the evidence. You seem instead to be presenting a roundabout maneuver composed of a combination of facts that may (or may not) indicate such a thesis, combined with jabs at what I have said, or would say, in support of my opposing thesis, about those and other facts.

One of those facts (assuming, for now, that there is evidence for its accuracy in this regard) was in fact a fact + inference -- that Netherlands people tend to vote along traditional lines (fact) and that therefore that explains why many of them (how many?) have supported PC MC politicians (inference). Even if this fact + inference is correct, it would imply that those Netherlands voters consider the danger of Islam relatively minor, on a par, say, with the issue of dike construction licenses in the wetlands. The definition of a non-PC MC person is precisely that he considers Islam to be the #1 danger. Such a person would curiously continue his habit of voting for his traditional party when such a vote tends to enable that #1 danger.

The bottom line is that if Western people are overwhelmingly anti-PC MC about Islam, they sure have an odd way of expressing that.

Michael Servetus said...

Some further thoughts on PCMC inspired by the article entitled “The Origins of Postmodernitis” by David Solway over at Pajamas Media. The link was given by Escape Velocity. I don’t know if anyone has taken the time to look it over but I find it to be fascinating, satisfying and convincing. What I am going to write here was further inspired by some comments I read and while it was inspired by each of these sources I believe it is yet an original thought at the same time.
My idea is this, basically that PC MC surprisingly makes a lot of sense, is perfectly logical and true if it is accepted for what it is and what it is meant to be. My newly inspired idea is that PC MC is a self help tool a critical analysis tool used to try to help people be objective, get behind their prejudices and see things in their own light without any preconceived notions or value judgments and in that regard and for that purpose it is and was successful. Another way of approaching it is to think of PC MC as some sort of laboratory tool, or culture, created for use in the laboratory for academic theories, we know and understand that all kinds of hypotheses and theories must be entertained and thrown out to find the right one and to test things against. Granted PC MC is not a physical thing or biological thing but rather a thought experiment, a self critical methodology that makes a lot of sense in the laboratory but it has escaped the laboratory and is running around now in the streets like a pathogen, or wild cobra or berserk chimpanzee used for laboratory experiments in social anthropological experiments.
The other problem is that if not properly understood and only accepted at face value PC MC is strikingly deceptive in that it , as I mentioned, is very logical, makes perfect sense and sounds fascinating and humbling and gives the mind a bunch of new sensations and thoughts to ponder and this is very intriguing and addictive. The only thing that reveals the PC MC theoretical framework to be deceptive or wrong or fatally flawed and no good for practical living is not so easily discovered by popular thought and so something that should have only received tempered and limited scientific acceptance and guarded has found wide acceptance not so much because people really and truly believe it wholeheartedly but because they do not know how to refute it in their unthinking minds which are intruded upon by its force of reasoning and logic. Again I reiterate it is only of limited scope and purposes, should be used only for thought experiments and challenging oneself and ones own real biases and prejudices and used only insofar as it is practical and necessary and then thrown away by a mature mind capable of reflecting upon itself and knowing when its job is done, which would be to aid one in examining oneself and challenging oneself to think and see the world in new ways. During this process one must not allow the self to get lost and forget realities, practical realities, criterions of truth and differentiation, truths just as significant or actually much more so and upon which our lives truly depend and have received their impress.. The key to straightening it out is to remember when in the laboratory of thought that a certain premise was assumed for a specific purpose and that premise is not a absolute given. For critical to the PC MC experiment for the expansion of thinking is the adoption of another experimental notion, that is that there is no criterion of truth which then allows one to evaluate things according to some specious equivalency.
continued below

Michael Servetus said...

cont. from above

All this is presumably done for the purpose of yielding new insights., and as I said the problem is that this has escaped the clinical laboratory where it was and should have been properly kept and understood only as experimental and potentially lethal and is now gone viral.. Still it seems like after you think of one thing about PC MC another idea pops up and nothing seems to be the one grand answer or explanation.. In short what I am saying in summary is that this idea of PC MC originated in Western minds and civilization as a sort of new frontier , a thought experiment by which to test ourselves and our judgments in the safety of our own minds to see how valid our judgments were and to try to see with clearer eyes and be as scientific and unbiased as possible and so it is a sort of scientific idea, trying to strip ourselves of all contaminating influences that might upset our observations. In this way we can see the Western obsession with science, rational thinking and logic and testing and challenging ourselves, something built into our ways of thinking and being self critical. This may not solve anything but I think it offers a novel insight.

Professor L said...

My apologies - it was late last night when I posted, and I didn't finish my last sentence. Just for the record, here it is in full:

I'm not speaking for myself here because you're right - they are not sins which we need to atone for. But others disagree, and this explains, in large part, how your thesis of a widespread popularity of PC MC thinking among the general populace can take place while also upholding the assumption that such people are essentially good and decent.

The bolded words are what I meant to say. The joys of posting at midnight.

Sagunto said...

Hesperado -

Nothing "elliptical" or "jabby" about my five points, just a few observations that present problems for your PC MC thesis. I reposted them to see whether you'd take them into account this time round.

You didn't care to provide any kind of answer in defence of your thesis the first time I posted them and in this topic you seem to repeat that disinclination to engage in serious discussion. Your casual distortion of the traditional voter argument (meaning: not thinking about political arguments at all, PC MC or not) is telling in this regard. You apparently find it hard or not worth your while to address the fact that Dutch voters - when they got the chance - voted for the anti-Islam ticket in far greater numbers than your thesis would have it, in spite of still present traditional voting patterns, a vastly PC MC press and media, showering the public with welfare state and PC MC propaganda, and pressing economic issues (the Catholic south voted massively for Wilders at the last elections, instead of traditionally for the Christian Democrats). Bolkestein led his party to historical heights in 1998, Fortuyn would have been Minister-President if he hadn't been assassinated, and the success of Wilders' PVV speaks for itself.

I asked the Baron for a topic where we could meet to discuss and perhaps enhance your PC MC thesis beyond the borders of a particular pursuit. These preliminary posts were meant to sound out if you'd be willing to pusue the matter in full. I gather from your somewhat lukewarm replies that you're not all that interested.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Hesperado said...


The reason I continued to be chary of engaging in your particulars is that your presentation is constructed with key joints and beams that are tendentiously purporting fact, where on closer attention they are inferences/interpretations (e.g., your use of the word "massive", which is a relative subjective term that requires considerable examination of lots of evidence and context to persuasively defend).


...the fact that Dutch voters - when they got the chance - voted for the anti-Islam ticket in far greater numbers than your thesis would have it...

1) similarly, what do you mean by an "anti-Islam ticket"? Are you sure there were actual anti-Islam tickets on the ballots, or is that your interpretation of what they were tantamount to?

2) again, "in far greater numbers" is as pure a relative and subjective phrase as they come -- and if you are measuring it by what "my thesis would have it", I doubt those numbers sufficed; for my thesis requires over 95% at the very least. I have long ago become fed up with polls and surveys and voting patterns where a slim majority (e.g., 52%) or a large minority (e.g., 43%) oppose the random rape, torture, murder and cannibalization of little girls (an analogy milder than Islam, btw) -- where obviously such percentages would be cause for terrible anxiety and fierce outrage, not hope.