Monday, December 19, 2011

Psychological Explanations of Political Correctness

Nicolai Sennels’ latest essay examines the possible psychological causes behind the bizarre state of denial that is imposed on Westerners by political correctness.

Psychological explanations of political correctness
by Nicolai Sennels

The disadvantages of Islam and Muslim immigration into Europe are many and obvious.

Negative economic effects, rising crime and less security, entire neighborhoods transformed into parallel societies, the frequently negative influence of Muslim children in schools and institutions, etc. — all these consequences affect the lives of most children and adults on an everyday level in one way or another.

Many of us have wondered why there still are so many — both ordinary people, Media and politicians — who do not speak openly about, and perhaps do not even realize, the problems.

Being a licensed psychologist and having had years of experience as a publicly known critic of Islam and Muslim immigration and culture, I will endeavor here to give three psychological explanations for political correctness.

As always, when large groups ignore obvious problems, the issue is one of social psychology:

The “Bystander effect”

The bystander effect is a psychological phenomenon that explains why people remain passive during emergencies.

Research on the bystander effect started in connection with the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, when several neighbors remained passive while they watched Genovese being stabbed to death.

An example of psychological research in the bystander effect is a study in which a woman pretends she faints. If the subject is alone, he will help the woman in 70 percent of cases. If there are several people present, only 40 percent of subjects help the woman.

The bystander effect makes spectators to a disaster tend to watch others’ reaction — instead of the situation itself — as a way to assess the seriousness of a situation.

As people in many cases await each other’s reaction, rather than take the initiative, the result may be that nobody does anything — since all are waiting to see if somebody else does something.

If the others do nothing, it is seen as a sign for the individual that the others believe that there is no need for intervention. This affects one’s own judgment, and thus one’s reaction. The majority’s response acts as a kind of “barometer” for the truth.

If we transfer this phenomenon to political correctness, it means that since the majority do not express criticism of Islam, Sharia (also called Islamization) and Muslim immigration, people take it as a “proof” that there is no need to criticize such things.

Conditions for the bystander effect are therefore particularly ripe in cases where people feel uncertain about what is the right thing to do, and as a result use other people’s reaction as a way to assess the situation.

The best way to counter this kind of behavior is to give people so much information that they are able to make their own decisions. In addition, it is obviously important that as many as possible do something, so that people who are under influence by the bystander effect acknowledge reality. It is psychologically important that the people who take the initiative do it in such a way that others will find it easy to identify with it — so avoid anger and unnecessary provocation, show your joy and personal optimism, be relaxed, and only talk about these things when there is a natural reason for it (e.g. family or colleagues mention the subject themselves).

“Pluralistic ignorance”

The bystander effect is often connected with pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance is a social psychological phenomenon in which the majority of a group individually reject a norm (e.g. Muslim immigration), but at the same time suppose that the majority accepts the norm. As a result of the desire to be well-regarded by the majority, people accept the norm, even though they secretly oppose it. In this way a democratic process can lead to the acceptance of norms which the majority actually oppose.

Applying the theory of pluralistic ignorance to the phenomenon of political correctness would mean that the majority actually want less Islam, Sharia and Muslim immigration, but every individual believes that the majority is not against these things. Because people do not dare to stand up against the “illusory majority”, they refuse to openly criticize these things.

Fear of criticism can therefore pressure the majority not to speak their minds — even though they would actually able to get what they want, if only all dared to raise their hands say what they think.

Pluralistic ignorance is thus made possible partly by the lack of self confidence to stand by one’s position, and partly by a miscalculation of what the majority thinks.

The best way to deal with pluralistic ignorance is therefore to give people courage and show that they are not alone with their viewpoint. This is accomplished primarily by showing a courageous example oneself. In addition, it is important to support other critics, so they do not feel vulnerable and alone. Finally, it is vital to spread knowledge and arguments that help people to counter criticism.

“Good people”

The third explanation consists of a theory of my own. It is based on the assumption that in all cultures and societies there exists a definition of what “a good person” is.

Out of a desire to feel liked and part of the community, most people have a psychological drive to live up to the definition of “a good person”. But the definition of “good people” is influenced by many things, and is subject to change.

In the old Danish Christian community, you were a good person if you went to church every Sunday. In societies with a strong work ethic, it is seen as better to care for oneself than live on benefits. In many circles it is seen today as “good” to worry about the climate or ecology — or at least it is bad if you do not care. When I was a child in the 1970’s, it was hip and Leftist to fight for women’s freedom, criticize the social control imposed by religion and society, and fight for the right to criticize authority and religion.

Nowadays it is a widespread view that “tolerance and openness” characterize “good persons”. This includes a provision that criticism of minorities and others’ standards is “bad”.

Thus we have ended up in a situation where criticism of Muslim immigration and Islamic religious and cultural standards has become socially unacceptable.

Since only a small minority therefore criticize these things openly, the bystander effect makes many people think that there is no problem — or that it is not so big that it is necessary to speak about it.

The harsh criticism faced by Islam-critics (especially among Muslims themselves) increases the extent of pluralistic ignorance, because fewer people dare to speak up. Even though majority are critical of Islam, they believe that they are a minority.

People with good self-esteem are better able to maintain their own assessment of their own moral “goodness” without being influenced by others’ criticism or current definitions of “good people”. Thus they are less vulnerable to the bystander effect and pluralistic ignorance.

Who is neurotic?

Critics of Islam, Sharia and Muslim immigration are often called racists (expressing hostility against other races), xenophobic (having an irrational fear of the unknown) or Islamophobes (having an irrational fear of Islam).

But Islam and Muslims are not a race, and neither Islam nor Muslims are unknown, since most of us encounter or read about the phenomenon in one form or another almost daily. And there’s really nothing irrational in fearing Islam, as Islam’s holy scriptures say that Muslims have a duty to suppress or kill all non-Muslims and to spread their faith by any means.

Which Islam and many Muslims also do, kindly aided by all the people, politicians and media who do not speak against Islam, sharia and Muslim immigration.

By calling people racists or diagnosing them, political correct lovers of multi-culture attempt to define Islam-critics as dysfunctional people or neurotics. But we are not.

Proponents of Islam, Sharia and Muslim immigration, however, are actually victims of the bystander effect and pluralistic ignorance. And, being insecure, many of them follow the current trends and their peers’ views on what defines “good people”.

There is no reason to fear such intellectually flabby people. So just open your mouth and say what you think. You are not crazy, evil or neurotic. Quite the contrary.

Based on the above-mentioned social psychological theories, it is my conclusion that that we Islam-critics are better informed and have better self-confidence than the many who lack knowledge, courage, and personal authenticity to speak about obvious problems.

Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and the author of “Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s experiences with the Copenhagen Municipality”.

Previous posts by or about Nicolai Sennels:

2010 Jan 6 The Eternal Victim
  Feb 19 Youths, Crime, and Islam
  Apr 11 The Stigmatization Fallacy
  May 8 Islam Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
  Jul 28 Nicolai Sennels: An Open Letter to David Cameron
  Aug 5 Rape by Proxy
    10 Islam and Inbreeding
  Dec 17 The Connection Between Muslim Inbreeding and Terrorism
2011 Jan 10 The Dhimmification of the Red Cross
    12 Was Muhammad a Gelotophobe?
    26 Food Crises are Caused by Overpopulation
  Feb 10 Send in the Midwives!
    23 Western Quran Schools Are “Terrorist Factories”
  Mar 22 Why Multiculture Will Always Fail
    26 What is Islamization?
  Apr 3 The Psychopath’s Argument: Free Speech Kills People
  May 3 Islam’s Nancy Boys: The Psychological Background
    25 Arab Drought: Oil for Water
    28 Lean to the Left
  Jun 2 Freedom is Slavery
    11 Shame: Muslim culture’s armour. Weapon? Humour.
  Jul 29 Breivik: Inspired by Al Qaeda?
  Aug 23 Behind the Gates of Vienna


Sol Ta Triane said...

Thank you GOV for your un-PC blog!

This article is a useful DESCRIPTION of PC, stupidity, groupthink, and it is also is right that we should be unafraid of criticizing it. Thanks.

But we can only end political correctness if we know how it can exist in the first place. Otherwise the PC factory keeps pumping out more and more of those stinky sausages.

The cause:

All political correctness arises specifically as a combination of these five mental dysfunctions:

1. excessive desire: PC needed to get stuff.

2. covetousness/greed: denied and projected, PC needed to get stuff

3. stupidity, to overlook a silly myth of goodness/to overlook weak thesis

4. arrogance, I'm elite 'cause I'm PC, now do what I say

5. hate/nihilism, Think I'll go ruin things, PC likes to ruin things, see below.

Now blend any of the five problems above and what you get. You get what can be described as hellish or evil.

PC isn't merely a strategy for control, power and money and anarchic change, it's an outrageously successful world movement! It controls minds and taxes and pocketbooks and opens borders.

It works on a group level, and on an individual criminal level too. (Great criminals are often very nice people, particularly when they are on the make. PC is the oldest trick in the book, invented by the snake on the tree of superficial knowledge!)

Again, the five dysfunctions I mentioned condone and blend with each other if you think about it. (I've been studying this for decades in my flesh-tone laboratory.)

In fact you can't really understand PC unless you can see the possibility of it rising in yourself, creating the feelings in yourself, as a mental experiment.

The good news is that it can all be healed. By seeing clearly the superficiality of the five dysfunctions in ourselves they dissolve like dreams in a waking person. We become sane, embarrassed by our foolishness.

Or would mind experimentation be too radical, too politically incorrect, considering our modern psychological entrainment?

Less self-esteem, please.

BC said...


I usually find your analyses right on point. This one, however, is way off. I understand you are a trained psychologist, so it should not be a surprise that you look first to psychology for an answer. In my thought, you are letting secularist humanist biases cloud away the real answer.

The simple answer is, in the West, the Golden Rule of Christianity has given us all of the freedoms, stability, openness, equality, democracy, separation of church and state, innovation, intellectual inquiry, etc. Whether we believe in a God or not, the manner in which we view ourselves, others, our neighbors, our families, our work, strangers, enemies, are all determined by cultural software that is encoded into our minds. One can even see the differences in these between Catholic and Protestant countries - even if so many people no longer believe. It is latent belief. But it still steers our values and beliefs fully. Just as Islam gives one set of software with fully different options, Christianity (latent or otherwise) gives us the software for the open, democratic, and stable societies we have in the West. That software has been especially effected, also because of the way we value peace, non-violence, neighborly love, etc., by the trauma of WWI and WWII, by the Holocaust, and by our societal memories regarding, for example, slavery. Are good values helped us to learn good things from these terrible events. We need, therefore, not get rid of these. We need merely to apply the standards that come along with these beliefs. Standards that have been stripped away in recent centuries.

More can be read in a very good essay about similar thoughts:

To apply psychology to these things is to look is to try to separate people from the rules that run their lives. As you yourself have written about much, Islam drastically effects the rules that one finds in Muslims heads about how they deal and think of themselves, family members, Muslims, and non-Muslims. Christianity does exactly the same - whether one believes or not. Applying psychological concepts to these matters is like saying that the ideas that come out of my mind are due to either bio-chemistry or physics. Fact is, the bio-chemistry and physics are the same in my head as they are in a Muslims; what is different is the rules that my culture has fed in as software that controls what my mind options for behavior, speech, and belief are. Cultural rules are based in actual or historical/latent religion, whether one is religious or not. It's what makes Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland alike in the software that runs behavior. And it is what makes Spain, Portugal, and Italy alike in theirs.

Like I said, I otherwise admire your work and writings, but in this case, trying to pin political correctness on psychological underpinnings actually does a disfavor to allowing people to really understand what the problem is with Islam. If it were merely about simple psychological rules one could apply to people, being that were all people, one should then find "political correctness" equally in all cultures and places. Fact is, it only exists in the West. Because we behave in ways that creates stability, care for ones neighbors (even one's enemies), equality, prosperity, innovation, etc. Rules to keep. But also rules that we must think about how we apply them so that we do not lose them. Read the essay at the link above. We need merely remember to apply to all the very important standards equally that go with that Golden Rule. If we do that, we get rid of PC but keep all of the good things that otherwise come with that so very important but simple little rule.

Gregory said...

"Intellectually flabby". I love it!

Anonymous said...

I would point out that it is not at all a contradiction to point out that the psychological process by which humans decide whether or not action is "necessary" and "correct" according to their perception of their community's response to the situation is an innate part of human behavior while understanding that culture also plays a vital role in shaping personal moral decisions.

After all, what is "culture" except a general agreement as to how-'our'-people-behave-in-various-situations? Whether it is avoiding putting one's hands under the table at dinner or not putting one's elbows on top of it, the mental image of 'our' people doing these things works through the mechanism of looking at the actions of our 'neighbors' to see what is the right thing to do.

The reason that the "bystander effect" occurs in emergencies rather than ordinary situations is that we all have a good deal of prior experience with the "correct" (socially approved) course of action in those situations, while few people have much actual experience with 'emergencies' (the term referring to an event that occurs naturally but unexpectedly). The cure for this is to have a 'cultural' definition of what "our people" do in such a situation. If you go to a CPR certification or some similar "emergency response" training you are essentialy run through a series of stories about the right way to respond to such situations. These narratives about what "emergency responders" ("our people") do enable the trainee to call on something other than the immediate observation of those present at the scene of an emergency in deciding what is the "correct" response.

Of course, Christianity and Islam, along with all other significant religions, are full of stories that tell adherents how "our people" deal with various kinds of situations. Certainly if there are people that are, in the actual event, unaware of what "our people" do and must take their cues from others, it is because they have been insufficiently instructed in those patterning stories (found in the scriptures and traditional stories of each culture) of how "our people" respond to an emergency.

These stories serve to make the "emergency" into an ordinary event in that those who are well-versed in them see emergencies as something that has happened before to which there is already a defined correct response. This does not change the fact that humans are looking to the behavior of others around them to see what is the "correct" response, but merely increases the number of others that are in their mental space for them to perceive acting.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Nemesis said...

I mostly agree with this article which has been presented from a 'psychological' point of view.

I also note Chiu's comment which has expanded the article's general meaning which now leads me to add my own little interpretation.

The basis of the article projects a certain understanding of human intellectual/emotional reaction to that which is outside the 'norm' of what may be considered to be day to day living. The West maintains an ordered society, and regardless of one's religion, we have been conditioned to accept that the state is expected to step in when the normal day to day activities are interrupted by abnormal events, such as a serious motor vehicle crash, an armed robbery or worse, a murder. In these instances, police and emergency services are expected to intervene and then to take over the situation leaving the bystander with little to do, except maybe look on as the incident is controlled and then dealt with.

My point here, is that due to this 'conditioning' by the state the majority of citizens do not know what to do whenever a situation occurs they may be confronted with, and that is out of their ordinary experience.

Emergency workers and police are ordinary people who are trained to become specialists in their field of expertise, and ordinary people will always be ordinary people, with some exceptions, while they allow themselves to become 'conditioned' by the state.

It is those 'exceptions' to the rule of 'conditioning' that have become the harbingers of Islamic stealth Jihad, and it is the 'conditioned' ordinary people holding positions of power, who would like to have them silenced, that we must overcome if our voices are to be united.

Anonymous said...

An excellent point about how the narrative of total dependence on the state institutions being the 'proper' course of action paralyzes 'bystanders' in those critical minutes before the official response arrives. Indeed, this view is actively fostered by a great amount of cultural programming in the media which structures dramas about responding to emergencies around the activities of state institutions.

People in the developed world are bombarded with the idea that it is the state that is omni-competent to handle any kind of emergency, when in reality it is almost never the state that carries out the initial response because the official emergency responders are unlikely to be present on the scene of any emergency they didn't actually cause.

This also relates to the dependence of people on the state for such things as taking care of those in persistent need even more than it relates to those in immediate need of assistance. While most of us could hope to be aware that precious time will be lost in an emergency if we wait about for an official response that isn't already on the scene, what of cases of chronic need?

If we are at all aware of the enormous sums which the state expends on such "charity" cases, we should even be tempted to supposed that those who can qualify are quite well off (which they sometimes are) at our expense already. And we are never told that a gap exists in the state programs except to persuade us to vote in favor of politicians who promise to spend more on them. The Christian suggestion that the right response would be to offer assistance at our own discretion is almost entirely absent.

Of course, the flip side of this is seen in taking effective action against criminal behavior. When actually confronted with robbery, assault, or even murderous activities such as terrorist attacks, how many people have seriously contemplated that it might be their responsibility to do something about it immediately rather than wait for the authorities? And how well equipped is that dependent majority to respond when it is the presumptive authorities that are committing (or at least enabling) such acts?

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sagunto said...

With regard to the three psychological constructs:

(1) the bystander effect's most interesting aspect remains unexplained: why are people feeling insecure as to what to do?

(2) the lack of courage resulting from pluralistic ignorance could easily be avoided in a situation where no one knows what position is defended, e.g. in elections. Those are secret and so people can express themselves. In these situations people still vote for parties who are PC/MC, suggesting there's something far more pervasive at work.

(3) actually the best and most psychological description of PC, for which the sociological term "other directedness" (Riessman, "Hiding in the crowd") would be a good candidate.

Yet, as descriptions and constructs, these are all indicative of an underlying societal disease, this PC/MC, which is symptomatic of a culture that suffers from the biggest and most wide-ranging "bystander effect," caused by the conditioned expectation that the state will be providing "services" from cradle to grave. Also the term "learned helplessness" comes to mind..

Before describing the "perpetrators" and the quasi-religous character of their progressivist ideology, which is so often overlooked, first a little aside as to how it is that the people themselves get elevated to the status of "partners in crime".

Frédéric Bastiat, wrote that a healthy society, based on economic freedom, goes by a moral rule that - to a certain extent - most of us find perfectly reasonable: you have a natural right to your life and property and no one has the right to take that away. For instance: if you'd walk into your neighbour's home and deprive him of his money at gunpoint, you would immediately (or let's hope so) be arrested as a thief. It doesn't matter what lofty things you'd promise to do with the stolen money, you'd still be put away. But now the state does that very same thing, and all of a sudden it is thought of as somehow morally acceptible. Bastiat called this "legal plunder" and he pointed at three possible routes:

(1) The few plunder the many
(2) Everybody plunders everybody
(3) Nobody plunders anybody

Today we find ourselves in the situation that everybody is seeking government assistence in trying to enrich himself at the cost of his neighbour, option number two. So Bastiat called the state, "the great fiction through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else".


BC said...

Fact is, PC does not exist equally across the globe. Nor, in fact, does excessive desire, covetousness/greed, stupidity, arrogance, hatefulness/nihilism. There are enormous differences (measureable and have been measured) between all of these things across cultures. These are steered by religious rules and reactions to religious rules, whether in their actual or latent application.

The most PC places in the world are the Nordic countries. Notice too, that these are also the least excessive in desire, covetous/greedy, stupid, arrogant, hateful/nihilistic countries in the world. Protestant/Lutheran theology has made that the case. PC exists only in the Christian West. It is strongest in Protestant Western countries and less strong in Roman Catholic countries. It is non-existent in Orthodox countries. The relationship between PC and You New’s factors is inverse. The more PC the less You New’s factors.

The problem we have is that we must face PC. Another problem we have, however, is our secular views blind us to the power of the religions that formed our countries and our nations over countless centuries. We fail to see the actual answer that lies before us. PC comes from an incomplete application of the Golden Rule. Which differs, again, across the Christian world generally based upon how much a country/culture was forced to deal with the changes brought on by the Protestant Reformation.

Nicolai has pointed out, he can tie exactly group and individual Muslim behavior to exact Muslim teachings in theology. We can do the exact same thing for Protestants, Catholics, the Orthodox, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. These apply whether we believe or not. These religions formed the rules that have run our countries, cultures, and minds for centuries and we are not at all free of them (nor should we necessarily mindlessly desire to be free of them for the sake of being free of them) as much as we would like to lead ourselves to think.

To address PC, we need to recognize that it does not exist in other places in this world. We also must realize that PC is both the "baby" and the "bathwater" of our Western society. We must be careful in how we approach and attack this problem. We don't need to become less kind, less open, less forgiving, less friendly, etc. But we need to become smart in the way we are kind, open, forgiving, friendly so that we do not lose these values due to our own unconsidered kindness, openness, forgivingness, and friendliness or an all out rejection of Christianity or PC.

Relearning that challenging ideas (and religions, for example) is not "hate" or "bigotry" or "racism" is what needs to be learned. In the Christian West all ideas (including religion) have been able to be criticized in the past. From our thoughts about and even criticism of religion we gained the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the reform of the Catholic Church, the Enlightenment, and the reform of Judaism. All of these things actually also brought Western society closer to core Christian teachings and, in the process, they have also brought us all of the stability, innovation, tolerance, openness, and everything else we have in the West. They also brought us PC. Why? Because we quit applying the standards equally that go along with the Golden Rule. What caused that? Actually, criticism of and even discarding of religion in the West.

Today we need merely to help people to realize that if we fail to think and criticize ALL religions equally, we will also lose our Western society and freedoms. On the other hand if we fail to understand that within PC also lies all that is good, stable, and productive within our Western societies and simply destroy PC without any understanding of what that means, we will also lose all that is good, stable, and productive within our societies.

I recommend the article at:

Sagunto said...


The elites (backed by financial fascists, i.e. the monetary planners of Central Banks) have their own part to play.

Concerning the typically US cult of PC/MC:

The hypocrisy of this "multi"culture, is of course that it negates the white race and traditional Western culture a place at the colourful round table of "love, peace and human understanding". But in a more profound way, this notion may be beside the issue, because in spite of appearances, multiculture isn't really about diversity at all.

I vaguely remember a "multi-culti" interview with the bomber of Serbia, Bill Clinton, somewhere in 1999.
While the (w)rap was clearly PC/MC in rhetoric, singing the praise of "Diversity" and all, the actual package was about something else than just ethnicity or "The Other" [one may take a deconstructionist puke-brake here].

This man zealously expounded globalist beliefs, giving the distinct impression that the actual goal behind the MC message being sent to us - as subordinate members of their peer-group - was, and still is:

To radically eliminate "difference" in OUR minds, while parading multiculturalism and diversity in front of us.

Kind of like the therapeutic behavioural technique known as "flooding with response prevention".

They see themselves as anointed prophets of PC/MC, having truly transcended "difference" and our past sinful Western history, marked by "insensitivity"(TM) and prejudice*. What they want us to do, is submit to that vision or at the very least coerce us into emulating their pseudo-cosmopolitan indifference.
So they really are the globalist "perfecti" of PC/MC gnosis, and as representatives of the managerial state cum therapeutic body politic, they seek to extend the modern political project - which is about eliminating all traditional "boundaries" - to encompass the prescribed psychological escape from thisworldly reality into their uprooted gnostic dreamworld (see: Eric Voegelin, "Modernity without Restraint").

Therefore, I reckon it would be unwise for Western natives, especially those engaged in the counterjihad (better called AIM, or Anti Islam Movement), to demand inclusion as an officially recognized ethnic group, for the whole thing has never been about that kind of diversity in the first place.
The state-sponsored cult of "Diversity" serves as a temptation directed at Westerners (our "fitna", so to speak). This temptation - which more primitive people might succumb to, by reverting to tribal loyalties and so on - is supposed to serve as a test for us, lesser members of their gnostic cult of power. It is presented as an obstacle that we, subordinate peers and trainees, by discarding and exorcising our past history and traditional loyalties, need to transcend.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

* this is of course pardoned when displayed by non-white, ethnic minorities, which underscores the fact that inter-ethnic sensitivity is not the issue, as well as it betrays the veiled elitist superiority of the PC/MC mandarins

Sol Ta Triane said...

Hey Sag,

Yes, yes. Yes on the Fredric Bastiat! Yes on the Voegelin!

Here are the people at GOV who have shown some degree understanding of the actual cause of PC (as opposed to merely describing the characteristics of various complex permutations of PC):

LA Wells
Escape Velocity

Not one actual article yet touching on the cause of PC or of MC. We truly are blind.

Descriptive pseudo-psychological explanations are pretty worthless: the well-meaning authors don't seem to understand that there are hundreds of forms within which PC plays a role. PC is just a marker which shows merely that someone bit the bait and is now on the hook and hip with the program.

I think it's time is time direct our attention to basic human suceptablity and stop this inversion of cause and effect.

What is missing is that must state the very dysfuntions that make us prone, and then, how we are inspired by gnostic movements (group dysfunction), with strong leaders and wimpy followers, all seeking control, power, dominance, money, bliss and happy wonderful free stuff! Who needs philosphy, religion or real science when you can just dance to the pied pipers?

Yes, counterjihad should be called AIM. PC should be called BS. Evil is afoot.

And, hey man. If you are thinking of submitting an article to the B and D, I'd be glad to work on it with you. Some of what you just wrote would be a good contribution.

A very Merry Christmas to you.

Sagunto said...

You too, You New -

A very Merry Christmas to you and all that you hold dear.

I'll take you up on the invitation in 2012. It would truly be a nice way indeed to start the new year ;)

With respect, appreciation and - as always - kind regs from Amsterdam,

Anonymous said...

Well, it is important to remember that the origin of PC and MC isn't in Christianity, nor even Protestantism, but lies in Positivism. Positivism was an atheistic moral philosophy originally developed by Auguste Comte and intended to replace Christianity. The central moral value in positivism is (oddly enough) altruism, or the abnegation of one's own desires in favor of the (presumed) desires of others. This stands in stark contrast with the Christian value of love, which is essentially reciprocal in practice (I have previously noted that the 'neighbor' Christ commands us to love as ourselves is identified by their prior acts of mercy towards us).

Christ teaches that we should attempt to extend love even to enemies, but He explicitly contrasts this with the actual commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." Just to be clear, hating your enemy is not actually part of the commandment, it's just "love thy neighbor." The point is that you can follow the commandment while hating your enemies. Or you can follow the commandment while extending love to your enemies in the hope that they will reciprocate and become your neighbors.

But what Christianity does not allow is to extend love to an enemy by hating your neighbors, which is the essence of PC and MC. This could be considered a perversion of Christianity, except that it arose from the Positivist idea of altruism (and was the implicit intent of introducing that concept in the first place). Altruism, because it demands subordination of one's own interests to that of another, is essentially a form of hatred of self and neighbor.

Love is extended to our neighbor because our neighbor extends mercy to ourself. It is, in fact, an articulation of self-love (love your neighbor as yourself). Christ recommends that we extend it to those that are not yet our neighbors in the hope that they will become our neighbors, not as a way of diminishing our love for our actual neighbors.

Of course, it is not an accident that Protestantism became infected with the Positivist idea of altruism (there are a number of other Positivist influences that have diffused throughout most of the Protestant world as well). In the first place, Positivism was designed specifically to target Protestant Christianity. And the reason it was aimed at Protestant Christianity is because Protestant Christianity was the most open to being shaped by external philosophical influences (which is why altruism has so completely supplanted love in most Protestant circles that it is usual to hear from them that 'love' is only good insofar as it leads to altruism).

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Chiu, I think that your comment is VERY important. Thank you.

Sagunto said...

Hi Chiu -

Glad that @Egghead pointed to your valuable comment and I'd like to second her praise.

There's a book by prof Linda C. Raeder, called "John Stuart Mill and the Religion of Humanity", which I very much like to recommend to you and other commenters here at GoV.

It provides us with a deeper understanding of the (anti-)religious, or zealously secular religious, agenda of one of the most influential thinkers of the liberal tradition, who infected liberalism and Anglo-American consciousness with exactly the Comtean "altruism" you highlighted in your post, i.e. the notion of the superiority of "social" morality over personal morality.

Read this chapter (pdf), to get a glimpse of this important and thought-provoking book.

Take care,

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that link. It is not only Christians who need to understand the assault that has been made on their values, but all the citizens of Western civilization (which despite being heavily Christian has its own unique character worthy of study) who must come to understand how and why ideological justifications for totalitarianism have become so widespread.

Anonymous said...

Nicolai Sennels analyse this:

«In the Islamic tradition a distinction is made between two holy wars, the "greater holy war" (el-jihadul-akbar) and the "lesser holy war" (el-jihadul-ashgar). This distinction originated from a saying (hadith) of the Prophet, who on the way back from a military expedition said: "You have returned from a lesser holy war to a great holy war." The greater holy war is of an inner and spiritual nature; the other is the material war waged externally against an enemy population with the particular intent of bringing "infidel" populations under the rule of "God's Law" (al-Islam). The relationship between the "greater" and "lesser holy war", however, mirrors the relationship between the soul and the body; in order to understand the heroic asceticism or "path of action", it is necessary to understand the situation in which the two paths merge, the "lesser holy war" becoming the means through which a "greater holy war" is carried out, and vice versa: the "little holy war", or the external one, becomes almost a ritual action that expresses and gives witness to the reality of the first. Originally, orthodox Islam conceived of a unitary form of asceticism: that which is connected to the jihad or "holy war".

The "greater holy war" is man's struggle against the enemies he carries within. More exactly, it is the struggle of man's higher principle against everything that is merely human in him, against his inferior natur and against chaotic impulses and all sorts of material attachments. This is expressly outlined in a text of Aryan warrior wisdom: "Know Him therefore who is above reason; and let his peace give thee peace. Be a warrior and kill desire, the powerful enemy of the soul." (Bhagavadgita 3.43)

The "enemy" who resists us and the "infidel" within ourselves must be subdued and put in chains. This enemy is the animalistic yearning and instinct, the disorganized multiplicity of impulses, the limitations imposed on us by a fictitious self, and thus also fear, wickedness, and uncertainty; this subduing of the enemy within is the only way to achieve inner liberation or the rebirth in a state of deeper inner unity and "peace" in the esoteric and triumphal sense of the word.

In the world of traditional warrior asceticism the "lesser holy war", namely, the external war, is indicated and even prescribed as the means to wage this "greater holy war"; thus in Islam the expressions "holy war" (jihad) and "Allah's way" are often used interchangeably. In this order of ideas action exercises the rigorous function and task of a sacrifical and purifying ritual. The external vicissitudes experienced during a military campaign cause the inner "enemy" to emerge and put up a fierce resistance and agood fight in the form of the animalistic instincts of self-preservation, fear, inertia, compassion, or other passions; those who engage in battles must overcome these feelings by the time they enter the battlefield if they wish to win and to defeat the outer enemy or "infidel".

Obviously the spiritual orientation and the "right intention" (niya), that is, the one toward transcendence (the symbols employed to refer to transcendence are "heaven", "paradise", "Allah's garden" and so on), are supposed as the foundations of jihad, lest war lose its scared character and degenerate into a wild affair in which true heroism is replaced with reckless abandonment and what counts are the unleashed impulses of the animal nature.


Anonymous said...


It is written in the Koran: "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter fight for the cause of Allah; whether they die or conquer, We shall richly reward them." (Koran, 4:76) The presupposition according to which it is prescribed "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" (Koran 47:4); or, "Do not falter or sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand" (Koran 47:37), is that "the life of this world is but a sport and a past-time" (Koran 47:37) and that "whoever is ungenerous to this cause is ungenerous to himself" (Koran 47:38). These statements should be interpreted along the lines of the evangelical saying: "Whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it: but whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it" (Matthew 16:25). This is confirmed by yet another Koranic passage: "Why is it that when it is said to you: 'March in the cause of Allah.' you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come?" (Koran, 9:38) "Say: 'Are you waiting for anything to befall us except victory or martyrdom?'" (Koran, 9:52).

Another passage is relevant as well: "Fighting is obligatory for you, as much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not." (Koran, 2:216). This passage should also be connected with the following one:

"They were content to be with those that stayed behind: a seal was set upon their hearts, leaving them bereft of understanding. But the Apostle and the men who shared his faith fought with their goods and their persons. These shall be rewarded with good things. They shall surely prosper. Allah has prepared them gardens watered by running streams, in which they shall abide forever. That is the supreme triumph." (Koran, 9:88 - 9:89)

This place of "rest" (paradise) symbolizes the superindividual states of being, the realization of which is not confined to the post-mortem alone,as the following passage indicates: "As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. he will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the paradise He has made known to them." Koran (47:5-7). In the instance of real death in battle, we find the equivalent of the mors triumphalis found in classical traditions. Those who have experienced the "greater holy war" during the "lesser holy war", have awakened a power that most likely will help them overcome the crisis of death; this power, having already liberated them from the "enemy" and from the "infidel", will help them avoid the fate of Hades. This is why in classical antiquity the hope of the deceased and the piety of his relatives often caused figures of heroes and of victors to be inscribed on the tombstones. It is possible, however, to go through death and conquer, as well as achieve, the superlife and to ascend to the "heavenly realm" while still alive.» Julius Evola

goethechosemercy said...

The "enemy" who resists us and the "infidel" within ourselves must be subdued and put in chains. This enemy is the animalistic yearning and instinct, the disorganized multiplicity of impulses, the limitations imposed on us by a fictitious self, and thus also fear, wickedness, and uncertainty; this subduing of the enemy within
Jihad is nothing more than the projection of every ugly aspect of Muslim (and it has many ugly aspects) onto the infidel.
It's just an excuse not to take responsibility for yourself, a mechanism by which you can evade reality and individual culpability for your actions.

Jihad is nothing more than glorified projection.
Islam is profane.
Mohammed is a false prophet.
Allah is a spirit of the world.
Your culture is corrupt.
And your soul?
Look into the faces of those killed on 9/11.
It will look just like those ashes on the LAST DAY!!!

Anonymous said...

I would not lightly dismiss the value of Islamic meditations on the relationship between "inner" and "outer" forms of Jihad. But as a Taoist I have to look at the Jihadists we face for what they are, not seek intricate meanings derived from artful theories.

Jihadists regularly give in to their most base impulses, both lust for violence and for sexual gratification. In some this is possibly because they lack the intellectual ability to comprehend such fine theories of moral purity and virtue being inextricably connected with the true expression of Jihad. But in those evidently able to master collegiate material, we see the same tendency towards self-gratification justified by eventual martyrdom rather than ascetic self-denial leading to a pure Jihad.

Of course, I am reluctant to rely on denunciations of Islam simple for just this reason, the Jihadists so seldom seem deeply motivated by a really through commitment to the more difficult parts of their professed religion. But the reverse applies as well, I am not going to condemn anyone who forms their view of Islam from looking at the words and actions of the most visible and vocal practitioners, especially as long as the Muslim world fails so utterly to rise up in condemnation of them.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

To any Muslims and Austrian judges reading, I'd like to take a moment to sneer at Islam here:

Mohammed was a dirty old man AND a genocidal psychopath.

Inner jihad is Muslim molestation and abuse.

Outer jihad is infidel rape and murder.

Yes, that covers everything that anyone needs to know about Islam.

Sell your lies somewhere else....

DWMF said...

"Not one actual article yet touching on the cause of PC..."

I think that the component impulses that make up PC could be seen as good, even praiseworthy. But the implementation or mixing of these impulses has been done all wrong, all unbalanced.

It is like a brass band with most of the instruments playing out of tune.

I think that it is no coincidence that the types of people mostly indulging in PC are socially awkward, who do not have the confidence to tell it like it is: the nerds.

Of course there are others who have picked up PC as a badge of distinction, to lend themselves a gloss of respectability: the conmen.

Nerds we can educate, or coach to be more confident. The conmen are a bigger problem.

Anonymous said...

I cannot conceive of the central impulses of Political Correctness as good. The first of these was always a selfish pride, the desire to stake out a position that made the PC "right" and those around them, on whom they have depended for their sustenance and support, "wrong". That this hatred of one's neighbor should be justified as "love" of an enemy (who has never injured the PC themselves but only those neighbors the PC have determined to hate) is a canard.

The reason that so many of the PC are socially awkward is because it is those who are not strongly tempted to love their actual neighbors who generally choose the path of being PC. But to draw a distinction between the "nerds" and the "con-men" is to miss that the appeal of this con is (like many) to an essentially dishonest passion. The "nerds" wouldn't 'fall' for it if they were not choosing to feed their own pride and smug self-satisfaction with a cheap assertion of moral superiority.

Chiu Chun-Ling.