One reason that elite intellectual liberal political correctness is immune to the secular right is that PC feels like a higher morality.
Therefore the most idealist and purely-motivated secular intellectuals will gravitate to political correctness.
Both the secular right and PC left agree that human happiness is the highest value, and both link this to an abstract process.
The secular right links happiness to evolutionary processes such as market economies, and in general competition and natural selection.
The PC left links happiness to altruistic (often egalitarian, but sometimes reversed-spontaneous) distributions of goods.
The secular right bases its reasoning on human nature and spontaneous tendencies, and tries to harness these for the general good by using abstract processes.
The general good is equated with the most efficient performance of social functions such as economic production (especially this), military defence, civil peace and so on.
The efficient ideal is to get the most and best quality of function for the least input of resources, and thereby to enable perpetual growth in all desirable functions.
In practice, the secular right regards the best outcome as that which emerges-from the operation of the best process.
The PC left bases its reasoning on ideal human nature (how humans might, possibly, perhaps be - or at least not-certainly-not-be) and on desirable outcomes not processes - in principle, any process is permissible if it leads to the desired outcome.
The best process is that which leads-to (not emerges-from) the best outcome.
The crux of the moral difference between secular right and PC left relates to original sin.
The PC left sees original sin as that innate human selfishness and individuality which resists altruistic distributions of goods.
The secular right denies the existence of original sin; it takes humans as they are, and tries to work with them.
The secular right individual either feels no guilt about his own motivations and behaviours (his selfishness, nepotism, lust, pride etc.) or else strives not to feel guilt - and argues-against his tendency to feel guilt.
The PC left individual feels guilt at their own failure to embrace altruistic distributions: for example that they spend money on themselves rather than giving it to anyone poorer, that they favour their own family over unknown strangers.
The PC idealist - recognizing the incorrigibility of his sinfulness, and needing to exculpate his guilt - therefore seeks to be coerced by the state, so that he - and everyone else - will not be able to act selfishly.
The secular right individual typically espouses some kind of utilitarianism - and affects to seek the greatest good of the greatest number; or perhaps (in a nationalist version) the greatest good of the greatest number in his country, or perhaps (in the ethnic version) the greatest good of the greatest number of his race or ethnicity.
Yet this is not really rational - except as a camouflage for what is actually individual self-interest. If forced to choose between his own certain and immediate and long term good on the one hand - and on the other hand what is inevitably a conjectural and uncertain good for many or most other people - then it makes sense to be selfish.
But either he does not care about being selfish (being a psychopath) or else tries not to think about this.
The secular left individual also affects to espouse a type of utilitarianism, but is mainly focused on the intrinsic sins of selfish individuals.
He can see no real hope for a society of competing selfish individuals - and so seeks to disempower individuals and curtail their freedom to be selfish. Hence the PC advocate favours coercive impersonal mechanisms for imposing altruism on inevitably selfish humans.
But whence derives the assumed virtue of these impersonal systems? Why would not coercive mechanisms force people to be evil, instead of good?
Either he denies this problem (being psychotic) or else tries not to think about this.
Confronted by a choice between embracing selfish psychopathy and altruistic psychoticism - the most idealistic secular intellectuals will surely continue to embrace the bleak martyrdom of PC.
In the recent days you have arrived. I see here, with James Kalb, a new foundation of Western political philosophy forming. Understanding the present old system is a necessary prerequisite to a new system. Indeed, PC is a modern derivative of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason; Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics; Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals; Metaphysics of Morals; and Critique of Practical Reason.
I always sidetracked such considerations, because to me they seemed just surface lies and subterfuges hiding the unscrupulousness inside, but PC *philosophy* (to separate it from mere PC) has serious consequences and must be taken seriously.
PC mini-book might be appropriate when you are ready.
I comment more tomorrow.
Ps. Practical consequences of PC philosophy among intellectuals are easy to find. The topics of altruism, selfishness, inequality, equality etcetera:
"PC mini-book might be appropriate ... "
I also agree that this fits with Kant - although I have only read summaries of Kant, never the actual person.
But I suspect that Kant was more of a consequence - or crystallization - than a cause.
Perhaps he crystallized for the elite among intellectuals the purely abstract style of un-grounded morality which still dominates among the most idealistic of secular leftists.
It is so difficult to wrestle with understanding Kant that noticing the absurd falsity of his philosophy seems an unsubtle response - intellectuals fear that they have not properly understood Kant, rather than suspecting that his conclusions are a reductio ad absurdum.
My general idea about philosophy is that it has been downhill all the way since Aquinas - that qua philosophy Aquinas's was the only coherent system.
But that really Aquinas is not true, because (pushed too hard, made into a basis for life) philosophy is merely a bleeding chunk torn-off from religion.
What is then the relation of PC philosophy to liberal power? Some points.
* Liberal power needs altruistic low and middle level liberal contributors, because liberal system can't pay to all liberals the wages of bureaucrats, political leaders etc. for work, and liberal altruists contribute also all kinds of resources to the system. Ngo's, grass roots political work, liberal charities, liberal legal help, etc.
When large numbers of liberals work for free for liberal power/ PC, psychologically they can't find any or sufficient outside reasons and motivations for their actions, like money, prestige and status in organizations. The only or the most significant reason for their liberal work must then be that they really are liberal, really like liberalism, really intrinsically want to do liberal things (Cognitive dissonance and Commitment and consistency -principles in psychology). They change they self-image towards more altruistic liberal person and can be used by liberal power in the future with little or no costs.
From among these committed true believer liberals many future liberal leaders and other paid liberal workers can be selected, but not all. Liberals must use all the avenues to select personnel. Bill Clinton, a multimillionaire, is an example of a prominent liberal person, who regularly exhorts grass roots liberals to do free work.
* Liberal power, although superficially opposing any divisions between humans, must have clear ethnic, cultural, economic, religious, etc. differences in society. The differences must be as large as possible (without threatening the liberal order) in statistics and real life to warrant as much as possible interventions and manipulations of liberal power. Liberal power may e.g. help poor citizens generally, but it diffuses salient divisions too much. The negative feelings and divisions become exacerbated, and "moral" and practical blackmail becomes more efficient if the statistics is represented in e.g. white+rich+oppressor+discriminator / black+poor+victim+oppressed - accusation form. Whites are thus kept in subordinate position, always defensive, willing, perhaps reluctantly, to pay and pay the swelling bureaucracy and to let their possibilities to be taken away from them. Additionally, whites who would normally be pro-white, now start to proclaim race blind policies, equality and tolerance to defend them from affirmative action etc. "positive" discrimination. This first causes cognitive dissonance in thoughts, which soon is resolved by taking psychological self-identity cues from what they do (Doing is one of the strongest forming inluences on self-identity); i.e. pro-white often becomes a liberal, and whites dissolve to atomized individuals, incapable of efficient collective action. Liberal whites also give an example to other whites to defect white group identity, and show that whites can't be trusted in collective cooperation.
* PC has many reasons for the fluctuations in it's policies, realities and media, but one (side effect?) of these is that it is important to keep the minds of the most adventurous people occupied. These are often people who initiate change, they are irritated by monotony, they take risks, they are restless, aggressive, often impulsive, gregarious, perhaps charismatic, etc. If this is combined with high intelligence, these people are the most likely persons to lead all kinds of change movements and revolutions. In a constantly fluctuating multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-media, multi-entertainment, multi-language, multi-distraction, multi-sports, multi-job, multi-freetime, etc. and likely in certain ADHD way exciting environment, fairly often risky and dangerous, keeps the minds of adventurous people occupied in ways that don't threaten the liberal power.
* Liberal and PC philosophy produces both superficial intellectual abstractions and some superficial functions that corresponds to these, especially the illusion of unselfish universal altruism. These are of course true/"true" to many liberals, but not, especially, to the liberals in power.
Let's think this in simple terms:
1) A bureaucrat taxes money from the hated, but necessary whites. 2) A bureaucrat takes the most of this money to pay his own salary, his equipment, his building, his perks, and all the other his expenses (including the things creating and hoisting his status, overlapping with the preceding points). 3) A bureaucrat pays some taxes and dashes some of the money taxed from whites to the four winds of the world and says: "Look everybody, I am an unselfish altruist! I am so much above you selfish people! My PC philosophy is the highest achievement of humankind!"
Somehow I remain unconvinced. I think it is the sign of our profoundly unintellectual times that this kind of fraudulent philosophy lives, is accepted and is serious in it's consequences.
* Inside the liberal cohorts PC philosophy serves as psychological relief from secular sin and sublimation of that sin.
Liberal sociologists (Is there any other kind?) say in their discussions that they have no intention to solve e.g. problems concerning criminals, on the contrary, their work depends on the constant and increasing problems in society. These are to them the real and "virtuous" functions of society, so if they manage more these problems, the society is more "vigorous" and "better". Even when those words already contain some self-deception, many sociologists probably see that it is really selfishness at the expense of others. But now the PC philosophy tells them that to achieve the abstract perfection of unselfish altruism by the means of bureaucratic functions is the ultimate good, so they are allowed to use (almost) any means necessary. All the lies, selfishness, pettines, subterfuges, manipulation, destruction, etc. become "valiant" measures to achieve the abstract unselfish altruism in an imperfect world; in matter of fact imperfect world requires such measures. All the secular sins are sublimated to secular virtue. Metaphorical James Bond only has a licence to kill certain people, and it is given to him by others (in a bureaucracy). Bureaucracies have a licence to kill whole societies, given to them by themselves.
PC philosophy also serves as a shield towards the outside society. If somebody challenges the bureaucracy intellectually, bureaucracy confronts him with the abstract perfection of PC philosophy, selected bureaucratic results conforming to the PC perfection and the selected altruist "potlatch" spending parts of bureaucracy that no human being can match. Bureaucracy then rationally shows the human being how wrong he is, how imperfect he is, and that rationally imperfect human must submit to the god-like perfection of bureaucracy.
* PC philosophy serves global power of bureaucracy. Foreigners are peacefully attracted to it's services; free money; legal services/ justice; appreciation, support and respect, which the bureaucracy gives more to the foreigners than natives; opportunities, including affirmative action; freedom to be the Other without conforming to the host society; etc. Amidst this plenty, the foreigner doesn't notice how subtly he is integrated to be a part in various functions of bureaucracy and PC society, and submitted to their power. It almost looks to the foreigner that in PC society abstractions and abstract rules there is not even possible to be anybody's interest, it is like a machine that just gives and gives.
E.g. in all over the developing world there are all kinds of unsatisfactions, and people don't feel that their interests and point of views are taken into consideration. There are strong pressures to get "justice". When "altruistic" international courts in Europe offer, backed by the whole official power of Europe, "justice", foreigners are drawn to it like bees to honey. At the same time they subtly and voluntarily submit more or less to the views of "human rights", PC, tolerance, liberalism in general etc.
Waging wars is expensive, risky and exhausting and have to be limited, in relation to the size of the world, to fairly small areas. PC philosophy offers a way to wage a stealth conquering war globally, gives all the needed benign superficialities and the means to refute all accusations and suspicions of foreigners. This war for global power includes three parts:
1) Increasing the number of people in the host country.
2) Global bureaucracies.
3) Increasing and gradual integration of countries to the global liberal system and it's political and economic views.
From this point of view, in the "language" of bureaucracies, this global war has been the most succesful conquering war in human history, comprising in one way or another, in whole or partially, more area and percentage of the world's population than any other conqueror or conquering ideology, with seemingly plenty of possibilities for further gains, and perhaps with the least relative costs.
Post a Comment