Tuesday 2 November 2010

What *is* the threat to PC from its nearby enemies?


I have said, in the previous post, that the PC left reserves special hatred for those nearest to it in the political spectrum; those who are either somewhat less progressed along the PC road, or those who deny a specific platform of the (current) PC programme.

But why?


In line with my idea that PC can only survive by virtue of its psychotic irrationality, it seems that the major short term threat to political correctness is any attempt to make it logical - to join-up the implications of each of its proposals, to follow through to the logical conclusion of its premises.

Reason is extremely dangerous to PC, since the basic survival mechanism is one of continual revolution, continual attack, continual ground-shifting.


Anyone who looks as if they might get PC to stay in one place and argue things out, fully and at leisure, without changing the subject, without descending into denunciation, is an exceedingly dangerous threat.

PC (being psychotic) cannot argue rationally for anything longer than a sound bite segment.

If PC starts arguing rationally, and sustains this for more than a very short time, especially if the process begins to link one thin with another - then it simply stops being PC.

When a thoroughly PC intellectual senses this happening, senses that they are being backed into a corner where they will need to engage in a purely intellectual discourse, or sense that the discussion is spreading into other fields and making links - then according to the rules of PC anything is permitted to escape this emergency situation, anything is allowed.

(Even violence - PC gangs are allowed, indeed encouraged, to shout-down, silence and assault non-PC speakers or writers - to ensure that this process cannot get started. This pattern has been repeated on college campuses innumerable times since PC began in the last 1960s.)


Indeed it is forbidden to engage with the enemy.

Indeed, any individual, or organization, which does engage with enemies of PC will itself or themselves immediately be re-classified as an enemy of PC.


The absolute requirement to avoid engagement is not merely to avoid the 'risk' of being out-argued or proved wrong - it is because rational debate itself cannot be allowed to happen.

To debate rationally is for PC to die.

On the spot.


That is why political correctness both needs enemies, and yet never can engage with those enemies; the enemies serve a purely symbolic function.

Indeed, fantasy enemies are the best ones for PC - racist white nationalist organizations; for example.

These fictional groups have been constructed by the media over several decades, depicted in movies and TV programs, and are treated as if real and terrifying threats; justifying perpetual consciousness-raising, continual propaganda, expansile rules and laws, and a state of constant revolution.

The enemies seem real, and that is enough.


And the really great thing about fictional enemies, like the compassion-groups of PC - foreign ethnics, animals, the environment - is that they cannot talk back.

Indeed they cannot talk at all: except to say whatever you put into their mouths.