Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘PC’

Lawrence Auster explains clearly the confustion that results from left-liberal multiculturalism and its combination of insane moralism intramurally among other westerners, while abandoning basic moral standards in dealing with “other” people:

[T]he liberal order articulates the world through a “script” in which there are three characters: the white liberal, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime; the white non-liberal, who discriminates against nonwhites and who must be crushed by the white liberal; and the nonwhite/non-Westerner, who either is discriminated against by the white non-liberal or is non-discriminatorily included by the white liberal. In the script, furthermore, only the white liberal and the white non-liberal are moral actors, with the first representing good and the second representing evil. The nonwhite/non-Westerner is not a moral actor, but is simply the passive recipient of the white liberal’s goodness or of the white non-liberal’s bigotry. The reason that the nonwhite/non-Westerner cannot be a moral actor is that his very function in the script is to be the recipient of either good non-discrimination or evil discrimination. If he were a moral actor, then his own actions would have to be judged; specifically, his bad actions would have to be judged. But to judge his bad actions would be to discriminate against him. And since the central purpose of liberalism is to eliminate all discriminatory treatment of nonwhites/non-Westerners, moral judgement of nonwhites/non-Westerners must also be eliminated. Therefore nonwhites/non-Westerners cannot be seen as responsible moral actors.

The liberal script explains why [Pastor Terry] Jones, who burned a piece of paper with ink on it, has “blood on his hands,” but the Muslim Afghan mob that invaded a UN compound and murdered 12 UN employees do not have blood on their hands. The Muslims are not moral actors. The Muslims are simply the victims of Terry Jones’s discriminatory act against them. Jones, the white non-liberal, is a moral agent who is responsible for his evil actions. The Muslims are not moral agents and are not responsible for their actions.

Terry Jones is just the millionth example of this.  There are the excuses for other familiar forms of foreign savagery, such as sutee, or polygamy, or canabilism, or low levels of cleanliness and education.  As these excuses role off the tongue, the most anodyne western liberties and customs, whether holding a door for a lady or not wanting one’s nation’s demographics reengineered, are treatd as the most backwards expressions of primitivism.  The thread uniting this apparent dissonance is the nondiscrimination principle.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Distractions

Vanishing American had a good point about how we are collectively led away from clear thinking on what the problems of the age are:

I’m reminded once again of C.S. Lewis’ observation about how each age warns against the very things which are no threat to the prevailing culture: in a libertine culture, people warn against ‘puritanism’; in an age which is irreligious, we hear constant cries about how ”right-wing Christians” are trying to establish a theocracy in our midst. As our borders are obliterated and our country overrun with aliens, legal and illegal, we hear how much ”xenophobia” and ”nativism” there is. In an age in which the Minority is king, we hear about ”racism”. In an age where all manner of perversions are out in the open, we hear about how ”intolerance” is killing us. We have banished the idea of sin, and make excuses for all kinds of bad behavior, but yet we are warned against being ”too judgmental.”I’m reminded once again of C.S. Lewis’ observation about how each age warns against the very things which are no threat to the prevailing culture: in a libertine culture, people warn against ‘puritanism’; in an age which is irreligious, we hear constant cries about how ”right-wing Christians” are trying to establish a theocracy in our midst. As our borders are obliterated and our country overrun with aliens, legal and illegal, we hear how much ”xenophobia” and ”nativism” there is. In an age in which the Minority is king, we hear about ”racism”. In an age where all manner of perversions are out in the open, we hear about how ”intolerance” is killing us. We have banished the idea of sin, and make excuses for all kinds of bad behavior, but yet we are warned against being ”too judgmental.”

Read Full Post »

PC: The New Religion

Jim Kalb is probably one of the greatest observers of all that is wrong about liberalism.  His latest piece on PC notes how it ultimately destroys culture and human life by taking away our ability to live in a truly human way, specifically by destroying our scale of values which involves ranking choices, “styles” of life, and all the rest. The entire article is worth reading, but I rather like this passage:

Basic issues matter. People have to believe that the world at bottom makes sense, and that it’s ordered in a way that doesn’t thwart human life. In other words, they have to have something that amounts to a religion.

That’s almost a logical requirement. To understand their own actions people have to understand how they fit together to advance something worth advancing. Otherwise action seems pointless, at least in the long run. We can’t look at our own lives that way. To get literary, we can’t–and don’t–live in the world described by Samuel Beckett. We have to believe that what we do is part of a comprehensible structure of how things are.

That makes radical secularism a problem. If you try to get rid of religion, you aren’t going to get rid of religion. Instead, you’ll get some scheme of attitude and belief that functions like a religion but pretends to be something else and will probably go off in strange directions because nobody’s allowed to think about what it really is. In short, you’ll get something rather like the Antichrist.

Officially, at least, the modern West has given up on the idea of an intrinsic moral structure of things. That’s part of what’s understood as the scientific outlook. The world is just atoms and the void, and it has no purpose other than whatever purpose we give it.

That view may be useful for some kinds of analysis, but it creates problems when applied directly to human life. One is that purposes differ, so saying the purpose of the world is the purpose we give it tells us nothing. Another is that it seems odd for a purpose we invent to be a rationally compelling reason for doing something. Rightness is the guide and justification of decision. How can it be created by decision? How can something become the right thing to do just because somebody decides to do it?

Read Full Post »

Our Fragile PC Universe

The sometimes mocked, but often underestimated, milieu of political correctness in our world is just applied liberalism.  And liberalism is a myth about how the world works.  The individual reigns supreme.  Generalizations are bad.  The West is suspect, particularly because it suggests equality may not be a fact about the universe.  So any facts, opinions, or statistics that threaten this comprehensive world view are dealt with rather savagely.  We proudly scoff at the treatment of Gallileo by the Catholic Church–a more complicated situation than I have time to discuss here–but we are often collectively blind to the rampant censorship, career-destroying hate sessions, self-satisfied authoritarianism, and denial of reality that pervades our world, particularly in academic, corporate, and government circles.

Juan Williams, a moderate liberal by any measure, was canned by NPR this week for having the temerity to say what almost certainly a majority of Americans think:  unassimilated Muslims on an airplane, with their head-dresses, burqas, and all the rest, make us nervous.  And they make us nervous because such people have a bad habit historically of blowing up planes and killing people.  While everyone knows all of them are not guilty of such–otherwise, we’d swiftly get off any such plane–we all know they do so at a much greater rate than any other group of human beings on the planet.

But we can’t say this.  And why?  It suggests open-borders, political indifference to religion, and our beliefs in globalism may not be such swell ideas. And they may not be so swell, because religion matters, it defines behavior and norms, and this religion in particular is often understood by its believers to support a war with the western world and political violence of various kinds, including suicide bombings and hijackings.

What a joke of a world liberals live in that someone like Juan Williams, a respected journalist for many years, is canned over saying what is undoubtedly a widely held view among all but the most dyed-in-the-wool liberals.

As Solzhenitsyn put it–in similar circumstances–the first rule of life, in times like this, is as follows: Live not by lies.

When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: I am violence. “Run away, make way for me–I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally–since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies–all loyalty lies in that.

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.

This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.

We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary.

It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.

Read Full Post »