Falsehood of Political Correctness and Censorship in Disguise


The Falsehood

There are different definitions and approaches to what truth is. From ancient far eastern philosophies, to analytical philosophies combined with cybernetics of the 20th and 21st century. All of them have foundations, arguments, and hypotheses that can be debated. All of them can be accepted or not, but most of them have firm and coherent foundations. Those who like to relativize, which is the pastime of the superficial, contemporary popular philosopher, would misuse the fact that various approaches to the question of truth persist, and conclude that the concept of truth depends on the vantage point of the subject, or even question why truth is important in the specific case and context.

At the end of the day, what is important is to be able to set aside the philistine views of this milieu, who would like to devalue centuries of human thinking. Over the centuries there have been genuine efforts to develop various positions and perspectives which cover the range of distinct human concepts, which are comprehensible and have solid foundations and can be treated as generally accepted values. One may or may not accept these, but the sincerity of their origins is above reproach; they were derived outside of opportunistic motives. As long as one can argue some opinion or thesis based on coherent arguments, share it with others and be ready to enter into a discussion, whether it goes along with the presupposition or not, whether or not there is firm opposition from the other side, it is nevertheless safe to think, to debate, to conclude, to change one's opinion, position or philosophical approach. It is important for human beings to evolve, to gain knowledge and to develop new and better ideas than they had previously. This is all distinct from incoherent relativisation, which forms the core of the falsehood of political correctness.

Why is relativisation a dangerous evolutionary cul-de-sac in the course of either personal or civilizational development? What does it mean, in the contemporary context, when the declarative and discourse stunting statement is made: For you it is simply one way , but for me, it is simply another. What is missing here is the understanding of what it means to learn, to change for the better, to think and rethink, to recognize and to follow general human values and values of general concepts in life, which once lost, become the source of various misunderstandings, from interpersonal to group, and even state or interstate turmoil.

What does this relativisation have to do with political correctness? The introduction of political correctness as a valuable contribution to the struggle for freedom is entirely erroneous, unsuitable to humanity and is absolutely devolving the level of discourse. Political correctness is indeed most useful for those who have the intent of enslaving the human mind, to undermine the organically derived ways of thinking and living, and to impose some others in their place. Political correctness is also useful for purposes both small and large, like making rhetorical arguments, manipulating someone, or even gaining political power in a very short period of time. These are the reasons is why the proponents of this model need to relativize, because in the place of a coherent value system exists only a superficial one, one based in an inability to project their long term interests beyond their immediate or ego derived needs, cynically disguised as a genuine concern for others. They find that it is conclusively safer to relativize everything and engage in opportunism.

Political correctness is not related to human development or progress, it is indeed unnatural, which comes with the development of specific language or its jargon. Political correctness is an imposed value, one achieved exclusively by giving money to those promoting it, which enables them to impose these suspicious values, to make humanity distracted from natural development (which no one can jump over), to favour certain groups and to oppress others, to ultimately atomize and separate people from each other. But at the same time, the appearance must be created that there is a struggle to care for others, for equality, fraternity and all the other loaded political phrases which in fact lost their valuable meanings in the process of textual deconstruction.

Exploring some concrete examples in their contemporary incarnation, will allow us to shed a little light on the subject. The subject of 'fat shaming' vs. 'fat acceptance', is one of the new horizons to come out of the social ideology of 'political correctness'. When a person is fat, why it is not politically correct to tell them that they are fat, and to try to help them? Obesity is a question of a health condition, not a matter of 'acceptance'. The other new vector relates to the handicapped. If someone cannot walk and is in the wheelchair, why it is no longer politically correct to call those people physically disabled, but it is imposed that they have special needs or are 'differently abled'? Isn't this neologism maybe even more abusive? What psychologists generally agree upon is that what these people need is to be treated as normally as it is possible, as adults with agency, not to objectify them as overly-tender embodiments of collective pity.

These examples are illustrative of the hypocrisy and falsehood of political correctness. Apart from its falsehood, is that the pressure made by those who lobby for political correctness are worse than traditional censorship, or even racist propaganda, and its effects are worse than any kind of insult which can be hurled about.

Censorship in Disguise

It is also necessary to address the historical origin of political correctness. It dates from the political debates and arguments within extremist politics, its jargon and politics as a permutation of inauthentic democratic activity. It began as a product of Stalinism in the Communist Party, and was a tool used against those who crossed the permissible line of ideological thinking. It continued on into the inauthentic democratic political debates in the US after WWII, where it became more than obvious that the pursuit of this agenda did not have anything to do with social achievement. The stated aim was that people ought to normally treat each other equally, no matter what differences existed between them. But the intended product instead is more related to political madness, extremism in disguise, and perhaps even some amount of psychological instability among individuals or groups promoting it.

If the term political correctness contains the suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy in the USSR, and the orchestrated social, political and media campaigns in the US after WWII, in order to help transfer power from official governmental institutions to unofficial non-governmental institutions, how did it come to pass that political correctness can credibly be viewed as genuine concern for freedom and equality? It is more a mask for unofficial censorship or, more precisely, an attempt of control members of society in a disguised manner through every day language, with the aim of shaping minds. It aims to take the appearance of a fight freedom of every single individual on Earth, no matter what are the political, religious, sexual or any other views of any individual. But, it also means that contemptible groups or individuals may claim the right to exist and operate openly.

As time goes by, and political correctness is being mandatorily imposed, it appears that something is terribly wrong. Various minority groups started to hustle the majority, which is a very illustrative example of how the whole world functions. It proceeds as if there were never gay people before, as if there were never alternative religions existing before, as if there were never strange political attitudes before, as if women were chained in dungeons for centuries.

In the age when practically naked men go around in the streets of Stockholm in Sweden, in a bondage outfit, with crying and confused children from kindergarten who are brought to walk along with them, some other groups still are calling for a ban on some books, or to legalize sexual intercourse with animals. What especially stands out though is the paedophilic practices of the most distinguished groups in power. What is politically correct about that?

In the age when the general public in the US is obsessed with a celebrity who changes their gender, and when police brutality rises to the level of social illness, especially toward black people. Yet Mark Twain's works, indeed critical of actual racism, are censored because of the accurate use of the word "nigger". The majority of people, who still have some kind of morality and life values, like empathy and common sense, are not asked if they approve or agree. While approving gender change experiments on people, the other people in the US eat junk food, and increasingly resemble fictitious characters like "Jabba The Hutt" from Star Wars, more than they do human beings. Which can also be treated as an experiment on living humans. What is politically correct about that?

In an age when it only looks like political correctness protects everyone and freedom is claimed for everyone, the international community allows Israel to kill Palestinian people, on the territory of the state of Palestine, both in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel is allowed not to lift the siege of Gaza, Israel is allowed to use false flag media campaigns and false flag military operations to start disgraceful wars and killings in the occupied state of Palestine. Israel brings foreign citizens, Jews and converts – illegal settlers, who do not even speak Hebrew, right wing religious zealots from all over the world to live on other people's land and to act like Israeli citizens. But indigenous people of the state of Palestine are not allowed to live there freely, on their private or state properties - they are expelled and refused the right of return – all that on the watch of the international community.

Israel destroys Bedouin culture even after being warned by the international community. The settlements which Israel builds on Palestinian soil are illegal in the eyes of international law. Israel usually uses peace talks to distract attention from building more illegal settlements while talks are on. But, whenever it is denounced for disgraceful violence toward the state of Palestine and its citizens, Israel invokes the argument of antisemitism and the holocaust. What is politically correct in that false argument? Are the holocaust and antisemitism the only arguments, false by the way, which Israel is able to raise in order to justify its crimes, for seventy years? It has been seventy years from the end of the holocaust and almost a century from the beginning of the open and supported occupation, and outright violence towards the state of Palestine and its citizens on their own soil. Israeli soldiers' favourite sport in recent years is killing Palestinian children. Israeli Occupational Forces are also allowed to enter both Islamic and Christian religious places with heavy armament. What is politically correct about that?

Indigenous African tribes are wiped out and, again, the false argument is used as cover - humanitarian concern for people. The natural resources are stolen, people's ways of life are forcedly changed under the false argument of taking care of them. The governments are changed forcibly, foreign society standards are imposed, civil wars are provoked, people are left starving. The same happened to Aboriginals in Australia, native tribes in North and South America, and to some tribes and nations in parts of Asia. Luckily, there are still parts of the world which are still sane. These have succeeded at keeping humanity and their cultures alive, as much as it is possible, in the age of rage. The dominant paradigm is generally allied around ignorance, superficiality, and cowardice; a paradigm which places value in the huge amounts of money above all else. This is bloody, foreign money, mostly originating  from the so-called developed world. What is politically correct about that?   

For the last several decades, the international community has been producing a new silent war zone in the Balkans, by fragmentations and divisions, by civil wars and NATO bombardment with the help of bribed local politicians, whose political standpoints vary from extreme nationalism to destructive wild west capitalism, depending on what they were ordered to be by big bosses from so called developed world.  What is politically correct about that?     

What is the purpose of UNESCO, if Baghdad, Tripoli, Damascus, Kabul and other ancient spots of culture development and heritage are ruined? What is the purpose of the UN if the United States of America leads proxy or non-proxy wars all over the world? What is the purpose of UN international peace missions if they cannot act in line with international law and keep peace? What is the purpose of any state police service if it is militarized, and it is more of a danger than protection for the tax payers who pay their salaries? And, what is politically correct in all that?

But, even if the so called developed world countries made it possible, under any false argument, to wipe out material cultures, which were the fertile soil of the development for many other cultures, or to steal artefacts from these destroyed countries and bring them to the museums of the developed world, it is nevertheless not possible to wipe out sane people and common sense. It is therefore finished off through manipulation and by implementing the tools for building up double standards and dissolving natural human consciousness. But sooner or later, common sense will appear again, because it is a natural characteristic. When nature is kept from existing through its regular mechanisms, it finds some other ways to fight the sickness, because nature is a self-regulating mechanism, which the new applied sciences try to copy with machinery but fail in that, producing chimeras.

There are many examples of double ethical standards these days: people working for the military industry, but in their free time being activists for some just cause; people working for the pharmaceutical industry and selling what amounts to poison, but then fight for organic and healthy food in their free time; people engaged in competitive sports, but assuring their own victories by doping; people living in nature, but cutting trees, without planting others; fake artists who create by assembling other recognized artists' works (copy-paste styles) and present these as their own.

Political correctness is supported by officials with judicial power who misuse the judicial system, armed groups whose power is based in their being a machine for killing, and scientists who wield their expertise towards nefarious ends. Another important tool of censorship in disguise is advertising which uses fake art. The ad industry is one of false values, producing a degradation of cognitive capacity among its consumers, and creates double standards for covering up misuse of judicial, military, and scientific platforms. The fake artists who work for disgraceful ads companies are not good enough to be recognized as genuine and creative artists of any kind, so advertising is their way to expose themselves and be acknowledged. Investors know that, because they are also cowardly individuals who need the machinery of propaganda for either personal or public acknowledgment and fame, in order to fill in some void at the psychological level. That is how they form an alliance of the cowardly, frustrated and ignorant, in order to make themselves important and use power gained in despicable ways, and then present it all as something else. They dissolve true values and impose false ones, disguised in advertising of various products and services, producing worlds of virtual happiness with a blitzkrieg of audiovisual manipulation. From the perspective of language, although they are politically correct, they are illiterate at the same time. The superficial and vacuous content of commercials are in complete accordance with the falsehood and censorship in disguise as political correctness.

The aim is the same: an implementation of an idiocracy. Advertising is a good metaphorical example how political correctness works: the activity of paid cognitively defective people for the production of more cognitive defectives. It misleadingly shines through senseless language phrases, usually in contradiction with image content, in order to play tricks on the mind.  Music industry megahits are in similar vein, presented as something meaningful and larger than life. It is meant to appeal to the individual, for them to feel special, while its real aim is to cause fear, that one will never achieve the greatness seen in the commercial; it may destroy that same individual physically, mentally, emotionally or morally. This is especially so if the individual is unstable, experiencing stress, or is a person without integrity. It is meant to dissolve the structure of human values, developed by sane and intelligent humans in their natural and socio-natural environment, in order to robotize and devalue human life, and to impose an unstable, plastic, easily replaceable, inhuman living standard. Such a devalued human life would be changed as the opportunistic needs of the alliance of the cowards change, assisted by those who allowed themselves to be owned and managed by a nicely and politically correct packaged fear.