The obvious reason for PC-thinking and PC-speak

[fpb]

The absurdity of the political and media reactions to the Fort Hood murders is palpable. (And, to his credit, President Obama made a clear and deliberate move away from it in his speech, attacking by implication the religious motivations of the murderer and denying his notion of God and of eternal justice.) So: set yourself that absurdity not as a given, but as a problem - and you will see that certain conclusions inevitably arise.

Problem: are the people who deny the obvious (the religious reasons for the murders, and the cool and evidently pre-planned way in which they were carried out) stupid, ignorant or blind? Answer: none of the above, so far as anyone can tell. They are professionally successful and prominent persons in positions (military command, journalistic profession, political leadership) in which access to information is a given. Stupidity beyond the norm is imaginable in one such person; not in a whole mass. Likewise blindness. Ignorance is not even in the picture.

Problem: you therefore have a number of public persons, persons prominent in the public eye, who deliberately talk nonsense, and do so in a chorus. What is more, they do so in order to be heard, in places and times where the general public must hear them. Why do they do that? Because they expect to be believed? Answer: unless they are indeed all stupid, they do not expect to be believed. And indeed, most of them put their denials not in the form of denials, but of questions - things to be considered before anyone comes to a "hasty" conclusion. And yet they go before the general public with this kind of, well, stuff.

Problem: if they do not expect to be believed, why do they express themselves thus, why do they seek prominence and publicity for their statements, and why do they do it in a chorus? Answer: they are obviously, as a group, trying to achieve a certain result. They are applying pressure, as a group, to a group - namely, to the public. It is obvious that they are using their positions of prominence and visibility to achieve a certain result with the public.

Problem: what are they trying to achieve? Answer: all too obvious. They really and truly are afraid that the general public will go out and start beating up innocent Muslims, or indeed anyone who looks like a Muslim. And let us notice one remarkable fact: this is a fear that, to them, trumps even the need to acknowledge obvious truth in a disastrous crime. They would rather look like a gaggle of babbling dolts than fail to do what they can to stop the lynch mob populating the streets. And remember, we have already concluded that most if not all of them are perfectly aware that they are talking nonsense. They know that they are looking like a gaggle of babbling dolts.

Problem: is the issue really so serious? Answer: in real life, not in a million years. The belief in equality, the revulsion against group prejudice and intolerance, the contempt for group violence, are as widespread among the common public as they are among the societal leadership. There are fringe and underclass groups who are in fact capable of such behaviour, but they are both small and despised. Some violence there can indeed be - I have seen the results of a queer-bashing attack on friends of mine - but it is not the work of the mainstream of society. The groups that carry it out are despised, isolated, often criminal, and at any rate hardly likely to pay attention to the pronouncements of journalists, politicians and generals. Resisting the temptation to group violence in our time and world is hardly necessary, and in so far as it is necessary at all, such public self-abasements are wholly irrelevant to it.

Problem: if making complete fools of themselves in public is neither going to achieve their goal to prevent public violence, nor do anything to reinforce their standing, why do these privileged persons do it? Ahh, now we have come to the centre of the riddle. They do so because they believe they have to; and they believe they have to because they really believe that the mass of citizens under their feet is violent, uncivilized, ever in danger of bursting into group violence. They regard the average American (or European) citizen as both morally and intellectually their inferior; a kind of ill-trained beast, ever in danger of reverting to violence and ever looking for "others" to hate.

Problem: why do they indulge such an unrealistic view of the average American or European citizen? Answer: if they did not, where would be the difference between them and the ordinary citizen? And if there is no difference, what would justify their vast wages, their houses and servants, their position of influence, power and pampering? An aristocracy must justify their position by being ready to defend the society it dominates. And to take a common position mutually reinforces their positions.

I have long been complaining about the rise of the new aristocracy. Here is another good reason to dislike it.

Comments

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

"They regard the average American (or European) citizen as both morally and intellectually their inferior; a kind of ill-trained beast, ever in danger of reverting to violence and ever looking for "others" to hate."

I am ashamed to admit that I am torn between rejecting and agreeing with this conception of fellow humans. The more one is isolated from the populace, usually through climbing the ranks of class and education, the more ignorant one is of the mainstream.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am glad you think my analysis has some merit. As for your own position, as long as you are aware of the dangers of isolation, you have not reached the position where you are lying to yourself - which is the really serious point.

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

Indeed, that is the point. In my opinion, the problem with most politicians is that that they delude themselves into thinking that they are one of the people (or, thinking otherwise, act as such), when, by virtue of their position, they really are not. Usually the achievement of a high post in politics has been preceded by years in Ivy League universities and a high-paying jobs in business/law, etc, experiences that establish you in a class of people far removed from the "average" American. Unfortunately, this class is just as prejudiced and narrow-minded as their perceived inferiors.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Couldn't have put it better myself - and that is not only the case in America. Actually, congratulations on the clarity and economy of the way you expressed it.

[marycatelli]

You know, when Socrates tried to figure out what the oracle meant, by finding someone wiser than him, the first man he tried was a politician. And having come to the conclusion that the politician knew more about politics but falsely assumed it made him expert in other matters, Socrates (wisely) concluded that he was wiser, because he knew how little he knew. . . .

Old, old, old problem.

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

As is so often the case, you have written down the things I was thinking.

Excellent post.

Hear, hear

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

Well said.

I would add another possible reason. Defending the weak and downtrodden give the elite a cheap feeling of moral superiority: they can see themselves in the looking glass as if they wore the cape and tights of a superhero. It is cheap because they do not need actually, you know, to rescue any damsel in distress from a sawmill, or face any evil scientists in combat. They get a miniature ticker-tape parade in their own imaginations whenever they do this and talk this way, but they don't actually have to do anything heroic to deserve it, merely perform a ritually meaningless bit of reciting mumbo-jumbo magic words, and ward off an imaginary danger.

Re: Hear, hear

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would say so, yes. With the proviso that what they actually manage to do is a kind of oppression of the majority, which is definitely in the weaker position.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

This may shock you, but I agree with you, for the most part. I'm rolling my eyes at all the people falling over themselves to insist that there's no reason to think this was religiously motivated.

Of course, I also roll my eyes when Christians insist that fanatics who shoot abortion doctors "aren't real Christians."

I do, however, think you underestimate the potential of an anti-Muslim backlash. No, angry mobs are not going to start lynching Muslims and burning mosques, but all the right-wing sites are full of commenters talking about "purging Muslims" from the military, or even the country. (Never mind that Nidal Hasan is a natural-born U.S. citizen.)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The difference being of course that the seven (in all) fanatics who shot abortion "doctors" over a matter of more than twenty years not only are not real Christians but are as rare as hen's teeth. Compare and contrast.

I wonder

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

I am curious as to what the reaction among the PC Aristoi would be if and when a faithful Muslim shoots an abortionist or two. As far as I know, abortion is prohibited by the religion of the Prophet as clearly as it is prohibited by the religion of the Savior, and the Imams hate abortion as much as the Popes.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

Of course, I also roll my eyes when Christians insist that fanatics who shoot abortion doctors "aren't real Christians."

It can verge a bit on "no true Scotsman" at times (and in a theological sense as far as I know they have been baptised Christians, albeit ones who have sinned gravely), but I think it is fair to say that in the act they certainly are not acting as Christians. Christianity has a normative interpretation, under which that sort of vigilante murder is wholly impermissible.

By contrast, Islam lacks an overarching normative structure, and in the absence of a normative interpretation to the contrary, there is quite a bit in its scriptures to suggest that individual actions of this kind are permissible and perhaps even meritorious. Not that I would want to discourage Muslims who hew to more peaceful interpretations and focus on non-violent aspects, but this kind of thing has remained a perennial problem within Islam in a way that it has not within Christianity.

I do, however, think you underestimate the potential of an anti-Muslim backlash. No, angry mobs are not going to start lynching Muslims and burning mosques, but all the right-wing sites are full of commenters talking about "purging Muslims" from the military, or even the country. (Never mind that Nidal Hasan is a natural-born U.S. citizen.)

I was a little distressed this weekend when my mother started talking about internment camps. I do have Muslim friends, and that kind of thing makes me worry for them a little. I think fpb is correct that mob action is unlikely, but I am not sure at this point that eventual broad state persecution, with popular support, is totally out of the question. (And if it came to that, the persecution would basically be at the hands of the same mealy-mouthed aristocracy.)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Sadly, your explanation makes more sense than most of I've read or heard about this phenomenon.

We should however not discount the notable minority of people who have so much vested in their world outlook, and political choices, that they have actually persuaded themselves that they are telling the truth

[fpb.livejournal.com]

No - I took care to say that many or most of the people who line up to make fools of themselves in pubic are conscious of what they are doing; I never said that all of them are. Alas, true believers can never be discounted.

[dda.livejournal.com]

why do they indulge such an unrealistic view of the average American or European citizen?

Actually, I believe a fair number of them do not believe it is unrealistic, despite clear evidence to the contrary. They're PC-mindset says it is so and, thus, it is so. But I do agree that they regard us as their inferior.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Let us just say that they have to believe it in order to justify their privileged positions.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

Found this link through johncwright's LJ.

Very well-said. Our elites think far less of us, the regular folks, than they do the terrorists! Let's face it...the elites have been taught for the past 40-50 years that Western Civilization is to blame for the world's ills, the U.S. of A. is an inherently racist nation that oppresses its minorities and women as well as those abroad, and the average American is a combination of Homer Simpson, George Wallace, and Al Bundy. Of course they think we're a bunch of superstitious, toothless, dangerous hicks.

[sun-stealer.livejournal.com]

Bravo sir.

With some of the liberals I've spoken with, they've said more or less that their is a certain segment of the population that has "evolved"(that was the exact word some of them used) and grown more progessive than the rest of the population, and that it is the job of that more progressive group to shepherd the less progressive masses. There was a time when progressive meant forward-looking, but now people use it to mean ubermensch. The argument is like a mixture of the traditional defenses of aristocracy w/ Nietzche and Hegel. This is far from all liberals I've talked to, but a number I've spoken to have expressed such thoughts.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That is curiously similar to my reading of the X-Men franchise, which, together with this article, leads up to my next one. If you move one article along, you will also find the link to my X-Men article.