Political correctness is something which has been growing expansively, especially within our modern times where anything less Left-Wing than Communism is seen as the most extreme form of Racially based Right-wing-ism. I have often heard while in debate or just friendly conversation that political correctness is not dangerous, sometimes it is nonsense or absurd, but never as dangerous as National Socialism or Imperialism. It is exactly this assertion which I wish to smash with the hammer of thinking.
The common definition of Evil is that which is immoral, harmful or extremely damaging. But Evil is not that simple at all. Evil is not simply something which is bad, but the allowance of something which is bad while also denying it is even Evil. Nihilism is the ultimate Evil for it denies Evil’s existence, and squashes all Evils and Goods into one big ball of nothingness. By denying that Evil can exist, you perpetuate Evil.
Jordan B. Peterson expresses how the ideologue who denies all Evil or even the chance of it is actually the perpetrator of Evil itself:
‘The ideologue says: anomaly means dissolution, dissolution means terror – that which frightens is evil: anomaly is evil. It is not the existence of anomalous information that constitutes evil, however – such information rejuvenates, when properly consumed. Evil is the process by which the significance of the anomaly is denied; the process by which meaning itself – truth itself – is rejected.‘ (1)
How this definition of what Evil is ties into political correctness is by the way which it enraptures and traps the mind and thinking system in a way which doesn’t allow it to make conclusions. It forces the thinker to ignore the conclusions which are the logical conclusion of its fact finding and observations. This is the denial of Truth, and thus Evil by denying that there is more to find out and know.
Because of this, the very problems which are discovered by observation and reality can be denied because they make us uncomfortable, and by denying these realities we become powerless against them. When our illusions meet the wall of reality, it won’t have any mercy.
The perfect example of this is within the United Kingdom, where during the 1990’s and 2000’s wanting to talk about immigration was linked directly to racism. This forces the society to fail to speak the truth, no matter how uncomfortable, because that truth and the thoughts which are harvested by looking at that truth are systematically linked and related by society to buzzwords such as racism, xenophobia, and so on.
These are exclusivity terms to cause social suffering, ostracisation, exclusion, isolation and suicide of free-thinking and free-expression. This also causes the suicide of debating difficult and uncomfortable truths which demand attention for the betterment of society.
This ignoring of truth because the reality is too painful to look at, and brings with it uncomfortable conclusions is further expressed by Peterson:
‘The devil is not the uncomfortable fact but the act of shrinking from that fact. The weaknesses, stupidities, laxities and ignorances that ineradicably constitute the individual are not evil in and of themselves. These “insufficiencies” are a necessary consequence of the limitations that make experience possible. It is the act of denying that stupidity exists, once it has manifested itself, that is evil, because stupidity cannot then be overcome.‘ (2)
Thus political correctness allows the whole of society to ignore uncomfortable truths, while they grow like the Tiamat dragon which dwells under existence, as it grows by being ignored it grows big enough to consume our existence itself. This kind of self-censorship is not simply being polite, but Evil by ignoring the existence of reality itself.
The perfect example of this was given by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when he’s describing a woman who worked in his Labour camp during the Soviet Union’s rule in Russia. She was a member of the party and a loyal Communist to the Soviet regime, but has been imprisoned for no reason at all, as many were. Their problem for such people wasn’t the fact there were Labour death camps, as they agreed traitors should be worked to death. Their problem is that they agreed with these camps, but miraculously found themselves working in one as a slave, and didn’t understand why. Their internal dealings with their support for the regime and not understanding why they were there made them defend the regime over themselves, reality, truth and society – if they are in a prison by the demand of the party and the Soviet Union, and going to die; the party and regime must be correct. This is political correctness at its most extreme. Here is Solzhenitsyn giving that example, which I think is the perfect end to this article:
‘Here’s the sort of people they were. A letter from her fifteen-year old daughter came to Yelizaveta Tsetkova in the Kazan Prison for long-term prisoners: “Mama! Tell me, write to me – are you guilty or not? I hope you were’t guilty, because then I won’t join the Komsomol [a Soviet youth organization], and I won’t forgive them because of you. But if you are guilty – I won’t write [to] you any more and will hate you.” And the mother was stricken with remorse in her damp gravelike cell with its dim little lamp: How could her daughter live without the Komsomol? How could she be permitted to hate Soviet power? Better that she should hate me. And she wrote: “I am guilty…enter the Komsomol!”‘
1. Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. 5, The Hostile Brothers: Archetypes of Response to the Unknown. The Adversary in Action: A twentieth-century allegory. (Routledge, 1999). Page 358.
2. Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. 5, The Hostile Brothers: Archetypes of Response to the Unknown. The Adversary: Emergence, Development and Representation. (Routledge, 1999). Page 317.
3. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag archipelago.
1. Peterson, Jordan B. Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. (Routledge, 1999).
2. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag archipelago.