by Justin Deschamps
Political correctness is antithetical to free speech. Free speech is essential for many reasons, most importantly because in order for justice and true egalitarianism to flourish people must be allowed to share ideas freely, to have a meeting of the minds wherein an issue can be addressed from all sides. In the act of doing so, controversy and disagreements can be resolved fairly. But free speech is coming under attack, largely based on a reductionist narrative that someone has the right to “safety of mind” even if it means suppressing someone else. But is this right, and what effect does this philosophy have in the world?
In smaller societies, each individual plays a major role in maintaining things for everyone else. If a community consists of 100 people, each person is essential; no one can be removed without it having an impact on the whole. But the larger a society becomes, the easier it is to rationalize excommunicating “deviants” who don’t conform to the social norm. A farmer who doesn’t agree with the community will be seen as of lesser value than one who does, which could lead to excommunication if the community becomes intolerant.
In large compact social environments, like the major cities, it isn’t possible to maintain relationships with everyone—there are only so many people a person can care about, listen to, and engage in activities with. As such, there is a real need to limit associations in large populations, which is likely why cities tend to be home to people who are relatively indifferent towards each other. In this sense, indifference, intolerance, and prejudice—even in a mundane capacity—are tools to discriminate between people, methods for maintaining a manageable friendship circle.
Sometimes simply wearing the wrong piece of clothing in an inner city environment will send a signal to one social group that such a person should not be associated with. A white man wearing clothes designed for black people, like Jimmy Jazz, might compel some to act intolerantly.
Tribalism tends to blossom in dense populations likely for the reasons mentioned above. Also, the less truth-cognizant people are, the more likely their fraternal associations will be premised on somewhat superficial things—such as race, economic status, and so on. Such groups often engage in some form of rivalry with other tribes, whether minor or major, like fans from differing sports times fighting with each other. Add scarce resources into the mix, and tribal divides tend to become greater and greater, eventually forming a violent gang-like atmosphere. One need only look into the dynamics of dense populations the world over to see that this is a very common condition.
Contemporary social justice movements seem to be capitalizing on the tribalistic conditions present in certain socio-economic environments, particularly, inner-cities where dense populations exist. Since resources are scarce and population density is high, people tend to rely on authorities to solve fairness problems, especially insofar as delegating resources. Thus, an overemphasis on “fairness” emerges in dense populations, with people looking to the State to act as arbiter. In other words, such communities become progressively isolated, xenophobic groups that feel entitled to resources and status in society and petition the State to act on their behalf, often without any regard for the inequality that “protected” status affords them.
And so long as communication between groups is not taking place, each tribe will feel justified in raging against another. Furthermore, postmodernist philosophies discount debate and discourse; they suggest that some opinions and viewpoints never deserve respect. But such a position disregards the fact that people can change their minds, and often do when productive discussion can be allowed to take place.
Free speech provides a solution because it allows minds to meet and differences to be dispelled. Furthermore, it enables superficial values of the tribe to be enfolded and embraced by the larger human family. That is to say, harmonious values service the needs of all, whereas, tribal values service the tribe at the cost of others, which communication is needed to resolve.
Through dialog, social groups find common ground, dispel false ideologies, and work together to ensure everyone has a chance to succeed. This is what true social justice should be about—real egalitarianism and altruism balanced by the truth at all times. The more a society is able to deal with reality and solve social problems justly, the more freedom and prosperity is afforded to each individual.
Related Consciousness Emerges From Social Coherence | Rupert Sheldrake — The Extended Mind: Recent Experimental Evidence, Telepathy in Animal Flocks, Pets and Owners, Mothers and Babies, Telephone, and more
If a disagreement is largely superficial, then both parties will remain antagonistic and war-like. And if a dispute is serious, then only communication can draw upon the industriousness of each individual to form a solution that is fair and just for all. Thus, no matter how seemingly antagonistic and controversial a topic of discussion or problem might be, communication—especially with one’s dissenter—is incredibly important.
But political correctness is anathema to freedom, prosperity and true social justice because it severs that critical link of communication. It suggests that some forms of interaction are intolerable, regardless of the circumstance. It began as a call to not use certain offensive terms, like racial slurs, but is now reaching into other areas. For example, so-called cultural appropriation is deemed politically incorrect, which is the idea that certain behaviors and objects, such as articles of clothing or ways of speaking, are only for certain cultures—it is not correct for a white man to wear a garment from Asia.
Furthermore, universities and colleges, once bastions of free speech, have now become so politically correct it is almost impossible to engage in open dialog. It seems that as time goes on, and people become more tribalistic likely due to the effects of social media (a large aggregate of people that need to discriminate in order to avoid forming too many relationships) the destruction of free speech is moving at pace. It isn’t enough to simply walk away from another person’s opinion, now that person must be silenced at all costs.
The following is a fascinating presentation by Dr. Norman Doidge and Dr. Jordan Peterson on the origin and effects of political correctness, as well as speaking to the growing trend of social justice in the world today.
Make no mistake; social engineers have a vested interest in manipulating mass consciousness, as they have done for most of human history. The current use of what could be called weaponized meta-messages is likely an effort to obfuscate greater issues from the growing masses of active youth. Young people go through a phase of personality formation during the pubescent period of development that, at present, manifests as rebelliousness, likely due to behavioral modification techniques employed by most parents today. What this means is that social engineers need to manufacture political issues to give young people something to rebel against—and the present narrative is that of victim and oppressor.
Interestingly enough, the victim-oppressor narrative has some truth to it—there are the occult manipulators and the sleeping masses. In effect, a kind of false social flag has been inflicted upon the people, wherein the woes of society are not being blamed on the right causes. Instead, they are being blamed on a dark and evil villain, the “privileged white man” who oppressed native peoples and women everywhere for most of human history—at least this is how the story goes. But race and gender are not the causes of tyranny and oppression, and from here these manifestations of anti-social behavior arise from many factors, like the evolutionary technique of elitism.
Through the use of this half-true narrative and weaponized meta message, real oppression in the form of self-imposed slavery by the people nurtured by dark occultists remains hidden. And instead of the people working together to solve their greater issues, they fight amongst each other over superficial ones.
In this sense, the powers that be are doing everything they can to prevent newer generations from waking up and seeing the game of society for what it is.
The emergence of the internet has made it very easy for someone to find the greater truth, and arguably there is a slow and steady mass awakening taking place.
Possibly the introduction of the neo-liberal, and neo-conservative agenda—which are both two sides of the same draconian coin, is a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo of authoritarianism—dependency on the State.
It is important for the awakening masses to comprehend that distraction is one way to keep the status quo alive. And at present, huge portions of the population are being distracted and duped by false social justice narratives that actually destroy civilized life instead of restoring it.
But as long as one has an open mind and is willing to seek the truth above and beyond their preconceptions, there is hope for the future.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected] with the error, headline and url. Thank you for reading.
March 9th, 2017: Minor grammar corrections were made to this article.