Dave Chappelle’s Comeback Tour Takes Aim at “New Intolerance” Reply

Who better to fight the PC moralists than Dave Chappelle?

By Nick Gillespie


A decade ago that Dave Chappelle was the hottest comedian on the planet. His Comedy Central show created riffs and routines (“I’m Rick James, bitch“) that still haunt the ether like old radio transmissions bouncing back from outer space. His standup was raucous and rude and unbelievably funny. After quitting his show and his career at the very peak of his fame and occasional standup appearances (some of which got pretty nasty between him and his audience), Chappelle is back with a full tour in the U.S. and England (and still occasionally getting on the wrong side of the crowd).

It’s not just Chappelle who has changed over the past 10 years, of course. So has the culture, which has gotten noticeably touchier about all sorts of real and imagined slights. Spiked‘s Tom Slater has a review-essay about seeing Chappelle, who converted to Islam in the late 1990s, perform in London that’s well worth a read if you care about freedom of expression and what is accurately called “the new intolerance.”

A snippet:

A snippet:

His new set is peppered with jokes about him coming face-to-face with the new intolerance. There’s the lesbian couple whose kid is at the same ‘liberal-rich’ private school as his son – one of them laughing along at his jokes about whether or not they qualify for the father-son picnic, the other ‘too committed to her lesbianism’ to entertain them. And then there’s that trans joke, in which Dave, finding himself at a poncey gallery party, is stared down when he dares to ask ‘Is he okay?’ after a cross-dresser collapses in the corner. ‘I support anyone’s right to be who they want to be. My question is: to what extent do I have to participate in your self-image?’

Read the whole thing.

The New Totalitarians Are Here 1

By Tom Nichols

The Federalist

The New Totalitarians Are Here

There’s a basic difference in the traditions of political science between “authoritarians” and “totalitaritarians.” People throw both of these words around, but as is so often the case, they’re using words they may not always understand. They have real meaning, however, and the difference between them is important.

Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare. The authoritarians are the guys in charge who want to stay in charge, and don’t much care about you, or what you’re doing, so long as you stay out of their way. They are the jefe and his thugs in a brutal regime that want you to shut up, go to work, and look the other way when your loudmouthed neighbor gets his lights punched out by goons in black jackets. Live or die. It’s all the same to the regime.

Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

They want obedience, of course. But even more, they want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining. And the only way to achieve that is to create a new society of people who share those beliefs, even if it means bludgeoning every last citizen into enlightenment. That’s what makes totalitarians different and more dangerous: they are “totalistic” in the sense that they demand a complete reorientation of the individual to the State and its ideological ends. Every person who harbors a secret objection, or even so much as a doubt, is a danger to the future of the whole project, and so the regime compels its subjects not only to obey but to believe.

“Authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion.”

This is what George Orwell understood so well in his landmark novel “1984.” His dystopian state doesn’t really care about quotidian obedience; it already knows how to get that. What it demands, and will get by any means, is a belief in the Party’s rectitude and in its leader, Big Brother. If torturing the daylights out of people until they denounce even their loved ones is what it takes, so be it. That’s why the ending of the novel is so terrifying: after the two rebellious lovers of the story are broken and made to turn on each other, the wrecks left by the State are left to sit before the Leader’s face on a screen with only one emotion still alive in the husks of their bodies: they finally, truly love Big Brother.

Americans Are Getting Too Comfortable With Thought Control

I’ve gone down this road of literary and academic exposition because I fear an increasing number of my fellow Americans are, at heart, becoming totalitarians.


Hate Crimes Charges for Stealing and Burning a Rainbow Flag? 1

Read the story and watch the video here.

On one hand, it looks like this guy was doing more than merely burning a flag that he happened to own. He apparently stole the flag from neighbors. So he’s at least guilty of trespassing, theft, and destruction of property. But charges of felony arson, which is usually applied to the destruction of buildings for purposes of revenge or insurance fraud, and hate crime, given no violence or threat of violence, appears to be present seems a bit excessive. This guy is an asshole, but I wonder if the charges would have been levied if this had involved an American flag, Confederate flag, or, lol, a Swastika flag.

Gabriel Brown raises some interesting points.

“This story is interesting for many different reasons. For the past few weeks and even month, I have seen people calling to burn the Confederate battle flag and to burn the United States’ flag. For decades, it has been determined that flag-burning is a First Amendment right regardless of whether or not we agree or disagree with burning the flag, or a flag that is reflective of this nation-state’s history.

During the past 2 weeks, there have been irrational mob-like calls for digging up Confederate generals’ bodies out of a park in Memphis Tennessee.There have been irrational demands to have street names changed. Stores are now refusing to sell Confederate flag merchandise to the general public. Apple began removing all civil war games with Confederate flag symbols. TV programs like the “Dukes of Hazard” have now been pulled off the air due to the image of the flag on the famous car. There have been people demanding the flag be removed from state capitals, and there have even been advocates of burning and removing the Confederate flag who have posted up memes laughing about how the flag has been removed and replaced with the Gay Pride flag as the new state capital flag…

The irrational lynch mob mentality to burn both the American flag and the Confederate battle flag have become perfectly acceptable and, legally speaking, people have a right to burn those flags whether we agree or disagree as it is protected under the First Amendment right to do so.

All of a sudden, however… if someone chooses to burn the Gay Pride flag, the First Amendment no longer applies to the burning of that flag and it is being labeled a hate crime to do so…

How did a rainbow-colored flag gain superior and privileged protection that not even the United States’ flag, which is the official flag of our nation-state, gain such a degree of protected privilege that you may now be faced with the possibility of jail time if you are to burn this flag?

How did a rainbow-colored flag manage to completely cancel out the First Amendment to such a degree that it is now deemed a violent hate crime to burn it in this country?

Are we going to see lobbying which also deems burning the Israeli flag or the United Nations’ flag a “hate crime” as well, and where they now hold more specially privileged protection than even the flags of this nation-state we live in?

How can you argue that the national flag-burning is legally protected under the First Amendment, but a Gay Pride rainbow flag, is not when all of these objects being burned are simply pieces of cloth with symbols and colors attached to them in a way that is no different than the other?

It is stories like this that are the reason I am very concerned about hate speech laws being passed for any kind for any group because of the potential for abuse that may be utilized once implemented against anyone that ultimately is guilty of the crime of heresy by a religious cult by a group of people in favor of totalitarian humanism.


What Is A Social Justice Warrior (SJW)? Reply

As I have been saying for the past fifteen years.

On the question of totalitarian humanism, one can theoretically be a cultural far leftist without being a totalitarian humanist, just as in past times one could advocate social justice for the working class without being a Marxist-Leninist. And one could have attitudes similar to those of the SJWs without necessarily being a totalitarian statist. Opposition to totalitarian humanism spans the entire spectrum from far, far, far Left anarchists (like myself) to the far Right (like my friends from the alternative right and neo-reactionary milieus). Unfortunately, a lot of anarchists get suckered by totalitarian humanism in the same way some anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists got suckered by Communism in the past.

By Roosh

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.

The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies.


Robert Stark interviews Ann Sterzinger Reply

Ann Sterzinger Returns!

Ann Sterzinger

Topics include:

Trigger Warning, her new project with Rachel Haywire

The Pros and Cons of Child Abuse

Why she is a “radical moderate” and why it’s foolish to subscribe to any ideology in its entirety

Why people feel a need to be part of a political team that will support them and how it’s difficult to be politically homeless


Distinguishing Anarchism from Totalitarian Humanism: A Three Question Litmus Test 1

For a number of years now, I have attacked sectors of the anarchist milieu for either explicitly or implicitly failing to distinguish between anarchism (a stateless anti-authoritarian society) and what I call “totalitarian humanism” (an all pervasive state that ostensibly rules in the name of enforcing “progressive” values, perhaps reinforced by vigilante mob action). I believe these three questions would go along way to distinguish sincere anarchists from totalitarian humanists attempting to usurp the banner of anarchism. Ask any anarchist the following questions, and observe what they say:

1. In your version of anarchism, would small business owners (or cooperative or communes) be allowed to refuse a to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

2. In your system, would conservative institutions such as, for example, Bob Jones University with all of its sexism, homophobia, fundamentalism, implicit racism, etc. be allowed to exist?

3. In your system, would the South African community of Orania, a de facto white separatist Afrikaner commune, be allowed to exist?

If they say “yes” to these three questions, then you have a genuine anarchist or at least a libertarian. If they say “No” to any of these, then you have, at best, a progressive statist or, more probably, a full-on totalitarian humanist.

This simple three-question litmus test would seem to be an effective way of weeding out left-fascist imposters from the anarchist milieu.

White Privilege and Other Hot Air 1

It’s time for anarchists to drop all this “privilege theory” nonsense. Our struggle is against the global power elite, not any race,religion, gender, nationality, etc, etc, etc.

By Keith Preston

Libertarian Alliance

Libertarians of whatever stripe tend to focus primarily on political theory, law, economics, ethics, and philosophy. When it comes to cultural issues, they tend to just fall back on the de facto leftist position or the de facto conservative position, depending on their personal predilections. I don’t think that’s an adequate approach. Instead, I think we need a theoretical framework that recognizes the inevitability and legitimacy of a wide assortment of cultures that really do diverge from each other in terms of core values. Thinkers like Alain De Benoist and Alexander Dugin have addressed this issue at length, and libertarians could learn a lot from them.

I think libertarians (of whatever kind) can do better than to rely on theories developed by Communists like “white skin privilege,” and which found their way into the Western Left via Maoist groups like the Weather Underground.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it shifts the focus away from the Power Elite as the target of enmity, and merely becomes a matter of promoting demographic conflict, e.g. blacks against whites, men against women, gays against straights, atheists against religious believers, natives against immigrants, trees against bulldozers, meat eaters against vegetarians, poor Appalachian whites against Jewish bankers, etc.

The theory behind all that is to ostensibly build “solidarity of the oppressed” in order to avoid allowing the ruling class to play different groups off against one another in a “divide and conquer” type of thing. But it doesn’t work that way in practice. In fact, it has precisely the opposite effect where the ruling class will pose as the friend of supposed oppressed minorities whom they use as middle men between the elite and the demographic and cultural majority they wish to subjugate in order to deflect attention from themselves (see the Belgian colonialists tactics in Rwanda where they favored the minority Tutsis over the majority Hutus as an example of how this works-and didn’t that turn out well?). Also, the cultural left has to a large degree become the cultural majority in the US, and now it is cultural traditionalists who are becoming the minority outgroup.


California State Assembly passes resolution equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism Reply

The Zionist wing of totalitarian humanism strikes!

By Annie Robbins and Matthew Taylor


School’s out, but that didn’t stop California’s state assembly from passing Resolution HR35 buttressing a controversial report commissioned by the University of California that accuses students and faculty of contributing to an environment fostering anti-Semitism on campus.

The report’s recommendations, which seek to limit criticism of Israeli state policies as a form of “hate speech”, have been criticized as an assault on academic freedom and an attempt to limit student and faculty’s first amendment rights to free speech.

There was no debate by lawmakers prior to approval, nor was Israel even mentioned during the introduction of the resolution.


An Assembly resolution urging California colleges and universities to squelch nascent anti-Semitism also encouraged educators to crack down on demonstrations against Israel, angering advocates for Muslim students.

With no debate, lawmakers on Tuesday approved a resolution that encourages university leaders to combat a wide array of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel actions.


The Assembly’s actions also drew criticism from free speech advocates. Carlos Villarreal, director of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, called the resolution irresponsible and dangerous because it combines legitimate condemnations of acts of intimidation and hate with specific objections to tactics used to support the Palestinian people.

– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/california-state-assembly-passes-resolution-equating-criticism-of-israel-with-hate-speech#sthash.My10E1jZ.dpuf

Gay Marriage, Good News and Bad: Some Thoughts on “Marriage Equality” 1

If during the course of some Twilight Zone moment I had found myself on the Supreme Court this past term here’s how I would have approached the gay marriage issue before the Court:

First, the objections to gay marriage.

1. Gay marriage is against religious teachings. Perhaps, but in a society whose core political charter guarantees free exercise of religion, this is an irrelevant argument.

2. Gay marriage goes against tradition. Perhaps, but then so does marriage based on companionate monogamy. Historically, most marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom, and polygamy was also widely practiced, at least among wealthy males. Additionally, an appeal to tradition alone often produces embarrassing results. Case in point: “Tradition” was one of the arguments used by slavery apologists in past times.

3. Gay marriage is unnatural. Perhaps, but the same was said at one time about interracial marriage, which was illegal in parts of the United States until 1967. It is doubtful that many Americans really want to go down that road.

4. A same-sex coupling does not produce children. No, it doesn’t. But then neither does a marriage between two sixty-five year old heterosexual partners. Besides, it’s not like the creation and raising of children is the only or even the primary function of marriage in our own culture. People get married for all kinds of reasons: romance, companionship, sex, money, social status, to defy their parents, immigration status, insurance benefits, and many other things.

Ideally, marital relations would not be a matter that involves the state. Instead, different religious and cultural communities would have their own standards concerning what constitutes a legitimate marriage, and the purely economic aspects of marriage would be no different that an ordinary business contract.

However, the fact remains that we do have state-sanctioned marriage, and this status conveys on marital partners a variety of legal benefits. Among these are inheritance rights, property ownership rights, survivor benefits in the event of the death of spouse, critical decision making prerogatives when a spouse is incapacitated, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, the exemption of marital partners from testifying against one another in court, and a number of other things.


The Pecking Disorder: Social Justice Warriors Gone Wild Reply

By Cathy Young


PHOTO CREDIT: Courtesy Laura Kipnis

The ordeal of Northwestern University film professor Laura Kipnis, hauled before a campus gender equity tribunal for publishing a critique of academia’s current obsession with sexual misconduct, has brought the backlash against “political correctness” to reliably left-of-center venues such as Vox. But this is only the latest incident in the culture wars over “social justice” that have been wreaking havoc in a wide range of communities—including, but not limited to, universities, the literary world, science fiction fandom and the atheist/skeptic movement. More…

UKIP and the Gay Pride March (2015), by Sean Gabb 1

The views Dr. Gabb expresses in this piece are essentially the same as my own. I could have written this piece, almost word for word.-KP

By Dr. Sean Gabb

On the 6th June 2015, the organisers of the Gay Pride March in London announced that they had rejected an application from the UK Independence Party to take part. They had given in to a petition which called UKIP “inherently homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic.”

Before making my statement on this ban, I will say the following:

1. I am not, nor ever have been a member of UKIP, and I voted Conservative in last month’s general election.

2. I started denouncing the laws against all-male sex in the 1970s – that is, before many of our leading “gay rights” activists had started filling their nappies. Some of these denunciations were in writing, and enough of them survive and can be found on my website to show that I am telling the truth. I will add that saying what I said as a schoolboy and as a young man could get more than funny looks. It never did in my case, but there was always a risk, and I took that risk.


Academic Mob Chases ‘Climate Change Contrarian’ Bjorn Lomborg Off Campus Reply

By Brendan O’Neill


“Are you now or have you ever been a climate contrarian?”

How long before this McCarthyite question is asked of everyone who enters into academia, in order to weed out those who refuse to bow and scrape before green orthodoxy?

If you think this sounds like a far-fetched proposition, consider a recent scandalous act of academic censorship at the University of Western Australia (UWA). And consider, more importantly, the lack of outrage it caused in the West’s professorial circles.

It involves Bjorn Lomborg, the blonde-haired, Danish annoyer of environmentalists everywhere.

Bjorn LomborgBjorn LomborgFamous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist—in which he argued that, yes, climate change is real, but, no, cutting back on economic growth won’t help—Lomborg has been a brilliant piece of grit in one-eyed green thinking for more than a decade.

The Australian government, headed by the semi-skeptical Prime Minister Tony Abbott, decided to offer a base to Lomborg for his greenish but pro-growth analysis and agitation.

It asked him to bring his Copenhagen Consensus Center, the U.S.-based, Danish-funded not-for-profit think-tank he’s been running since 2006, Down Under. It would now be based at UWA, would be renamed the Australia Consensus Center, would be funded to the tune of 4 million Australian dollars, and would continue to stoke heated debate about whether mankind really is on the precipice of eco-doom (no) and whether more growth, not less, is the most sensible solution to the problems we face (yes).

Well, that was the plan. But it was scuppered by what can only be described as a ramshackle modern-day Inquisition, which found Lomborg guilty of the crime of denial—not of God, but of climate-change alarmism—and had him cast out of UWA.


The Illiberal Persecution of Tim Hunt Reply

By Brendan O’Neill



If you were in any doubt that a dark cloud of illiberalism has descended over the Western academy, then the case of Tim Hunt should put you straight.

Hunt is a British biochemist. A really good one. In 2001 he won the Nobel Prize for his breakthrough work on cells. He’s a fellow of the Royal Society in London, founded in 1660 and thought to be the oldest scientific research institution in the world. And this week he was unceremoniously ditched by University College London for telling a joke.

Hunt’s crime was to make a not-very-funny gag during an after-dinner speech at a conference on women in science in South Korea earlier this week.

“Three things happen when [girls] are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry,” he said. According to one of the attendees, the joke was greeted by a “deathly, deathly silence.”

In a normal world, a world which valued the freedom to make a doofus of oneself, that should have been the end of it. Seventy-two-year-old man of science makes outdated joke, tumbleweed rolls by, The End. More…

It Begins! Montana Man Being Prosecuted for ‘Hate Speech’ and Holocaust Denial 1

By Elizabeth Nolan Brown


Via Volokh Conspiracy, a disturbing criminal case out of Montana, where Flathead County resident David Lenio, 28, is being prosecuted for making disparaging remarks about Jews on Twitter and denying that the Holocaust happened.

Say what? While this sort of prosecution is common in parts of Europe, Americans enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, which contains no exception for what’s colloquially known as “hate speech.” The only permitted exceptions to free speech protections—as the Supreme Court recently re-articulated—are for obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and “speech integral to criminal conduct.”

As Eugene Volokh explains, defamation law is generally “limited to false factual assertions. It requires a showing that the speaker knows the statement is false, and isn’t just mistaken (reasonably or not). And it requires a statement about a particular person.”

But under Montana’s ridiculously broad defamation statute, “defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to the person’s or its business or occupation.” And anyone who “communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation.”


Is the New Political Correctness Already Dying? Reply

Let’s face it. “Social Justice” is the new social conservatism, the Comstockery, the Prohibition movement or the Moral Majority of the 21st century. It’s time for all serious radicals to toss it in the garbage can.

By Jonathan Chait

New York Magazine

The bizarre Title IX investigation of Northwestern professor Laura Kipnis represents a milestone in the growing awareness among liberals that the left’s approach to identity has gone badly astray. The notion that Kipnis’s essay ridiculing the campus sexual atmosphere was not merely misguided, but an act of gender discrimination, crossed a threshold of ridiculousness. The absurdity of the proceedings was compounded, Erik Wemple reports, when Kipnis’s “faculty-support person” briefed their colleagues about her bizarre ordeal, and that person also became the subject of Title IX discrimination charges, the classic witch-hunt logic by which anybody who questions the fairness of the accusations becomes the subject of more accusations.

But what does the episode tell us? It does not show that the Constitutional right to freedom of speech faces a serious threat. The proceedings against Kipnis were dropped, and it’s impossible to imagine that a court could have sustained any formal sanctions against her on the basis of writing an op-ed column, because of, you know, the First Amendment.

What’s important, rather, is that Kipnis’s antagonists believe that she deserves to be punished by the university administration for writing a column they didn’t like. The official demand of mattress-bearing protestors was “a swift, official condemnation of the sentiments expressed by Professor Kipnis in her inflammatory article” on the grounds that the offending column “has caused tremendous hurt to members of Northwestern’s community.”

The move to sanction Kipnis was not a misguided one-off, but the natural expression of a worldview that I described in a story earlier this year about resurgent political correctness. This is a set of illiberal social norms that have spread throughout much of academia and some virtual communities in social media.


Air Force Announces First Ever Female F-35 Fighter Jet Pilot, Lt. Col. Christine Mau Reply

Everything will be better when we’ve achieved gender equality in mass homicide, right?

By Dominique Mosbergen

Huffington Post

the first woman to fly the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet.

christine mau

Lt. Col. Christine Mau, 33rd Operations Group deputy commander, puts on her helmet before taking her first flight in the F-35A on Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., May 5, 2015.

Mau took to the skies in an F-35 from Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base on Tuesday, the Air Force announced. Previously, she’d completed 14 virtual training missions in a flight simulator.

“It wasn’t until I was taxiing to the runway that it really struck me that I was on my own in the jet,” the former F-15E Strike Eagle pilot said, per a news release. “I had a chase aircraft, but there was no weapons system officer or instructor pilot sitting behind me, and no one in my ear like in simulators.”

Mau is the 88th F-35 pilot who has trained at Eglin in the last four years, the Air Force says. The F-35 program includes the Navy, Marine Corps and allied forces.


Sharpton’s Progressivism is Authoritarian Nationalism Reply

Al Sharpton’s calls for a federalizing local police represents the latest trend in totalitarian humanism.

By David S. D’Amato

Center for a Stateless Society

In his call for the nationalization of police forces, Al Sharpton perfectly encapsulates the mainstream left — frequently dead on target in the diagnosis, yet prescribing a remedy that would only exacerbate the infection. The problems Sharpton identifies, persistent police abuse, unaccountability, and distance between the police and the policed, are the results of a forced monopoly system, one in which arbitrary power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of law enforcement and court officials.

Nationalization would compound these problems by even further centralizing power, increasing the distance (both literally and figuratively) between policing decision-makers and policed communities, and eliminating the checks and balances generated by allowing people to “vote with their feet.” Instead of municipal monopolies providing defense services, which have proven themselves dangerous enough, Sharpton would subject Americans to a single federal police force, echoing Barack Obama’s ominous call for a “civilian national security” force back in 2008.

Sharpton’s proposed remedy shows the mainstream left’s true colors, rooted in the nationalistic, essentially fascist politics of the Progressive Era.


Is Free Speech Under Attack in America? Reply

This is a must watch. Matt Welch provides a very thorough description of how the hard Left has gone from being defenders of free speech on campuses in the 1960s to enemies of free speech comparable to 1960s-era reactionaries or Eastern European Communists.

By Matt Welch and Amanda Winkler


“At some point it is inherently ridiculous when you can’t laugh at Neil Patrick Harris making jokes on the Academy Awards,” says Matt Welch, Reason Editor in Chief. At Reason Weekend 2015, the annual donor event for the nonprofit that publishes this website, Welch discussed how today’s society, full of trigger warnings and a sensitivity to opposing ideas, has lead to a watered down approach to the First Amendment.

“It’s not fun when you’re walking around policing jokes all day long, it’s not an attractive pose to people,” continues Welch.

Slavoj Žižek: Why ‘Political Correctness’ Gets In Its Own Way Reply

The Big Think Editors


Don’t get Slavoj Žižek wrong. The famous philosopher, featured on Big Think last week in an interview about political correctness, doesn’t find fault in being polite or respecting people who are different. He does not advocate for hate. He agrees a state of political correctness is better than open racism or discrimination.

That said, Žižek decries political correctness for two main reasons. First, that it’s entirely and transparently fake, an artificial cover enforced by totalitarian social pressures. Second, that political correctness manifests itself as a form of behavior control rather than a collective effort to remedy the problems it ostensibly seeks to address. Racial and social harmony cannot sprout from this sort of situation. In fact, Žižek argues that political correctness gets in the way of mutual understanding.


Greening Out #31 – The Authoritarian SNP Are Not The Answer Reply


Caity and Dan shift their gaze towards the Scottish National Party (SNP) and their scary authoritarian policies. We chat about the Named Person legislation and the dangers of the state getting involved in family life, the rise in armed police and stop-and-search powers in Scotland.

We move on to the mainstream media scaring the shit out of people, all the ‘free’ shit that politicians try to peddle, how podcasting is not therapy, the infuriating the vagueness of manifesto pledges and the complete nonsense of having nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Don’t worry, we also mention the sinking ship that is the Scottish Labour party and their negative campaigning tactics (which have left them in the state they now find themselves) plus a look at their ten pledges, cheap boob jobs in Prague and zero hour contracts.

We figure out the best and most artistic way to spoil a ballot paper, how social media desensitises people to government surveillance, getting finger printed at Disney Land, why nothing is free and we finish on the liberating feeling when you realise that all political parties are the same and voting is bullshit.

Download (right click save as)

Keith Preston on the Roots of Political Correctness Reply

By Keith Preston

The Libertarian Alliance

I think we can interpret this stuff with either a grand narrative or a focused narrative, depending on what direction we want to go.

I would agree that the fanatical political correctness we see coming from the cultural Left today is traceable to puritanism, but only in the sense that puritanism emerges due to certain strands in the human personality or human psychology. There’s been a great deal of discussion of to what degree modern totalitarianism is an outgrowth of puritan forms of Christianity. I’ve seen some on this site argue that the lineage of PC can be traced directly to old fashioned Calvinist puritanism, and it’s possible to outline a historical trajectory of that kind with a broad brush.

The way it seems to have happened is that puritanism emerged in the UK countries and then migrated to North America where it became the basis of the founding New England settlements. Over time, the Enlightenment overruns orthodox Calvinism but the puritan spirit remains and finds its way into neo-Protestant movements like Unitarianism and Progressive Christianity. (If you want to know what this spirit is like, just read the lyrics to the “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” the anthem of the Yankees during the American Civil War).