How PC Came to Be

How PC Came to Be


The blogger Hail to You has reformatted and posted the comment made originally here by a self-described State Department employee in Europe, which has deservedly attracted some attention in the blogosphere. See Capitalist Liberal Multicultacracy. Hail has written a short response to an item he thinks the original writer glossed over, namely, how did this situation come to be? Hail’s comment is worth looking at in its own right. In part:

This “Blame the Protestants” idea has been popular in recent years among Jewish conservative intellectuals (especially the celebrated Paul Gottfried). It has been picked up by many persons even of Protestant background, who want to seem respectable. The absurdity of the notion, again, is clear in the historical record: Nationalism in the USA was strongest when Protestantism was strongest; it is weakest today when Protestantism is at its lowest ebb in 400+ years of white settlement of North America. (Although I will leave it at that, why this illogical argument appeals to Jewish conservatives should be obvious).

But, then, how did the current racio-political climate come about? […]

20th Century history must be understood as a conflict over the fate of European-Mankind. Sociopolitics was torn wide open after WWI. The Old-Order collapsed in the pointless 1914-1918 war. Three forces emerged to struggle for the soul of European Man thereafter. Capitalist-Liberal Democracy [CLD] was the undisputed winner of the three-way contest by 1989. The losers were Communism and “Voelkisch-ism” (Racialism).

During the course of the long struggle, both CLD and Communism sought to prop themselves up by demonizing (truly, dehumanizing) the competing ideology of Racialism. After WWII, demonization of racialism actually increased, to make sure their former competitor stayed down. CLD and Communism also both used demonization to bestow upon themselves “negative legitimacy” (i.e., “The racialists are/were the definition of Evil, but we defeated them, we saved the world!”). This was highly fertile ground for CLD towards legitimizing itself. The values internalized, though. The innocent, hands-in-pockets, idealistic notion of Capitalist Liberal Democracy, thus, in time, morphed into its ugly mutant cousin: Capitalist-Liberal-Multicultacracy. (A prime example of the old warning about staring into abysses). [There is also something to be said for Multiculturalism tending to be a natural product of Capitalism. Chomsky has written about Big Business as being among the most reliable anti-racists anywhere. “Why” has to do with common markets and so on.]

This simple process explains much of what we today call “PC”. Few people seem to understand this. So many people seem to think PC is some kind of bizarre accident that fell down upon us like manna from heaven. No, it was the odd byproduct of the conflicts of the 20th century. Values subsequently realigned. The logical result: By the 1990s, morality for the typical metropolitan white person was, essentially, defined as being Anti-Racialist, Anti-Nationalist, Xenophilic, Ethnomasochist. (Cf. “Stuff White People Like”).

It’s easy to forget how recently liberal capitalist democracy had strong competitors, chiefly variations of socialism that appealed to the Third World, but with the downfall of the Soviet Union, and China converting more or less officially to capitalism, and further with the post-war liberal capitalist democracy of the U.S. being the wealthiest and most powerful state in the world, we – the world – are all liberal capitalists, if not democratic, now.

I think that Hail’s analysis misses the extent to which Capitalist-Liberal-Multicultacracy arose as a legitimization of facts on the ground. It’s easy to imagine an alternate historical universe in which illegal Mexican immigration, for instance, did not occur, having been prevented through enforcement of the law. As late as the Eisenhower Administration, the U.S. had zero tolerance for it. But once the tens of millions came, various factions here, notably the Democratic Party, and perhaps the Catholic and other Churches, saw that they could take advantage of the situation. Likewise with the passage of the 1965 immigration bill, which resulted in our growing population of those unconnected with the founding people. As recently as the Reagan era, it seems to me we had little of the multicult; what changed was the sheer number of immigrants and their descendants.

But why white guilt? This is a necessary component of the CLM regime. Again, historical facts on the ground, mainly those of slavery and segregation and the civil rights era, provided an ample base for progressives to use against the white majority. With the media dominated by progressives, it became easy enough for the message of guilt to be hammered home.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s