The Political Correctness of the Right

The Right has its own version of political correctness.  While it often manifests as Christians complaining about Google not having a doodle for Easter or Starbucks not explicitly mentioning Christmas (or, as I like to refer to it as, “Xmas”) on its coffee cups, it often takes a far more repugnant form.  In any case, it is always annoying.

Anyone bemoaning the lack of endorsement of their particular sensibilities by some entity, regardless of what those sensibilities are, is implicitly accusing that entity of being politically incorrect.  I could be wrong about this, but Easter means basically nothing to anyone who is not a Christian, a parent, or a kid.  Unlike Xmas, it’s not a hugely commercial holiday that secular childless adults tend to put of thought into.  The extent to their enjoyment of the holiday is maybe buying some candy and enjoying the day off.  We live in an increasingly secular society (especially outside the South and Utah/eastern Idaho), and Google’s not a Christian company, so it should surprise no one that they would have nothing about Easter, especially when it has become increasingly controversial to endorse a particular religion, due to the implicit exclusion of other religions (Xmas is a bit different because it has a heavily commercial aspect that is quite secular in nature).  Why bother being offended by something so predictable?  I suspect a lot of Christians do not like the erosion of the Christian cultural hegemony over the West, but it’s not a bad thing.  Spirituality should be a personal thing, not a societal thing.

While that is annoying and similar enough to what the left does, the “right”‘s political correctness gets much, much darker.  This expression of political correctness is embodied by the “alt-right,” which I would describe as an infantile group of losers who, due to lacking anything to contribute to society, feel disaffected but also entitled to some power over others because I guess they really believe in white privilege.  These delicate princesses are basically upset that society doesn’t wait on them, as they feel entitled to.  In essence, they are anti-intellectuals who operate on emotion.  James Kirchick has an excellent piece at the National Review examining the human sewage to whom Trump appeals (via Twitter.  I unfortunately forget who I initially got it from; I intended to save the tweet but inadvertently refreshed the page before remembering that I meant to save it).  As you can see from reading it, the alt-right resembles the left far more than it does traditional conservatives.  They also despise traditional conservatives, who are far too level-headed and not angry enough for them.

Another aspect of the traditional right that they despise is individualism.  Their beliefs are predicated upon the existence of inherent societal divisions.  Just like the left usually views black or gay people as inextricable members of the black or gay communities and therefore not capable of being their own people (which is not something I would ever expect them to admit, but is the logical conclusion of their ideology, which manifests itself any time a black or gay person dares to express an unorthodox position), the alt-right views white people in the same way (and are more than happy to admit that).  To anyone, like me, who believes people are individuals who have far more than a single trait, this is an absolutely bizarre (and pernicious) way to view people.  Then again, as Kirchick concludes, the special snowflakes on the alt-right are all about their “tribe.”  Individualism is potentially lonely (which is probably the reason I, as someone who tends to prefer solitude, am so attracted to it even though I’m also gay and therefore ought to automatically support generous welfare programs).  This simplistic tribal mentality is human nature, but overcoming the base aspects of human nature is one of the pillars of civilized society.  I doubt it’s possible to completely divorce oneself from tribalism, short of becoming a hermit, because you kind of get the same thing from just having a social circle  (see also this excellent article at Cracked).

I would also like to address the idea that white people will, in the future, become an “oppressed minority.”  While ridiculous on its face, there are still people out there who will fall for it, so it’s worthwhile to refute it instead of just brushing it off, as some people may be inclined to do.  Yes, demographics in traditionally white countries are changing, but no, that is not a reason to be alarmed, per se.  It does make a difference what the nature of this change is; while I think a lot of Muslims are just as decent as any other person, as Europe has shown, Muslims immigrants must be integrated (not in a way that forces them to abandon their religion or culture, just so that they are compatible with Western society, as many Muslims already are).  Overall, though, it doesn’t really make a difference what the racial demographics of a community are (although there may be correlations between racial groups and things like poverty rate, those correlations are caused more by history than genetics, and the only thing genetics has to do with it is how it influenced history), because those people are fundamentally individuals.  As troubling as I find the left’s continued division of society into arbitrary groups and how that will inevitably beget the continued existence of discrimination by keeping this tribal mentality alive, white people are not about to be the targets of systemic oppression (outside of maybe South Africa).  If that does become imminent sometime in the future, that would be the time to address it, and even then, white nationalism wouldn’t be an appropriate response.  White nationalism is certainly not justified by something that may happen at some point but probably won’t.  It’s never going to be justified.

I’ve also seen claims that black people are intellectually inferior to white people (a claim made by white people who openly embrace anti-intellectualism, as an argument against black people).  Even if that were true (and it’s bunk, just like IQ, an unreliable quantification of intelligence, and the metric on which the claim is based), it’s not a relevant argument to anything.  Because people are individuals.  Even if the average black person were dumber than the average white person, that doesn’t mean there aren’t highly intelligent black people or extremely dumb white people.  And furthermore, intelligence isn’t even a good indicator of a person’s worth (which is not up to anyone to decide, anyway).  Highly intelligent people may be serial killers, while imbeciles may be highly talented or skilled in some way, or run a shelter for abandoned kittens (for example).

In summary, the alt-right believes itself to be a response to the left and its political correctness.  But, as with the left’s response to discrimination caused by arbitrary racial divisions, the solution to what is admittedly a problem is not more of the same problem.  They’re responding to political correctness with more political correctness.  Whereas classical liberalism, the philosophy on which the US Constitution was based, is an enlightened philosophy based on the ideal of reason (I’m not unaware of how pretentious that sounds, but it’s true), both radical leftism (which can take the form of revolutionary Marxism, that social justice nonsense, etc) and the alt-right are based on the id*, and are different sides of the same coin, so to speak.  And they’re both diametrically opposed to classical liberalism.

NOTE 1: I am not suggesting that the people who claim there is a “war on Christmas,” etc., are in any way as reprehensible as the walking excrement that comprises the alt-right.  Many of the former are decent people and I’m not the kind of person to hate someone based on political disagreements, unless their political views are particularly vile.  Even then, though, I also want to make clear that, regardless of my opinions of the alt-right, that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to freely express their opinions.

NOTE 2: Kirchick mentioned that many of the people at the white nationalist conference had “undercut” haircuts.  I’ve noticed lots of people with this flamboyantly effeminate-looking haircut walking around, often along with skinny jeans.  Because I find it so hideous (it ranks up there with manbuns) and difficult to describe, I’m glad I now have a term for it with which to better complain.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn that, like many terrible things, it was popular with Nazis.  Speaking of Nazis, I now support the heavy regulation of the internet.  What caused this radical change from my former position of absolute internet freedom was people calling unrelated celebrities “daddy” (notably Milo Yiannopolous/Donald Trump**, but I’ve seen it elsewhere).  I could have (just barely) tolerated people saying stupid things like “bae,” “af,” and all the other contemporary colloquialisms that are used to death by dumbass young people (note: just so I’m not mistaken for a senior citizen, I just wanted to mention that I’m 24), but I just can’t tolerate that “daddy” shit.

*I say they are based on the id because they all appeal to resentment, whether against rich people, white people, minorities, etc.

**On the other hand, according to rumors, Donald Trump had many illegitimate children from his extramarital affairs, and they all grew up to be Milo Yiannopolous.

Leave a comment

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: