Egalitarianism and Political Correctness: Devaluing Quality, Good and Evil

C.W. Rietdijk, D. Sc.



 


Throughout history, the conflict between the positive and the negative has been largely defined by the antithesis of on the one side rational values and arguments and on the other side ideology, taboo and preconceptions. The second category was and is an instrument of power and career more often than not. Egalitarian political correctness belongs to it. Ideologies will also emphasize “solidarity” – the great “We” – as an instrument of conformism.

Modern Western leftists and liberals feel more positive than “extreme rightists” about unenlightened cultures and religions, and about also genetically little talented immigrants from low-IQ countries. Could it be that prominent Dutch journalist Hendrik-Jan Schoo was largely right in positing that after the sixties of the 20th century left and right basically changed positions? His opinion joins with J. Morgenthau: “If one day we will get fascism here, we will call it anti-fascism”.

 


1. As an intellectual or public figure, you are ostracised if you violate taboos as to eugenics, genetic factors in crime or intelligence, euthanasia with respect to seriously handicapped newborns, and as to the drawbacks of immigration from the Third World. This irrefutably demonstrates that censorship by the “correct” is well and alive in the modern West. Egalitarian orthodoxy is even so pervasive that it is not done to propose the returning of criminal immigrants, ethnic registration of negative doings such as crime, or controlling special groups, say, as to clitoridectomy. One can see that ideology and censorship or taboo are at stake, rather than an exchange of arguments and pros and cons, because of the mere circumstance that even in a fundamental controversy such as about returning Roma from France (in 2010), the egalitarian opponents used to completely ignore the first-place reason why the proponents came to their policy: the disproportionate rates of crime, annoyance, illiteracy and financial dependence among the Roma.

2. If you deem an average anti-social to be as valuable as a human being as Einstein or Churchill, or if you maintain that genetically speaking there are no relatively superior or inferior individuals, you actually say that no objective values exist, such as with respect to intellectual, moral or emotional quality. Such denial, in turn, fundamentally relativizes and partly excuses as such all social or other evil. (In practical life, many save themselves from the dilemma by upholding something like: “All people are superior but some people are more superior than others.”; courtesy to George Orwell.)

3. Indeed, these days we have an orthodoxy, just as the Victorians and their predecessors had. It is the umpteenth ideology of the mainstream, the establishment and the intellectuals. Compare it with religion, nationalism, traditionalism and the group-mindedness of Riesman’s other-directed personality as regards its unenlightened conformism in its serving the status quo. Thinking of Schoo we see the egalitarian “leftist Church” as fitting in a historical series of anti-enlightened establishment-serving ideologies.

4. That is, in the modern West most people and organizations that are unenlightened chose the egalitarian relativism of 2. above as their basic variant of being so (i.e., unenlightened) and of counteracting rational enlightened values (as a component of the “red thread of historical progress” amply discussed on this website). Therefore, egalitarianism and relativism dominate nowadays. For in the West one cannot successfully “sell” any longer rightist or conservative ideas via openly old-fashioned “religions” such as authoritarianism, nationalism or the instinct repression and manipulation of the Victorians. Consequently, as a modern substitute of historical ways of keeping at a distance rational, truly progressive, values we now see the pervasive egalitarian taboos, also against opposing liberal immigration policy (that imports pre-Enlightenment values as well as votes for parties loving “deprivileged” people) and against eugenics. Also think of current “correct” ignoring the research of the past half-century that shows that intelligence and crime-proneness are largely genetically defined and that various faculties are indeed unequally distributed among social classes and races. (Inter alia, see the interview in de Volkskrant of August 29, 2009 with Prof. Dorret Boomsma, a specialist in biological psychology, the work of Robert Cloninger and Sarnov A. Mednick and The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein, 1994.)

5. That is, if – by instinct or because of interests – you are biased against rationalism and progress, you will devalue the enlightened ideas by revaluing Third-World cultures, the Islam and the genes of the “disadvantaged”, and you will applaud corresponding immigration policies. This is more practicable against the values of progress in a democratic and liberal era of history than are violence, downright superstition, open censorship and primitive education. In particular, those who are not very fond of the Enlightenment often show an instinctive sympathy or moral tolerance with respect to the Islam because of its very not having witnessed an enlightenment.

6. Within this scope, current egalitarian “correctness” is the umpteenth variant of unenlightened orthodoxy that is rightist rather than that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders from the Netherlands and Thilo Sarrazin from Germany are rightist, or other opponents of “progressive” egalitarianism and immigration policy, or of the Islam.

7. It is generally clear that the relativization of value and quality differences as to men and genes at stake above contributes much to making de facto power more important and (social) evil merely a matter of perspective. Both phenomena are in the interest of the powers that be. It is also clear that the gist of egalitarianism is kindred with conformism and with the inner acceptance of “everything there is”, which is also a status quo interest. “All of us should accept each other as we are, including our values and intentions.” This is not very dynamical, let alone that the solidarity inherent in our accepting each other as basically good is precisely the opposite of the revolutionary spirit of exposing explanations and theories. In sum, egalitarianism has a lot of appeasing and conforming power, apart from its devaluing values, quality and progress in the first place in devaluing them as instances that make a difference as to an individual’s value if it ”flunks” in meeting their standards.

8. The psycho-social mechanisms and implications discussed above, which contrast with the “scientifization of culture and society”, with the idea of progress, and with the spirit of this website are strengthened by two more basic “instinctive situations”. One is connected with man’s relatively recent emergence from a jungle in which survival of the fittest, strife, was all-important and, with it, man’s freedom and opportunity to use his “teeth and claws” in his own interest, and to use his intelligence also to mislead competitors. Small wonder that a “Brave New World” as sketched in my work, in which integrity is enforced by all means available and everybody’s core loyalty is to common efforts to make good overcome evil and bring everything under rational and moral control, is far from being the first priority of the instincts of the still highly jungle-minded. They are attuned to outsmarting or subduing others, or to “soccer which is war” (trainer Rinus Michels). By the way, this attitude will be probably the main reason why so many are against the idea of Utopia in the first place, an aversion that is totally irrational. These people want latitude for “dark instincts” and for troubled waters rather than transparent coherence and measuring our minds and their (lack of) quality. Egalitarianism and accepting man as he is fit with them rather than the exposure of individual inadequacies does, or making good overcome evil a major purpose of a scientific approach of the world.

9. Egalitarianism is also much helped in being influential by its “supplying for nothing” quality, self-respect and a mainstay (viz. solidarity with US). That is, without our having to make any serious effort or sacrifice for them. Anybody has quality and value, and his genes cannot correspond with one being inferior.

10. Apart from its being important in the mechanisms of power, it is also clear that egalitarianism and relativism lead to a general climate of permissiveness with respect to crime, social abuse and gene-based “low mental and emotional quality”. It corresponds to this and other “evil-and-power-friendly” aspects of egalitarian and relativistic correctness that eugenics is taboo rather than the highest priority in society and the core of a progress-loving state of mind.

11. As to the “low-IQ countries” of our motto it is very relevant to take cognizance of IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen (2002) that, inter alia, gives research results to the effect that in Africa and the Middle-East – the home regions of most immigrants into Europe – the average IQ is 85 or lower, such IQ at the same time largely being genetically defined (compare 4. above). The data in question imply an alternative explanation of the comparatively lower educational results of most children of Third-World immigrants and also of the higher crime rates of the latter, in view of the Bell Curve result that low IQ’s will correspond to higher crime rates. (Note that the egalitarian “correct” explanation of the relevant educational and crime phenomena starts from “nurture” rather than “nature”.)

12. In the above context it makes sense to realize that Adolf Hitler was the greatest anti-eugenicist in history: he massively practiced the opposite of it (dysgenics) by murdering Jews who in the US have an average IQ of 115 (The Bell Curve) and also in Europe won disproportionately many Nobel prizes. In addition, he fostered the procreation of the “blond bestie” or SS type of man (“Lebensborn”). It is indicative of the taboo- and de facto censorship-infested character of modern society that the data of 4., 11. and 12. are simply ignored in the discussion about immigration, eugenics and other social issues, even by the “extreme right”. Further note that, because of our justly reducing by medical and social care the cruel survival of the fittest mechanism of nature, the genetic quality of mankind is deteriorating as it is (many “genetic accidents” now procreate in spite of their handicaps). This mere process should be counteracted by eugenics partly substituting cruel natural selection. Finally note that some will say that eugenics is an insult to man as he actually is. Well, about the latter, survey history and realize that hardly one denies that modern “civilized” man is little veneer over much predator.

13. Egalitarianism fits in the series of irrationally sanctifying various entities between heaven and earth, such as gods, tradition, the fatherland, races, or social classes. This time, it is Man himself who is “projected into inviolability”. Actually, “nobody is inferior” is a religion.

14. Egalitarianism is also a useful ideological instrument of the “disadvantaged industry”. For if you make people believe that all people are genetically OK and that social, educational and moral rearguards are merely “victims of social circumstances”, there is much to do for endless educational reforms, complicated re-distribution, compensation of “discrimination” et cetera.

The foregoing constitutes one more typical specimen of how unconscious inclinations and interests can conspire to co-mould society and in particular to co-shape an uncontrolled balance of power to which both the elites and the masses contribute.



Please react! See our Discussion Page


Return to Mainpage