All political correctness is based on a crooked notion of greatest good, AKA least harm, to the greatest number of people.
It's an effort to convince people to limit their own actions and words, based on what effect they might have on others.
These others are nudged and engineered into being on the premise that they will be victims, who are disturbed by a potentially infinite number of actions and words.
These victims will perceive harm to themselves before it happens.
They will register a possible future "echo effect" now.
As lambs to the slaughter, they will provide a justification for limited collectivist thought and existence.
"The demands of the machine are insatiable. The danger of shaking men out of the soporific results of mechanized knowledge is similar to that of attempting to arouse a drunken man or one who has taken an overdose of sleeping tablets. The necessary violent measures will be disliked. We have had university professors threatened with the loss of their positions for less than this." (Harold Innis, 1947)
Note the word "mechanized" in the above quote. It's no longer used to describe education. Instead, we have "systems." Or "patterns." Or "programs."
These newer terms aren't given a negative connotation. Indeed, they're offered as heralds of a new and better world.
In this re-framing, we all need systems. The more the better.
The Surveillance State is also, of course, a system. It's based on the premise that ALL freedom has to be monitored and tracked
Meanwhile, modern "democratic" elites have redefined freedom. This is at the heart of what they're doing.
They want freedom to mean "doing the right thing for the greatest good of the greatest number of people." Never mind that such a re-framing is a complete non-sequitur. In the social engineering game, the op goes this way: "Every person would use his freedom to do the right thing; therefore, coercing people to do it is part of freedom."
It's Orwellian. It makes no sense. But that's what's on the table. "Let's eliminate the 'choice' part of freedom and go directly to what a free person would do and make that into ideal and necessary behavior."
The Surveillance State classifies those who disagree as threats.
Asserting freedom as a pure and independent value raises a red flag.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
