Archive
Categories

Archiv für die Kategorie „Leftist Ideology“

Cognitive Dissonance and Political Correctness

by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage

[Original title: „Kognitive Dissonanz und Political Correctness“, korrektheiten.com, april 19, 2011]

 

The most striking feature of the socially dominant leftist ideology is the glaring discrepancy between its doctrines and visible reality:

It is obviously true that intelligence is heritable, that Islam is anything but a religion of peace, that men and women are by nature different, that western nations owe their wealth above all their own creativity and intelligence (and not „exploitation of the Third world“), that multiethnic societies bring about ethnic conflicts, that normal families are more stable than patchwork families, etc., and everyone – if honest – knows it is true. And yet all these assertions are marked as „evil.“ „Good“ is just the opposite of all this, i.e. the bare nonsense.

How is it possible that a system of thought of such a surreal remoteness from reality whose absurdity even a fool can see through does not collapse under the weight of its own ridiculousness?

This has to do mainly with the fact that it does not operate with the distinction of true and false, but of good and evil. Nobody even claims that one of the above statements is untrue, but everyone is taught that they are evil:

That’s what we learn in kindergartens and schools, from newspapers and TV, in the diversity campaigns of our employers, in the gender-studies courses in universities, from European Union directives and resolutions of the UN; that’s what we are taught by pop stars and athletes, and what we are told from church pulpits and read on propaganda posters (which are in Berlin almost as ubiquitous as they were in the eastern part of the city before 1989). Not even in the football stadium we are spared – there is simply no propaganda-free zone in our life.

Spoken in Freudian terms, the superego is ideologically manipulated to internalize the affirmation of certain dogmatic assertions of fact as a moral norm, and thus even as a part of one’s own self-description, because of course nobody would like to describe himself as evil.

At the same time each person is confronted daily with information that contradicts this dogma, and is even forced to act accordingly (e.g. by avoiding to confront noisy yobs with immigrant backgrounds in public transport, even though there would be no reason to do so if the dogmas of Political correctness were correct in an empirical sense).

The manipulated citizen is living in a state of permanent doublethink. At a certain level of his consciousness he knows things which he must not admit at another level. He is living in a state of cognitive dissonance; to reduce this dissonance he has to struggle against one of the two components of his worldview, either against the learned and internalized or against the actually perceived.

To the ruling ideology, this cognitive dissonance means a latent danger: The citizen will be persuaded not to trust his eyes and to prefer to adhere to political correctness only as long as the PC social monopoly of morality is not challenged. The more gets around that you are by no means an „evil“ person when rejecting the leftist doctrines and defend an alternative description of reality, the greater – from the perspective of the ideologues – the risk that the cognitive dissonance will be dissolved to the other side: i.e. that the dogmas are thrown overboard in favor of one’s own perceptions rather than vice versa. This is the reason why alternative, particularly rightist descriptions of social reality must not be effectively articulated. They are noticed only in the distorted form in which they are portrayed by their opponents, who do anything to stamp them „evil“. The stronger the tension between visible reality and the leftist dogma system, the more grimly the monopoly has to be defended. The militant intolerance we encounter every day is an expression of weakness, not strength of our opponents.

As long, however, as this tension does not lead to an overall breakdown of political correctness, its absurdity, from the standpoint of the ideologues, is quite functional:

It forces people to fight against their own better insight. Yet sometimes this insight gives vent to itself: At the latest after the third beer when they are alone and believe no one is listening to them, even liberal high school teachers complain about the „fucking wogs, don’t get anything“, and in a small circle a green top politician says she would „like to throw a bomb at Neukölln“. (Both quotes were reported by trustworthy sources.) Such breakthroughs of reality, however, do not lead to a change of attitude, but (because of the bad conscience about the fact that such realities at all perceived), to increased penitential exercises (at the expense of third parties), and therefore a intensifying of the „fight against the Right“. The hysterical fanaticism with which the remote-controlled gooder fights „against the Right“ is psychologically easily to decode as a fight against the own challenge by reality. In the „Right“ they fight what they fear within themselves.

On the other hand, it is just the absurdity of leftist ideology that allows a clear distinction between friend and foe: Since it is not based on arguments, but at a priori set moral claims, it cannot be discussed. You can submit to it or not. Whoever affirms the ideology has to make this affirmation known through appropriate behavior: gender-neutral language, distancing oneself from the „Right“, i.e. any people and opinions labeled as evil, avoiding words that are on the index, such as „Negro“, using ideological vocabulary. Such submission rituals are the equivalent of the Gesslerhut or the Hitler salute or the Islamic headscarf requirement: They differentiate the subjecting from the nonconformist and expose the latter to the firing.

And finally, it is just the ideology’s remoteness from reality that allows its use as a means of manipulation:

Since facts do not matter, and the ideological description of reality cannot be challenged with reference to facts, there is no standard for individual judgments. People who have been conditioned to confuse true/false with good/evil, are literally unable to make use their own reason.

The puzzled citizen thus depends on the changing provisional patterns of explanation offered by various „authorities“ – media, politicians, scientists. He grabs these patterns of explanation, even considers them to be his own, because otherwise the world that he believes to know would slip away. He is in the situation in of a lost wanderer, being offered a (wrong) map. Even if the map seems odd, he will suppress his doubts, because the mere existence of the map gives him a false sense of „safety“ he would lose once he soberly and clearly states that it shows a completely different area than the one where he actually is. The human mind is constructed to accept any interpretation pattern, and be it absurd, rather than none.

He will, for example, rather believe that a terrorist assault commited by a man shouting „Allahu Akbar“ has nothing to do with Islam (and has therefore to be attributed to poverty, mental illness, discrimination, special local tribal customs in the Thingamabob desert, or whatever ad-hoc explanation the media currently offer), rather than to accept the „evil“-stamped statement that Islam is possibly a jihad system.

But do not forget: As much as this helps cement leftist ideology, it is, at the same time, its Achilles heel. This Achilles‘ heel is what we have to target at.

Hostility Towards Germans Part II: German Self-Hatred and Leftist Ideology

Written by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage  

Translated by J M Damon

<Following is a translation of a German blog posted at <http://korrektheiten.com/2011/08/04/deutschenfeindlichkeit-teil-2-deutscher-selbsthass-und-linke-ideologie/>

[Part I of my lecture on “Hostility Towards Germans” dealt with the ideology that has resulted from the anti German narrative in the West.
I described how and why this ideology has always been and will always be inappropriate for Germany.
In the following section I discuss the consequences that necessarily derive from the adoption of this narrative by the Germans themselves.
In conclusion I discuss the role played by leftist ideology in the overall complex of hostility toward Germans.]

German Adoption of the Western anti German Narrative

As the result of the powerful effect of various venues of American propaganda following World War II, a cataclysmic shift took place in German political thinking. It was a shift in the direction of the Anglo Saxon ideology of revolutionary liberalism and later Marxism. In both cases it consisted of the acceptance of the basic assumptions of the revolutionary Meta-Ideology.

Among other things, this created a “We – You” differentiation based on ideology rather than ethnicity or national political basis.   The new norm was accepted as a matter of course, until “We” were no longer Germans or even the Europeans. “We” became a party in the global ideological civil war (“The West,” “Western Community of Values,” or “The Free World”). “We” became whoever shared revolutionary Utopian ideals.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union ever larger portions of the Left have come over to this “We,” as is quite obvious from the comet like careers of former “‘68ers”.

For the victorious powers, this new definition of the We-group, based on ideological allegiance meant a latent contradiction in their self-identity as nations. This was true not only for the Russians, who had fought more for Mother Russia than Communism (but whose victory served Communism more than Russia); it was also true for Americans and Britons. It was not easy to equate “My Country Right or Wrong” with the latest scheme to “make the world safe for Democracy.” As we have seen, these contradictions were just latent for the wartime Allies since they had fought as nations rather than as standard bearers for abstract ideas.

Among us Germans the contradictions were more than latent. They could not be ignored the instant we adopted the narratives and Utopian ideologies of our victorious enemies, as we did after the Second World War. A national “We Group” is a supragenerational community that includes past generations as well as those yet to come. The logic that compels a German Chancellor to participte in Allied victory celebrations in Paris, Normandy and Moscow implies that both world wars were battles in European and global civil wars.
They were gigantic struggles won by “The Western Community of Values” or simply “Democracy” (in Russia’s case, it was Utopian ideology as such) over the Forces of Darkness, and since “we” (re-educated, reconstructed Germans) belonged to this community of values, “we” were among the victors whereas „the Germans“ (i.e. the strange people which called itself „the Germans“), the embodiment of all evil, were the losers.

The German adoption of Western Ideology and of Meta-Ideology in general implies a loss of identification with our own VOLK. It compels us to consider our own VOLK as the enemy, to abhor ourselves as an outgrowth of evil and to hate our own forbears. Germany is the only country in the world that erects monuments to traitors and deserters, the only country in which it is considered exemplary to spit on the grave of one’s grandparents. The historical narrative of the victors – with its global political concepts, its highflown Utopian worldview – can never be the narrative of Germans who want to be German. If they adopt it, it will be at the cost of self-obliteration. The contradiction between being German and being part of a historical subject called „Western community of values“ is  unbridgeable.

The problem is underscored rather than solved by lame efforts to unite incompatibles in formulaic compromises such as “constitutional patriotism.”
This hostility towards one’s own VOLK is specifically German, as is illustrated than by the fact that the so-called “anti Germans” (as they call themselves!) comprise the only political grouping that refers to itself with the word “German.”  Not even the Neonazis do that, as they refer to themselves simply as “nationals,” emphasizing that they consider nationalism to be something good in itself – not only for Germans but for everyone. The anti Germans, by contrast, express the opposite wish: they want to eradicate the German VOLK, but not necessarily the very concept VOLK. Interestingly, they are attempting to do this through ideological rationalization, precisely what I identified as the foundation of anti German hostility in Part I of this series: The idea that Germany is (or was) the epitome of anti Utopian, anti globalistic counterrevolutionary force normally goes unstated except among anti Germans. My analysis is not far removed from that of the anti Germans; only the qualifying prefixes are reversed.

Leftist Ideology

Inner logic compels societies that support the fundamental assumptions of liberal Utopianism to quickly become involved with its hostile twin, Marxism – Socialism. In general terms we can refer to them both as Leftist Ideology. Whoever condemns society’s power imbalances on the basis that they are not founded in rationalism, and believes these imbalances are evil and must be stamped out, should not be surprised when the imbalance between rich and poor also comes under the crosshairs of criticism. Whoever champions freedom and equality as universally valid, and as basic values of society, has to deal with opposition to freedom in the name of equality. The Marxists who actively oppose capital because its power is not rationally legitimate but rather arises through automatism (derived from the nature of capitalism itself), leading to the mastery of one class over the other, rely on the same logic as the liberals who polemicize against church and king. In some regards Marxists are more consistent than liberals, since they condemn all social inequalities. For example, they condemn inequality between rich and poor; employed and unemployed; the citizen and the state; and between parents and children as well as majority and minority (either ethnic or religious).

From the point of Leftist ideology the more powerful party is illegitimate simply because it is more powerful. This implies that it should not be allowed to deal with the weaker on the basis of “merely formal” equality before the law, but must be actively disadvantaged. Correspondingly, from this point of view, it is not injustice to plunder the rich for the benefit of the poor or the employed for the benefit of the unemployed. Leftist Ideology assumes that the law and the state are repressive, since they use the same measuring stick to measure dissimilar entities, instead of causing what is unequal to be equal; and needless to say, there are no laws to protect the majority from the minority. On page 28 of “DEUTSCHE OPFER, FREMDE TÄTER” Götz Kubitschek and Michael Paulwitz cite a typically Leftist position asserting that racism against Germans cannot exist. This is because racism is a medium of repression that by its very nature cannot be inflicted on a majority by a minority because of the minority’s lesser social power to enforce its will.

In simple language this means that the “weaker party,” that is, an ethnic minority, is allowed to do everything, whereas the “stronger” (in Germany, the Germans) are not allowed to do anything, but must endure everything.
The power that is presumed to be stronger is automatically the evil power since it benefits from the alleged repression (that it also reinforces.)

Furthermore: since the mere existence of power disparity is the “evil” to be faced and fought, a belated “equalizing” injustice will no longer suffice.
The very basis of the power imbalance must be eliminated: wealth itself; or, as is especially pertinent to our theme, the ethnic majority must be eliminated.
From the point of view of the Left, a majority VOLK or ethnic group has no right to exist.

The Left is not satisfied with representing the interests of the “weak;” it is determined to delegitimize the “strong.” In our country the Left deligitimizes the interests of Germans, Christians, men, nonfeminist or nonlesbian women, whites, heterosexuals and gainfully employed workers. In other words, the Left opposes the interests of the majority and seeks to either force these majorities into the minority or else annihilate them altogether. This is the logic behind the policy of de-Christianization, de-Germanization, de-Europeanization, feminization and the promotion of homosexuality.
Only the gainfully employed cannot be abolished; however, it is permissible to pick their pockets, since they have placed themselves in an evil and repressive position just by existing from the fruits of their own labor.

It is self-evident that such a policy cannot possibly be democratic, since it is systematically directed against the majority. Thus leftist ideology naturally results in the propagation of demophobia (fear of the masses), de-democratization and coups d’etat. Of course it finds allies in minorities of every description.

All this has to do with the psychology of minorities in general, which is characterized by deep resentments. The minorities feel that the way of life of the majority, in which they are unable and unwilling to participate, should at least be spoiled for the majority. A good illustration of minority resentment is the bum who urinates in the vestibule of the bank. Racism against Germans is just one variation of this sort of resentment although a significant one.
Leftist ideology seeks to mobilize such destructiveness.