One of the few traditional Conservatives to have served on the Tory front bench under Cameron, Paterson was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland before being promoted to the more high profile role of Secretary of State for Defra.

Candidate of the day

Owen Paterson

One day to go and Sir John Major has weighed in. “Labour divides to rule. To win votes they will turn rich against poor; north against south; worker against boss." We hope we don't wake up with them on Friday.

Hero of the day

Sir John Major

Another awful Labour woman. The fact Ed Miliband’s carved his pledges in stone doesn't mean he might not break them, campaign chief Lucy Powell has said.

Villain of the day

Lucy Powell

.

THE REAL CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO

Back marriage. Restore grammar schools. Leave the EU.

Stella Morabito: Fear powers the PC machine. Hollywood helps deliver it

This is the third in a series of five articles by Stella Morabito this week on the way that political correctness is bullying conservative women into silence and how they can reclaim their rights to free expression.

When we consider how insidious political correctness is, the term sounds too euphemistic. It feels more like Orwellian thought policing. I’ve also referred to PC as propaganda compliance and coercive persuasion. It helps to bring the reality of PC into focus by understanding that all of these terms are connected.

Two emotions fuel the machine of political correctness. It’s mostly fear. But it’s also desire. Our fear of being rejected is powerful because being shunned is like social death. Just the threat of shunning often creates compliance. In a similar manner, our desire to be accepted and connected can cause us to self-censor or even to falsify what we really believe. Mindless obedience develops a bit later, when there are no family or friendship bonds in a person’s life that can compete with the interests of the PC agendas. Mindless obedience can also result simply through habit, which is why self-censorship is a particularly hazardous trap for conservative women.

Such habits, when ingrained, bring us to the next phase, which we might call “mass delusion.” Mass delusion has a way of settling in after the consolidation of mass compliance. That’s a Twilight Zone state of mental fog in which people are willing to have reality dictated to them instead of being able to discern reality through their own thought processes and civil discourse with others. Recently in the Federalist I wrote up a list of “Ten Key Ways to Break the Mass Delusion Machine.”

Saturation and suppression are the twin processes of the PC machine

The engine of the PC machine operates by two methods: saturation and suppression. First, a word about saturation. The outlets of communication – Hollywood, academia, and the media (I now use the acronym HAM) – are the means of totally drenching society and popular culture with PC narratives. The constant noise first serves to desensitise people, then to gather compliance from them. The more implausible the agenda item, the more HAM marinates our minds in the idea. One example today is the incessant repetition of the transgender narrative.

Suppression is the flip side of the PC coin. PC requires that civil discourse and debate be out of the question, because free inquiry is known to awaken reason and cause people to think actively. Active thinking competes with PC messages which tend to be fragile and often time-sensitive. So agents of PC tend ruthlessly to smear and shout down anyone who dares to question a PC agenda item. Suppression of competing language and thought is absolutely essential to the survival of the PC message. If you think of PC as bacteria, suppression would be the dark room and the culture required for the bacteria’s growth and replication.

The battle is one on one

Since the major communications outlets are currently controlled by the forces of PC, the only way forward is to commit ourselves to engaging others in our private lives and private relationships, or the hidden sphere. The late human rights advocate and Czech President Vaclav Havel wrote about the immense power within the hidden sphere. This website recently ran a post in which I discussed Havel’s essay “The Power of the Powerless.”

If you think it through, the autonomous and organic family unit is the ultimate nucleus of the hidden sphere. And those headed up by conservative women are especially powerful. Such units can spawn autonomous communities and produce children who then broadcast their virtues and goodwill throughout society. No wonder the family is the prime target of all power mongers today, as well as historically. No wonder the ultimate aim of PC is to separate us in order to better control us. And no wonder so much of the PC agenda focuses on abolishing marriage as a male-female institution, and then on sowing identity confusion through abolishing any distinction between male and female. Attentive mothers preside over the hidden sphere in ways not visible to most, but well noted by statists.

But we cannot simply retreat to our nests. Not if we care about the world our sons and our daughters - all children - will have to live in.

Stella Morabito

  • John Thomas

    Indeed, statist control of language is important, and also the ability to change the (real) meanings of words. Of course, readjusting meanings, to comply with, or engender, pc ideology, has a cold Orwellian chill to it. An interesting one, however, is “Islamophobia”. Now, the real meaning of “phobia” is “fear of”, though we’re not supposed to use it that way (and sometimes I doubt if our politicians and MSM people actually know this) – which is ironic, since Islam is reasonably a thing to be scared of. “Homophobia” is another; personally, I’ve never had any “fear of likeness”.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Yes the words “Islamophobia” and “homophobia” are good examples of how the cultural Marxists use certain words. These descriptions are not the result of critical analysis of a person’s views on Islam or homosexuality, but an attempt to impute those who simply dare to question PC orthodoxy with a derogatory term. Some words like “phobia” and “bigot” are particularly popular with PC people. They have become weaponised words used for verbal assault and to obliterate any chance of reasonable discussion.

      • Dave

        Consider also more positive words like “Liberal Progressive” – which is really a re-branding of “Socialist”

    • Mez

      As in dating now being ‘hook up’, the word hooker used to be a prostitute
      ‘Wicked’ in popular culture no longer means evil

      Hollywood fiction seems to encourage the creativity of the environment the fiction was exploring, which is often the negative (eg 1984) because fear sells, but paradise is criticised, what is that about?. Can’t scientists imagine anything beyond what is offered by media creatives?

      • Dave

        Yeah Mex, that’s sick

  • Politically__Incorrect

    This is an excellent insight into the world of political correctness. I would add that everything you say Stella is also true for men. Us guys also recognise the coercion to fall into line and say the “right things”. We also feel that sense of fear when we want to speak out against PC orthodoxy but fear the response of others.

    Political Correctness shuts down human intellect, forbids asking questions (let alone discussing the answers). It is cultural totalitarianism and intellectual death. The way to challenge it’s false and deceitful precepts is to first make people aware of it. They need to understand that is it is a form of propaganda. It is a form of mind control, similar to the way the Soviets tried to manipulate the way people thought. There is also something truly liberating about breaking free from it. It reminds me of those dystopian sci-fi films where the “rebel” refuses to accept the established orthodoxy of the malevolent authorities. This is the real thing however, and the way to overcome it is probably just by not giving in to it.

    • Mr_Twister

      watch the full film “idiocracy” on youtube….. scarily true!
      http://youtu.be/WTqYftNZ6js

      Edit: the first 5 mins is funny enough and hits the mark though

      • Dave

        Yeah. In the 70s the Marxists were telling the intelligent kids not to breed because the world was overpopulated. Then they filled Britain with the state funded offspring of imbeciles and the imported in-breeds from third world villages.

        Of course, back in the 70s they thought they could weaken Britain to such an extent that the Russians could just walk in. Now they don’t really know why they’re doing it.

        • Mr_Twister

          Well…they’re still weakening Britain!!

  • 5th column traitors

    I hate to quote Hollywood but once you take the red pill all you write of is self-evident. Unfortunately the controlling powers really do all they can to prevent people “taking the red pill”

    • Bogbrush

      Actually the Matrix is a very good analogy for the situation.
      I showed the outstanding article James Bartholomew article in April that coined the term “virtue signalling” and everyone who read it saw the truth. The red pill is powerful.

      • Dave

        I think when you put the concept behind the “Matrix” together with “1984” you realise that we are about 50% of the way towards what George Orwell predicted.

        We can now see that a new global society is being created that has been inspired by Marxism but is actually the corporate capitalism and socialism linking together.

        Orwell realised that the Gramscian approach to achieving outright Communism via the slow undermining of all aspects of current society that was promoted by the Fabians (IngSoc) would lead to some new dystopia. He also realised that the nature of the ideas being unleashed would be picked up by people that didn’t even know what they were for or how they had come to be but would align themselves with those ideas for their own best interest at any point in time.

        Right now we are still at the moment we can take “the red pill” and see the “Matrix” being created from the outside, but perhaps not for much longer. Soon the system will be so vast and complex there will be no challenging it until it ultimately fails.

        The United Nations and the EU are the organisations to really fear. They are using their pan-national status to pressure individual nation states. With so many different languages being spoken it is difficult to unite against them. We can readily be manipulated by propagandists in the media. People within the UN and the EU are there for years working behind the scenes to achieve their objectives and nobody even knows who they really are.

        • Mez

          Both of these instututions are totally reliant on funding, ie taxation. With moves towards lower taxation and increasing wealth creation as a wide scale policy supporting entrepreneurship, there’s still the opportunity to wrest control away from greater centralised international govt power. I’m following Daniel Hannan on euro scepticism, and other alternatives, including the much more of a democracy operating in Swizterland. Control has really been instigated through the climate change/oil rhetoric. The UN was funded historically mostly by the US, but they’ve been looking for other options, Clintons being very much in favour of single world govt, (although a friend tells me, statistically a republican is most likely to end up in the House).

          Child care as offered in the Dutch system (along wth more part time work- from optional reduced hours), either involves greater state involvement in supply, or it involves less with the private sector providing the service. Netherlands has gone the state route, but it doesn’t have to; in fact part time work necessitates a move towards less tax and debt rather than ‘more’, and greater individual choice.

  • Mr_Twister

    Basically…when you consider the world around us…..It’s 180° OUT!

    Left Vs Right
    Wrong Vs Right
    ‘r’ Vs ‘K’

  • Mr_Twister

    A message from the President!
    Idiocracy: President Camacho Addresses White Peop…: http://youtu.be/WnwAFoQ8o1U

  • Mez

    First I believe in liberty (as in small state control, while still having rule of law), and I believe it’s perfectly possible to accept homosexual marriage and transgenerism within the construct of individual liberty, while not accepting their rights to adopt, as children also have a right to normal opposite sex parents (being the biological norm when children experience the healthiest development). It’s well founded in science that we are all born different, and individualism as opposed to collectivism, necessitates the promotion of individual including child human rights.

    However I also believe in marriage, and I think homosexual marriage furthers marriage rather than hinders it. We want more people getting married; why would want to hinder that process . Marriage ‘is’ essentially ‘anti-state’.

    To support marriage, it has to appear ‘low risk’, £hundreds per year more in tax incentives will not cut the ‘risk’ of long term irreversible damage.
    a – some/many men see marriage as high risk materially, and their decisions are based on the material and not the security of shared ownership of costs and issues, why?
    b- fewer marriages failing, raised rates of failing partly brought about by poor parenting and previous marital breakdown, (families poor communication habits and attitudes?) also because of financial risk and work availability.

    Also we’ve lost the constraints which encouraged marriage, owing to sexual freedom. Now it’s really ‘only’ about having children. Many men are just not bothered one way or another, presumably because of the cost and the stress on them to stay in highly paid work, as well as the risk of marriage breakdown.

    • Mez

      Also I don’t think there’s any identity ‘confusion’, I’m pretty sure who I am mentally and physically, I think the idea of ‘confusion’ is in itself ‘a social construct’ which encourages division. It’s really about perception. There have always been ‘gay people’, the risk of mixing in society with gay people is no different to 50 years ago; nothing has really changed in that respect. What is increasing is violence, and society is taking the view that some aspects of violence are more excusable than others for different reasons which is a confusion.

      • Dave

        75% of all crime in Britain is committed by ethnic minorities. Thus 75% of prison time is filled with ethnic minorities.

        Take the ethnic minorities out of the UK system and crime would be reduced by a staggering 15 times due to lower rates of crime and longer prison sentences.

        All immigration will continue to push up crime rates. Even immigration from Eastern Europe will push up crime rates because the crime rate associated with white Britons is 5x lower than Eastern Europe.

        If you want a less violent society fight to stop the state pushing ethnic minorities on you.

        • Mez

          I can’t find any numbers at all on line covering the no of muslim men on campus either UK or USA, although stats suggest muslims are highly represented among younger generation graduates, and ‘wealthy foreign students’ are a useful Uni financial stop gap.
          The main reference in Europe outside the UK seems to be the ‘Sweden is the rape capital of Europe’ piece, which has taken a high volume of muslims compared to Denmark over the border, seperated only by differing immigration policies, and an enormous disparity in rape figures. Feminazi’s seem to draw a line against action on muslim rapists despite Rochdale etc ?

          • Dave

            True. The fact that the feminazis don’t have much to say about Islam demonstrates that they are an organised front group for the left.

            Feminism itself likes to pretend it is not an organised movement with fixed beliefs. To an extent that is true, but at its core there are the feminazis. When I was at university, the feminazis, the people that distributed Socialist Worker, the CND group, the Labour students group and every other left wing group were all led by the same people, and they were all executive members of the NUS.

    • Dave

      Why is the state involving itself in marriage at all?

      Why does the state insist that a heterosexual marriage must be consummated?

      Why is the state involving itself in approving relationships?

      Why does the state rule out polygamy?

      Do you see how the propaganda machine is working? You have entirely taken on board the belief that the state can approve relationships, determine certain boundaries of relationships and then extend its scope at will. You have accepted all this without question. You need to start thinking for yourself.

      • Mez

        Do you not believe in marriage Dave ? the statement I made above is that marriage ‘is’ essentially anti-state. One reason why it is anti state is because the family has generally been able to support itself without automatic recourse to public welfare. Marriage reduces child poverty even now. As a libertarian I am against ‘big interfering state’ which revolves around heavy taxation and puts the collective above the individual. Marriage has ben around thousands of years and is very good for individuals because it allows transfer of wealth between generations, within the legal system, marriage in the West is voluntary, and not compulsory

        The state is involving itself in marriage because marriage has it’s roots in inheritance and has tax implications for the ownership of property (men used to ‘own’ women- as in ‘giving his daughter away’, men owned their wives income and any debt; women even a century ago were unable to own property. The rape law was introduced because it reduced the marital value of a woman- as a capital offence it was introduced by men – because women didnt have the vote).
        Married couples historically wanted singles to pay for them, (lower married tax rates), another reason for the state to invove itself in marriage, (and many is seems still do); some people don’t believe in religion and as divorcees want an alternative to the church to remarry. The state doesn’t involve itself in ‘all relationships’.

        The church insists hetersexual marriages are consummated, that’s a piece of doctrine which goes way back into history.

        I don’t need to rethink anything

        • Dave

          You have to consummate a marriage even if you are married in a civil service. The state has rode on the coat tails of religion to impose itself in the same space.

          The rest of what you have written is not relevant to the point I made so I don’t intend to discuss it.