A Philosophical Boo to Political Correctness: People Are Not Machines

I am an enemy of political correctness because I am an enemy of algorithms.

Who is your enemy today?
The “red”?
The “blue”?
The peasants?
The foreigners?
The free?
The happy?
The unmasked?
My heart is mourning
For all the love
That could have saved us.
Just when they said
It’s time to pick the enemy,
And we complied.

My nose is telling me that the peddlers of confusion are getting ballsier. The antidote to their tricks is linguistic clarity. Many are chiming in on political correctness and censorship—and I am here joining them, out of frustration. My point? There is a way to have respect for others—without self-betrayal or self-annihilation. There really is, no need to yell!

I am an enemy of political correctness. Why? My reasons are different from the classic “freedom of speech” argument, the latter being an algorithm in itself. I am an enemy of political correctness because I am an enemy of algorithms, especially given that algorithms are often weaponized by the ruthless and the unhealed—in destructive ways and with horrible results.

The summary of what I think:

Yes, our society, like any other, is extremely imperfect. Its history is dark. At times, it’s cruel and indifferent. It’s a conveyor that has no regard for the human spirit, and I don’t like that part at all. However, political correctness is not the answer but rather a cheat with awful side effects. It’s always been a cheat but now it is also being used—under the guise of “justice,” “health,” and “sustainability”—to crush the dissent against the famous “Great Reset” by establishing a temporary dictatorship of the unhealed, whose mission is to drag the expectations down and take out the dignified.

What’s the “Great Reset”? Volumes could be written abut that but in short, it’s an ambitious market-restructuring campaign that’s being unleashed upon us as I am typing this by the world’s most influential and power-hungry crazies. The idea is to whip up new markets out of thin air (almost literally), at massive environmental and human costs. Ironically, this initiative is spun by marketing professionals as “green” but in reality, it’s merely neocolonialism with a demographic shift.

A small chunk of philosophy, for context:

People are not machines. People have good and bad in them, and that will never change. Figuring out the balance is the point of human life. A small number of people in each community are born predators whose satisfaction and fulfillment require consumption of others against their will. Their social function is to keep everybody alert and lean. Most people, however, are wired to be useful to the community constructively, in their own artfully imperfect, evolving, and individually creative ways. Most of us derive joy and satisfaction from being able to act on our gifts and being “seen” for it.

Human life is a creative, mysterious affair. There is a way to maintain a balance between an individual and the world. Such balance requires a sensory understanding of human experience, a kind of knowledge that is not remotely intellectual or algorithmic. The word for that is “wisdom.” Living in balance with the world is not particularly glamorous—certainly not as glamorous as a symbolic photo of a rainbow or a snapshot of a heroic deed—but it is deeply satisfying. The word for that is “happiness.” And it is from that sense of satisfaction that genuine respect for others is born. It’s born from happiness and inner strength. A happy person is full on the inside, can withstand occasional discomfort or non-violent idiots, and doesn’t have the need to steal a sense of fullness from other people.

And political correctness?

Political correctness divides the world into victims and villains. Algorithms are like barbed wire intended to protect the declared victims from the declared villains. In recent Western culture, political correctness started with just a couple of forbidden topics, and then evolved to what we have today. Today, it’s trendy for predators to toss around the verbal currency of justice and public good. There is a renovated myth that vocalizing “just” ideas makes the world more just—but in real life, the opposite is often true as vocalizing anything without depth or context becomes a zombie lullaby with teeth—and true villains know precisely how to use this lullaby to put the peasants against each other while they, the predators, are monetizing angst.

And by the way, words are only as good as the heart of the one who says them. Coming out of a predator’s mouth, “just” words are tricky. Furthermore, “just” words coming out of the mouth of a well-intended—and in today’s world, usually well-fed—young individual whose mind is full of hashtags, don’t have the same weight as they have coming out the mouth of an older or more experienced person who has lived through challenges and learned the practical meaning of these words. But of course, our society prefers to elevate well-meaning, malleable young people who are still inexperienced and insecure—due to no fault of their own—and who are likely to go to great lengths to get approval… for amplifying whatever the predator adults want them to amplify. Look no further than “defunding the police” that is wrapped in a song of justice but is really intended to cynically clear up the space for patented “AI surveillance” products…


Interim conclusion:

Yes, there absolutely is a need for all of us to invest in acquiring wisdom, courage, and compassion—and to apply those qualities according to our subjective hearts, which will result in a much better world. A perfect world? NOT perfect, perfection is impossible. But a happier and kinder world. And yes, one can fight for the dignity of a particular community without turning it into a game of musical chairs in which dignity of one requires humiliation of another. Human experience is not intrinsically designed to be a game of musical chairs. That game has been invented as a cheat by the predators who don’t want the peasants to discover that the “chair factory” is run according to the pyramid of “artificial scarcity.” They don’t want the peasants to think about life as a generous, happy experience. In fact, they don’t want the peasant to think at all.

They want compliance though confusion.

Thus, there is tremendous—and seemingly intentional—existential and emotional confusion around the topics of respect, expression, and political correctness, and I am not okay with it because this confusion is causing a lot of harm. My desire is to undo it so that more of us can feel like we are not alone in a crazy house.

It jumps at me that the designers of confusion are using two distinct techniques. And while there’s definitely a lot of ignorance and opportunism in the mix, there’s also an intention.

What two techniques?

One, they are modifying the meaning of the word “respect” and creating a previously non-existent feeling of being disrespected based on trifling matters—thus diverting energy from real issues and abuses, which are consequently allowed to continue rotting in ways lucrative to the predators. It’s a technique of creating virtual “proxies” of actual distress—moving symbolic targets that can be dragged around arbitrarily, with the emotion of offense already attached to them. The newly created feeling of being violated is real—because all feelings are—but the act of disrespect, in many cases, is artificially created or blown out of proportion—at least comparing to many issues still ailing human beings such as loss of life, physical violence, war, or hunger.

By using that technique, one can make a lot of people feel insulted over about anything—neutral words, colors, unrelated symbols, songs, dances, clothing items, or pronouns. If I start pounding your brain relentlessly telling you that anyone who wears a purple dress with dots means to insult you—maliciously, defiantly, on purpose, to make you feel inferior and helpless—you might eventually accept the new neuronal connections and desire for all dotted purple dresses to go away, to stop your pain. Meanwhile, I could be bombing entire cities in another country, and you wouldn’t even care—while honestly self-identifying as an activist against the purple dress insult. Does this parable sound a bit familiar?

Two, they are implying that human beings are defective robots, and that we are in principle incapable of good subjective decision-making—unless we fill our brains with talking points of the day (usually tied to some kind of an economic benefit to the designer of the talking points). Thus, we are dangerous and need to be surveilled, nudged, and otherwise micromanaged by the algorithm—in order to save us from messing up the big picture that the self-appointed conveyor supervisors have thought up. No love.


A zombie world, a rat race, an abomination.