Social Justice Warriors as Neurotic Nanny

John C. Wright comments below on a study of political correctness reported by Canadian free-speech champion Jordan B. Peterson and his rather glamorous student.

It is a pity the study does not appear to have been released to the academic journals.  It is available only as a lecture series.  From what I gather, however, it seems academically sound.

He finds that there are two types of political correctness warriors, a "mothering" type and an authoritarian type.  The authoritarian ones go all out to shut up any speech they disagree with while the mothering type provide justifications for that.  Amusingly, the authoritarian ones have a much lower IQ.

Psychologists have long denied that there is such a thing as an authoritarianism of the Left so it is pleasing to see an academic psychology study that had no trouble finding it

Peterson is a tenured professor at the University of Toronto so it is an amusing thing that there is no profile of him on the university website.  You would normally get a list of his publications at least.  They are obviously trying to ignore him.  He has himself fallen victim to politically correct censorship




My comment:

I frankly mistrust scientific-sounding approaches to common sense issues, and the use of statistical analysis of groups of questionnaire responses does not bring any real scientific measurement into the question: it merely tells you how many people said certain things.

But there is an insight hidden here beneath the scientificky jabberwocky which the scholars have found an scientificky jabberwock way to say, to make it sound more definition and impressive.

But the insight is sound.

The brightest angel becomes the darkest devil when he falls.

Germany turned Nazi was more dangerous than Mohammedans turned Wahhabist, because the Germans had more virtue to begin with, being a civilized and advanced Western nation with an organized military and adorned with scientific genius, as opposed to sexual perverted camel-jockeys mired in tribalism unable to field a proper military force, and able only to attack woman and children, and only then from ambush.

Likewise, an intelligent man is more likely to fall deeper into unrepentant sin than a stupid one, as he can bedevil and bedazzled himself with ever more complex intellectual excuses. And likewise again a brave bully is more to be feared than a craven one.

So here too: the maternal and feminine virtue of empathy for one’s child is said to be the source of the madness called Political Correctness. And the female loyalty, or battered wife syndrome, which bids them bid adieu to logic and reason and cleave to whatever strong leader fills the masculine role in their lives, prevents them from heeding any criticism, no matter how justified, once they are mentally trapped in the cult. A mother with a criminal child will always side with the child over law and order. She will never debate the child’s guilt because that simply and utterly does not matter to her.

It is as invisible as x-rays to a blind man. So, too, do the Political Correctness mavins simply not see the crimes committed, in this generation, by Black Lives Matter, by Hillary Clinton, or by Mohammedan terrorists. Any accusations, no matter how airtight the Prosecution’s case, is dismissed as mental aberration, racism, misogyny, Islamophobia,or the like.

In the prior generation, the PC loons likewise could not see any crimes committed by Communists, so that any opposition to communism was a ‘Red Scare’ or ‘McCarthyism’ and paranoia against Mommy’s harmless widdle boy.

It was not that they saw the crimes and discounted them as insignificant. That is not the way Mother’s love works. I assume that to the Mother of Jack the Ripper, the harlots of Whitechapel deserved what they got.

The insight is an excellent one, for one cannot explain the remarkable success of PC lunacy without explain the powerful appeal. The darkest wolf hides between the whitest sheep’s coat.

There were three other things in the clip I’d like to bring to your attention, dear reader:

Note, first,  how blunt the admission that the idea of Rightwing Authoritarianism was propaganda from the Frankfurt School (I reminded of Erich Fromm THE ART OF LOVING, which I had to read in High School)

Note, second, the very trenchant comment at the very end of the clip. It is almost a definition of an ideologue: and ideologue is someone who has a stance on every problem but cannot solve any problem.

He has all the right answers, given by his theory, but none of his answers work.

This is the meaning of ‘ideologue’ to keep in mind the next time you hear a conservative say that conservatism is not an ideology.

Ideologies are utopian daydreams based on theory that demands reality change to fit, and when reality does not, police state tactics are used, first, to enforce a mass-hallucination or mass-roleplaying-game to pretend that it is working, and, second, to genocide the designated scapegoat de jour. The theory is that if enough blood is spilled, reality, the rules of economics, the nature of justice, the laws of history, will all somehow give way.  Reality here is a father figure against whom the spoiled brat of utopia rebels.

Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, or whatever you want to call the radical ideals of the Founding Fathers, is that men not being angels, and Utopia not being an option, the most pragmatic laws and customs must be set in place prudently, carefully, with due regard to the probable human ambitions and weaknesses, self interest, lawerly misinterpretations and abuses, in order to hinder the power of the state from trampling the rights of the individual.

The reason why the Left never contemplates the dangers of self interest, if the theory given above is correct, is that no loving Nanny with a child in pain acts in her own self interest, and no such child need any protection from his loving Nanny.

The question simply never comes up and need never come up.

The Nanny must act, and cannot wait for the child to solve the problem on his own. The idea of leaving the free market, or private charity, or the Church, or anyone else free to solve the problem is unthinkable to them.

Leftist, being mentally disorganized and often mentally deranged, cannot envision or even understand in theory the concept of treating men as grown-ups, equal, self-reliant, responsible. To them, we are all children.

This, by the way, is why the word ‘equality’ when used by the Left means inequality. Equality really means all men being the same rank: no one born with more votes, more dignity, or more civil rights than his brother. But to the Left the word means how a Nanny sees children playing with toys. If the older brother is hogging the ball or the older sister hogs the doll, Nanny will rush in sternly and force each child to have no more toys than the other. That is the only ‘equality’ she knows. The question of whether or not the eldest child worked for forty years with brain and brawn and the sweat and sleepless nights to win his so called toy never occurs to them. The question simply cannot enter their minds.

The idea that one child deserves or earned or have a right to the toy cannot exist in them. Children have rights only insofar as Nanny permits, and if you having a toy makes another baby cry, well, you have to be the big boy and give it up. Anything else is selfish and stubborn and … here is a favorite word of the Left, otherwise incomprehensible when talking about men standing on their rights … mean spirited.

Note, third and last, how useful is the distinction between Egalitarians and Authoritarians here is. A similar distinction would be useful, for political analysis purposes, albeit less useful for rhetoric, between the Alt-Right, the Alt-White, and the Alt-West.

It would be useful for me, at least. I used to be an admirer of the Alt-Right until I spoke at length to several of them.

I would prefer to be an admirer again, if possible.

I would be grateful if someone could tell me in what ways the Alt-Right minus the Alt-White, that is, minus the racist thuggees, differ from libertarians and conservatives, that is, differ from those who believe in limited government of armed voters avowed to forfend abrogations of the Rights of Man in the name of necessity; or differ from those who seek the revival of Christendom, or both.

I myself think it fascinating that the antagonism of socialism versus capitalism, which prevailed my whole life, has finally fallen to nothing.

Those who call themselves socialist these days use an entirely different set of excuses for looting: it is now seen not as a curative for poverty, as Marx saw it, nor as a curative for colonial cruelty to backward natives, as Neomarxists saw it, but as a curative for any and all forms of micro-agressions, unseen insults, invisible acts of oppression, by anyone who can claim any form of victim status whatsoever.

In other words, the modern conflict is not over economics. It is over culture.

Those who wish to defend the West, the conservative Christians, are against those who wish to destroy the West, the globalist elitist nihilists, gnostics and mystics. The Muslims, homosexuals, women, and racial hate-groups are merely means to an end for the nihilists.

The Alt-White stand firmly against Western institutions and Church teachings and the very idea of equality under the law or equality in the eyes of God. They are respecters of persons, and their respect is based on birth and bloodline, as aristocrats of old. God is no respecter of persons, and judges each man on his merit, as all men of good will should also.

Whether they like it or not, they are part of the problem they say they are trying to solve.

For the devil sends all ills into history in pairs, that a man who flees blindly from the one falls blindly into the other. The ardent anti-Communist becomes a Nazi, just as the ardent Nazi becomes a Communist, never knowing both groups were organized by one movement. So, too, here, the anti-White racists of the Left provoke blind ardor in their foes who, eager to avoid the madness of anti-White racism, rush into pro-White racism.

Both are collectivist. Both are against Greek philosophy, Roman law, Canon law, and Common law, common sense, and the teaching of the Church. Even racial slavery, that sickness that started during the Reformation, is an import from Mohammedanism into Christendom. The slavery practiced in the Fourth and Third Century was more like our indentured servitude, and slavery was unknown in Europe in what are called the Dark Ages.

But the Alt-West and other subgenres within the Alt-Right? They have brought a zest and a fire to the fight against the PC thought police I have not seen the conservative leadership ever display, and which I have, to my anger and outrage, seen conservative leadership despise and disarm.

Which ever Alt of any brand is in favor of Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump, I side with you. We have a common foe and blood to shed together.

Which ever Alt of any brand mocks the Bible, the Constitution, the Rights of Man, or the concept of equality of rank under the law, or who glorifies, excuses, or glosses over Nazism, or plays the apologist for the Holocaust, away with you. Return to the devil, your father.

SOURCE