I see your point. I should’ve limited my citation to the phrase’s authoritarian origins from the early 20th century.
To clarify, the slippery slope towards “political correctness” I wanted to describe is a sort of corporate techno-feudalist language bereft of any real political philosophy or moral epistemology. It is the language of LinkedIn, the “angel investor class”, financiers, cavalier buzzwords, sweeping overgeneralizations, and hyperbole. Yet, fundamentally, it will aim to erase any class awareness, empiricism, or contempt for arbitrary authority. The idea is to impose an avaricious financial-might-makes-right for whatever-we-believe-right-now way of thinking in every human being.
What I want to convey is that there is an unspoken effort by authoritarians of the so-called “left” and “right” who unapologetically yearn for the hybridization of both Huxley’s A Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 dystopian models, sometimes loudly proclaimed and other times subconsciously suggested.
I get what you mean. You’re saying we’re sliding towards something that brings back political correctness in its original definition, and I agree with you.
The idea is to impose an avaricious financial-might-makes-right
This resonates a lot. I’d argue we’re already there. All this talk of “meritocracy” (fallaciously opposed to “DEI”), the prosperity gospel (that one’s even older), it’s all been promoting this idea of worthiness determined by net worth. Totalitarianism needs a socially accepted might-makes-right narrative wherever it can find it, then that can be the foundation for the fascist dogma/cult that will justify the regime’s existence and legitimize its disregard for human life. Bonus points if you can make that might-makes-right narrative sound righteous (e.g. “merit” determines that you “deserve” your wealth, when really it’s a circular argument: merit is never questioned for those who have the wealth, it’s always assumed because how else could they have made that much money!).
I see your point. I should’ve limited my citation to the phrase’s authoritarian origins from the early 20th century.
To clarify, the slippery slope towards “political correctness” I wanted to describe is a sort of corporate techno-feudalist language bereft of any real political philosophy or moral epistemology. It is the language of LinkedIn, the “angel investor class”, financiers, cavalier buzzwords, sweeping overgeneralizations, and hyperbole. Yet, fundamentally, it will aim to erase any class awareness, empiricism, or contempt for arbitrary authority. The idea is to impose an avaricious financial-might-makes-right for whatever-we-believe-right-now way of thinking in every human being.
What I want to convey is that there is an unspoken effort by authoritarians of the so-called “left” and “right” who unapologetically yearn for the hybridization of both Huxley’s A Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 dystopian models, sometimes loudly proclaimed and other times subconsciously suggested.
These are my opinions and not meant as gospel.
I get what you mean. You’re saying we’re sliding towards something that brings back political correctness in its original definition, and I agree with you.
This resonates a lot. I’d argue we’re already there. All this talk of “meritocracy” (fallaciously opposed to “DEI”), the prosperity gospel (that one’s even older), it’s all been promoting this idea of worthiness determined by net worth. Totalitarianism needs a socially accepted might-makes-right narrative wherever it can find it, then that can be the foundation for the fascist dogma/cult that will justify the regime’s existence and legitimize its disregard for human life. Bonus points if you can make that might-makes-right narrative sound righteous (e.g. “merit” determines that you “deserve” your wealth, when really it’s a circular argument: merit is never questioned for those who have the wealth, it’s always assumed because how else could they have made that much money!).