I submit that political correctness is unabashedly spawned from the substrata of collectivist metaphysics. It claims to defend the civil rights and emotional integrity of “underrepresented” and “disadvantaged” groups…and this implicitly beyond, in spite of, and, at root, INSTEAD OF the principle of Equality Under the Law which the US Constitution guarantees for all of the nation’s citizens. So…already we seem to have something of a paradox going on here. Let’s unravel it.
As soon as it is claimed that one group (or more) is “disadvantaged”, it is necessarily implied that another is “advantaged”. Therefore the only (rationally) possible, albeit perhaps implicit, goal of those advocating for “disadvantaged” groups is to make them “advantaged”, though they will claim either from ignorance or deceit that it is merely “equality” they are after. But this simply cannot be the case as I will explain.
It’s not possible to have the second (“disadvantaged”) without the first (“advantaged”), so what advocacy for the “disadvantaged” amounts to in the end is merely the reversal of labels. That is, there is and can be no real interest in equality, but rather in creating a system whereby the “advantaged” are relieved of their property through State-sponsored (“legal”) theft which is then given to the “disadvantaged”, ostensibly to engender social equality but in reality to create a permanently dependent category of voters who sell their freedom and their souls to have their fellow citizens pillaged by the State on their behalf…or so they think. In truth the plight of the “disadvantaged” never ACTUALLY improves because that isn’t really the point. In other words, advocacy for the “disadvantaged” is merely a barely-clever strategem intended to grow the Marxist-oriented ruling class into a juggernaut of utterly insatiable authoritarian political power.
There can be no rational speaking of equality whilst there exists any sort of collectivist class baiting, with spurious and manipulative jargon like “disadvantaged”, and this because of the collectivist metaphysical roots of whatever group of citizens happens to be the momentary political pawn du jour. Because these metaphysical roots are certainly NOT merely political, but existential and as such MORAL, you see. What I mean is that soon as one group is classified as “disadvantaged”, thus implying another is “advantaged”, we have morally bifurcated the citizenry at the very roots of how we define reality, itself. That is, we have made our spurious class distinctions into a LITERAL war between good and evil; and this is why there is such ferocious and utterly intractable violence to be found on the collectivist side (the left) of the political spectrum. Collectivist politics make no distinction between a group’s economic value and its MORAL value. The “advantaged” are EVIL; the disadvantaged” are GOOD…and why are they good? Well, ostensibly because they are the victims of the political structures established by the “advantaged” in order that they may remain advantaged. In reality it is because they are the group that the collectivist ruling elite have decided promote the Ideal which they will represent as Its governing Authority. The “disadvantaged” are the group that promotes the expediency of their power. This is the ONLY reason they are called “good”. Period. Full stop.
Another point on this idea of the “disadvantaged” as victims of political and institutional oppression, and thus represent the good:
Whether there is any truth to this ot not is irrelevant. First, because those who advocate for the “disadvantaged” are those who wish to use the coercive violence of the State to promote their OWN political ideals at the expense of certain groups, making them hypocrites; and second because once you collectivize human beings into groups—as opposed to foundationally judging and defining them as individuals—morality becomes utterly subjective. To define an individual as FIRST and FUNDAMENTALLY a product of the group is to replace the person with an IDEAL. And ideals, being purely abstract, can ONLY be SUBJECTIVELY valued.
Further, the “disadvantaged” cannot be made equal with the “advantaged” BY DEFINITION, because these two concepts are mutually exclusive. That is, it is impossible that EVERYONE be “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” because this contradicts these very concepts in the first place. So in order to be rationally consistent we must argue that these distinction are inherently false and utterly illegitimate as a means to describe the people…that everyone should be equal under the law, and that “disadvantage” and “advantage” are labels to be banished from political discourse (as self-serving and manipulative) and that equality under the law is ultimately the only meaningful, relevant, and practical context of each and every citizen as far as the State is concerned.
But this is simply impossible as soon as one claims to advocate for the “disadvantaged”. You either advocate for equality under the law, or you advocate for the authoritarian despotism we see in EVERY society which has rooted itself in the pernicious class-baiting sculduggery of the bastard children of collectivism (Marxism, National Socialism (Fascism), Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism, and so on).
And so, getting back to the Constitution:
This document does not collectivize the citizenry (at least not intentionally…the inevitable rational and moral failure of the Constitution is due to the fact that it implies the legitimacy of government, of course, but not because of its driving metaphysical principles, which cannot be considered collectivist per se). And since it does not collectivize the citizenry it can neither imply nor confess the legitimate, legal existence or relevance of any particular “class”. The Constitution, in other words, because it is not a collectivist document, has no frame of reference for the notions of “disadvantaged” or “advantaged” groups. These are strictly Marxist ideals, and as far as the Constitution is concerned Marxism is a flaming ball of rubbish orbiting somewhere on the far, far outer fringes of reality, somewhere between madness and incompetence. That is, class distinctions like “disadvantaged” are utter anathema to the Constitution.
Groups claiming that they are doing the “holy” work of advocacy for the “disadvantaged” you will notice NEVER appeal to the Constitution as the basis for rectifying any perceived unfair legal discrepancies between individuals. This is because A. they don’t acknowledge the root existential legitimacy of the individual in the first place; and B. the Individualist nature of the Constitution means that as far as they are concerned it has about as much to do with rectifying social injustice and managing the disparate economic classes as does a spoonful of room temperature lima beans. They don’t concern themselves with the Constitution because they understand it is an ENEMY of their collectivist assumptions. True “Justice”, in their eyes, is not about the Constitutional rights of the Individual but about who wields absolute power on behalf of the “moral” collective Ideal. The politics of political correctness are of power, not truth; revenge, not justice; sacrifice to the State, not cooperation among the people.
END (Up next, PART 3)