Greedy Goblin

Monday, May 29, 2017

Cognitive dissonance behind political correctness in the free World

Even after the Manchester terrorist attack, the media and public speech is mostly about how we much fight "Islamophobia" instead of migration, which sounds crazy to me, but I got used to socials parroting whatever they hear. However "socials are stupid" doesn't explain this:

The terrorists seem to avoid Eastern Europe. The reason is quite obvious:

It's hard to commit terrorism when you can't come in, when you are locked up in "transit zones". The question is why is this obvious solution not widespread. I remember back in 2015 when it started, Hungary stopping migrants was called neo-fascist. The mainstream voice was of the "willkommenskultur", lefties all over Europe were waving "refugees are welcome" flags. It wasn't simply being naive, even after years of terrorist spree, the mainstream voice is still against "Islamophobia".

It's obvious that the media tells what the media owner (oligarchs trying to build a "global superstructure to advance humanity") wants. The question is why the Eastern European countries seem to be immune to the open denial of the danger coming from mixing cultures. There must be a systemic reason why the same indoctrination that turned the Western mainstream culture into suicidal zombies had no effect on the Eastern European people. And this reason can't be rationality, otherwise the GDP in these countries wouldn't be lower.

Western and Eastern people were equally forced by various institutions to speak politically correctly (lie as the oligarchs wanted them). You cannot use critical terms against immigrants, Islamists, welfare recipients; instead must use supportive terms on these "vulnerable minorities". If you openly resisted, you lost your job. There were a few who openly resisted and they were forcibly silenced. However this led to the indoctrination to the people of the West while had no effect in Eastern Europe. As soon as the liberals were unable to force the people (for example when they closed the curtain in the election booth), they acted upon their real beliefs and the liberals who believed to have won the "cultural war" were looking puzzled where these "nazis" came from all of the sudden.

The solution is cognitive dissonance. It is psychological stress as consequence of a person's performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values. Western people pride themselves to be free and strong. Especially Americans. For a European, the campaign song of Trump "proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood was bizarrely over-romantic, along with the flags everywhere and the "from my cold dead hand" approach towards privately owned guns. When such "free and strong" man was forced to shut up or lose his job, he experienced very strong cognitive dissonance. The idea that a university student group or some other movement of nobodies tell him what he can say and what he cannot is totally incompatible with his self-image of a free strong man. The only way for him to solve this internal conflict was to internalize the demand: "if I believe what I'm saying, I'm not forced, I'm just freely expressing my opinion". So they quickly became hosts of the politically correct speech, turning universities to places where people can get fired for not looking properly and conservative events physically attacked.

Eastern Europeans on the other hand grew up during Soviet oppression, therefore we do not pride ourselves as "free and strong", rather "witty and surviving". During the Soviet era, open criticism was punished - just like under the liberal era - so people got used to behave in public and criticize in private. Not standing up to the Soviet tank column wasn't considered cowardice and no one thought less of the other guy for praising the Soviets in a ceremony - if he properly condemned them in private. Therefore our social people did not experience cognitive dissonance when a powerful liberal demanded them to speak politically correctly. They obeyed while fully aware that they are just obeying tyranny instead of speaking freely. As soon as the "stormtrooper" left the room, they spit on the ground and condemned what they just had to say. So liberals could only make people lie instead of indoctrinating them.

I don't know how realistic it is, but I see no other solution for social Western people: they must admit that they are not strong and free, they are living under the oppression of oligarchs and they can't even vent their frustration for the closure of a TV show without punishment. They must learn "live today, fight tomorrow" like we did. Because if they insist that they are free and strong then they have two options: becoming a martyr or becoming one of the enemy. They must learn the art of "pst, now that they are not looking, I tell you what I think, but keep it between us". Again, I'm not sure if they are ready to give up the "I'm a strong alpha male with a gun" image, but a nail bomb can be very persuasive and I have no doubt that the "refugees" will provide a lot of "persuasion".

36 comments:

Jim L said...

You got it wrong. Everyone is still free to speak in America. It is just that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences or freedom from rebuttal.

Why do so many conservatives play the whiny victim card when people react to their speech?

Gevlon said...

@Jim L: You got it wrong. Everyone is still free to speak in North Korea. It is just that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences or freedom from rebuttal.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of Speech means that there are no consequences, but there may be rebuttal.

nightgerbil said...

Its an interesting point, but not new: We have known for the last 20 years here in the UK that we are not allowed to criticise Islam. It is LITERALLY Illegal and people have gone to prison for it. Similarily If I use the N word in public or "paki", both of these would result in prison sentences if caught on camera phones and shown to the police/posted on social media. While I actually agree with the laws, the way they have been used is to shut down any genuine concerns ie ok you invited 3 million poles here to work and live with us cool. Why not build 2 million more houses to accommodate them without watching them blow up the rents and affordable housing markets? no? well how about you hire more doctors... No? what do you mean I'm being racist?

@jim L, hes not speaking about America hes speaking about europe: No we DO NOT have free speech here. It is illegal to use hate speech, defined as insulting an ethnic or religious minority.

Anonymous said...

Show me the refugees that have become terrorists in the countries highlighted?

That map is where the UK foreign office considers terrorism to be a threat.

Lower threats include: Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (a lower threat level than Russia and Ukraine) and Switzerland.

Interestingly Sweden has taken in way more refugees per capita than elsewhere.

It is almost as if refugees are not the problem.

Regarding your view on free speech. Is there any evidence that those with right wing views are not allowed to speak in the USA? Because I find it odd that you think that is the case when a brief perusal of their major networks indicates that your world view is very prevalent in broadcasting.

Anonymous said...

> They must learn the art of "pst, now that they are not looking, I tell you what I think, but keep it between us".

Alternatively: they can express those views loudly. There's a significant audience which will eat that stuff up. Redpill antifem Youtube guys can get millions of views by ranting about the threat of Islam, the weakness created by PC safe-spaces, the intellectual bankrupcy of neoliberalism, the terrible influence of women on film and video games, the importance of faith and patriotism, etc.

Declaring your opinion may alienate some of your friends, but ... fuck it, that's life. You'll lose some friends if you support the wrong basketball team. You might not get promoted at work if you disagree with the boss's shitty music preferences. Everyone needs to choose a position somewhere between "autistic individualism" and "sheeplike conformity." Political issues aren't special. Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Have you in your analysis considered the fact that , the UK, Germany, and France are in the Combined Joint Task Force ? but not the other european country.
your other points make some sense though.

Gevlon said...

@Anonymous: please explain me the difference between "consequences" and "rebuttal"

@Nightgerbil: the US has the same problem. So does Germany (remember that the New Years EVE mass rape was censored from the press until social media reveled it, now they are making laws to censor social media)

@Next anon: ALL of the terrorist attacks shown on the map were done by Muslims. Not a single Hindu, Christian, Jew or Sikh terrorist. "refugees" are indeed not the problem. Muslims in Christian countries are.

While I linked several anecdotes how people were fired for being conservative and could link hundreds of more, I rather bring objective statistics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016 shows that out of the newspapers who made an explicit Clinton/Trump endorsement, 95%!!! endorsed Clinton. Considering that Clinton and Trump support in the population is roughly equal, one can wonder where are the pro-Trump journalists. It seems they are banned/fired from the media.

@Last anon: sure, one can make himself a career like the next Tomi Lahren. But not everyone can be politician or pundit, most people are working in some apolitical job. Until they speak up conservative and get fired. Unless you call for 60M pundits, you have to make a useful advice for ordinary people who just want to go on with their lives without becoming a problem too.

Ðesolate said...

The way you describe "witty and surviving" is the way a great number of Germans act in private. Thats the way it is since I can think...

For example when Merkel "screamed" "refugees welcome" and the official public reception was positive. But most people said that this will get us pretty fucked in private...

Gevlon said...

@Desolate: then why did Merkel's party did so well on the last election? Elections are places where you can act privately.

Anonymous said...

Islamophobia is a word made in the iran revolution by irani mulahs in the 70s. Guess for what they used it besides other stuff to discredit the women movement as such islamophobes. So in a way all those trigger happy SJW unicorns are culture appropriating the term and meaning from irani mulahs ... no matter where you are on the victim pile, it should be wrong to use in their own make-believe world.

As soon as the "stormtrooper" left the room, they spit on the ground and condemned what they just had to say.
I'm currently reading Gulag Archipelago from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn https://archive.org/details/TheGulagArchipelago-Threevolumes and I'm in horror. I don't know if I had the courage to say anything to anyone like you described. ok it is writing about a time some generation ago and published '73 but still there is no one to trust.

I think the west is a lost cause. naked ape puts it in better words as I could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSD36ESQhRw

Also laws now at least in Canada go so far as to compel speech like with bill c16.

Free speech is a very double edged sword. In the end I much rather have a debate as opposite a mob killing each other of because someone said "witch" or in today equivalent term "nazi/altright/racist", very much like the SJW/feminists/unicorns conduct themselves.

Show me the refugees that have become terrorists in the countries highlighted?
why not search for yourself. even if I shove you facts into your face you will be wilfully blind.

Worldwide attack lists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_January_2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_February_2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_March_2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_April_2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_May_2017

germany "einzelfall map" (isolated case map (HINT IRONY!)) that differentiates attempted murder, rape, burglary, honour killing or attempted killings stuff etc.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1_rNT3k2ZXB-f9z-2nSFMIBQKXCs&hl=en_US&ll=51.36119443931468%2C6.969721633496192&z=5

moderate muslims. Have fun. The most progressive country barely are under 50% in some very important questions.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

germany is safe?
Bundeskriminalamt zuwanderungs statistik
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/JahresberichteUndLagebilder/KriminalitaetImKontextVonZuwanderung/KriminalitaetImKontextVonZuwanderung_2016.html;jsessionid=597065497778AF405512484BED756506.live0601?nn=62336
in some cases more than triple. rape seems to be the big thing.


I'm no islamophobe. I'm no nazi. I have a islam converted sister. I don't dismiss muslims I despise Islam ideology

Anonymous said...

If refugees are not the problem but muslims are you are going in a direction where the state will allows some religions but not others, some will be true *Insert nacionality here* others will not.

A few questions:

- How many generations will you go back?
- Will the bank account matter?
- Are you sure you will live up to the scrutiny?

Anonymous said...

Can we please not mix the terms refugee and immigrants... It is really harmful to do so.

You are a refugee when you flee from your country, and the first time you reach a country which is safe, you are a REFUGEE there. You are not a refugee after 2-10 border crosses, you are an IMMIGRANT.

Gevlon said...

@Anon: the problem isn't religion, but culture. I don't care what God anyone worships in his temple or at home. I do care if they bring a foreign culture into ours. I'll write more in a post, but in short, I wouldn't ban any PERSON, I'd ban the following BEHAVIORS and deport those who perform them to countries where they belong:
- wearing non-western clothing
- refusing to eat western food in public cafeterias
- not speaking the language of the country
- separation of sexes (outside of bathrooms)

I have no problem if an enlightened, secular person from a Muslim country wants to live here. But he must leave his past culture at the border.

Cathfaern said...

@Gevlon: I know what you mean, but:
- What is "western clothing"?
- How do you specify "western food"? Would you deport for example vegetarians too? Or that does not matter because they are not vegetarians because of religion? But then what about Buddhist vegetarians?
- By not speaking language I think you mean not speaking and don't want to learn to speak although want to live there for some long undetermined time. Because otherwise you would need to deport many people (like tourists or foreign workers from multi-national companies).

Gevlon said...

@Cathfaern: for lawyers and troublemakers, there could be a 1000 pages long appendix with photos of accepted western clothing. For people with common sense, there is common sense.
Yes I would ban vegetarian food in public cafeterias to close this loophole. Also, because it's stupid.

Tourists with a guide would be the ONLY exception from the "speak the language" rule, as they "deport" themselves anyway by going home at the end of the journey. Foreign workers are the problem that made Trump president.

Anonymous said...

Rebuttal is other people's freedom of speech. People may speak their opposing view.

Consequence is an action, usually violence, that brings physical harm (including death) or physical containment (including imprisonment, brainwashing facility, etc).

Gevlon said...

@Anon: and you think firing and industry blacklisting is "speaking an opposing view"?

Cathfaern said...

@Gevlon:
Foreign worker is not the appropriate term. I mean when there is a multi-company which have worksites in many country. And sometimes a few worker (from the same company) from (for example) Germany will work in Hungary for 4-5 years to help / support / manage the work there. Or vica versa. They will usually not learn the language.

I know you said in a previous article that you value freedom less than utility but banning cloth and food? It sounds a bit too much. For food not everyone like everything. For example I don't like raw tomato. It's better as I get older but not too long ago I literally could not eat it. If you say that everyone should eat meat then you could also say that everyone should eat tomato. Whats the difference?
Clothes a bit better but if you say that someone should not wear some kind of clothes then it's the same as for arabic countries where they ban certain clothes.

Also tourists with a guide? Most tourists don't have the guide. Except for North Korea The more you wrote about this topic the more I think your ideal country is North Korea. And if you think about it, we can say that immigrants is a non-existent problem there...

Anonymous said...

"Foreign workers are the problem that made Trump president."

Corporations sending people to another country for 2 years is the problem that made Trump president? Because that is what is being referred to. Perhaps you are unaware that is a thing, but it is incredibly common in larger corporations for people to be seconded to another country for a few years.

Do they learn to speak the language if they are only going to be there 2-3 years? Not usually. They pick up some speech, but you cannot learn a new language fluently every 2-3 years.

The same goes for international students. They are very much a thing, again, perhaps you are unaware of this, but many Hungarians choose to study in other nations, and whilst they speak English, they may not speak the local language, nor learn it in the 2 years of their Masters Degree.

Smokeman said...

This gumball guy explains the numbers part of it well:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gumball+immigration&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

You HAVE to have comprehensive, limited immigration. You HAVE to actively deport illegals and build whatever structures are needed to prevent their return.

A "Borderless world" is a futile, moronic pipedream. Humans are simply incapable of peacefully co existing in mixed group diversity. They will ALWAYS form balkanized enclaves and engage in "us vs. them" behavior, and no amount of hippy-dippy "we are star stuff" naval gazing will change that.

Gevlon said...

@Cathfaern: I don't like tomato either. If it's on my plate, I push it aside or rather trade it for cucumber with my GF. But I won't make a scene about how offended I am about tomato.

I'm not saying there should be a cop forcing everyone to eat everything on their plate. I mean that local food should be served and everyone should accept it. If you don't like it, put it into your napkin and throw it into the bin, no one cares. But you have to be aware that it's YOU who don't like tomato, and not the tomato is bad.

In the EU, all member state languages are official. You can do paperwork in German in Hungarian offices and by EU law, if I'd insist to get official stuff in Germany using Hungarian language, they are bound to provide translator for free. That being said, if I'd work in Germany for a year, I'd learn "kitchen German" to be able to navigate. Those who reject it mean that they don't want to navigate that country.

I've never been in a country without a guide where I couldn't speak the language. And I can't imagine how could I do it. How do I talk to the hotel staff or the shop or whatnot if we can't understand each other?!

Anonymous said...

Sorry if it’s a bitt off topic but I still have to ask this question. You’d played EVE for a long time and stated man times that this game is close to your “ideal game”: it has well-thought features, can be challenging, smart people can use their brains to their advantages. Still, you went to the point where you set up a web page with “Don’t play EVE Online” in its title. You claimed that dev corruption (monetizing their own game in totally unacceptable, corrupt ways) was the cause of it.
This was not the first time either that you brought Hungary’s attitude towards immigrants as a good example to follow, especially the building of the fence. You think that this is a “good feature”, well thought out and executed.
My question is: would you agree (eventually, not set up a web page) with the statement, that the corruption of the political elite in Hungary is so grave and deep that despite the few “good features” of their rule (e.g. fence) they should be “fired” the next elections or you think that the “good” still outweeighs the “bad” and this administartion deserves another round in power?

Gevlon said...

@Anon: first, you can't live nowhere, but you can play no game, so tolerance for game bullshit is lower.

Also, Hungary is NOT corrupted at all. The elite STEALS. The difference:
- cop lets criminal run for money: corruption
- cop arrests criminal and takes his cash: stealing
Both cases the cop got illegal money, but first case he violated his purpose (catching criminals), in the second, he didn't.

You can't buy government decisions in Hungary (corruption). The government does what the people want them to do (democracy). They just steal shamelessly while doing it (for example the well needed highways were all built by government friendly oligarchs for +50% price)

maxim said...

Russia is the only country to date with any history of success of actually mixing multiple national identities without destroying their cultural core, while adequately handling immigration. We have achieved that for at least a millenium, one of the first successes being assimilation of Pecheneg people all the way back in Kiev Rus, have maintained this legacy through Russian Empire and USSR and are rediscovering it all over again in post-Soviet Russian Federation.
The way Russia achieves that is maintaining near absolutist approach in all considerations of national integrity, while being relatively relaxed in all considerations of cultural / national / racial / religious diversity.

jonreece said...

@ Jim L

You said (in part): "that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences..."

Food for thought on why I don't believe that this equates to free speech. Consequences can only be inflicted by those with power. Those that hold no power can not inflict consequences, they can only have consequences inflicted upon them. Therefore, in such a regime, "free speech" means that you may only (publicly) speak what those in power agree with. Those that speak otherwise are punished.

You cannot "speak truth to power" in such a regime. You may only speak what power wishes spoken.

Once, the west held as it's touchstone "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This allows conversation. Without it, I fear that those without power must either submit or resort to violence.

I fear for our civilization. Your words do not reassure me, I fear, though I do defend (to the death) your right to say them.

Ðesolate said...

@Gevlon:
Merkel got elected because their ain opposition fucked up their alligeance with the "common" people under Schröder (SPD). By buying out the fate of his people (pension) to the bankers, introducing "Hartz 4" and lovering the overall income standarts to push the economy. The total opposite of their usual agenda and that what the CDU usually stands for.

They have never recovered from this debacle. And the "last hope" of the "common people" was the "Piraten" wwho got fucked up by having no clue, no agenda and no personnel at all (but getting voted above 10% from the start).

Merkel has a gift of getting rid of any negative stigmas, like double declining the nuclear phase-out, cuddleing George W Bush while declaring a illegal war (and apologizing for Schröders desicion not partaking in this War), fucking up our banks, ... I'd rather link a list some day.

Mainly she got elected because the only alternatives have stronger stigmas: SPD (schröder), die Linken (SED -> DDR), die Grünen (slowly gaining ground, but not far above 10% & "being vegetarians"), AfD (Nazis), Piraten (being incompetent), FDP (being corrupt and faceless)
And she will be elected again, because she always finds people who are responsible for her failiures because she will never give a terminal statement.

Btw. she tightened the "Asylrecht" (law for accepting refugees in germany) in a historical severity this year.

Jim L said...

You are just trolling. In America a person can say whatever they want about any politician and the government cannot punish them (minor exceptions). In North Korea a person gets killed by the government for talking bad about leaders

Anonymous said...

Eastern Europe is used to being invaded. Western Europe is used to doing the invading. Easterns now know an invasion when they see it coming.

Gevlon said...

@Desolate: How about painting a big dick to the ballot to reject everyone? Or more commonly: staying home? 71% is a lot of participation and usually shows trust and involvement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election%2C_2013

The Trump/Clinton election had barely 50% as many people found these candidates lacking.

@Jim L: who said government will punish them. The all powerful corporations and the state-in-the-state universities (univs have own police department?! Why not own Navy or ICBMs?!)

Ðesolate said...

71% is the second worst participation Germany had since 1949 and 2009 (the one before) had 70,8% a 6.9% drop to 2005... ...but I wish we would had 50%...

I would paint up a big dick, instead I vote for the party I feel most represented by (it's neither SPD/CDU) ... another thing is not voting in Germany counts as not responding to your civic duty... ...so 6,9% pretty big drop... ...you could guess that was the election after Merkel became Bundeskanzler...

...anyway, since that is my personal view from the inside of Germany it is pretty certain, that it won't be accurate (as Merkel frustrates me on a professional level).

Anonymous said...

Having people say you cannot speak at their forum is a bit different from the government locking you up.

Free speech just means the government will not stop you saying things, unless you are inciting hatred.

jonreece said...

@ Jim L

I wish I was just trolling. No, I mean people who are frightened of losing their jobs, their businesses. I mean people who will lie about what they believe politically so they can continue to work. I mean other people who will leave a job because they are frightened that they will be discriminated against.

I can only assure you that conservatives are frightened of the "consequences" of actually trying to exercise their freedom of speech. You may choose to believe me, or not. You might choose to believe they are afraid, but needlessly. But the chill is real.

What sort of consequences might flow from this? If people feel that they can no longer put their actual beliefs in public view, what sort of society does that build?

Think about the echo chambers, the split society that we are seeing develop. I am sincerely concerned about this. I would hope that others would be as well.

dobablo said...

I do not recognise your map or consider your interpretation consistent with said map. I recommend the Global Terrorism Index which measure the impact of terrorism as opposed to a non-arbitratily and inconsistantly applied threat level. (http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2016.2.pdf)
If the obvious answer is a hard border then why are their massive differences between Spain and Portugal and North/South Ireland? The UK and Ireland sit outside the main European travel zone with full passport controls and a physical barrier so why is the UK rating aligned more across the hard-border France than the no-border RoI?
Per-capita, Ireland accepts almost twice as many non-EU immigrants than the UK and 50% more asylum seekers. The number of asylum seekers accepted by the UK has been flat for years while the rest of the EU has risen (UK accepted 31k out of 290k in 2008 and 39k out of 1400k in 2015). Your theory would suggest that Ireland should be the high risk country as opposed to the UK.
Nearly all European terrorism home-grown and limited freedom of movement do very little to restrict it. We (the UK especially) are very good at exporting "freedom fighters" and their return runs a significant risk of importing radicalisation.

dobablo said...

On the big dick point, my lowest level local elections typically have candidates who campaign on non-related issues or make stupid suggestions, so my most recent spoilt ballot was for "The one with the smallest penis." Previous ballot papers have been for President Clark, Roberto Portalegre and a cartoon horse.

L Papay said...

@maxim: not true. All countries that lie on "Eastern European Plain" needed to deal with "different cultures" that periodically invaded from Asia, carrying with them whatever religion and geneset was dominant then.

We have 600+ year old Muslim communities here in Poland. Thing is, they are as much Polish as they are Muslim at this point. They have their culture, faith , cuisine, but they are from here, was with rest of population through thick and thin. And over 2 decades ago already those "locals" spoke about how certain wealthy countries send them clerics that try to radicalise the youth. This was not welcome, though some took bait mainly because money speaks (many of those ended up in Chechenya).

If you look back, same countries absorbed large groups of Western European religious dissidents without problem too, all while "Civilized West" tried to solve that problem by war and purges and pogroms (last time barely 70 years ago).

Thing is when you live here, absorbing different cultures is a must. Invasion is something that is a given, not some abstract. And there is difference between absorbing people into your own culture and opening yourself to wholesale invasion, and replacement.

Also, things might becom tad bit differen if this whole area would not be stripped of wealth by the most recent Asiatic invasion ...