Suggesting killing gays is acceptable demands strong response

Suggesting killing gays is acceptable demands strong response, by Jennifer Oriel.

The banality of evil has a new face. The West is so far advanced down the path of cultural relativism that its political leaders do not respond when Islamic leaders suggest killing homosexual people is acceptable if decreed by a committee. We have seen this all before. It was called Nazism.

The banality of evil was a phrase coined by political theorist Hannah Arendt to describe the methodical, bureaucratic nature of the Nazi killing machine.

The Nazi genocide was accompanied by a gradual drift to mass conformity by individuals who ceded their individual will to the general will of the regime codified in the totalitarian state. Many were ­rewarded professionally by their degree of conformity to the rules of the Nazi regime.

The Holocaust was sustained by such systemic self-deception among Nazi leaders that the high command was buoyed by a sense of moral virtue even as it organised the mass murder of millions of innocents.

The Nazi genocide began, as do all genocidal wars, with the deliberate manipulation of language.

Isn’t political correctness the creation of untruths for political reasons, at odds with reality? Don’t the politically correct enforce conformity by name calling (“racist!”), social ostracism, and increasingly violence (e.g. Trump rallies)? Does not political correctness reward adherents professionally with jobs in the bureaucracy, academia, and the media, and with grants and applause? Do not the PC crew systematically deny all these rewards to their cultural opponents?

Does not political correctness now extend into most all facets of life? Total control.

Is not “systemic self-deception” a perfect description of what our PC elite practice? So clueless, for instance, about the nature and history of Islam.

Is not our PC crew “buoyed by a sense of moral virtue”? And don’t they love flaunting their opinions of themselves as superior to the rest of us? Judging their fellow man as morally inferior is almost their raisons d’être, to judge by their name-calling.

And do not our PC elite rely heavily on the “deliberate manipulation of language”? They are steeped in the ways of post-modernism and the art of seeming, of marketing but not making. Did not “global warming” became “climate change” (‘cos it stopped warming) and did not doubters of their self-serving carbon dioxide theory become “deniers”?