I often advise keeping a low profile in order to avoid the risk of doing something wrong. That strategy can, however, backfire. You must step forward and participate enough not to rouse suspicion, to prove that you are ideologically sound. Opening your big mouth can get you blacklisted, but so can always remaining silent.
Authority works best when it cannot be fully understood, and political correctness is no exception: it dangles a sword of Damocles over everyone. You never know for certain whether you are behaving correctly or not, and, effectively end up policing yourself. The technique is not so different from that of the Chinese communists, as China pundit Steven W. Mosher has pointed out: maintaining numerous rules on the books, but enforcing them arbitrarily. The Abrahamic religions probably made a mistake by carving their rules in stone, for the most effective rules are those not written down.
The invertebrate bureaucrats of political correctness will always throw curve balls at us and find new “issues,” so rather than trying to memorize clear rules it is far better to learn progressive culture. We are expected to know the requirements and yet cower in fear that we might have missed something, just as a new-born chick fears the hawk without having seen one before.
The other side always seems to have an instinctive understanding of progressive culture. Men from Africa and the Middle East who perhaps only a few days ago were kicking goats and beating their wives, seem to know all their “rights” under political correctness. Even the “mentally challenged”—formerly known as “retarded”—are aware of the appropriate way they must be treated without ever having read a book about political correctness.
Sooner or later, someone (probably with terrifying blue eyes) is going to trap you for knowing too little, too much, or even just for being too quiet or apathetic. We don’t want to raise suspicions that we are nurturing less-than-correct thoughts. What if we are drunk, hypnotised, or very hungry one day? What might we say in an unguarded moment? A careless outburst or remark, whether under duress or not (which is no excuse), and we could be marked for life as a bigot.
You have to get it in your head that for the prog issues are not complex. And you should never argue about anything. You have to play the part, and it is probably better overplayed than underplayed. If a petition comes across your desk to save horses from being eaten, you need not mention that horses are eaten all over the world and that man probably owes his evolution from the mental coordinating efforts of hunting and killing them for thousands of years. You need not ask “Have you ever tried horse meat?” or say whether you have done so. Just sign your name, smile and be safely away.
“Positive-negatives” –words and phrases that on their face seem positive –should be avoided like AIDS. Not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with them, but because the prog has decided they should not be uttered, and will question your motives. Be careful that you are not trying too hard to be positive. Saying “I like Jews” is almost as bad as saying “I don’t like Jews.” “Negative-positive” formulations are also bad: “I am not homophobic.” Or “I don’t think all gays like going to parades.” (Saying something negative to say something positive). Even if what you are saying is sincere and true, such outbursts can alert the prog that you are aware enough of such words to use them: “Why would you be homophobic? And why would you need to say that you aren’t, rather than assume it goes without saying?”
There are many words the prog simply does not like to hear regardless of how they are used: foreigner, homosexual, etc.
Any of the big issues like race and feminism you should avoid.
You will really impress the progs by encouraging women to have abortions, delicately suggesting they should be able to do so even up to eight months pregnant. Hurling a little verbal abuse at the pro-lifers doesn’t hurt either. But do not maintain that abortion should be promoted in Africa because that’s where the world really needs it. This would not be seen as virtue signalling, because the chaos and horror in store for the world from the exploding African population is too remote for a libtard to grasp. Abortion is only a progressive cause here at home. We are not permitted to comment on Other cultures.
Once foreigners enter the gates of Politico-Rectopia, its “universal rules” stop applying. We cannot say, for example, “Now that you are a citizen of this country just like me, do you think you might have fewer than twelve children?”
What is possible between whites is not possible between a white and non-white. The advice you have received from Takers (affluent progressive Baby Boomers) for years—not to burden the planet and yourself with kids—is not to be passed on to non-whites, whether in the wider world or within the boundaries of Politico-Rectopia.
The progressive doesn’t like to use the word foreigner, but he does still make the distinction: more kids are desirable when it means more “diversity,” i.e., non-whites. That is incomparably more important than avoiding overpopulation.
The focus in Politico-Rectopia is always what the Other is contributing, not on what we are giving up. Asia is rising, and if we have more Asians it means we will benefit from that ascent too.
At the risk of citing an over-used example from Japan 101: “Don’t be the nail that sticks up that must be hammered down.”
