Normally, an article about real-estate in France wouldn’t be my first choice of an article to read, but this one teased as something interesting:
In France, [snip] Christophe Guilluy calls himself a geographer. But he has spent decades as a housing consultant in various rapidly changing neighborhoods north of Paris, studying gentrification, among other things. And he has crafted a convincing narrative tying together France’s various social problems—immigration tensions, inequality, deindustrialization, economic decline, ethnic conflict, and the rise of populist parties. Such an analysis had previously eluded the Parisian caste of philosophers, political scientists, literary journalists, government-funded researchers, and party ideologues.
OK, so the article was a pretty interesting in it’s own right and then I hit this couple of paragraphs and my interest level increased:
No American will read Guilluy’s survey of contemporary France without seeing parallels to the United States. [snip]
In France, political correctness is more than a ridiculous set of opinions; it’s also — and primarily — a tool of government coercion. Not only does it tilt any political discussion in favor of one set of arguments; it also gives the ruling class a doubt-expelling myth that provides a constant boost to morale and esprit de corps, much as class systems did in the days before democracy.
This point was hammered home by the Zman only a couple of days later in a brilliant post entitled The Power of Theocracy:
Living in a Progressive theocracy means the framework of civic debate is always going to be a Progressive framework. The Prog mullahs establish the premises, set the rules and dictate what is and what is not permitted. They police the debate to make sure no one is coloring outside the lines or questioning the official orthodoxy. In Iran, they allow debate until it bumps into heresy, then they start shooting people. In America, the Progs will ruin a few careers to send a message to the others that may have heretical thoughts.
Jeezus. And that’s just the opening paragraph. And for those that need something a bit more concrete to bite into, there’s this:
A good example of this is race. It is largely assumed that Progs use race as a political lever to win elections or as a cudgel to beat the bad whites. That’s part of it, but the real utility of race for the Progs is to maintain their position as the moral authority, the arbiters of what is and what is not acceptable public discourse. As long as they are the ones determining the line between good and evil, they control pubic debate. There’s no argument you can craft that can overcome their moral superiority.
And one wonders why it is so impossible to discuss anything with Progs (aka leftists).
Update (20170509) – Funny. It’s like when you first see something, you start to see it everywhere. From a comment (to a comment) at Rod Dreher’s corner of The American Conservative:
[follow link for context] I obviously cannot read Griffiths’s mind, but having been through this kind of training before ["Racial Equity Institute Phase I Training", you know the drill], it is my experience that it is not really about “anti-racism,” but about laying down markers for what can and cannot be spoken within an institution. In other words, it’s about defining dissent from certain ideological positions as “racism,” and ruling it out of bounds.
Geez, even “Crunchy Cons” like Dreher get it… and soon the push-back.