John Cleese rightfully points out the condescending nature of Political Correctness that treats Minorities as delicate little things who may get upset if someone makes a joke rather than as adults who can take it in their stride or makes jokes about other groups themselves.
John Cleese has upset the PC Brigade by questioning the doctrine that they adhere to religiously. He argued that Political Correctness is condescending because it assumes that certain groups are so fragile and weak that they cannot withstand any jokes – or the very existence of a Majority culture. In response to the issues of jokes about Muslims raised by Bill Maher (himself has fallen foul of the PC brigade when he forgot that you can attack Christianity but not Islam because it is wrong to attack someones religion) he claimed no one would dare to because Muslims would kill them. He was predictably criticised for this; despite the fact that when someone makes jokes about Muslims or Islam there are usually Muslim individuals who will seek to respond violently even if the entire population don’t descend to your door. In our PC climate there is an obligation to overlook any violence connected with Islam in order to maintain the blatantly false belief that Islam is peaceful.
He insisted that he was talking about fundamentalists but this would not satisfy the PC brigade. According to their doctrine the fact that was talking about Muslims at all meant that he was talking about them all. Yes it is illogical, but Political Correctness is not based on logic. He says that he finds fundamentalism funny so he should therefore view the PC brigade with a sense of humour.
He also referred to nationality arguing that you can joke about nationalities such as Swedish, French, German, English, Canadians and Americans but not about Mexicans because some nationalities cannot look after themselves, according to some; if you make a joke about the latter the audience will be ‘aghast’. He claims that this is condescending because it implies that the Mexicans are too feeble to look after themselves. So basically if you come from a white majority background you are considered to be more resilient – or deserving to be the object of ridicule. The PC brigade likes to consider other peoples to be equal but in fact that seem to have a paternalistic relationship with them; Minorities (non-whites generally) need to be protected like children and are considered to be incapable of looking after themselves hence why they need the help of the Guardian-reading liberal white middle-classes.
So why do these ‘liberals’ believe that they can set the parameters of acceptability in comedy? They believe in the apparent infallibility of their own judgement because they read the Guardian, or its equivalent elsewhere. This belief in their own infallibility also sustains a belief in their own superiority over us who do not worship at the altar of Political Correctness.
These people also tend to be wealthy in addition to having socialist views. This creates cognitive dissonance . To resolve this problem they create helpless, struggling and voiceless groups and appoint themselves as the guardians of the disadvantaged in the face of ‘attacks’ from the nasty and privileged ‘right-wingers’. They can convince themselves that they are ‘good’ people despite having wealth. They are the modern day equivalents of those public schoolboys in the 19th century who argued that people in Africa are deserving of European levels of social and political development but have not managed to do so. Therefore Europeans needed to help them to do it.
The condescending nature of Political Correctness is inconsistent with its alleged belief in equality between people. The PC brigade deal with this confusion by creating victim and victimisers.
resistancetoantidemocraticleft 
Leave a comment