Political Correctness, Philosophical Correctness, & The “Miniature Nuclear Attack In London”

How The Rise Of Political Correctness, So Hostile To Philosophical Correctness, Led To The Mood That Brought Us The “Miniature Nuclear Attack In London”:

Nearly ten years after, a British judge, Sir Robert Owen, looking as grave, serious, gloomy and ponderous as a human being can ever be, formally accused Vladimir Putin to have ‘probably’ ordered what a British Parliamentary committee called “a miniature nuclear attack in London”.

Meanwhile the second largest lake in Bolivia, lake Pupo, is fully dry. This has to do with the fact, announced simultaneously by the highest scientific authorities in the USA and the European Union, that 2015 was, BY FAR, much warmer than 2014, previously the warmest year ever.

How did we get there? Political Correctness has a lot to do with it. Political Correctness was always the Trojan Horse of evil. Plutocracy cannot do without Political Correctness. PC is a notion which implies its own demise. In contrast to its opposite, PhC, Philosophical Correctness.

Putin At Work. Putin Loves the Fresh Bellies Of Boys. And Dead Rivals. Alexander Litvinenko Dying From Nuclear Poisoning In London.

Putin At Work. Putin Loves the Fresh Bellies Of Boys. And Dead Rivals. Alexander Litvinenko Dying From Nuclear Poisoning In London.

What is Political Correctness? The history of the term is revealing. “PC” in Latin derived grammar is for “Parti Communiste”. It is indeed how the term “Political Correctness” started, in the first half of the Twentieth Century: as “Party Correctness”. The Communist Party required to toe the “Party” line. And that meant, in practice, to obey Stalin (not his real name), the “Man of Steel”, who was often allied with evil preaching the exact opposite of real communism, for all to see. Stalin was born from an alliance with German fascists for decades, culminating in an official military alliance with Hitler against France and Poland (August 1939). In the 1950s, the Moscow “Communists” allied themselves, for all to see, with president Eisenhower and Nazi collaborator Allan Dulles’ USA against France, Britain and Israel.

Following the Communist Party’s doctrine thus became an exercise in Intellectual Fascism in its purest form: follow the Leader, not matter what. Intellectual Fascism uses the principle of “Pensée unique“. An example is Margaret Thatcher’s slogan “There is no alternative”, parroted later by German Kanzler Gerhard Schröder’s “Es gibt keine Alternative”.

In recent usage, the term was introduced in the USA by the Supreme Court, and came to the fore with debates on books such as Allan Bloom‘s The Closing of the American Mind (1987), Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990), and Dinesh D’Souza’s book Illiberal Education (1991). None of this sharp criticism stopped the Political Correctness movement. It has blossomed further recently with “Safe-spacers”, a new sort of anti-intellectual critters infesting Anglo-Saxon campuses.

Safe-spacers” believe they need space free from all and any debate adverse to their beliefs.

I have myself advocated that some forms of propaganda should be unlawful. The archetype is the Wahhabist propaganda from Saudi Arabia, which has perverted the practice of Islam, worldwide. Instead of having ever more modern Islam (which used to exist), we got a completely enraged, horrendously obsolete Islam… Which goes hand in hand with the Politically Correct mood.

In both cases, radical Islam and radical Political Correctness, youth has been oriented towards frantically loud protests about completely unreal, if not surreal issues, turning into completely useless protests of no bearing whatsoever. And not just youth: watch the British Parliament debate about banning Trump for banning some (Muslim) visitors, although that is not as outrageous as Britain’s proposed banning of other Europeans. Trump’s proposed ban is perfectly legal, what Britain proposes is perfectly illegal (in light of European law).

Compare today’s youth with that of the 1960s. Then youth was protesting stridently to force the governments in the West to do the exact opposite of what they were doing. Be in France, Czechoslovakia, the USA, etc. Where is youth now? With few exceptions, nowhere, youth is too busy with inconsequential matters. (When Bush decided to attack, invade and occupy Iraq, only San Francisco erupted seriously in the USA: there were 5,000 arrests, all discreetly amnestied later, to criminal Bush’s rage.)

Vladimir Putin apparently ordered the murder of Alexander Litvinenko after the latter claimed the Russian President was a practising paedophile, and claiming a film of him abusing young boys existed. Litvinenko had made many shocking allegations against Putin and the nasty ways of the FSB, many with long tendrils all over the West. In short, the holocaust in Chechnya  was organized in Moscow (with real Muslim Fundamentalist attacks in Russia, organized by the FSB, to feed the mood for a mighty counter-attack).

Mr Litvinenko accused his KGB rival of abusing children just weeks before two assassins slipped radioactive polonium 210 into his cup of tea in a London hotel in October 2006: “He (Putin) was a paedophile”.

Former High Court Judge Robert Owen started the inquiry on Litvinenko’s assassination as a coroner. His 320 page report ignited a war of words between Britain and Russia with his conclusion President Putin had ‘probably’ personally ordered the killing of Alexander Litvinenko.

  • The report found Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun. (One is a businessman, the other a Russian MP.)
  • It is a strong probability that Mr Lugovoi poisoned Mr Litvinenko under the direction of Moscow’s FSB intelligence service. Mr Kovtun was also acting under FSB direction.
  • The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by then-FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev and also by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The accusations were confirmed by the British Interior Minister.

Putin made his miniature nuclear attack in London in 2007, after years of G. W. Bush’s strong approval (Bush had “looked into Putin’s eyes, and seen his soul”). Both Putin and Bush used similar methods.

So the lack of protest against G. W. Bush in the West fed a mood which led Mr. Putin to believe he could get away with anything.

The rise of plutocracy in the 1990s, in the USA, Russia, Britain and the world was related. And related to the rise of Bush and Putin. Advisers to Russian president Yeltsin were rabid free marketers from Harvard. At the same time, the same mood that the allegedly free market was all the brain, mind, soul and guide we needed, affected other countries: in France, Prime Minister Balladur was privatizing along the same lines as Yeltsin in Russia (with the same result: collapse).

This friendliness to plutocracy boosted the wealth of London (maybe not Londoners). by selling its soul, and, it turned out, its security.

Political Correctness is anti-ethical, because the only correctness which is truly human, is correctness itself. Either things are true, or they are false, or still undetermined. Philosophical Correctness admits this, and, thus, that the world, including morality itself, is immensely complex. We have to engage that complexity by seriating problems and values. We can’t just whine, put our head in the sand, each time something is not pretty, according to the little priests of Political Correctness.

British Prime Minister David Cameron today, in Davos, said that what had happened with Litvinenko was ‘absolutely appalling’ and called it a “murder commanded by a state”. But Cameron admitted the Syrian crisis meant Britain had to cooperate with Russia. Albeit with ‘clear eyes and a cold heart’.

In the book “The Martian”, the astronauts risk getting out of food, so they devise the plan to leave resources for the youngest of them, by putting an end to their lives. Let’s not smirk. It’s not just that Earth’s life probably originated on Mars, and perilously travelled over. We are all Martians from spaceship Earth. And if spaceship Earth gets in too much trouble, desperate solutions.

The French and British Prime Ministers met in Davos. Valls, the Catalan born and educated French Prime Minister from Ticino, Switzerland (!) called the possible “Brexit” the exit of Britain from Europe, a “drama” (“drame”).

Let’s not get overexcited. Political Correctness, ultimately, is a loss of nerves, a failure to consider all the possibilities, and, thus, an implosion of imagination and thus, paradoxically, of precaution. Just as the failure of Western protests against Bush made Putin believe he could get away with everything, Political Correctness is plutocracy’s best friend. Plutocracy reigns through complex structures, its best friend is a simplistic mood.

Political correctness is also meek: instead of envisioning that a country such as Russia can fall under the spell of an evil man, PC just focuses on appearances. It is similar to the Victorian mood of dressing the feet of tables with textile, out of prudery, worrying strongly about that, and about that alone, while, and because, it allowed to live unaware of the reality that imperial powers, out there, were carving giant empires in blood and bullets.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Political Correctness, Philosophical Correctness, & The “Miniature Nuclear Attack In London””

  1. indravaruna Says:

    French Fag.


    • dominique deux Says:

      I just heard a Fascist fart. Gods, the stench.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      People reveal a lot with their emotions. It is interesting that you get angry about an essay which mostly rolls out facts determined by the governmental and judicial authorities in Britain, against the Russian dictator-president. It’s not me who said that “president Putin probably ordered the murder“, but the High Court Judge, head of the inquiry, Sir Robert Owen.

      Nor is it me who used the expression miniature nuclear attack in London but the committee in charge at the British Parliament.

      Ah, yes, and then there were the allegations of pedophilia against the Russian Strong Man. Once again, not my invention. So maybe you made a typo? You meant: “Russian fag”? Now of course homosexuality or frantic adulation for Putin (you seem to be afflicted by) is perfectly legal (except in Russia). But pedophilia is not. The theory that Litvinenko was assassinated because of his allegation that he had cinematographic evidence for Putin’s pedophilia does not come from me, from a number of Russian dissidents and his wife…

      Anyway happy to see you pursue the old fascist obsession with Russian strongmen (so blatant in the prurient interest of German and Russian fascist with each other 1916-1945 and beyond…)


      • Kevin Berger Says:

        TBH, the paedophilia angle is a new one to me, I thought the main issue between Litvinenko and Putin/his cadre was the very real and credible IMHO that the 1999 bombings that led to the 2nd of Chechen festivities had been orchestrated by a faction in the Russian military-intelligence complex.
        But, why not? I worked hard to allow myself to believe in paedos in High Places in the West, I’d be very hypocritical of shying away from that when it comes to Russia.

        As for the crush on Putin, and/or the rather outlandish success of his (and Russia’s) re-invention as the last pillars of spirituality and virility, I am kind of stumped. I can see WHY the “West” is hated and despised, and rightly so; but there is a fervour and quasi-faith in the almost metaphysical qualities of Russia, from a certain Left and a good part of the Right… why is that so? I am far from being a Russia-basher, I am not even a Putin-basher, but this? And with some of that Putin-PR being so ham-handed, as to be almost ridiculous? Why root like this, for a crew of plutocrats fighting against an another crew or set of crews of plutocrats?
        BTW, IIRC, and I should check back on some of my old bookmarks, the “oligarchs” crew that Putin is heading/fronting for is heavily Jewish; Putin himself hails partly from a Jewish heritage, and is certainly more of a crypt-jew than Sarkozy or Hollande or Valls. This for the “French fag”. Anyway, fuck the Putinolâtres, France lives on, despite everything.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Good points all. As I pointed out in other comments, the fact that the Russian government cracked down on the Yeltsin plutos was good. Less good was that they replaced them by their own crew, headed by the pluto-in-chief, Putin himself.
          Putin has actually weakened Russia CONSIDERABLY, and has engaged in a dangerous arms race with the West (which it is hard to see how he intends to win it). That’s really all too bad for everybody.

          Now he is trying to make amends in Syria, BUT the Russian economy is on the verge of collapse. His bombing campaign has exhibited its shortcomings. Few Russian bombs are smart, if any, although they do use drones. It’s smart bombs which are winning (even if they still cause appalling destruction!), carpet bombing Russian style is not going to make friends (and is probably ineffective against a buried enemy).

          Putin has paid an army of trolls to infect the Main Stream Media, and they have had an impact. I think that’s where lots of Putin’s popularity comes from. Not only he will regurgitate Donbas, but, once his regime has fallen, Crimea will be returned to Ukraine, as it should.

          Yes, our fascist, anti-Jewish friend here is not aware of many things about Putin and company, it makes him all the more precious for having a good laugh…


  2. The Toast Says:

    The Toast

    How rare: an anti-capitalist populist who despises Putin.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:


      in reply to TheToast

      Jan 22nd, 19:31

      I don’t think I despise Putin really, as a person. I can understand how he got where he did, one thing leading to another. And the dreadful, violent exploitation of Russia by first generation anarchist plutocrats in Russia brought an equally violent reaction led by Putin.

      However, encouraged by way too much tolerance from, not to say emulation by, the somewhat perverted leaders in the West, Putin went from arguably necessary evil to completely unnecessary evil (say trying to reconstitute an ersatz USSR, and the war with Ukraine).

      Also, being anti-plutocratic is not being anti-capitalist. Arguably, quite the opposite. Finally the word “populist” is much abused. People-Rule (Demos-Kratos), democracy, is supposedly the regime under which we presently wilt…


  3. Zoltán Koskovics Says:

    Zoltán Koskovics, in reply to Tyranosopher Jan 22nd, 20:20

    You sir, certainly have an interesting POV, with a clear internal logic. I’ll look forward to reading future posts from you.
    Incidentally if I can nudge you a bit towards the margins of being off topic, what do you think of the new boys on the block in Kiev? I suspect you might have a few choice words.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Zoltan! On this site I cover everything (and, some may sneer, its opposite).

      I have not followed the situation in Ukraine closely recently. My point all along was that, with 17 million square kilometers under his watch, Putin should have focused on Russia. With the oil price 20% of what it used to be, Russia’s one trick economy is in big trouble… Now Putin is trying to get rid of the Donbas (East Ukraine) it seems.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: