Bleed for me
We’ll strap you to a pipe
Electrodes on your balls
Face down in a pool of piss
Bleed for me
In the name of world peace
In the name of world profits
America pumps up our secret police
America wants fuel
To get it, it needs puppets
So what’s ten million dead?
If it’s keeping out the Russians
Dead Kennedys, 1982, any of many lyrics sites.
[Re-posted from The Old Site, original dd. 14-10-2009. No comment]
Indulge me (meaning: I’ll indulge myself anyway, thank you very much!). It’s been busy. I haven’t had a chance to take things in new directions. And I feel this need to be outspoken. That means I will here take the liberty to be brief and all mystical-like as behooves one who is convinced the populace needs it short and simple (peace, love, climate change and stuff).
In other words: awaiting the time to find a good quote, I will for this once try my best not to be myself. (anyway as people slowly realize the 60s were a problem and we are in desperate
need of a come-back of the 80s, i.e. it’s time for what was marginal in the 80s to become the fucking mainstream already)
1. First there was the word. The word created men. Man discovered the world. World and word will never co-incide. The word will converge to the world. The world will be full to the brim of this word. Word and world are forever separated by at least an ‘L’ (in smaller case, to be exact).
Note: when I say ‘man’ & ‘men’ I do refer to women.
2. There is always something wrong with Utopian type societies, even in an ideal cases. Such was the point of much post-WWII literature. It’s really not too much to ask to go figure out what is commonly wrong in all these utopian rêveries. It suffices to go all destructive on this common element, to the point of denying existence to anything that has even the remotest tendency to evolve into something that might include that element.
So let’s take these two together. Abusing words for the ‘good of ..’ is the surest no-no. It goes to the core of what we are and ever can be and it is common to Utopian dreams and nightmares from Wilde over Kraus to Orwell.
To take a case in point: let’s examine the use of the term ‘politically correct’.
When somebody uses this term in a pejorative sense you know you have number 1 combined with a number 2 (as per the above numbering scheme). There is nothing pejorative about being politically correct. As can be easily, conclusively and once for all demonstrated as per the following:
- using words to express something that is correct is a proper use of words
- expressing something that is correct politically is both possible and informative
On top of which it is obviously highly relevant to be correct from the political point of view. For instance it is politically correct to prefer freedom of speech. On analysis this entails that only such acts as can be properly classed as ‘speech’ are free. This in turn excludes any pronouncement on non-speech acts such as shouting, singing, baby talk, talking nonsense and, generally speaking, uttering non-propositional content in ways loosely similar to the use of language or words. Not that they are restricted or not allowed; far from it, in fact as far from it being restricted or unallowed to fart in public.
They are acts but simply not speech acts. And therefore not to be confounded with politically correctly vindicated free acts of speech.
So here we have a specifically sophisticated (call it: libertarian) abuse of words. The pejorative use of politically correct is incorrect. Not just merely politically incorrect but – simply – incorrect. Strictly speaking it’s not a speech act, and it would be fully consistent to disallow that specific use of that specific concatenation of words (which is not to say, obviously, that it should be disallowed or that it would be correct to do so).
To conclude with our specific example: the pejorative use of ‘politically correct’ is an instance of authoritarian behaviour (this statement is correct, by the way). This type of authoritarian behaviour is a political nuisance at best (and, yes, this statement is a politically correct one). The pejorative use of politically correct under the misleading umbrella of libertarian with a non-coincidental objective of
creating pleasurable associations with ‘liberty’ is doubly misleading (I’m being mild here).
There is no limit to this abuse. It has been on record that some ‘libertarians’ have made use of the work of G. Orwell in defense of their specific thought crime (or, better: ‘absence-of-thought’ crime).
Clearly there are things (were things, will be things, …….) that pose as politically correct which are not (were not, will not be) correct (above you found a very complex one exposed; the simpler ones are – hmmm – simpler to expose). They have to be exposed to be incorrect (or, more narrowly, politically incorrect). That can be done in a variety of ways the most ineffective of which is probably this one.
I will leave it smugly up to the reader to generalize this message to other uses of words in an effort to obstruct the progression towards truth and development of language as such.
A hint for demystification: to illustrate the last two paragraphs I refer to the quote I have quoted above. [I am not a fan of extreme left rhetoric.]
[Whilst writing this I was listening to Bronski Beat, The Age of Consent.]