Since George Orwell, we have all understood the importance of enemies to progressive politics.
Without enemies the left cannot function - since it is based upon unending change, permanent revolution, continual destruction of the past and the fixed.
Leftism is based on utter absorption in the battle of overcoming resistance to itself, and avoidance of any consideration about where all this is going and why...
(Because to the secular left there is no reality, nothing that really matters, no goal that is actual and stable.)
(By contrast the reactionary right do not need enemies, since they believe in reality, and have a real goal toward which they strive and which they really want to reach. If there are no enemies blocking the path to this goal, then so much the better.)
It is a striking aspect of political correctness (and conclusive evidence of its fundamental unseriousness) that its most hated enemies are only slightly to the right, politically.
So that mainstream conservatives or libertarians who are basically politically correct, only not so much as the left, constitute the main enemies of political correctness.
Indeed, the most hated of all enemies of PC are not to the right at all - but are non-PC leftist persons or parties, such as Geert Wilders and the British National Party.
To the modern leftist, leftism without political correctness (the Old Left) is perhaps the worst and most dangerous of all heresies.
(Of course, the PC-left calls these right wingers, but that is because they are incoherent.)
Meanwhile true reactionaries are either ignored or indulged as examples of colourful 'ethnicity'.
Consider the difference in the US between attitudes to Christian evangelical conservatives, who are moderately PC; and the Amish, who are extreme reactionaries.
Christian evangelicals are absolutely hated by the left, while the Amish are tolerated, even defended, as examples of colourful ethnicity.
Of course the situation is even more extreme for extreme foreign reactionaries - who bring an element of exoticism to their difference. They are regarded as suitable subjects upon whom the PC may advertise their tolerance, and whose culture may be dipped-into for stimulus.
Extreme non-mainstream reactionaries are therefore seen as encapsulated stimuli. Since they speak an utterly different language (whether or not this language is English) they are not in the same world as PC - they are 'other', they are abroad.
(PC likes to favour groups who cannot, or at least will not, talk back: extreme isolated reactionaries, people that live abroad and speak different languages, animals, the planet earth etc. For the PC the world is divided into the category of those whose contrary opinions are bracketed and indulged or enjoyed; and those whose contrary opinions are taken at face value - then a single contrary opinion on a single subject is sufficient for unrestrained and absolute demonization.)
Mainstream conservatives and libertarians, slightly to the right of mainstream leftist PC are - by contrast, people who speak the same language, but who reach different conclusions.
They are at best a menace, and at worst threaten to bring down the whole delusional edifice of political correctness by trying to regularize and rationalize it.
As Mormons have become more powerful and influential, and integrated, and less reactionary; they have moved from being quaint, amusing, indulged reactionaries into what is beginning to look like a category of the number-one primary hate figures for the PC left.
For Mormons already, and even more in future, nothing short of unconditional surrender to political correctness, as practiced by Mormon Senate leader Harry Reid, will suffice to atone for their religion - and that only for the time being.
Pretty soon, PC will absolutely require that Mormons will stop being Mormon as now understood: and the LDS church will either give-up and go along with political correctness (like the Episcopalians and Roman Catholics) or else will take a stand, re-create a stronghold, and resist PC root and branch.
Once reactionaries have been identified as a threat to mainstream PC, there is no middle ground for compromise.
The status of the PC elite is very much about being at the vanguard of transgression, of moral inversion. Those who accept the general progressive stance but who resist specific transgressions or moral inversions are a real and immediate threat to status, and to the lifestyle freedoms which are at the heart of PC adaptiveness and psychological survival.
This works OK so long as the encapsulated extreme reactionaries are not a real threat to the cultures ruled by a PC elite.
But when encapsulated reactionaries are a real threat to the system of PC, and are moving into a position to take-over, this cannot be perceived. It is off-the-map - invisible.
The encapsulated reactionaries are, indeed, indulged and petted - until they grow strong and actually begin to take-over; and still they are indulged and petted.
The only PC response is to take irrationality and moral inversion ever further into the realms of psychosis - eventually to enjoy one's own destruction, as if you were a spectator at your own funeral.