Thread: Politically Correct.

Thought this was quite interesting, not sure if it all fits one one page though!

The Origins of Political Correctness

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten

history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what

they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or

racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and

to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of

what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the

whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only

half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in

Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is

Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back

to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college

campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set

up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that

PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some

star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is

to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the

history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of

our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to

look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true," the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That

is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that

all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by

power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about

that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and

capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women,

non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically

good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the

bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they

expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate

through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or

Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of

expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So

expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the

cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So

we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts

simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are very

evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political

Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a

history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I

said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and

overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than

they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers

rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in

Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working,

but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with

the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the

workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the

Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant

Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the

creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he

becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers

would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already

made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the "latest thing."

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates

Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very

wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the

divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers

together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways.

He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for

Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing

Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for

Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to

Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according

to Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at

the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were

very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very

much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn’t us, and

we’re not going to bless this."

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms

is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute

concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure," – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to

the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – "in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed

the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black

studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in

the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to

criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse

to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as

we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions

that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the

most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists

that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the

1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse

introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls

for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the

1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see

in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences,

as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." Sex is a

construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. "Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude

toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man’s domination of nature," according to Jay, " was to

become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years." "Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re

obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness." In one of his

most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the hostility to personal gratification

inherent in bourgeois culture." And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his "protest…against asceticism in the name of a

higher morality."

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt

School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for

Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia

University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from

Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.

There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key

figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student

rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some

sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, "Hell no we won’t go," they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were

interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for

them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated

back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student

rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as

the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and

Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry

into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all

the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive

order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of "polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And

by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re

baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they

can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, "Do your

own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not

war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and

tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the

1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a

country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political

thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who

dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now

it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s

here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

Summary please.....

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Summary please

some middle-aged white males realize that life has passed them by, so they resort to lashing out at the concept of political correctness.

Ok fair enough. Thank God I didn't bother reading it.

PC is a bunch of shite though isn't it.

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Summary please.....

it's about the repression of free speech,,,,I think

Originally Posted by Sdigit

it's about the repression of free speech,,,,I think

Also good. I think.

Free speech about what though?

You've got to be careful.

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Ok fair enough. Thank God I didn't bother reading it.

PC is a bunch of shite though isn't it.

Yes PC is complete bollix

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Ok fair enough. Thank God I didn't bother reading it.

PC is a bunch of shite though isn't it.

It is more than a bunch of shite, that was why I posted it, it is pretty scary when you look at how it comes about, and it's effects...

I bet you a penny that you have fancied posting something here, (as I have done) and then either tried to "alter" the original source, as you realised that it would be SHOT DOWN, simply as it came from a Non Politically Correct origin!!!

Think about it...we WORRY about even posting an opinion now beacause of this shit...and the Thought Police Are REAL! - People are in our so called "Free Speech Societies, being JAILED for a crime in their HEADS!!!

It's total fucking madness, but on it goes like a steamroller, and no one dares stop it, for fear of being tainted!

It is George Orwell, and it is happening!

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Originally Posted by Sdigit

it's about the repression of free speech,,,,I think

Also good. I think.

Free speech about what though?

You've got to be careful.

If you have a position on a sensitive topic, lets say for instance multiculturalism in the UK and it's inherent un-Britishness, people will then use PC to shut you up without even giving you a chance.

People use PC all the time to stifle an argument they don't want to have

Originally Posted by Sdigit

People use PC all the time to stifle an argument they don't want to have

Bloody clever that.

Originally Posted by Missismiggins

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Ok fair enough. Thank God I didn't bother reading it.

PC is a bunch of shite though isn't it.

It is more than a bunch of shite, that was why I posted it, it is pretty scary when you look at how it comes about, and it's effects...

I bet you a penny that you have fancied posting something here, (as I have done) and then either tried to "alter" the original source, as you realised that it would be SHOT DOWN, simply as it came from a Non Politically Correct origin!!!

Think about it...we WORRY about even posting an opinion now beacause of this shit...and the Thought Police Are REAL! - People are in our so called "Free Speech Societies, being JAILED for a crime in their HEADS!!!

It's total fucking madness, but on it goes like a steamroller, and no one dares stop it, for fear of being tainted!

It is George Orwell, and it is happening!

Agree 120% Miggs, it is bloody scarey and it's happening everywhere today

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Originally Posted by Sdigit

People use PC all the time to stifle an argument they don't want to have

Bloody clever that.

I dont know about clever,,,, true though

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Summary please.....

it's about the repression of free speech,,,,I think

A bit like a two letter thing in Thailand??

Originally Posted by Missismiggins

For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think.

Really? I'm just not that guy.

Originally Posted by crippen

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Summary please.....

it's about the repression of free speech,,,,I think

A bit like a two letter thing in Thailand??

I really cant imagine what you mean

I don't think it is so much a danger about free speech in general terms, it is more about how it is pushed on you day by day, and actually affects the way you think...it makes you CHANGE your REAL thoughts, and alter and suppress them, in order to "fit in" to what the government WANT you to fit into!

It is a very very dangerous thing, it is exactly what people ended up in Gulags for, in the Soviet era, the Mao Tse Tung terrors, as it gradually takes hold, not in a quick way, but over time...but before you know it, you cannot open your mouth, or have a differing point of view.

Now, just as an example as to how "Freedom" has gradually been taken away, a few CRUDE, examples.

Warren Mitchell - Til death Us Do Part - now Warren Mitchell was Jewish, he was a brilliant comedian, but can you imagine getting that on the TV these days - not PC, and probably not funny these days, but we have all been gradually brainwashed that this is Not Acceptable...why?

The Black and White Minstrels, a dreadful show, I would be the first to admit that, I hated it, but it was never because I imagined it as a parody of Black People, it was just stupid white people in make up, it would have died a death on its own without political correctness.

PC, seems to be so much more sinister, it is the gradual undermining of our freedom, free thinking and free speech.

Jandajoy, you asked for a summary - it takes no more than 10 minutes to read the original post.

But, the last paragraph can sum it up pretty well..

"In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a

country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political

thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who

dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now

it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s

here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture."

Originally Posted by Missismiggins

I bet you a penny that you have fancied posting something here, (as I have done) and then either tried to "alter" the original source, as you realised that it would be SHOT DOWN, simply as it came from a Non Politically Correct origin!!!

ahhhh....i think i remember this....you were citing 'stormfront', weren't you?

The two letter rubbish here is not really that important, I detest it, but it is not my Home Country, I cannot vote on the matter I have no rights on the matter...end of story, I cannot change Thailand, that is up to the Thais themselves, OK we can poke and prod and suggest, but at the end of the day they will go their own merry way as usual..up to them! (and it doesn't really matter too much as Thailand hardly sets the precident for world thinking or world politics, they are an international joke)

The point I am making, is what is happenning in the so called "Free" countries, the USA, the UK, Germany, Austria, so called civilised countries are now starting to behave like the Soviet Union and China did 40/50 years ago, banning opinion, (At least the US still has the first ammendment - but for how long?) The freedoms we had in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's diminish every day, what you could say then, you cannot say now...this is the core of what I am getting at, if you break out and cross the line of "accepted" normality - (what is normal?) you start down the road as being a leper of society, rather than just another opinion.

If your opinions are shit, they will not stand the test of time, they really don't need jail sentences or gagging orders!

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Missismiggins

I bet you a penny that you have fancied posting something here, (as I have done) and then either tried to "alter" the original source, as you realised that it would be SHOT DOWN, simply as it came from a Non Politically Correct origin!!!

ahhhh....i think i remember this....you were citing 'stormfront', weren't you?

Perfect!

This is exactly what I mean.

It does not matter if facts are correct, under the PC system, by simply associating the original post as being related or originating from a "NONE PC" source, you immediately try to discredit it, you offer no evidence, not a shred, all you do is..."Ahhh Stormfront" and that is it!!! You hit the fucking nail on the head! Thank you!!

Why don't you go and take a look at some of these "non PC" sites, you might get your eyes opened.

I don't conform to simply accepting everything google tells me, i like to look a bit deeper, and yes sometimes when you start to follow links, you can often en up in some strange places.

But facts are facts, and if they are untrue, then they can be clearly shown to be untrue by pointing out the evidence to discredit them.

But, if you look through some of my more "offensive" or "non mainstream" posts, you will see, as you do in your post, that there is no counter evidence, only the rubbishing of an opinion, (that is usually backed by facts) simply by quoting the source!

If you want an interesting topic to go and look through, and it is a couple of days checking and rechecking, then take a look at this link, then, go and present your response, and provide me with facts, not rhetoric!

bild 1

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Untitled Document

Try and spend a bit of time actually reading it, most people take on look and are horrified that this is even suggested, but it is based on fact!

If you believe in the right to free thought and speech, you should have a good read of this and then prepare your arguments against it, not emotional, but factual.

This is the hard part - there seems to be virtually no FACTUAL evidence to back up a counter argument!

This is where we are! We are forced by laws, in so called Civilised Democracies, to SHUT UP, and simply ACCEPT!! No questions asked!

If they say the sky is green, and pass a law that says everyone must say the sky is green, are you going to say the sky is green, even when it is blue?

I produce photographic evidence that the sky is blue, backed up by photographic experts, and colour analysts, that all say that the sky is blue.

But because "common knowledge" says the sky is green, I cannot even submit my evidence to a court!!!

Fok,

is it really green?

Bugger.

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Summary please.....

Ya, and a link to the quote. This is as bad as reading vomit spew from a PCer.

Originally Posted by Missismiggins

Jandajoy, you asked for a summary - it takes no more than 10 minutes to read the original post.

Sorry, waste of time.

As far as the OP goes, it is a rambling piece of crap. I didn't bother finishing it. I think he is trying to compare 'PCness' to Marxist Dialectic Materialism.

It's about as coherent as a book from a guy called Jonah Goldberg that came out last year, that said Nazism was Socialist. I think he got the idea from the fact that Nazy is an acronym for 'National Socialist'.

Clever chap then...

Maybe take a look here, this is Britain!

From snapshot to Special Branch: how my camera made me a terror suspect | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Jail for ‘courageous’ Munir Hussain who beat intruder with cricket bat - Times Online