- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

The Roots of Political Correctness

In response to the killing of 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood by an Islamic U. S. Army major, a number of senior officials have expressed their fear, not of Islam, but of a possible threat to “diversity.” “Diversity” is one of the many false gods of “Political Correctness.” But what exactly is Political Correctness?

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. Its history goes back not to the 1960s but to World War I. Before 1914, Marxist theory said that if a major war broke out in Europe, the workers of every country would join together in a revolution to overthrow capitalism and replace it with international socialism. But when war came, that did not happen. What had gone wrong?

Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so “blinded” the working class to its true (Marxist) class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed. When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself.

Lukacs became a major influence on a Marxist think tank established in 1923 at Frankfurt University in Germany, the Institute for Social Research, commonly known as the Frankfurt School. When Max Horkheimer took over as director of the Frankfurt School in 1930, he set about in earnest to do Lukacs’ bidding by translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms. Other Frankfurt School members devoted to this intellectually difficult task were Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse. Theirs was not the Marxism of the Soviet Union – Moscow considered them heretics – but it was Marxism nonetheless.

The Frankfurt School’s key to success was crossing Marx with Freud. They argued that just as under capitalism everyone lived in a state of economic oppression, so under Western culture people lived under psychological repression. From psychology they also drew the technique of psychological conditioning. Want to “normalize” homosexuality? Just show television program after television program where the only normal-seeming white male is homosexual.

In 1933 the Frankfurt School moved from Germany to New York City. There, its products included “critical theory,” which demands constant, destructive criticism of every traditional social institution, starting with the family. It also created a series of “studies in prejudice,” culminating in Adorno’s immensely influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, which argued that anyone who defends traditional culture is a “fascist” and also mentally ill. That is why anyone who now dares defy “PC” gets sent to “sensitivity training,” which is psychological conditioning designed to produce submission.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Herbert Marcuse translated the abstruse work of the other Frankfurt School thinkers into books college students could understand, such as Eros and Civilization, which became the Bible of the New Left in the 1960s. Marcuse injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now that generation’s ideology. We know it as “multiculturalism,” “diversity” or just Political Correctness.

That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism. If the average American knew that, I suspect Political Correctness would be in serious trouble.

The Ft. Hood killings raise an interesting question: why would Marxists of any variety come to the support of Islam? After all, if the Islamics took over, they would cut Marxists’ throats even before they cut the throats of Christians and Jews. The answer is that cultural Marxism will ally with any force that helps it to achieve its goals, destroying Western culture and Christianity.

Obviously, there is far more to the history of the Frankfurt School and its creation of Political Correctness than I can cover in a short column. This is just a bare-bones outline. For those who want to learn more (and I hope you do), you can find a short book on the subject, which I edited, on the website of the Free Congress Foundation (www.freecongress.org). Free Congress also produced a short video documentary history of the Frankfurt School, which I’m told is available on Youtube (look under Frankfurt School or under my name). The video is especially valuable because we interviewed the principal American expert on the Frankfurt School, Martin Jay, who was then the chairman of the History Department at Berkeley (and obviously no conservative). He spills the beans.

Most people in the U. S. military hate Political Correctness, but they don’t know how to fight it. The way to fight it is to find out what it really is, and make sure all your friends find out too. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, which is to say intellectual Soylent Green. Here more than in anything else, knowledge is a weapon!

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "The Roots of Political Correctness"

#1 Comment By Chuck Anziulewicz On November 19, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

DEAR MR. LIND:

You write, “Want to “normalize” homosexuality? Just show television program after television program where the only normal-seeming white male is homosexual.”

Uh, NO, not quite.

Truth be told, I don’t know if it is possible to “normalize” homosexuality, any more than it’s possible to “normalize” left-handedness. Most people are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), always have been, always will be. Most people are right-handed, always have been, always will be. So I guess that makes the rest of us “abnormal,” right?

What you really need to ask yourself is why more and more people are acceptant and supportive of their Gay friends, family members and co-workers. After all, 30 years ago most Straight people didn’t know anyone in their lives who was Gay, whereas today most do. That just might have something to do with it.

It isn’t because of court decisions or TV shows or some insidious “Gay Agenda” (whatever that is). It’s because more and more Gay people are living their lives openly and honestly, with decency, humility and integrity. This is not to say that all Gay people are saints, any more than all Straight people are saints. But what most people have come to recognize is that Gay people are simply not the monsters social conservatives like to characterize them as.

There is a lot of progress to be made, most assuredly. I know that marriage equality for Gay couples is a real sticking point for a lot of people. It may or may not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen. You know that as well as I do. You can quote Scripture until the cows come home, but from a purely Constitutional standpoint there is no justifications for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

#2 Comment By Norwegian Shooter On November 19, 2009 @ 4:07 pm

“The Ft. Hood killings raise an interesting question: why would Marxists of any variety come to the support of Islam? After all, if the Islamics took over, they would cut Marxists’ throats even before they cut the throats of Christians and Jews. The answer is that cultural Marxism will ally with any force that helps it to achieve its goals, destroying Western culture and Christianity.”

What utter garbage! Is there any connection between this terrible post and the open assistant editor position? Mr. Lind did mention Soylent Green. Does he know more than he’s saying?

#3 Comment By Thomas On November 19, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

PC IS cultural Marxism! Great article. But cultural Marxism has destroyed the Old Left just as it has hurt Christian Civilisation. Look at the modern Left, all their litmus tests are cultural, never economic. By this method, they have alienated and destroyed their electoral and activist base and endorse an endless number of leaders who betray them.

And Cultural Marxism, and its effects, is also useful to the liberal capitalist establishment. It rechannels class conflict to more obscurantist concerns and pits people who identify with majorities against people who identify with minorities in pointless battles.

#4 Comment By Jeremiah Whitmoore On November 19, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

Excellent article Mr. Lind,

Unfortunately, we’re post-cultural Marxism now.

#5 Comment By Jack Ross On November 19, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

I count myself an admirer of Mr. Lind, and I certainly detest the Frankfurt School, but I have to say I find it a stretch for him to apply this narrative to the mindless Republican mantra about PC. There are perfectly eminent and practical reasons not to antagonize Muslims to a fault, and by the same token its naive to think the invocation of Marxism will move very many people. For better or worse, both communism and anti-communism are dead letters.

#6 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 19, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

“I count myself an admirer of Mr. Lind, and I certainly detest the Frankfurt School, but I have to say I find it a stretch for him to apply this narrative to the mindless Republican mantra about PC.”

That is exactly the point–it’s a mindless mantra. PC platitudes are habitually uttered without regard to their provenance. Even if cultural Marxism no longer is the guiding hand behind PC–which is self-sustaining by now–it was once the conscious effort which set it into motion. Exposing PC’s roots would at the very least jostle people into thinking twice about the pleasant bromides they regularly hear. Take the case of Hasan. A person possessed of the origin of PC, who observed his erratic, jihadist behavior, would have no compunction in requesting him being cashiered from the army; he would remain unbowed before the diversity gurus. Dismissing PC, one would not automatically assume that all Muslims are jihadists but they would become realists and upon witnessing convincing evidence that a Muslim was indeed a jihadist they would act to quell the threat as it arises.

#7 Comment By Christopher G On November 19, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

Is it literally impossible for modern conservatives to make a valid or at least interesting intellectual point without instantly reaching for the blankets of infallible Chrisianity and anti-gay rhetoric? Or does conservative PC not allow such omission?

#8 Comment By Jeremiah Whitmoore On November 19, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

If there is no gay agenda then what the hell is Chuck Anziulewicz doing promoting it?

#9 Comment By Jake Prufrock On November 19, 2009 @ 10:17 pm

Political Correctness is not Cultural Marxism per se; the former is merely a manifestation of the latter. Political Correctness refers to the process by which the belief set of Cultural Marxism becomes– in an homogenized rather than a radical form– the socio-political orthodoxy of a given society, to the point that most “politically incorrect” views are self-censored, while those that are not are met with the overwhelming force of social opprobrium and ostracism– or even with actual criminal sanctions against such supposed “hate speech,” as has already been witnessed in many member states of what used to be called “the Free World.”

There was a time in Europe when publicly espousing the “wrong” belief as to, say, transubstantiation versus consubstantiation could become a life-threatening issue. Marxists, be they the old-fashion Bolsheviks in Russia or the new-fashion Politically Correct “liberals” and “progressives” in our supposed liberal democracies of the West, are, like popes of old, big on orthodoxy and short on (actual) tolerance to dissent. For latter-day Cultural Marxists, their vaunted “tolerance” is reserved only for those deviations from traditional Western values that might serve to undermine, and then destroy, those traditional values.

The “PC Crowd” does not yet have the authority to send off to the gulags any and all who dissent from the major tenets of Cultural Marxism, let alone to burn them at the stake in the public square; but, they have made breathtaking inroads in that vein, even in the land of the First Amendment– witness the recent “hate crimes” act that was passed as a defense-authorization rider and then signed into law by President Obama. Elsewhere, people, including even duly-elected parliamentarians, are thrown into the dock, thence prison, merely for stating plain facts that are beyond rational dispute, yet which offend the sensibilities of the new commissars and their client identity groups, be they racial, religious, sexual, or what-have-you.

I do not consider myself a political conservative in any sense beyond my wishing to preserve our previously evolved Western Civilization, in general, and our Constitutionally representative government and our previously evolved American way of life, in particular. I cannot imagine any American Founder, nor even any American leader until this recent generation of my fellow Baby Boomers, who would not be appalled by the tenets of Cultural Marxism that are being applied to our nation, as it is being unraveled into a modern-day Babylon– soon to be the most populous nation in Latin America, and perhaps one of the least free!

#10 Comment By Chris Moore On November 19, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

Lind: “The Ft. Hood killings raise an interesting question: why would Marxists of any variety come to the support of Islam? After all, if the Islamics took over, they would cut Marxists’ throats even before they cut the throats of Christians and Jews. The answer is that cultural Marxism will ally with any force that helps it to achieve its goals, destroying Western culture and Christianity.”

I’ll give Mr. Lind the benefit of the doubt and assume that by “Islamics” he means Islamists, and not Muslims. After all, most pious Christians probably have more in common with pious Muslims than they do with the largely Jewish Frankfurter school intellectuals and their cultural Marxist-pushing acolytes.

I’ve never quite understood why American conservatives aren’t willing to form an alliance with American Muslims in defense of family and traditional values and against “secular” Big Government and its anti-Christian string pullers. After all, Communists have viciously attacked both, and would happily cut both THEIR throats as well, as they did to Christians in the Soviet Union, and in Soviet wars and intrigue against Muslim countries.

Perhaps one reason is that the post-Christian American corporatists stand to make a lot of money in wars against Islam. But then, that’s all the more reason for Christians and Muslims to stand together against these exceptionally depraved people. It’s not like Christians and conservatives in American have been particularly well served by accommodating warmed over Marxists and Wall Street money worshippers. In fact, quite the opposite.

#11 Comment By TomB On November 20, 2009 @ 3:18 am

While understandable given it’s just a blog post I think Mr. Lind’s piece makes a few assumptions and/or misses a few steps.

That is, even accepting he is correct regarding the roots of PC (which seems reasonable), he doesn’t mention why in the first place it has found such fertile ground in the West, or even in the U.S. in particular. Surely, one would think, if it were such a totally foreign, repulsive thing it would not have been so quickly and thoroughly clasped to the Western/American breast to the amazing extent it has, especially if one counts a belief in “diversity” as a PC phenomenon. (Which again seems reasonable.)

Seems to me at least answering this “why” question involves to a very great degree a recognition of how amenable Christianity is to PC: It has of course been the Christian West that has most deeply imbibed the tenets of PC, and the reason I think is simply because to a goodly degree PC is the secular, political, temporal analog to Christianity. After all what at its very core does PC say? In a universalist, post-nationalistic way, that we are all equal, brothers under the skin, nobody can be said to be innocent of some original sin, and that it has been a failure to recognize that which has led to terrible historical crimes and to terrible modern consequences of same. And I don’t see how, in general, this is all that different from the idea of … realized Christianity to put it one way.

Granted, granted, one can quibble on innumerable fronts with the differences between PC and “real” Christianity, but we are talking generally here, on the level of why so many Christians or people coming from Christian backgrounds are not only not offended by PC, but indeed seem to believe they essentially espouse the same thing.

In the second place then Mr. Lind then also just assumes that we accept that the damage done by PC has outweighed whatever good it might have delivered. And I think this might be a very subtle question given that we tend to think of such things on an “individualistic” basis in a way and not in terms of the less clear overall effects on our system.

For example, we see stuff like reverse discrimination and esp. its specific working in this or that specific situaton and we (rightfully) howl. But, for instance, in the long run might not the … “diversification” of our society made it more stable and thus stronger? And I for one have no quarrel whatsoever with the cost of PC when it comes to homosexuality: To the extent that “conservatism” means the government has the power to interfere with consensual adult behavior, I’m off that bus for sure. And indeed when one thinks about it, a very great deal of PC *is* indeed hostile to big intrusive government and *does* celebrate individual rights; so what’s so wrong with that?

On the other hand I suspect that some aspects of PC have been very very deleterious, with the major one to my mind (and in my experience) being the damage it has done to our educational system. Now there’s an example, in our public schools, where PC seems to me to have just run crazy, with the kind of results one would expect from a fundamentally anti-intellectual phenomenon. (Which I’d agree PC is.)

One also might cite some if not all of our problems in the Mideast too as being caused by PC since it seems to me that “conservatism” too hasn’t entirely been free of its lure to see issues in hyper emotional, hyper romantic and hyper moral terms. Go and start talking to what passes for “conservatives” today about how the U.S.’s Mideast policies ought to be based on an intellectually grounded basis, whether realist or idealist, and not on some supreme, quasi-religious obligation to support Israel and just see how quickly Rush Limbaugh and indeed the entire Republican Party structure is going to be writing you off. (If not indeed calling you “anti-American,” or a “terrorist supporter” or etc.) Why isn’t that PC too?

I dunno; PC being such an … idealist-type movement it seems to me a confusing thing to assess whether, in the long run, it will be more harmful than good. I for one am glad that it seems to be running into lots of trouble trying to incorporate the idea that the U.S. has to allow unlimited immigration. But if it succeeds, then I also have no doubt that the scorecard in the end will rate PC as terribly bad if not cataclysmic.

On the other hand as even the most rock-ribbed realists will admit, realism too has to have a goal, ideals and etc. So maybe in the end those goals and ideals of PC that are accepted by the great mass of society and thus have some effect will beneficially furnish same.

I do know one thing; while I abundantly (if not over-abundantly) share a conservative regard for the past and stability and for, well, conserving things, no one can really hold back change. Like it or not all that we know or have ever known will one day be washed away, it’s just a matter of time.

#12 Comment By Chris Moore On November 20, 2009 @ 12:27 pm

TomB: “Seems to me at least answering this “why” question involves to a very great degree a recognition of how amenable Christianity is to PC: It has of course been the Christian West that has most deeply imbibed the tenets of PC, and the reason I think is simply because to a goodly degree PC is the secular, political, temporal analog to Christianity.”

Prior to being afflicted by atheist-materialist Marxism, and its mirror image, atheist-materialist hyper Capitalism (Corporatism), Western (Christian) civilization never had a problem with political correctness, and the chaos those other two have wrought. By deconstructing their authoritarian, pseudo-secular Big Government enabler and abettor, and allowing Christianity to again take root, it need not be troubled by those three sowers of chaos, greed, hatred and murder ever again.

#13 Comment By Pantagruel On November 20, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

Political correctness is not that complicated. It is simply an effort to eradicate prejudices and verbal discrimination. It takes its roots in people’s desire to practice inclusiveness and tolerance. It is a sign of civility.

We must resist the all too human tendency to go the fringes of everything good and find exagerations and even dark motives.

#14 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 20, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

“Political correctness is not that complicated. It is simply an effort to eradicate prejudices and verbal discrimination. It takes its roots in people’s desire to practice inclusiveness and tolerance. It is a sign of civility.”

If that were so, PC would be more prevalent across the globe as most nations–those not in a state of crisis–would strive to practice it. But when was the last time you heard of a non-Western nation abasing itself over its past behavior? When was the last time you heard Muslim nations apologizing for having enslaved Europeans? No, there is something more to PC than simple civility.

#15 Comment By icr On November 20, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

“Political correctness is not that complicated. It is simply an effort to eradicate prejudices and verbal discrimination. It takes its roots in people’s desire to practice inclusiveness and tolerance. It is a sign of civility.”

No, it’s a degenerate secular form of New England Protestantism-though its major theoreticians have been Jewish. But then most of the influential political thinkers of just about every extant political tendency in the US have been Jewish.

The project of PC/Multicult/Diversity is the dispossession/race replacement of the traditional American majority. This project is the result of national guilt over slavery and racism and intense aversion to anything suggestive of (non-Jewish) white racism due to the actions of the German NS regime.

#16 Comment By Black Eagle On November 20, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Wilhelm Reich was never a member of the “Frankfurt School” and was run out of Europe for his anti-Nazi AND anti-communist writings. He called the communists Red Fascists, as against the Black Fascists of Nazism. Why he is always lumped into the same category as Marcuse, etc., is a mystery, as any open examination of his biography shows, the Marxists hated his guts, because of his very early 1932 defection from associations with them. His books were “banned and burned” in Europe and the USA, by Marxists, Nazis, and the US Food and Drug Administration — which is also a very fascist institution, pushing “health care” at the point of a gun. Reich was fully a part of the anti-communist conservatives during his time in the USA, and it has been leftsts and Marxists notably who have assaulted his name and work.

#17 Comment By Pantagruel On November 21, 2009 @ 8:36 am

“..When was the last time you heard Muslim nations apologizing for having enslaved Europeans?…”

I understand the frustration about non reciprocity, but I hope we can lead by the example WE set, not by the example set by others.

#18 Comment By icr On November 21, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

““Political correctness is not that complicated. It is simply an effort to eradicate prejudices and verbal discrimination. It takes its roots in people’s desire to practice inclusiveness and tolerance. It is a sign of civility.”

Anyone who thinks the USA of today is more civil than than than the USA of 1963 is a flat-earther-.

#19 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 21, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

“I understand the frustration about non reciprocity, but I hope we can lead by the example WE set, not by the example set by others.”

No matter how long the West continues sustaining this ‘example’, other nations will never adopt PC because it is sheerest folly. Besides, why would you want others to adopt our culture? That isn’t a politically correct thought to have because it implies that something is lacking in those nations that do not follow PC.

#20 Comment By Pantagruel On November 22, 2009 @ 8:27 am

“…why would you want others to adopt our culture? That isn’t a politically correct thought to have because it implies that something is lacking in those nations that do not follow PC…”

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that we should not want others to adopt our culture because it would not be politically correct to do so. But, on the other hand, you don’t support PC… Therefore it should be OK to want others to adopt ‘our culture’ shouldn’t it ?

BTW, my understanding of “PC” is that we should treat others with respect and tolerance by not using language or take positions that are offensive to them. I would hope that everyone would at least want to act that way. If not, we are in for a rough ride indeed.

BTW, this “PC” terminology is another example of negative labelling being used to denigrate a very worthwhile preoccupation. Another example : ‘ socialized medicine’ to designate the wonderful health care system we enjoy in Canada.

#21 Pingback By Linkage is Good for You: English Rose Edition « In Mala Fide On November 22, 2009 @ 10:05 am

[…] William Lind states that political correctness is cultural Marxism. […]

#22 Comment By Arnold Davidson On November 22, 2009 @ 10:21 am

Political Correctness has no relation to Marxism; if it did, then people like Madonna couldn’t be PC Icons. Maybe it is better to call it “radical egalitarianism” or something unrelated to Marxism.

As someone else said, somewhere down the line Political Correctness was related to creating civility between groups of people. For some people, being PC is like being polite was for our parents. Because of PC, there are “transients” and “homeless people” but no “bums.” At least in speech.

Unfortunately people who use euphemisms non-stop start to think in euphemisms. Dr. Johnson’s advice: “You may TALK in this manner; it is a mode of talking in Society: but don’t THINK foolishly.”

#23 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 22, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

“If I understand you correctly, you suggest that we should not want others to adopt our culture because it would not be politically correct to do so. But, on the other hand, you don’t support PC… Therefore it should be OK to want others to adopt ‘our culture’ shouldn’t it?”

My point was that you, pantagruel, should not want other nations to adopt our PC culture because this means their cultures, in your eyes, must be somehow insufficient. And, to the contrary, it is possible to want others to retain their cultures without being PC.

“BTW, my understanding of “PC” is that we should treat others with respect and tolerance by not using language or take positions that are offensive to them. I would hope that everyone would at least want to act that way. If not, we are in for a rough ride indeed.”

Or taking positions they may deem offensive? What if its a position they find offensive ex post facto? Pantagruel, would this also extend to “them” as well? Would they have to, in turn, respect our sensibilities as well? If not, why not?

#24 Comment By Pantagruel On November 22, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

“..My point was that you, pantagruel, should not want other nations to adopt our PC culture because this means their cultures, in your eyes, must be somehow insufficient…”

I was being facetious in part of that post, and I apologize.

My point is that our first concern should be how we ourselves behave. If others reciprocate for the good things that we do, wonderful. If they don’t, we should still true to what we are, or at least to what we are trying to be: an open-minded, caring, tolerant, and more importantly, a confident society. If we abandon that effort because we feel that other societies are not providing leadership on that front, what does the future hold not only for us but for mankind as a whole?

The good guys in all societies across the globe must win, but they must win by staying true to their principles, including that of being respectful of others in their language and in their actions.

#25 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 22, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

“If we abandon that effort because we feel that other societies are not providing leadership on that front, what does the future hold not only for us but for mankind as a whole?”

Mankind had gotten along fine without PC for a few millenia.

“The good guys in all societies across the globe must win, but they must win by staying true to their principles, including that of being respectful of others in their language and in their actions.”

To quote Arnold Davidson above: “Unfortunately people who use euphemisms non-stop start to think in euphemisms. Dr. Johnson’s advice: “You may TALK in this manner; it is a mode of talking in Society: but don’t THINK foolishly.” Do not let the euphemisms override the facts. For example, if you note that there is a man of jihadist sentiments loudly proclaiming his views, you report the activity and demand action instead of suppressing it with PC doublethink. You just might save some lives. And if you are subsequently fired for doing this, you give a cogent case–like PC being an iteration of cultural Marxism–that PC is pernicious and that no society ought to be willingly blind.

#26 Comment By Pantagruel On November 23, 2009 @ 5:04 am

“…Mankind had gotten along fine without PC for a few millenia…”

A few millenia….of wars, invasions, pillage, and more recently, environmental destruction.

Would it not be time to try something new? Like doing what Christians believe Jesus asked:

“…Do unto others as you would have them do unto you..”

(He did not say “…Do unto others as they do unto you..” )

You wrote “…no society ought to be willingly blind…”

Agreed, but blind to what ? I say no society should be blind to …the futility of mistrust, and to the power of civility and respect.

#27 Comment By mrmetrowest On November 23, 2009 @ 12:40 pm

Regarding the post PC civility of today v. civility in 1963: Perhaps you should recall that people demonstrating for civil rights in ’63 were subject to fire hoses, dogs and even murder. A gay person in ’63 who chose to live openly would have been subject to criminal law, and very likely ad hoc violence. Life is much more civil today.

Any movement can dissolve into silliness, and on many campuses in the 80s and 90s there was lots of PC silliness. A little silliness is a small price to pay for a more just society.

#28 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 23, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

“Agreed, but blind to what? I say no society should be blind to …the futility of mistrust, and to the power of civility and respect.”

No, our society ought not be willingly blind to those that obviously seek to do it ill–namely, jihadists, who would still be attacking us even if we reached the pitch of PC. Pantagruel, what would you have done if you witnessed Hasan’s powerpoint presentation wherein he explicated in vivid detail what he thinks of infidels?

#29 Comment By Pantagruel On November 23, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

If P-C was used to mean “Political Civility”, it would be much closer to what it really is intended to be in my view.

Such civility is urgently needed in a world where people of different creeds and cultures are intermingling like they have never done before. There is really no choice but to use that approach if we want decent people from all sides of national and religious divides to reach out to each other to ensure a peaceful world order.

In my view, there is really no other alternative.

#30 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 23, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

“If P-C was used to mean “Political Civility”, it would be much closer to what it really is intended to be in my view.”

But PC does not mean “political civility”, it means “political correctness”, a construct rife with cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism, as Lind has amply demonstrated, was designed with the specific intent of bringing about Western Civilization’s downfall and ushering in the dictatorship of the proletariat by the “transvaluation of values”. Against this background, it is clear that PC actually undermines the “political civility” which you hold in such high esteem.

#31 Comment By TomB On November 23, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

Pons Seclorum wrote:

“[PC] was designed with the specific intent of bringing about Western Civilization’s downfall….”

Perhaps/regardless, but how then do you then explain what can seem Western Civilization’s fairly if not greatly welcoming embrace of it?

#32 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 23, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

“Perhaps/regardless, but how then do you then explain what can seem Western Civilization’s fairly if not greatly welcoming embrace of it”

For the same reason that there has been no objection to the debasement of the currency over the past century. Some may have welcomed the federal reserve due to the aspirations of politicians and their constituents that can come fruition under a fiat dollar. Perhaps, likewise, there are residual benefits to accepting PC while not being of the aggrieved groups that PC stands to benefit.

#33 Comment By Pantagruel On November 24, 2009 @ 8:54 am

I just reread the Lind article. It is lunacy, in my opinion. ( Please forgive this Politically incorrect statement, but sometimes such statements are justified!)

Just think about this statement: “…When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself…”

Sexual education is a step toward destroying Western culture ? From my point of view, any one holding the opinion that Western values need to feed on ignorance to survive does not have a very confident appreciation of Western culture.

Surely, our Western way of life need not rely on ignorance, vindictiveness, and xenophobia to flourish.

#34 Comment By MeneMeneTekel On November 27, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

“…a number of senior officials have expressed their fear, not of Islam, but of a possible threat to “diversity.”

So senior officials should have expressed fear of Islam? On what basis is Islam to be ‘feared’? According to Christianity (apparently the target in the cross hairs here) what is it that casts out fear? Frankly I’m a little tired of baseless fear-mongering. What are your solutions – ban certain religions in America? Expel all Muslim citizens? Cage them?

If knowledge is a weapon – maybe we should use it, and learn that Muslims are more ideologically aligned with conservative principles than any other people group out there – include in that their disdain of the preemptive war doctrine – a favorite outlet for islamophobic pseudo-conservatives.

“The Ft. Hood killings raise an interesting question: why would Marxists of any variety come to the support of Islam? ”

So now the Marxist senior officials support Islam? Hmmm. I’m not really seeing that translate in reality. How exactly is this so? They continue to bomb their homelands – to a greater extent under Obama; they continue to profile them collectively here in the USA; they promise not justice, but CONVICTION in upcoming trials of their alleged (and tortured) masterminds; they continue unwavering support with guns and bombs and sanctions against a generations old refugee camp cram packed with unarmed civilians…

So how are these Marxist’s coming to the support of Islam?

I’m going with Webster Tarpley’s assessment on this Ft. Hood thing – its the only thing out there that has any ring of objectiveness to it.

#35 Comment By Pons Seclorum On November 29, 2009 @ 12:59 am

“On what basis is Islam to be ‘feared’? What are your solutions – ban certain religions in America? Expel all Muslim citizens? Cage them?”

Their jihadist imperative to spread their deen by the sword is that which needs to be ‘feared’ or at the very least serve as a cause for concern. Islam need not be banned but, so long as jihadism remains its primary tenet, it must be viewed through the lens of realism and hence be under intense scrutiny. The military does not have to place a blanket ban on all Muslims but on those, like Hasan, who repeatedly and vociferously proclaim their affinity for jihad and disdain for America. Those ought to be excluded and, indeed, they would willingly exclude themselves, as Hasan attempted to do by appealing to be discharged.

“If knowledge is a weapon – maybe we should use it, and learn that Muslims are more ideologically aligned with conservative principles than any other people group out there – include in that their disdain of the preemptive war doctrine – a favorite outlet for islamophobic pseudo-conservatives.”

Mene, while you are right to demand the application of knowledge (and history) to the issue, Islam is not all that ideologically aligned with American conservatism. For instance, is theocracy conservative?

“So now the Marxist senior officials support Islam? Hmmm. I’m not really seeing that translate in reality. How exactly is this so?”

I presume it is through the preferences of both groups for ‘permanent revolution’.

#36 Comment By Micah On December 16, 2009 @ 10:49 am

Part of global revolution

“This is the very essence of political correctness. It serves as a means to conduct the psychic decapitation of any potential who might seek to unify Americans on the basis of shared religion,culture or race. Americans were to be kept fragmented by this radical individualism and subjected to a national condition of cognitive dissonance, meaning massive confusion over beliefs and values. Then america could be treated as one psychopathic ward and controlled accordingly.”

#37 Comment By Micah On December 16, 2009 @ 10:53 am

“Advocates of “tolerance” are mystics who contend that the subject requiring “tolerance” must be forgiven anything and that morality can be dismissed completely if only we have enough love and understanding for the criminal or the depraved. Example: Homosexuals must be “tolerated” because they are sexual perverts.
In the above example “tolerance’ means the appeasement of perversion for no other purpose than the destruction of regard for law, civilization, and objective standards of morality.”

#38 Comment By Micah On December 16, 2009 @ 11:30 am

“The method selected by the Marxist social revolutiontaries to control the american people is rather single. It is by dialectical stages of operant conditioning by words. Only instead of the bourgeois’ middle class being made to bear the brunt of all society’s ills and thus merit criminalization of that class as Marx proposed, the modern cultural Marxists have substituted white heterosexual males as the class to be criminalized by charges of racism,sexism,anti-semitism, homophobia or xenophobia as the particular circumstance requires.”

#39 Pingback By What’s So Great About Heterosexuality? On September 2, 2010 @ 7:21 am

[…] Well, this homophobic, sexist, Islamaphobic, racist, says (and I’ll say this slowly, and annunciate it clearly, so there will be no mistaking me):  “F—k political correctness, and the Marxist horse it rode in on!”  (Link) […]

#40 Pingback By Linkage is Good for You: English Rose Edition On January 13, 2011 @ 9:39 pm

[…] William Lind states that political correctness is cultural Marxism. […]

#41 Comment By Mick On June 10, 2013 @ 6:06 pm

Chuck Anziulewicz, after checking out your website you offered I can understand your position but I think you’re trying to lead the readers astray from the truth and make light of your claim to ignorance of what the “gay agenda” is. That being the plan to use psychological and emotional manipulation not to obtain tolerance but eventual forced acceptance of a chosen behavior and propagate the Dr. Alfred Kinsey and homosexual activists lie that it is not a behavior but an identity.

But being perpetrated on the American people as a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign in the media and entertainment to change people’s opinions regarding homosexuality without facts, reason or logic these are not my words but those of Marshall Kirk author of the book “After the Ball” this is the blueprint for the psychological plan using “desensitization,” “jamming” and “conversion.” Once you understand what they are doing and what their goal is all the propaganda, smoke and mirrors are stripped away and you see it for what it is, a hustle.

The success that the activists have had is a testament to how effective the psychological and emotional conditioning has been and the confirmation of the moral decay of this country and the emergence of homosexuality is but a symptom of a much greater societal ill, go to the link that I provided and read it for yourself and the next time you’re exposed to the propaganda you’ll understand what it is, horse hockey. Lastly, the dirty little secret that anyone can leave the so-called gay lifestyle and many have but this isn’t publicized all it takes is a sincere desire to accept the fact that what they’ve been doing is wrong, unnatural and contrary to natural law and repent.