The Origins of Political Correctness

, Bill Lind, 339 Comments

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind. Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Conservative University at American University

If you enjoy this speech, keep up with political correctness and how it continues to emerge on college campuses by following our Faculty Lounge blog.

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 1917, 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 throes 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.


339 Responses

  1. Steevy Paaw

    December 26, 2013 2:41 pm

    Great writing. So informative and inspiring to take up the fight against such a violation of free thought.

  2. Laurie McClellan

    December 31, 2013 2:32 pm

    People are self-righteous now in their political correctness, feeling all warm and fuzzy in their compassion. We are sheep to slaughter. What will it take for us to wake up and expose the wolves among us?

  3. PigManFan

    January 20, 2014 4:15 am

    Critical Theory is altruism applied to everything. All knowledge, including moral knowledge, comes from reality. There are no facts of reality that require sacrificing oneself or others. The left will continue to win until we replace religious & secular faith-based altruism with a reality-based morality. Man requires the use of his mind / reason in order to survive & flourish. Our instinct and inborn skills are inadequate. Only the initiation of force against you can prevent (or hinder) the use of your mind. Thus, the initiation of force is evil. The use of reason is good. Individual rights & the necessity of a rights-respecting government (solely focused on defense, police, & courts) immediately follow.

  4. Jonathan

    January 23, 2014 6:19 am

    And after United States it came to our shores : England and spread through out Europe, like cancer. This could be the false prophet that the Bible has been talking about. I hope the soul of this demon (because is not certainly a man) by the name of Herbert Marcuse is rotting in hell where it belongs.

  5. seo szakért?

    March 8, 2014 10:24 pm

    You can undoubtedly see your enthusiasm within the work you write. This sector desires for additional zealous internet writers such as you who are not frightened to mention where did they believe that. Often adhere to a person’s cardiovascular system.

  6. JPOutlook

    March 12, 2014 12:17 am

    Good writing and good topic.

    However, I’d prefer to see less emphasis on non-whites and the part where the proverbial rubber meets the road which is the significance for elevation of non-whites… It’s Anti-Whitism. Against white people. In the religion of Polticial Correctness, there are three major cults or doctrines: Anti-Whitism, Feminism, and Environmentalism. And, Anti-Whitism is the strongest at the moment, though the other two are arguably more popular. Anti-Whitism can be seen very notably where in Europe one major supporting piece of the cult is the significance of The Holocaust (TM) where even questioning it by anyone can result in legal prosecution. No chance of getting the boot off the necks of the people.

    In the U.S., of course, the war crimes of W.W.II is a big part of Polititcal Correctness, but there is also the Indian victim narritive and a very large amount of Anti-Whitism stirred up by emphasising slavery.


  7. Don

    March 12, 2014 7:20 am

    I refer to your article all the time. It is well written and the document excellent. It explains the chaos we live in today and why Christians are facing increasing persecution. There are no accidents in politics. May we embrace truth with eyes wide open and keep looking up.

  8. Russ

    March 15, 2014 8:21 am

    I enjoyed your article, but it would be better with a bibliography and proper attribution of the quotes. As it is, it looks a little too much like hearsay and insinuations. Still, good work and keep it up.

  9. P. Gavan

    March 29, 2014 5:51 pm

    I discovered an interesting article in the New York Times from 1893 that suggested political correctness was alive and well in New York then. Apparently, the Irish citizens were very offended by the Central Park Zoo’s practice of giving Irish nicknames to its more unsightly animals (hippos, rhinos, etc.). There was so much outrage, in fact, the director of the zoo ordered that no Irish names be given to any of the animals from that time forward.

  10. John Patrick Grace

    April 14, 2014 3:10 pm

    Good research, good analysis, good writing. Thank you for all this useful background.

  11. JCMR

    April 20, 2014 2:34 am

    First I would like to make clear that I am an AMerican working overseas as a university professor in a Latin American country. I speak from hard core experience, and from that experience can see what it may be like in our USA if the anti’Western ideologues get their way.

    Cultural Marxism and political correctness is very strong in other nations born out of Western Civilization, especially Latin America, and heavily influenced particularly in the twentieth century by the Marxist re-interpretation of history. And these ideologues disguised as academics are the gatekeepers of an Anti-White, Anti-Western view of themselves and its projection to the outside world.

    In Latin America, the influence of the Spanish Black Legend (going back to Protestantism and liberal Enlightenment ideology) was used hypocritically to justify the aspirations of political independence from Spain by the same Spanish American elites grounded on the liberal Enlightenment ideology. In that region political “adulthood” in the early nineteenth century was rooted in a repudiation of the Hispano-Catholic heritage. Cultural Marxists would find a fertile ground to work with and would eventually hijack these countries from the get go (disguised as academica and ¨liberals¨).

    Today many — even self proclaimed ¨conservatives¨ in these nations south of the border — have accepted totally or partially the Black Legend against Spain and even its hispano-catholic heritage, and the Marxist interpretation of history. Culturally they are marxists (despite many being anti-marxist socio economically) and the majority don´t even know it. To attack it is seen by those as an attack on ¨national identity¨. Latin American leftists and so-called ¨conservatives¨ share the same views in that respect. They differ only in socio-economic areas.

    To think they evidently believe it would have been preferable to leave the indigenous paganism with its idolatrous and bloody cults undisturbed and without the preaching of the Gospel, and glorify that pre-Conquest period over the Western Civilization brought to them under the Spanish Conquest and colonization.

  12. Jorge

    May 3, 2014 2:00 pm

    I am Spanish, and here in Europe is exactly the same. Cultural Marxism pervasive official ideological spectrum (left-right), and university teaching. It is an Orwellian totalitarianism imposed by the globalists.

  13. disqus_XK9gIx2U7h

    June 5, 2014 10:09 pm

    Political correctness is Totalitarianism pure and simple.It is going to take something really extreme to regain our republic.

  14. Walter J Wasson

    June 16, 2014 6:47 pm

    The article of “The Origins of Political Correctness” should be printed in it’s entirety in every newspaper across this Republic of these United States of America so our people will see for themselves what is very often laughed at, and called totally incorrect to be dismissed by such people that do not know or understand what is really at stake for our nation of people now in 2014.

  15. Thnkthinkthink Tank

    June 17, 2014 3:18 pm

    The words “Political Correctness” simply are unAmerican to begin with. It’s programming dull, stupid, vulnerable minds into all marching, like robots, to (bottom line) the NWO’s orders..

  16. Darius

    June 20, 2014 2:36 am

    Always reject the premises of the politically correct. This is all they are whether they know it or not. Most are young, college aged, and have no clue where it comes from. However, it comes from academia and this is the source. It has moved to the public schools.

  17. commentator83

    July 18, 2014 3:04 am

    Race and gender not essential, according to the PC crowd – but affirmative action and feminism evidently require race and gender to be necessary characteristics of humans.
    Then they are for promoting uninhibited sexual freedom, on grounds of naturalness, yet no similar encouragement for preferring our own kind, which is also natural. PC is not only destructive, but incoherent.

  18. ObsidianRazor

    July 25, 2014 12:59 am

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been trying to explain to people the hazards of PC as it seeks to remove certain words from our vocabulary and society in general complies by self censoring. When our vocabulary is stripped away, bit by bit, then the conversations of the future will be largely meaningless, because we will refrain from speaking our minds, and that is indeed thought control. A nice end run around the first amendment. The historical references you have provided give me the much needed sources of education so that I can expand my own understanding of PC and the goals associated with it. I only wonder if we have enough critical thinkers left to challenge the critical theory.

  19. Mittymo

    August 8, 2014 12:51 pm

    Marx was a philosopher, not an economist. But he had a drinking problem. And when he drank, he pretended he was an economics expert (to hustle free drinks, I suppose).

    One day, the gullible son of a rich man overhead one of Marx’s drunken, barroom sermons; bought into it hook line & sinker; & gave financial wings to a new economic(?) theory (impaired mind meanderings?). And unthinking people lined-up and followed them down dead-end roads. The only place that Marxism ever worked was in Marx’s & Engels’ imaginations.

    Marxism is economic theory conceived of by a drunken German philosopher, whose only knowledge of economics was derived from barroom chitchats with other drunks. If Marx were alive today, he would likely be an “expert” on sports instead of economics, as sports is the common discourse in today’s barrooms.

    With little to no formal training in economics or practical experience, Marx’s inebriated mind was able to completely detach itself from reality as he conceived of, & pontificated on, his version of modern economic theory.

    Marx failed to understand that capitalism was inherently progressive. As new ideas & new technologies hit the marketplace, others either copy and/or improve upon them. As more & more persons rush to the marketplace hoping to take advantage of the new ideas and/or technologies, the marketplace becomes overcrowded, creating abundance & lower prices. When that happens, entrepreneurs create new ideas & new technologies.

    But process causes disruptions as people transition from the old towards the new, & there are definite losers. Buggy whip, typewriter, pay phone manufacturers, etc., all got left behind. Marx observed the transitions & thought capitalism was decaying. The myopic Marx, who lacked even basic understandings of capitalism, failed to comprehend that the losers were merely the natural outcomes of progress. Remember Razr phones, Blackberries, & CD-roms?

    Marx tried to meld Hegel’s ideas (Hegel was another German philosopher, whom some call the father of Fascism) with socialism (that had never been tried anywhere).

    Had people not taken him seriously, Marx would have been laughable. But if people desire mirth, they should look to Groucho, not Karl.

    Marxism envisioned both a revolutionary stage and an adjustment period when government would have extraordinary dictatorial powers. But since absolute power corrupts absolutely, no communist nation ever got out of the dictatorial stages of development. The citizens of those dictatorial communist countries suffered loss of freedoms, other repressions, terror, & severely depressed economies.

    Ruling elites used Communism as an effective tool for maintaining totalitarian control over large diverse populations. Only Fascism could compete with that.

    The focus of today’s discussions should be on how people could be so dumb as to subscribe to the pretenses of communism. In hindsight, it’s almost inconceivable that people chose to go blindly down paths of utter destitution & destruction.

    And if the Southern Poverty Law Center is trying to deflect the Frankfurt School & say it’s no big deal, you can bet your bottom dollar it is a big dea.

  20. No Racism

    August 18, 2014 11:35 pm

    Disagree. Political correctness was spawned in the aftermath of the pogroms of WWII and the end of the American Civil War. Fear of calling things what they are or abstracting ideas using language is political correctness. That has led to the insanity of issues like the names of sports teams being discussed by Congress or a man (or woman – hello Paula Deen) being destroyed by comments made years before or deliberately taken out of context. It has led directly to the wholesale spying on the entire American people because the government can’t be honest about who the enemy is. It is the opposite of totalitarianism – it is minority control.

  21. phillyfanatic

    August 23, 2014 4:30 pm

    At the U. of Penn., the real university racial PC baloney began in the early ’60’s. The media went along with leftist PC values denying the old Judeo-Christian values. And it has gained speed now for the last 50 + years. The DNC and all Dems nationally are part of this attack on our heritage, history and values. And yet, people get blackmailed and scared that even saying God Bless you, will offend. The way to stop it is to blast it every time govt. or business or schools try it. Rebel. Just like those evil stupid PC socialists did from the ’60’s on. Fight them with humor and tell them to shove it. And stop electing Dems stupid.

  22. Lind Blythe

    August 28, 2014 8:52 pm

    This is brilliant.
    Political correctness is something that was cooked up in the Frankfort School. Removing taboos from everything except the cultural proletariat.

  23. Kay Briskey

    September 2, 2014 11:55 am

    If everyone posting would just start breaking free of PC, would it not break the back of this offensively false hold of liberalism? A word coined, I believe, by Rush Limbaugh for manly or men hating women is (not sure about the spelling) feminine-nazis. It is very descriptive! The word negro was used for centuries until the nineteen-seventies. A liberal teacher told me with an air of authority, “Oh, we do not say Negro, now. We say ‘black’, instead”. I’ve had my fill. I also want the wonderful word, ‘gay’, back that meant; merry, jovial, airy, sportive, frolicsome, light-hearted. Also, gaiety and gayly. They were commonly used until the word was appropriated by homosexuals to favorable alter for them, public perception of what they do. This charming little word and derivatives are no longer used in original context. Think about it. It is in our power to end liberal encroachments that steal freedom from Americans. It is a minority that opposes the rights of the masses.

  24. Frederick Strobel

    September 19, 2014 10:53 pm

    We either have free speech or we don’t. It is a binary issue. I have a constitutional RIGHT to insult anyone. Should I? Of course not. At minimum that is what manners is/was about.

    “For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities and are often more influenced by things that seem than by those that are” — Nicolo Machiavelli

    Go figure.

  25. connie flick

    October 12, 2014 5:53 pm

    PC is just another means of lying. Plain speach should not offend anyone. If it does we should fix the problem, but not by speaking differently. That solves nothing. This must be shared!

  26. Renee Amber Hollister

    October 26, 2014 8:57 pm

    ((( I Want My Country BACK )))

    >>NO, I am NOT “Politically Correct” and Never will be.

    When someone accuses you of NOT being
    “Politically Correct”,

    Tell them, that’s because you’re not a Communist
    Who worships at the feet of Mao Tse Tung.

    Then explain to them where “Politically Correct”
    Originally Came From…

    >>>Mao’s Little Red Book

    Mao Tse Tung the Chinese communist leader with the
    Extreme distinction of having caused More Deaths than
    Any Person In Human History – 50 to 70 Million,
    More than Stalin and Hitler COMBINED.
    Mao was a rabid believer in “political correctness.”
    In fact, he wrote the book.
    This Fanatical Monster and his Inhumane Ideology
    Spawned a number of Clones in the East such as
    Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot who
    followed Mao’s master plan of Subduing all Opposition

    Through Intimidation, Terrorism and Mass Murder.
    ALL Socialists/Communists want to
    Run OUR Country into the ground,

    Communists HATE God and HATE humanity.
    Communists Lust after Absolute Power and
    Control Over Humanity. The power to Make
    People Suffer. The Power To Kill. >>Although
    These elite’s cherish total freedom for Themselves,

    they are determined to DESTROY
    The People’s Freedom.

    The Left work very closely with islam to bring about
    The total defeat of Western civilization, and destroy our
    freedom. These are Mean, Hateful Despicable people.
    These are Mean, Hateful Despicable people.
    They Hate Good and Love what’s Evil,
    Hence their Admiration for Mao, Lenin, Stalin.
    Truth be known they probably love Hitler who was
    Also a left wing socialist.
    The liberals love Mao….
    And live in Denial of the Horrors he committed

    Me P.C. ?¿? HELL NO !!!!!


  27. Cultural Marxism Kills

    November 24, 2014 11:40 pm

    This isn’t going to happen since according to the 45 goals of the CPUSA…

    12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 18. Gain control of all student newspapers. 19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.” 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.” 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. 30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. 35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. 38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published