Rightwing Political Correctness?
A reader named Mr Tucker complains of the obvious incompetence and blatant dishonesty of Politicians of the Right, and asks a perfectly reasonable question of me:
You truly did bring the matter into focus by plainly stating – in an ‘Occam’s razor’-ish manner – that the cognitive discontinuity was an end unto itself, not necessarily a means to a separate end other than power of some pathological sort. In this light, all the patterns seemed to make much more sense.
So I started, for the first time in years, watching and reading the political news.
Now, you call this phenomenon “political correctness,” and that is as good a tag as any, I suppose. But you also, invariably, associate it with leftist, progressive, democratic party, hedonist, counterculture phenomena and proponents. Meanwhile, you seem to imply, and often state flatly, that the so-called ‘right’ or ‘conservative’ political will is more or less genuine, and at odds with the PC world view and behavior pattern.
What I have encountered belies that completely.
He then asks:
So why, then, do you associate ‘progressiveism’ with PC, and ‘conservativism’ with NOT PC, when it seems clear to me that EVERYONE in the realm of American politics is full of bull hockey?
The question is a good one and the answer is simple: Political Correctness does not mean ‘bull hockey’.
Political Correctness is a specific political philosophy with a particular origin story and a particular goal. It is a defined thing, that is what it is and is not its opposite.
Political Correctness does not refer to dishonesty, but to the particular type of philosophical dishonesty as first preached by the Frankfurt School of Marxism, which has since formed the foundation of modern Progressivism.
Allow me to quote from others, who can describe the phenomenon more succinctly than I.
According to Marxist theory, a world-wide war would be the catalyst for the workers of the world to overthrow their factory owners and create a communist society as Karl Marx envisioned. However, World War I came, but communism took hold in only one country – Tsarist Russia. And even there, it wasn’t so much a common-man movement, but a coup d’etat led by a relatively small band of ruthless elites. Thus in the early 1920’s, Marxist thinkers began to analyze what went wrong, and the search was on to find substitutes for the ‘oppressor vs oppressed’ and ‘factory owner vs factory worker’ model, and the thinking morphed into focusing on culture.
FROM http://thebereanwatch.org/wordpress/?p=476
One of those thinkers revising Marx was Gramsci.
“What Gramsci proposed, in short, was a renovation of Communist methodology and a streamlining and updating of Marx’s antiquated strategies. Let there be no doubt that Gramsci’s vision of the future was entirely Marxist and that he accepted the validity of Marxism’s overall worldview. Where he differed was in the process for achieving the victory of that worldview. Gramsci wrote that “there can and must be a ‘political hegemony’ even before assuming government power, and in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony one must not count solely on the power and material force that are given by government.” What he meant is that it is incumbent upon Marxists to win the hearts and minds of the people, and not to rest hopes for the future solely on force or power.
“Furthermore, Communists were enjoined to put aside some of their class prejudice in the struggle for power, seeking to win even elements within the bourgeois classes, a process which Gramsci described as “the absorption of the elites of the enemy classes.” Not only would this strengthen Marxism with new blood, but it would deprive the enemy of this lost talent. Winning the bright young sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie to the red banner, wrote Gramsci, “results in [the anti-Marxist forces’] decapitation and renders them impotent.” In short, violence and force will not by themselves genuinely transform the world. Rather it is through winning hegemony over the minds of the people and in robbing enemy classes of their most gifted men that Marxism will triumph over all.”
FROM http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/823368/posts
The point of Gramsci was to use the Marxist analyze to defame cultural rather than economic institutions:
“In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow, Lukacs–towards this end–launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.”
By the time of Lukacs, the Marxist Cultural War was being waged not against Capitalism, but against Christianity, Monogamy, Fatherhood, and the Family.
From the same article:
“In 1923, the Frankfurt School–a Marxist think-tank–was founded in Weimar Germany. Among its founders were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno. The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.
“The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. Toward this end, Marcuse–who favored polymorphous perversion–expanded the ranks of Gramsci’s new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics. Gramsci’s `long march’ was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, known in the West as multiculturalism.
“In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the `authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.”
Marcuse took the Lukac’s goals of destroying monogamy and monotheism and adapted the witchhunter tactic of accusing anyone supporting those institutions of having an ‘Authoritarian Personality’ (c.f. Erich Fromm’s THE ART OF LOVING, e.g.) which is a psychological disorder leading to racism, sexism, and homophobia. That accusation and that tactic continues to this day, having grown into an unstoppable juggernaut.
At this point, of course, Marxism falls by the wayside, since the economic argument that socialism is more productive and fair than capitalism has been as entirely exploded by history as it is possible for any theory to be. All that is left is what the Frankfurt School set in motion, a cultural war bent on undermining Western Civilization’s core values.
Finally:
Critical Theory – Refers to destructive criticism of all aspects of traditional, Judeo-Christian-based culture, including family, sexual mores, religion, capitalism, patriotism, authority, morality, tradition, and similar. Critical Theory doesn’t propose remedial measures; its intention is to destroy.
Repressive Tolerance – Tolerance or intolerance, based on conformity to the CM oppressor/oppressed narrative. Hence for example, since Christianity is posited as oppressive, it deserves intolerance; whereas, Islam is posited as oppressed, so it is given tolerance.
Polymorphous Perversity — A psychoanalytic concept proposing the human ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors. Herbert Marcuse was a supporter of this concept, and his thoughts in this area became well-known among youth during the 1960’s
In fact, if there is to be one member of the Frankfurt School that could be considered most influential in the development and implementation of Cultural Marxism, it would be Marcuse. At some point, the chant among Leftists became: “Marx, Mao, and Marcuse”. Marcuse was the leading “intellectual” promoting the cultural revolution of the 1960’s, and his book “Eros and Civilization” gave a seemingly intellectual basis for the upheaval. His slogan “make love and not war” was taken very literally by American youth.
What can be seen from these examples of the initial formulation of Cultural Marxism was the need to invert the cultural consensus of the West from Judeo-Christian ideology to a Marxist worldview, with the initial focus being in the academic world. Books were published, disciples created, and the ideology began to be implemented in the various sub-categories of the “dispossessed” whose lives had supposedly been ruined by the traditional white, male, Christian, Capitalist, traditional family-oriented society that characterized the West. However, it was understood that the process of overturning the traditional world view would take time, hence the characterization of the “long march through the culture”, implying several generations.
Note that in addition to the major objective to remove the influence of Judeo-Christian thinking, there are several subsidiary objectives that have been pursed. One is to do whatever it takes to maintain their constituencies; an “ends justify the means” approach, with objective truth a victim. Frankfurt School operative and German philosopher Max Horkheimer wrote, “logic is not independent of content.”; in other words, something is “true” if it helps the Cultural Marxist cause, and “false” if it does not.
FROM http://thebereanwatch.org/wordpress/?p=476
Is that clear?
Asking why there is no such thing as a “Political Correctness” among the Conservatives is the same as asking why there are totalitarian regimes of the Left, but no totalitarian regimes of the Right. Left means ‘totalitarian’ and Right means ‘Limited Government’. The reason why there are totalitarian regimes of the Left, but no totalitarian regimes of the Right is because a totalitarian regime is totalitarian by definition, whereas a totalitarian regime limited and circumscribed by a series of checks and balances, enumerated powers, and prevented from acting in areas protected by a Bill of Rights is a logical contradiction in terms.
(Oh, yes, I know the Leftroids define the term ‘Right’ to include fascists and absolute monarchies and military dictators, and they call ‘conservative’ whoever is in power no matter his political philosophy, but this is an unconvincing lie I will not pause to refute, any more than I would refute that noon is midnight.)
The reason why there is no such thing as a “Political Correctness” among the Conservatives is that Conservatism is a political theory of limited government & the Rights of Man, not an ideology serving as a substitute religion absorbing all aspects of life.
One of the things outside the power of the limited government is the power to define true and false. We conservatives believe truth is true and that lying is a sin. Our politicians lie, but they break the code they claim to uphold when doing so.
This is in sharp, obvious, stark contrast to Political Correctness. The name ‘Political Correctness’ MEANS you define your truth according to what your leaders say is true. Before the revolution these leaders are the newsmen and revolutionaries and masterminds, the intellectuals and academics whose books you read and whose thoughts you parrot. They define true and false, not reality.
After the revolution, the intellectuals are shot and the all-powerful state takes their place as the authority defining true and false. After the revolution, the word ‘truth’ means whatever Big Brother says you are to believe that day.
Do not forgive evildoers on the Right. If they advocate or excuse torture, for example, upbraid them until they repent, or expel them from your loyalty if they are unrepentant.
The reason why there is no such thing as a “Political Correctness” among the Conservatives is that “Political Correctness” is nothing but anti-conservatism.
The thing conservatives want to conserve is civilization, with the specific elements of Christian morality, Adam Smith economics, Anglo-American law culminating in the US Constitution, which limits the government’s power in the name of the Rights of Man. The thing Political Correctness wants to destroy is civilization, specifically to replace Christian morality with situational ethics and sexual perversion, Adam Smith economics with state-run fascist corporatism, Anglo-American law with the worship of a Glorious Leader untrammeled by any limits, logical or legal. The two are diametric opposites.
The reason why there is no such thing as a “Political Correctness” among the Conservatives is that Leftism, Liberalism Progressivism, Socialism, Welfare-Statism, whatever misleading term it is calling itself these days, this movement and this philosophy is nothing but political correctness as founded by Marx and redirected by Gramsci and carried out by Lukacs and Marcuse and the ten thousand nameless and brainless ‘useful idiots’ of academia, and the traitor-judges who use ‘activism’ as an excuse to subvert our laws into collapse from within, like termites gnawing pillar, post, and foundation.
The reason why there is no such thing as a “Political Correctness” among the Conservatives is that Leftism is one and the same as Political Correctness and Political Correctness is one and the same as Leftism.
And yes, obviously the Left is more evil. Hitler was a Leftist, a progressive national socialist. Stalin and Mao were leftists, communist socialists. They killed more innocent people than the Black Plague and the Mongol Invasions put together.
The Left supports absolutely and to infinite extremes keeping it legal that a mother for any reason or no reason may kill her innocent child in the womb, a crime so perverse and blasphemous it makes shooting a stranger for his wallet seem benevolent by contrast.
The Left supports the idea that this same child, reaching adulthood, should be allowed to command doctors to starve and dehydrate that mother slowly to death, even if she is awake enough and coherent enough to beg for water and food. (I am not exaggerating: such are real cases. http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/02/the-cult-of-assisted-suicide-and-euthanasia/ and http://www.hospicepatients.org/starvation.html and there are more)
The Left do not consist of solely of Marxists and Stalinists and Maoists and other bloodthirsty maniacs. In America, you will more often find a soft-spoken grandmotherly pacifist or well-educated Jew in horned rimmed glasses supporting Leftism, or handsome and empty-headed actors.
And yet even the peaceful and nonviolent Leftists always find room in their hearts to defend, write apologetics for, excuse, justify and explain away the enormities of these monsters, while holding the Jews in Israel to impossible standards.
They never find room to excuse the crimes of the Spanish Inquisition, even though, by socialist standards, the death toll there was penny-ante stuff.
They find infinite room in their large hearts to accuse America, the Free Market, Masculinity and Christianity of any and every crime under the sun.
Let me make a crucial distinction: not all Leftists are evil people. Quite a few of them are good people who are fallen into the sin of envy, and learned to mask their envy under a cloak of compassion for the poor. Anyone really and honestly concerned for the poor would, of course, give to charity out of his own abundance and would look to see whether the poor flourish more under a free system or under a Nanny-State, Police-State, Slave-State.
Not all Conservatives are honest men. BUT WE DON’T SUPPORT MOTHERS KILLING BABIES.
It is like the difference between worshippers of Christ and worshippers of Moloch. Many bad things have been done in the name of Christ, but we don’t burn little children to death on our altars while the parents watch, and punish the parents if they shed tears. The people of Carthage did do exactly that.
Both Left and Right do wrong. But Political Correctness defines itself as the totalitarian philosophy that holds the universe to be devoid of objective right and wrong, empty of truth, and a moral wasteland where the end justifies the means and the only law is the will of the oppressor to tyrannize the oppressed.
Upon examination you will find that in the theories written by their leaders, the Politically Correct leaders do not hold that it is wrong for men to oppress women, capitalist to oppress proles, or whites to oppress blacks — they do not object to the oppression, only to the roles. They want the same situation, merely reversed: women oppressing men, proles oppressing capitalists, blacks oppressing whites. (What the followers think does not matter. They are merely useful idiots, cannon fodder in the Culture War.)
We Conservatives believe in goodness and fall short. The Political Correctiods believe in the most grotesque and perverse and inhuman evils imaginable, mother killing children in the name of abortion, children killing parents in the name of euthanasia, Palestinians strapping bombs to retards and sending them into schoolyards filled with Jewish schoolgirls to commit murder suicide in the name of fighting oppression, creating poverty in the name of class-hatred, promoting porn and sodomy in the name of liberty, doing drugs in the name of expanding the mind. The Left are only good when they ignore their code, not when they live up to it.
When we Conservatives do evil, we are betraying our code and abandoning our faith and raping our consciences. When the Political Correction officers do evil, they are supporting their code, living their faith, and expressing, fully and clearly, the black, evil, filthy, disgusting, foetid, lice-riddled puke they call their consciences.
Look at the Occupy Wallstreet movement. Look at the freakshow of a gay pride parade. Look at the pile of corpses in the mass graves of China. That is leftwing economics, ethics, and legal theory in action. Look at the screaming insanity found in a modern art museum. That is leftwing aesthetics. Look at the corpse of a nine-month old baby dismembered during late-term abortion. That is the face of Political Correctness.
Bad as we who love the Constitution and believe in the Rights of Man, we who salute the flag and kiss the cross, bad as we may be, that is not our face. We are not that.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
