Ideologies‎ > ‎

Political Correctness

Political correctness is perpetuating America’s demise

There is an all-pervading problem going unnoticed by many in the United States.  Although wasteful spending, big government policies, and corruption have exhausted and equally crippled our economy, this problem poses a greater threat to our livelihood. That problem is political correctness.

A recent Rasmussen Report poll revealed that 79 percent of Americans think political correctness is problematic in America. What is political correctness, and who is responsible for it? It is important to note that political correctness derives from Cultural Marxism. This connection is expounded below:

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.

Bill Land of Accuracy in Academia attributes Cultural Marxism to the Frankfurt School in Germany. In 1923, the Frankfurt School—best known as the Institute for Social Research—was established with the task of translating Marxist economic theory into Marxism cultural theory. When Nazis took control in Germany, members of the Frankfurt School relocated to the United States in 1933 and found their way into American universities.

Their work also gave rise to Critical Theory, which is “essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.”

Additionally, one prominent Frankfurt School member—Herbert Marcuse—helped to champion Critical Theory so as to cripple free speech. Bill Lind also wrote, “Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left.”

From these findings, it is important to note how political correctness pervades everyday life. Cultural Marxists have waged a war on holidays, word choice, free speech, religion, and a whole host of other facets in American society.

Below are modern-day examples of political correctness:

Terrorists are now enemy combatants.

Christmas trees shall be labeled holiday trees, while Easter eggs shall be labeled Spring spheres.

Criticizing President Obama’s agenda is racism, not dissent from his belief system.

Quotas, not merit, shall be the chief determining factor of one’s entry into university.

Denounce the American flag and heritage, yet grant preferential treatment to other national anthems and cultures.

Embrace gender-neutral terms.

Demonize Christianity and Judaism, but give a pass to radical Islam.

Everybody wins a trophy. There are no winners and losers. Competition is offensive and mean-spirited.

Being pro-traditional marriage, pro-life, and pro-gun makes one homophobic, anti-woman, and dangerous, respectively.

Blacks, Asians, women, gays, Hispanics, and other “minorities” that stray from the Democratic Party are lesser human beings.

The list goes on and on.

As more Americans grow impregnated by fear of their own shadows, it should be duly noted that political correctness abridges one’s liberties and freedoms. Leftists—most pointedly, their Cultural Marxist peers—want Americans to live in a constant state of fear. If one does or says something that does not fall in line with political correctness, they will be ostracized and demonized.

Freedom is sacred, and the United States cannot not breed an environment that aids and abets political correctness.

Communists in the former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Baltic Republics, Cuba, and other formerly (or currently) oppressed nations perpetuated fear and political correctness. They suppressed dissent and differing opinions through punishment, imprisonment in gulags, or death.

Cultural Marxism affected my family back in the former Soviet Union. My mother could not openly practice her Catholic faith, while my dad faced institutionalized anti-Semitism. Moreover, my grandfather was sent to a Russian gulag for 18 months because he wanted to practice his faith and hold private property. There, he nearly starved to death and was tortured. Many others faced similar, if not worse, circumstances back there.

It is undeniable that Cultural Marxists have placed Americans in a psychological gulag: one that leaves them mentally hopeless, uninspired, talentless, afraid, and weak to live like normal human beings. As a result, Americans cannot fall prey to political correctness given its totalitarian nature.

Regardless of party affiliation, skin color, or disposition—whatever—it is imperative to stand up to political correctness and demand a return to normalcy.

“Coercion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.” -Ronald Reagan

Cross-posted from Washington Times Communities.


TheOrigins of Political 


Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIAconferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about thismorning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the inventedstatistics, 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 tobe fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. Theyhave to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive orinsensitive, 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 mixtureof pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as sostrange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would beafraid 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 thewhole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated assomething of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think ofit as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great diseaseof our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead inEurope, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease ofideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at ithistorically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctnessis cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into culturalterms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and thepeace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets ofPolitical Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness isrevealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at thispoint are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty memberwho dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or thehomosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any ofthe other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly findthemselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college,they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. Thatis a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for thenation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essenceof an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not anideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophycertain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our cultureis the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that,reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the realityof our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people arenaturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes tolook 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 whyideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, likeeconomic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined byownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or PoliticalCorrectness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groupsdefined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups.Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in thepast 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., thebourgeoisie 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 toexist) 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, therebybecoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely onexpropriation. When the classical Marxists, thecommunists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie,they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take overa university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas foradmissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is deniedadmittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as wellqualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action,in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companiesdon’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 ofMarxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis thatautomatically 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 allmeaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, forexample, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or theBible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become gristfor the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have powerover which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between theclassical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and thecultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did notcome from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has ahistory, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside asmall group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as Isaid, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringingour 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 wouldrise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – becausethe workers had more in common with each other across the national boundariesthan they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their owncountry. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workersrallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaisershook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germanyand said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened inevery country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theorywas working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were madeto spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin,with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workersdidn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theoristswent to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and GeorgLukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true classinterests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture,and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded byculture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was consideredthe most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who willsave us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the greatobstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Westerncivilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, becausewhen the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did wasintroduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that theworkers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian peoplelooked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had alreadymade the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we wouldconsider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takeson the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, thatcreates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it hascreated the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because thevery wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weilhas become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by thedivisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First MarxistWork Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers togetherfor 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 asvery modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute,associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originallysupposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind itdecided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identifiedas Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people tofigure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it theInstitute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1917, he wrote toMartin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as theInstitute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “Iwanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributionsto Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, CarlGrunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according toMartin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as ascientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at theInstitute, 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’sviews were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people whocreate and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still verymuch 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’renot going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested inFreud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic intocultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in theearly years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with ananalysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I pointout that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading froma critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in itscultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regardingthe relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

Critical Theory

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – theradical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments,the black studies departments – all these things are branches of CriticalTheory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx andFreud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The termis ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory isto criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture andthe capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitlyrefuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a freesociety would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’reliving under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order whichcreates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freuddescribes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. WhatCritical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the mostdestructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring thecurrent order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that thewhole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism isa derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the1960s.

Sexual connection

Other key members who join up around this time are TheodoreAdorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central toPolitical Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularlyMarcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphousperversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they wantto create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extremestuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the wholeInstitute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again inthe early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflectionsof ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They werederived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part sociallydetermined.” 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 dominatingattitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismusund Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” wasto become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.”“Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s where they’reobviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of hismaterialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his mosttrenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936,Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent inbourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably,for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

American infiltration

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it floodinto our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of theFrankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 theNazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down theInstitute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New YorkCity, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from ColumbiaUniversity. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s,though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from CriticalTheory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of thatsociety, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is anothervery important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for thegovernment, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (thepredecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move toHollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably notmean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was thestudent rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance tothe draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed a theory of somesort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they hadto have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them wereinterested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is notlight, 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 toFrankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by thestudent rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come intoAdorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – HerbertMarcuse, 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 thetheory of the New Left in the United States.

Eros and civilization

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually becamethe bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros andCivilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays theMarxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry intoFreud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that orderand that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all thehang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We canenvision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, inwhich we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of“polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And bythe way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What awonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’rebaby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything excepteventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they caneasily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tellsthem 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.” Comingback to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberatingtolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance foranything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (ifI remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes ofthe greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming anideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by thepower of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentencesfor political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that categoryever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone whodissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly whatwe have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’scoming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctnessand laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’sgrowing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything thatwe have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind


History of Political Correctness

Political Correctness