Political Correctness Is Cultural Marxism – American Thinker reblog

image

Marx’s key concept was “class struggle.” That’s where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.

by W.A. Beatty, americanthinker.com / July 6th 2013

The excellent AT article “Conservatives Pushing Back” by Bruce Walker explored what we conservative thinkers (We are, after all, American Thinkers) have known for quite some time: political correctness (PC) is to culture what Marxism is to economics. To recognize that fact arms us with what we need in order to push back. As Walker says (emphasis added), “[t]hese marketplace ballots are the key not only to the survival of a non-totalitarian America, but also to the final defeat of those whose minds and wills are chained with hard, cold manacles of leftism.”

Walker’s article is (pardon the pun) right on the money. So, in an effort to further understand PC, exploration of its similarities to Marxism is in order.

Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was a German socialist. Marx’s social, economic, and political theories proclaimed that societies progress through class struggle. His focus was upon economics, so Marx concentrated on the conflict between an ownership class that controlled production and a proletariat that provided the labor for production. He referred to capitalism as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” The proletariat, the oppressed workers, were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure.

Marx’s key concept was “class struggle.” That’s where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.

PC, just like Marxism, forces people to live a lie by denying reality. PC takes a political philosophy and says that on the basis of the chosen philosophy, certain things must be true, and reality that contradicts its “truth” must be forbidden — eradicated since it disputes PC, exposes as untrue what PC says is true. People are reluctant to live a lie, so they use their eyes and ears to see reality, to say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true; the power of the state [PC] must be put behind the demand to live a lie.” Marxism, by denying economic reality, did exactly the same thing.

image
Robert Byrd

PC, just like Marxism, has a method of analysis that always provides the answer it wants. For PC, the “answer” is found through deconstruction, which takes any situation, removes all meaning from it, and replaces it with PC’s desired meaning. Walker references this point when he says, “[T]hat her [Paula Deen’s] devout Christian faith is more the real target than past use of an unhappy word which did not keep Robert Byrd from remaining, by election of his fellow Senate Democrats, the most powerful Democrat politician in America.”

image
New Black Panther voter intimidation

PC, just like Marxism, depends upon defining what it considers good and bad groups. It defines good groups as “victims” of bad groups. The victims can never be anything but good, regardless of what their actions may be. Witness what the Black Panthers did in Philadelphia, PA in 2008 and 2012. Any group identified as good by PC (homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, feminist women, mentally and/or physically challenged people, the poor, environmentalists, the list goes on and on) must be shown deference, both physically and linguistically. They must not be offended, must not be insulted.

Any group identified as bad by PC, such as white males or any Christian group, can be offended. This offense, PC practitioners say, “makes up” for past offenses certain to have been committed in the past by bad groups. And what’s worse is that the PC practitioners get to define the offenses committed by the bad groups. This situation, by definition, is a “self-fulfilling prophesy.”

Rush Limbaugh, in 2010, said, “Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.” The PC crowd labeled Limbaugh’s statement offensive and insulting. Imagine that. Limbaugh was just “calling a spade a spade.” Like it or not, PC cannot prevent mental retardation, cannot alter reality. But that doesn’t stop them from trying.

PC, just like Marxism, depends upon expropriation. PC is literally taking over our language, and woe be unto him/her that dares speak the truth. When Marxists took over Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie by confiscating their property. Similarly, when PC takes over our culture, quotas are set. The so-called bourgeoisie are told whom they can and can’t hire, and in what quantities they can hire. As an example, see what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently up to. And let’s not forget affirmative action, a system of expropriation if there ever was one, another PC favorite. When a black or Hispanic student (or some other “victim”), who isn’t as well-qualified as a white student, gains university admittance through affirmative action, the white student’s admittance is expropriated.

PC, just like Marxism, has a single factor explanation of all of history. PC says that all history is determined by power, by which groups have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. Period. PC is all about gaining power for the good groups that it defines. To further that goal, PC literally rewrites history. And PC says that the Bible is actually about race and gender. Nothing is beyond the PC crowd.

image
Photo released by George Zimmerman’s defense attorney of his injuries.

As an example of what PC has done and is currently doing, examine the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case/trial. First, always PC, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Then, ever PC NBC doctored the 911 recording; thus, “NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman’s own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create the illusion of statements that Zimmerman never actually made.” Here is what PC tried to do before the trial. “Many viewed the early lack of charges against Zimmerman as unequal justice for a black victim. More than 2 million people signed an online Change.org petition demanding ‘Justice for Trayvon Martin.'” Now, the prosecution is trying to say that Zimmerman is a liar, that his injuries were not life-threatening. I’m quite certain that AT readers can cite numerous other examples.

The U.S. has become an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology and history that has been defined by PC. People convicted of “hate crimes” as defined by PC are currently serving jail sentences for political thoughts contrary to PC. And it’s only getting worse — PC continues to spread.

Marx believed his ideology, his economic system to be true. But, reality contradicted his system. His ideology did not adjust to reality.
Hopefully the PC ideology will soon suffer a similar fate. It is, as Walker points out, a corrupt ideology. The only problem is that we will have no country, will have an economic disaster once people are confronted with reality, when enough people say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals who will not adjust to reality continue the PC ideology. And they have convinced the MSM and enough low-information voters to continue to empower them as all three groups continue to ignore reality.

Charlton Heston once said, “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.” Tyranny, yes, but practitioners seem to have forgotten the manners part.

Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.

Morning Reading: Acts 12.1-5 NLT – more persecution

Reading: Acts 12.1-5 NLT

The Beheading of St. James by Fra Filippo Lippi, 1455  (part of the Pistoia Sante Trinita Altarpiece in the National Gallery, London)
The Beheading of St. James
by Fra Filippo Lippi, 1455
(part of the Pistoia Sante Trinita Altarpiece in the National Gallery, London)

About that time King Herod Agrippa began to persecute some believers in the church. He had the apostle James (John’s brother) killed with a sword.

When Herod saw how much this pleased the Jewish people, he also arrested Peter. (This took place during the Passover celebration.) Then he imprisoned him, placing him under the guard of four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring Peter out for public trial after the Passover. But while Peter was in prison, the church prayed very earnestly for him.

Prayer: Lord Jesus – Your followers have been persecuted from early on… some you deliver from evil, and some pay the heavy price of martyrdom. In all of it, make us people of prayer… trusting, hoping, believing and persistent. Deliver us from the evil extent in our time. Clothe us with the full armor of God… that we might stand firm against the schemes of the devil… who roams this earth seeking to devour your people. Transform us into Kingdom people… and may your will be done in us and through us… for your name’s sake. Amen.

Hymn: “Abide with me”Henry Francis Lyte (1847)
_________________________________
Abide with me: fast falls the eventide; the darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide. When other helpers fail and comforts flee, Help of the helpless, O abide with me.

Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day; earth’s joys grow dim, its glories pass away. Change and decay in all around I see. O Lord who changes not, abide with me.

I need your presence every passing hour. What but your grace can foil the tempter’s power? Who like yourself my guide and strength can be? Through cloud and sunshine, O abide with me.

I fear no foe with you at hand to bless, though ills have weight, and tears their bitterness. Where is death’s sting? Where, grave, your victory? I triumph still, if you abide with me.

Hold now your Word before my closing eyes. Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies. Heaven’s morning breaks and earth’s vain shadows flee; in life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

Excusing Evil: “The Mindset of the Left” by Thomas Sowell (Human Events)

image

“At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil — that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.”

by Thomas Sowell, humanevents.com / July 2nd 2013

image
Thomas Sowell

When teenage thugs are called “troubled youth” by people on the political left, that tells us more about the mindset of the left than about these young hoodlums.

Seldom is there a speck of evidence that the thugs are troubled, and often there is ample evidence that they are in fact enjoying themselves, as they create trouble and dangers for others.

Why then the built-in excuse, when juvenile hoodlums are called “troubled youth” and mass murderers are just assumed to be “insane”?

At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil — that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.

All the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors and slave-owners.

Why has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?

Rousseau denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since. Why? Self preservation.

If the things that the left wants to control — institutions and government policy — are not the most important factors in the world’s problems, then what role is there for the left?

What if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a more positive difference than the bright new government “solutions” that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking “the root causes of crime” is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals? The hard facts show that the murder rate was going down for decades under the old traditional practices so disdained by the left intelligentsia, before the bright new ideas of the left went into effect in the 1960s — after which crime and violence skyrocketed.

What happened when old-fashioned ideas about sex were replaced in the 1960s by the bright new ideas of the left that were introduced into the schools as “sex education” that was supposed to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?

Both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases had been going down for years. But that trend suddenly reversed in the 1960s and hit new highs.

One of the oldest and most dogmatic of the crusades of the left has been disarmament, both of individuals and of nations. Again, the focus of the left has been on the externals — the weapons in this case.

If weapons were the problem, then gun control laws at home and international disarmament agreements abroad might be the answer. But if evil people who care no more for laws or treaties than they do for other people’s lives are the problem, then disarmament means making decent, law-abiding people more vulnerable to evil people.

Since belief in disarmament has been a major feature of the left since the 18th century, in countries around the world, you might think that by now there would be lots of evidence to substantiate their beliefs.

But evidence on whether gun control laws actually reduce crime rates in general, or murder rates in particular, is seldom mentioned by gun control advocates. It is just assumed in passing that of course tighter gun control laws will reduce murders.

But the hard facts do not back up that assumption. That is why it is the critics of gun control who rely heavily on empirical evidence, as in books like “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott and “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

National disarmament has an even worse record. Both Britain and America neglected their military forces between the two World Wars, while Germany and Japan armed to the teeth. Many British and American soldiers paid with their lives for their countries’ initially inadequate military equipment in World War II.

But what are mere facts compared to the heady vision of the left?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.

Morning Reading: Acts 11.25-30 NLT- Christian relief

Reading: Acts 11:25-30 NLT

Then Barnabas went on to Tarsus to look for Saul.

When he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. Both of them stayed there with the church for a full year, teaching large crowds of people. (It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.)

image
The Prophecy of Agabus by Louis Cheron (1660-1713)

During this time some prophets traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them named Agabus stood up in one of the meetings and predicted by the Spirit that a great famine was coming upon the entire Roman world. (This was fulfilled during the reign of Claudius.)

So the believers in Antioch decided to send relief to the brothers and sisters in Judea, everyone giving as much as they could. This they did, entrusting their gifts to Barnabas and Saul to take to the elders of the church in Jerusalem.

Prayer: Lord Jesus – May I bear the name “Christian” with honor and courage. Holy Spirit – Give me a teachable spirit, and open my heart to follow as you lead. Heavenly Father – All that I have is on loan from you. May I use it wisely to further your Kingdom purposes. I ask it in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Hymn: “Here I am, Lord”Fr. Daniel Schutte, SJ
________________________

The character of independence – John Hayward (Human Events)

By John Hayward, humanevents.com / July 4th 2013 8:30 AM

What has been missing from all the revolutions that didn’t work out as well as ours?  What have we lost, to bring the American revolution to such a perilous hour, in which the restraints upon government decay into first theory, and then fiction?

It all boils down to a question of character.

 

image

It was easy for American observers to sympathize with the “Arab Spring” revolutionaries in Egypt.  They risked hardship, injury, and death to pack Tahrir Square in a massive demonstration against a corrupt government, presided over by strongman Hosni Mubarak for decades.  They spoke of freedom and democracy.  The cold geopolitical reality was that Mubarak was a reliable U.S. ally, and what replaced him was not.  But all those who risk everything in the name of democracy are singing the first few bars of the American song, and we can’t help but tap our feet to the fife and drum, and wish them well.

An even larger demonstration just overthrew the Arab Spring Egyptian government.  Those hard-won post-Mubarak elections installed a regime of Islamist blockheads whose primary “qualification” for government was the ability to recite Koranic verses from memory.  Their efforts to consolidate power left other Egyptians wondering if they had leaped from the kleptocrat frying pan into the theocrat fire.

The Egyptian people will try again.  They’re none to happy with the United States after our support for the deposed Morsi regime.  Some observers offer hope that it’s more of a personal distaste for Barack Obama and his Administration.  The anti-Obama banners carried through the streets of Cairo support that impression.  Maybe the jubilant Egyptians will still be willing to consider the American revolutionary example and learn something from it.

That would be wise of the Egyptians, because America still offers the paramount example of revolutionary success against tyranny.  In fact, it’s distressingly difficult to point to another example that turned out nearly as well, in either the short or long term.  We Americans have a romantic conviction that all the people of the world yearn to breathe free, with liberty and representative government ready to blossom in every corner of the world, once the hard frost of tyranny is cleared away from the soil of individual dignity.  It’s long past time for us to consider the melancholy reverse of this schoolboy optimism: liberty and representative government are remarkably difficult to nourish, and centuries of effort have produced many failures, measured against few great and enduring successes.

One reason for this uncertain track record is that liberty and representative government are two very different things.  Americans tend to assume the former flows from the latter – plant a seed of democracy, and the tree of liberty takes root.  That’s not true, and the authors of the America’s founding documents knew it wasn’t true.  They wrote with great wisdom and foresight about the necessity of restraining even the most frequently ratified, freely elected government.  Democracy (if we may take that term to include the process of electing representation in a republic) without a vigorous defense of liberty brings mob rule, or installs a set of well-organized and charismatic tyrants whose first order of business is ensuring they will never be voted out of office.  It transforms citizens into warring parties of bitter enemies whose votes determine, not the course of government, but the course of their daily lives.

What has been missing from all the revolutions that didn’t work out as well as ours?  What have we lost, to bring the American revolution to such a perilous hour, in which the restraints upon government decay into first theory, and then fiction?

It all boils down to a question of character.  Modern Americans may not fully appreciate how extraordinarily blessed with leaders of remarkable character our early government was.  James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson… they, and their colleagues, were among the most brilliant and expressive men of their day.  Read any portion of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution if you seek proof.  The trove of wisdom held by our Founders was piled high with riches.

Presiding over the government they created was George Washington, among the most admired men in the world at the time, and perhaps in all of time.  For too many Americans, our first President has been reduced to a cartoon abstraction of integrity, the lad who could not lie about chopping down a cherry tree.  (Do today’s schoolchildren even learn that, or do I date myself by mentioning it?)  This does not capture the astounding dimensions of Washington’s esteem.

Reporting on a 2012 poll conducted by the British National Army Museum that named George Washington the greatest military enemy of Britain, and the American Revolution her worst defeat, U.S. News said it was “no surprise that the architect of that defeat is still one of Britain’s most despised historical figures.”  Perhaps so, but he wasn’t personally “despised” by his enemies at the time.  There was quite a difference between the glowing accounts of Washington in the British press during the war, and the contemptuous coverage of the rebel nation he fought for.  If the British had managed to kill him, they would have wept honest tears at his funeral.  (Let it be duly noted that not even George Washington’s esteem was universal or perpetual.  The American press took to calling him a “tyrant” for a while, after the Whiskey Rebellion.)

Can a revolution be consolidated into lasting peace, prosperity, and justice without such a leader?  When we think of great historical forces coming together to shape the destiny of a nation, we don’t always account for the importance of a few extraordinary men and women to lead their nation through the aftermath.  Great hours are often squandered by petty men.  Such hours call for more than intelligence and managerial skill.  Towering personal character and morality are required as well.  It’s no longer a fashionable notion, but in times past it was believed that clear, valuable thought was impossible without great character, because the serenity brought by a strong moral sense was essential to careful and honest deliberation.

Who can doubt that the turbulent sea of power released in the aftermath of a revolution, when jubilant people look with love and gratitude upon their liberators, is easily abused?  It’s a time of great temptation for those who find themselves in control of vast resources, with their self-regard inflated by the energetic regard of countless others, their appetite for vengeance against deposed loyalists keen, and their differences with revolutionary rivals sharpened by the defeat of the hated common enemy.  Personal character is the only reliable armor against such temptation, in the days before firm laws to restrain the power of the newborn State have been ratified.

The character of the people is crucial as well.  All of us, everywhere, get the government we deserve.  If we authorize abuse against our fellow citizens, it occurs, and then inevitably grows.  If we demand little character from our leaders, little is supplied.  If we grant our government the power to do whatever “most people” want, it quickly grows until it has little difficulty rounding up enough people to claim majority support for whatever the ruling class wants to do.  If dissent is not cherished, freedom withers.  You will find no intersection between the “tyranny of the majority” and the “consent of the governed,” for the authors of the Declaration of Independence didn’t say a just government should settle for the consent of some of the governed, or even most of them.

We hold the truths enshrined by the American Revolution to be self-evident, not just for us, but for all of mankind.  However, our Founders never said those truths would be easy to embrace.  On the contrary, they wrote often of the urgent need for people of character, both in the halls of government and the great open fields of citizenship.  Those modern readers who are dismayed by the religious language they used are foolishly discounting priceless wisdom, and failing to appreciate the value of humility as a republican virtue.  The truly great leaders of a free people are humble men and women.  Those are really hard to come by.  Intelligence, passion, and charisma are in greater supply, and they are far more easily demonstrated.  Revolutions are more common than Washingtons.

This Independence Day, let us wish the Egyptians well in their search for humble and capable leadership.  Let us join them.