POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
(STEALTH MARXISM)
7/28/2011
By Peter Marquetti
"Political Correctness" is an oxymoron. There has never been in the history of mankind anything 'political' that has been correct nor there will ever be. Furthermore, we all have the responsibility to be correct in our deeds; but that does not require being "political." So what exactly has been branded as "Political Correctness" and what does it seek to accomplish? Well, at first glimpse it seems to be just designed circumlocutions systematically imposed upon the populace with presumably a noble intent to "avoid offending others." Many arguments and theories to foster and support "Political Correctness" have sprung since the resurgence of this not so new ideology back in the late '70s. The most prevalent theoretical idea behind "Political Correctness" is that of cultural change through lexicon change. This idea is mainly based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which speculates that "a language's grammatical categories shape the speaker's ideas and actions." This is not only rubbish, but even worse than that, it is linked to Marxist theory.
A racist mind, for example, will not change simply because it is pressured to conform to the presumed more desirable—or what the "Political Correctness" proponents deemed more "appropriate"—way of jiving. A more polite racist is no less of a racist. He or she did not stop being a racist just because he or she stopped calling me "ni..er."
The proponents of the "inclusive language" theory argue that "Rendering the labels and terms unacceptable, people then must consciously think about how they describe someone unlike themselves. The rights, opportunities, and freedom of certain people are restricted because they are reduced to stereotypes." Granted that only partly this argument deserves some merit, it is not merely the change of vocabulary that would change preconceived misconception; particularly when the image-manipulating media constantly project images to pervade and reinforce those negative misconceptions. It was not the change of lexicon that put an end to the lynching of blacks in the south. Some people have decided that it is more appropriate, or, "politically correct," to refer to black people in America as "African-American." But what exactly is the magic in that term which will prevent an employer from denying me a job? How does that work? How would I know that I was not hired by an employer because I am an "African-American"? Nobody needs to know that was the reason. He knows better than that. Sexists, racists, and bigots can still go under the radar undetected by hiding behind the Medusa of so-called "diversity" and "multiculturalism." And "Political Correctness," in the sense of enforced orthodoxy, will continue having no bearing in that regard. There is no evidence suggesting that mainly systematical replacement of old terms meant to be derogatory with a new set of circumlocutions will change the mindset. Moreover, the same new verbose will then pass into common usage and gradually obtain the same or equivalent disparaging connotation as the old ones—breeding in the process more "political correctness" terminologies. And where does it stop?
I experienced the sickness of "Political Correctness" during my time in college. At first I wanted to believe that its intent was noble; and being a member of a people who had been oppressed for a long time, I felt it was in my best interest—and even my duty—to support it. Entering my senior year; however, I had more political awareness and I began to pay close attention and see some strange radical ideology and attempts to enforce "political correct" behavior and linguistic reform which made me experienced some degree of uneasiness. For nowhere is the totalitarian nature of "PC" more glaring than on college campuses. Coincidentally, this was taking place during the time of the complete colonization of the American academies by the feminists. Looking back, I can see they were intertwined. As my own worldview began to take shape, I then started to have serious doubts and began to question it just like I have questioned any other forms of hogwash that have been peddled as "enlightenment" or "progressive" in the black community by gurus and disciples of ignorance. I then dismissed it, initially, as just an obnoxious institutionalized phony politeness seeking to regulate our vocabulary. But its insidiousness became more apparent and far more serious than I previously thought. Since that time has passed, I have seen "Political Correctness" spreading to pandemic proportion--gradually and steadily eroding everything in its path. I have seen its appendages getting longer and more dangerous, and taking hold of every American institution, all learning institutions primarily, the police force, the military, our judicial system, the media, business, etc. Nothing has escaped the grip of its tentacles, nothing; and no doubt it has influenced many policies making. It has exercised great influence on the right, the center, and the left. In this country, the United States, illiberalism has come to be expected of the right; however, its appearance on the left is quite paradoxical but very real nonetheless. Even the middle ground seems to have disappeared—"either you're with us or against us."
But who are the people promoting these ideas? Who are those qualified to be political correctors? And why their obnoxious and patronizing behavior constitute "political correctness" but other people's dissenting opinions and ideas do not? Who are these self-appointed P.C. police? But even more important questions are….Why should we so passively accept them? Who says we should not challenge them? Who are these albatrosses who wallow in their obnoxious self-righteousness and very hypocritically vociferate about "tolerance," but are intolerant if one speaks in ways that do not conform to the speaking code they so arbitrarily seek to impose upon the non-conformists? When did blind people campaign—on their own volition—for the much longer term "visually challenged"? When did retarded people protested against the term? Did they decide themselves that "mentally challenged" was a more appropriate terminology? For if they did, then they are not after all retarded or "mentally challenged." Did midgets had a huge convention and decided that from that point on they would prefer to be called "vertically challenged"? Do less attractive people really prefer to be called "cosmetically inconvenient "? These albatrosses want us to call shoplifters "non-traditional shoppers" to ensure we don't hurt their feelings. What qualifies them, what warrants them the right to demarcate "correctness"—political or otherwise? I do not recall ever being asked personally, or having participated in a poll to find out if I prefer to be called "negro," "colored," "darkie," "nigga," "African-American," "Afro-American," "African" or simply "American." No, somebody took the liberty to decide for me that "African-American" was the most politically correct term. The truth is that most of these obnoxious albatrosses generally are not, and most likely never been or will be, in any way involved with the group they decided would be offended by a particular "politically incorrect" term.
Sometimes people take offense with a particular term or comment simply because some self-righteous zealot seeking political spot-light made a huge hullabaloo about it and declared that "WE" got offended. I remember quite clear January of 1988 when the football commentator by the name Jimmy Snyder (Jimmy the Greek) made the "infamous" statement for which he was subsequently fired. This is what Mr. Snyder said:
"The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way—because of his high thighs and thick thighs that go up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster…..This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slavery the slave owner would breed his big black man to his big black woman, so he could have a bigger slave."
Historically speaking, Mr. Snyder was not that much off base in his comment because that is a historical fact. But Jesse "messy" Jackson and other negro buffoons, and some of their white liberal [friends] seized the propitious occasion to be seeing as the champion of black people's cause; and came on television denouncing Mr. Snyder's comment as "outrageous" and "politically incorrect." But he never stated that it was untrue. He knew better. But they needed to make an example out of Mr. Snyder because the truth did not matter; what did matter was to be politically correct. I did read the statement several times trying to decide what part of the statement I should be offended by. To this very day I have not yet been able to decide.
I do not know what was going through Mr. Snyder's mind when he made that comment. I am not sure if deep embedded in that comment there was another unspoken thought of far more wicked implication; but the fact is that if it was he never categorically expressed it. I do not know if there was malice intended; but even if it was, I do not want for anyone to usurp upon my freedom to decide for myself whether to get offended or not.
I do not advocate or support the retention of ill-spirited epithets meant to dehumanize another person. I could not. I do strongly agree that we must treat others with the same dignity and respect we expect to be treated with. But society could express its faith in the strength of its members' character by calling spade, spade. I do not believe there is great dignity in being treated as though one were thin skinned and unable to face reality, or that repression and censorship should be acceptable in the name of sensitivity. I do not believe that free exchange of ideas should be curtailed for the sake of protecting the fragile feelings of people who might get offended if one calls a crippled person crippled. And most certainly I do not believe in anti-contextual ideology of victimization because I have never viewed myself inherently a victim of any other people--not even of those who enslaved my ancestors.
"Political Correctness," far from creating tolerance and a world without conflict, is creating a world that begins to look more like a prison. It has poisoned the atmosphere for honest intellectual discussion at just about every American institution and, ironically, undermined the "pluralism" they purportedly seek to achieve. No free thoughts, no free movement of genuine ideas. It encourages disingenuousness, division, extremism, self-righteousness, distrust, contemptuousness, confusion, animosity, fear, and has everyone walking on eggshells. Before we convert thoughts into words we must be sure what exactly does not constitute an offense--something which has become sort of a task, and a difficult one. It is designed to stifle or suppress any real discussion about any real relevant issues that deals with reality and truth. Many men and women who were courageous enough to voice truth, facts and reality—just as they are—have paid a price. They have been ostracized, marginalized, mocked, ridiculed, embarrassingly forced to attend mandatory "consciousness-raising" classes, and even in some cases their career ruined by the most callous, vindictive, and opportunistic elements who have positioned themselves as zealot police of "Political Correctness" seeking to enforce strict conformity and speech codes. Many men and women have been put in the predicament of having to either outright relinquished or compromised what they and everyone else know is the truth; because the truth can be "politically incorrect" if it inconvenient those whose worldviews are absorbed in comfortable falsehoods and refuse to hear it, or if it has the potential of being an obstruction to a particular special interest group's agenda. It has become a powerful tool to silence, discourage, and castigate dissents.
All things considered, I have to conclude that "Political Correctness" is the spiritual child of a Marxist ideology. Cultural Marxist mandates what we can and cannot say. True democracy depends on the widest possible dissemination of facts. When issues that might be dealing with certain facts, certain realities, are word-tailored under the assumption that not doing so could offend others, and attempting—by whatever means—to suppresses those facts, those realities under the pretext that not doing so it would cause harm, that is an act of totalitarianism. Its characteristics and parallel can be found in the cultural Marxist's deconstruction method, and that is no coincidence. Marxist-Socialism is not as dead as many people have been duped to believe. Surely it has encountered opposition and rejection, but that does not mean it has gone away. No, it has not, it has been repackaged and rebranded as "Political Correctness. But if one thing I know with absolute certainty is that all such a past attempts at enforcing conformity and uniformity have failed. They have ended up with the gulag and the concentration camps. There is no evidence which supports the notion that this time around would be any different.
"Political Correctness" is an oxymoron. There has never been in the history of mankind anything 'political' that has been correct nor there will ever be. Furthermore, we all have the responsibility to be correct in our deeds; but that does not require being "political." So what exactly has been branded as "Political Correctness" and what does it seek to accomplish? Well, at first glimpse it seems to be just designed circumlocutions systematically imposed upon the populace with presumably a noble intent to "avoid offending others." Many arguments and theories to foster and support "Political Correctness" have sprung since the resurgence of this not so new ideology back in the late '70s. The most prevalent theoretical idea behind "Political Correctness" is that of cultural change through lexicon change. This idea is mainly based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which speculates that "a language's grammatical categories shape the speaker's ideas and actions." This is not only rubbish, but even worse than that, it is linked to Marxist theory.
A racist mind, for example, will not change simply because it is pressured to conform to the presumed more desirable—or what the "Political Correctness" proponents deemed more "appropriate"—way of jiving. A more polite racist is no less of a racist. He or she did not stop being a racist just because he or she stopped calling me "ni..er."
The proponents of the "inclusive language" theory argue that "Rendering the labels and terms unacceptable, people then must consciously think about how they describe someone unlike themselves. The rights, opportunities, and freedom of certain people are restricted because they are reduced to stereotypes." Granted that only partly this argument deserves some merit, it is not merely the change of vocabulary that would change preconceived misconception; particularly when the image-manipulating media constantly project images to pervade and reinforce those negative misconceptions. It was not the change of lexicon that put an end to the lynching of blacks in the south. Some people have decided that it is more appropriate, or, "politically correct," to refer to black people in America as "African-American." But what exactly is the magic in that term which will prevent an employer from denying me a job? How does that work? How would I know that I was not hired by an employer because I am an "African-American"? Nobody needs to know that was the reason. He knows better than that. Sexists, racists, and bigots can still go under the radar undetected by hiding behind the Medusa of so-called "diversity" and "multiculturalism." And "Political Correctness," in the sense of enforced orthodoxy, will continue having no bearing in that regard. There is no evidence suggesting that mainly systematical replacement of old terms meant to be derogatory with a new set of circumlocutions will change the mindset. Moreover, the same new verbose will then pass into common usage and gradually obtain the same or equivalent disparaging connotation as the old ones—breeding in the process more "political correctness" terminologies. And where does it stop?
I experienced the sickness of "Political Correctness" during my time in college. At first I wanted to believe that its intent was noble; and being a member of a people who had been oppressed for a long time, I felt it was in my best interest—and even my duty—to support it. Entering my senior year; however, I had more political awareness and I began to pay close attention and see some strange radical ideology and attempts to enforce "political correct" behavior and linguistic reform which made me experienced some degree of uneasiness. For nowhere is the totalitarian nature of "PC" more glaring than on college campuses. Coincidentally, this was taking place during the time of the complete colonization of the American academies by the feminists. Looking back, I can see they were intertwined. As my own worldview began to take shape, I then started to have serious doubts and began to question it just like I have questioned any other forms of hogwash that have been peddled as "enlightenment" or "progressive" in the black community by gurus and disciples of ignorance. I then dismissed it, initially, as just an obnoxious institutionalized phony politeness seeking to regulate our vocabulary. But its insidiousness became more apparent and far more serious than I previously thought. Since that time has passed, I have seen "Political Correctness" spreading to pandemic proportion--gradually and steadily eroding everything in its path. I have seen its appendages getting longer and more dangerous, and taking hold of every American institution, all learning institutions primarily, the police force, the military, our judicial system, the media, business, etc. Nothing has escaped the grip of its tentacles, nothing; and no doubt it has influenced many policies making. It has exercised great influence on the right, the center, and the left. In this country, the United States, illiberalism has come to be expected of the right; however, its appearance on the left is quite paradoxical but very real nonetheless. Even the middle ground seems to have disappeared—"either you're with us or against us."
But who are the people promoting these ideas? Who are those qualified to be political correctors? And why their obnoxious and patronizing behavior constitute "political correctness" but other people's dissenting opinions and ideas do not? Who are these self-appointed P.C. police? But even more important questions are….Why should we so passively accept them? Who says we should not challenge them? Who are these albatrosses who wallow in their obnoxious self-righteousness and very hypocritically vociferate about "tolerance," but are intolerant if one speaks in ways that do not conform to the speaking code they so arbitrarily seek to impose upon the non-conformists? When did blind people campaign—on their own volition—for the much longer term "visually challenged"? When did retarded people protested against the term? Did they decide themselves that "mentally challenged" was a more appropriate terminology? For if they did, then they are not after all retarded or "mentally challenged." Did midgets had a huge convention and decided that from that point on they would prefer to be called "vertically challenged"? Do less attractive people really prefer to be called "cosmetically inconvenient "? These albatrosses want us to call shoplifters "non-traditional shoppers" to ensure we don't hurt their feelings. What qualifies them, what warrants them the right to demarcate "correctness"—political or otherwise? I do not recall ever being asked personally, or having participated in a poll to find out if I prefer to be called "negro," "colored," "darkie," "nigga," "African-American," "Afro-American," "African" or simply "American." No, somebody took the liberty to decide for me that "African-American" was the most politically correct term. The truth is that most of these obnoxious albatrosses generally are not, and most likely never been or will be, in any way involved with the group they decided would be offended by a particular "politically incorrect" term.
Sometimes people take offense with a particular term or comment simply because some self-righteous zealot seeking political spot-light made a huge hullabaloo about it and declared that "WE" got offended. I remember quite clear January of 1988 when the football commentator by the name Jimmy Snyder (Jimmy the Greek) made the "infamous" statement for which he was subsequently fired. This is what Mr. Snyder said:
"The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way—because of his high thighs and thick thighs that go up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster…..This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slavery the slave owner would breed his big black man to his big black woman, so he could have a bigger slave."
Historically speaking, Mr. Snyder was not that much off base in his comment because that is a historical fact. But Jesse "messy" Jackson and other negro buffoons, and some of their white liberal [friends] seized the propitious occasion to be seeing as the champion of black people's cause; and came on television denouncing Mr. Snyder's comment as "outrageous" and "politically incorrect." But he never stated that it was untrue. He knew better. But they needed to make an example out of Mr. Snyder because the truth did not matter; what did matter was to be politically correct. I did read the statement several times trying to decide what part of the statement I should be offended by. To this very day I have not yet been able to decide.
I do not know what was going through Mr. Snyder's mind when he made that comment. I am not sure if deep embedded in that comment there was another unspoken thought of far more wicked implication; but the fact is that if it was he never categorically expressed it. I do not know if there was malice intended; but even if it was, I do not want for anyone to usurp upon my freedom to decide for myself whether to get offended or not.
I do not advocate or support the retention of ill-spirited epithets meant to dehumanize another person. I could not. I do strongly agree that we must treat others with the same dignity and respect we expect to be treated with. But society could express its faith in the strength of its members' character by calling spade, spade. I do not believe there is great dignity in being treated as though one were thin skinned and unable to face reality, or that repression and censorship should be acceptable in the name of sensitivity. I do not believe that free exchange of ideas should be curtailed for the sake of protecting the fragile feelings of people who might get offended if one calls a crippled person crippled. And most certainly I do not believe in anti-contextual ideology of victimization because I have never viewed myself inherently a victim of any other people--not even of those who enslaved my ancestors.
"Political Correctness," far from creating tolerance and a world without conflict, is creating a world that begins to look more like a prison. It has poisoned the atmosphere for honest intellectual discussion at just about every American institution and, ironically, undermined the "pluralism" they purportedly seek to achieve. No free thoughts, no free movement of genuine ideas. It encourages disingenuousness, division, extremism, self-righteousness, distrust, contemptuousness, confusion, animosity, fear, and has everyone walking on eggshells. Before we convert thoughts into words we must be sure what exactly does not constitute an offense--something which has become sort of a task, and a difficult one. It is designed to stifle or suppress any real discussion about any real relevant issues that deals with reality and truth. Many men and women who were courageous enough to voice truth, facts and reality—just as they are—have paid a price. They have been ostracized, marginalized, mocked, ridiculed, embarrassingly forced to attend mandatory "consciousness-raising" classes, and even in some cases their career ruined by the most callous, vindictive, and opportunistic elements who have positioned themselves as zealot police of "Political Correctness" seeking to enforce strict conformity and speech codes. Many men and women have been put in the predicament of having to either outright relinquished or compromised what they and everyone else know is the truth; because the truth can be "politically incorrect" if it inconvenient those whose worldviews are absorbed in comfortable falsehoods and refuse to hear it, or if it has the potential of being an obstruction to a particular special interest group's agenda. It has become a powerful tool to silence, discourage, and castigate dissents.
All things considered, I have to conclude that "Political Correctness" is the spiritual child of a Marxist ideology. Cultural Marxist mandates what we can and cannot say. True democracy depends on the widest possible dissemination of facts. When issues that might be dealing with certain facts, certain realities, are word-tailored under the assumption that not doing so could offend others, and attempting—by whatever means—to suppresses those facts, those realities under the pretext that not doing so it would cause harm, that is an act of totalitarianism. Its characteristics and parallel can be found in the cultural Marxist's deconstruction method, and that is no coincidence. Marxist-Socialism is not as dead as many people have been duped to believe. Surely it has encountered opposition and rejection, but that does not mean it has gone away. No, it has not, it has been repackaged and rebranded as "Political Correctness. But if one thing I know with absolute certainty is that all such a past attempts at enforcing conformity and uniformity have failed. They have ended up with the gulag and the concentration camps. There is no evidence which supports the notion that this time around would be any different.
