Skip to comments.Political Correctness - The Revenge of Marxism
Posted on 09/16/2006 9:55:14 AM PDT by SegerSkriv
click here to read article
I'm going to send this link to a lot of people....lets Freep the world with this!!!!
Definitely...what a great article. Semper Fi!
I GOT ONE !!!
...this is OBVIOUSLY HATE SPEECH!...
... based on what I've learned working in Corporate America...
... based on what I've learned at church ...
... based on what I've learned from my 'political fathers' in Washington D.C....
IBTZ! woo hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bookmark for later reading. Cool post. Can't wait to read. But must.
Bookmarking as well, but love what I've perused so far.
bookmark for later...
Only those without conscience can seek to rule without pity and only those with conscience can be so ruled.
Don't let the commies put burkas on our mommies.
This article nails the big picture.
In the long run, our most dangerous enemy isn't a culture locked in the 7th century, but a well funded and educated group of fellow citizens who hate personal freedom. First we have to deal with muzzies, but then we need take on our internal enemies.
Too many people have lost their instinct for self-preservation
Karl Marx himself has stated that The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism, a sentiment that corresponds almost exactly to the Islamic idea that peace means the absence of opposition to Islamic rule.
I hope people post this at other forums. ;-)
Multiculturalism isn't the only front in the battle. One indispensible tool for such cultural critics has taken academic form in the curious field of "study" subsumed under the term "Critical Thinking," which is, under the hood, a deconstructionist approach to those aspects of modern society that are most in the way of social "progress." It is indeed intensely critical but there is relatively little real thinking involved other than a mastery of pejorative terminology.
Another is the accession of Marxian class analysis, originally a strictly sociological application, to related fields such as law. "Critical Legal Theory" takes the techniques of Critical Thinking mentioned above and applies them to an interpretation of legal theory that is strictly class-based. Law, in the view of its proponents, is merely a manifestation of power relations between oppressed and oppressive classes. An inversion of those relations is seen as precisely as valid as the original; that is, a society where thugs rule the streets and cops are the hunted is no different from its opposite. This sort of approach works considerably better in theory than in practice but as a foundation of social theory it has gained a creedence far in excess of its actual merit.
Underlying all of this is a philosophical denial of the existence of objective truth and an attempt to replace it with political power. That is demonstrably the case with PC, as Dalrymple pointed out above - the entire approach assumes that truth is arbitrary and hence may be dictated, and it requires the surrender of the individual to a fantasy reality that is more malleable than the objective one. In this, one may pretend that food is poison and poison, food, because in the broad perspective "it's all the same thing." Acting on that pretense is likely to bring the real world crashing in, at which point the contest becomes to explain the latter away by ascribing blame to somebody else. The real world must fit the theory, not vice versa.
And that is why it will fail in the end. This sort of denial of truth is profoundly anti-life, actually suicidal when it leads the adherent to an action that is theoretically sound but objectively self-destructive. Were it only to kill the fool that adheres to it there wouldn't be a problem. Where it threatens to destroy an existing society with imperfections and substitute an impossible fantasy world without them, we all are in danger.
Fantastic reply. Cheers!
Sean may be right, but not for the reasons he imagines.
While you're at it, warn them about this Gramsci Marxist - he's one of today's main PC activists / operatives in the DemocRAT Party. bttt
bumped for later
I sent him a copy of this ;-)
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. Ones standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
WOW! This has to be one of the most brilliant, on-target indictments of Communism I've ever read. Who is this guy? Never heard of him before.
I've never heard of him either and this piece is definitely brilliant and on target.
According to info on the blog site, http://www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com, he's a 55-year-old male consultant living in Virginia. He's email is also at the web site and it's email@example.com
Boy this really captures the essense of the BS "critical thinking' sell going on in universities. I had many of these sort of classes in my undergrad and you are right on. Thanks for the post.
Good points all, but in the meantime, we can act. Do not use or buy into Political Correctness, in any way shape or form. Call an ace an ace, not a heart.
All you have to do is check out Mao's Red Book-
"Not having correct politics is like having no soul"
I always thought that was a strange one since real communists don't believe in the concept of the soul period!
Yes, an excellent and perceptive analysis.
Do you have a link to the source? Could you post it?
Later: OK, I've googled it, and find it here. Scroll down the page to find the article:
Thanks for the information. So who is the author of the piece? Fjordman or Baron Bodissey?
Fjordman is the author. Baron Bodissey run Gates of vienna.
Thanks for the clarification. It explains why there is so much discussion about what is happening in Norway. Fjordman must be really concerned and feeling hopeless about his country's future. It seems paralyzed and doomed to cultural and political suicide by political correctness.
This needs trumpeting far and wide... BTTT
the violence that it does to peoples souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.
The healthy people in any society reject this involuntarily, regardless of the sphere in which it exists, i.e. political, religious. They may not be able to state it forthrightly at first, but from the beginning and no matter the duress they're under, they begin to make internal arrangements so that what they know to be true won't be destroyed or made ineffective by any manner of deconstruction.
Theodore Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. Ones standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
In Orwell's 1984 when the State, after having set them up, captures a couple of 'infidels' they employ the method of tapping into these peoples ultimate fears to get confessions, retractions, the whole thing. I can't remember the character's name, but he's afraid of rats, so his interrogator places a cage over his head and tells him that there's a rat inside it in its own compartment, and tells him that if he doesn't come clean, he's gonna release the rat. So, the guy turns in his accomplice, and gives the interrogator exactly what he was looking for, but IIRC, there never was any rat in the cage. They tapped into this guys blind fear.
But how is that possible? Dont we have free speech here? And we have no Gulag?
The IslaminternThe simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by poverty, oppression and marginalization, a classic, Marxist interpretation.
What happened is that while the hard Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the soft Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we deemed it to be less threatening. The hard Marxists had intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they would bury us. The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil, capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels. Perhaps we should call it stealth Socialism instead of soft Socialism.
What's present in the Country is a dis-appreciation for what it took to raise the Country to where it is. I despise this dis-appreciation because I'm a naturalized citizen, and I know the difference between freedom and tyranny, based on the testimony of my lovely WW II surviving parents, who at the ages of 80 and 74 still regularly exclaim, 'it was a dream to come to this Country.' 'God bless America.' This isn't some saccharine laden nostalgia, it's a perpetual adherence to historical truth. And I mention this because there are many people who otherwise paint the US as decadent because of the consumerism, etc. that is part and parcel of what drives the Country's economy. They've never actually plowed the fields that yielded precious little, as my parents did in Italy. They've never actually picked cotton all day long, so that when faced with the choice between picking cotton and working in a factory, they run and do not walk, to their time-cards. I think this mindset is a danger to the Country too, because its pontificators pontificate from a position in which a choice was available to them. They don't know real misery. I mean I don't either, except through the eyes of my parents, but the misery that plagued Italy is the reason they came to this blessed Country. And this kind of vicarious righteousness that these pontificators put forth is the substance of the soft socialism that Mr. Dalrymple speaks of.
Once you weaken an economy that pretty much leaves people alone to pursue what is in their potential to pursue, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and their ideas are easily sold because the misery index has created such a great supply of buyers.
Clue me, please
One of the techniques used by brainwashers is to force prisoners to repeat things they KNOW aren't true. Doing so breaks down their moral definition until truth becomes meaningless. Once the skeleton is dissolved, the remaining protoplasm can be molded into something useful to the communist masters.
PC must be resisted with all our might. It will cost us the soul of this nation otherwise.
How do we organize and train ourselves to fight this....as fight we must....or as you say....America is toast.
This needs to be bumped and bumped....the most important thread at Freepers....get the word out folks!!!
Send this to all the people you know....PLEASE
Absolutely correct. The problem is, it works. How do you explain the lies that are being accepted about the war in Iraq, for example? How do you explain how the Leftist anti-war movement escaped any accountability for the massacres in Southeast Asia after the US withdrew? Their hero worship of tyrants like Castro and Stalin, or goons like Che Guevara? They can rearrange reality any way they like, and with the aid of the media and academia, the fabrication becomes fact.
Truth is to the Left what garlic is to Dracula, what water was to the Wicked Witch, what light is to a cockroach. They will try to confuse the issue; they will rant and holler and throw fits, feigning umbrage at your insolence, your "racism" or "intolerance" or whatever other spellword they can conjure. But in the end, if common sense prevails (and that is admittedly a risk), their hollow posturing can't survive the grim scrutiny of honest discourse.
This is what you want to be prepared to challenge in college.
And why you should be as eager as you are to rebut liberalism in your conservative high school.
Nobody believes in Marxism, not even those that call themselves Marxist's. "Belief" in Marxism died about the 1950's. Grand theory making is dead. One must look for other causes of Western decline such as egalitarianism with its pendant tolerance. The latter two may even be mere symptoms of a greater malaise. Perhaps, even a physical inability to even fight for one's life; both individually and collectively. Hard to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.