Carrying Capacity Network Action Alert
CULTURAL MARXISM--A Threat to the USA? #2
What is Political Correctness?
March, 2010
Preserving the USA's cultural carrying capacity has been a
central concern of Carrying Capacity Network since CCN's founding some twenty
years ago. It is the First Principle of CCN's 5-point program.
Practices which impair or destroy fundamental cultural values
impair the sustainability of a nation -- as the eminent Garrett Hardin asserted
in his classic 1986 essay 'Cultural Carrying Capacity' -- just as overuse of
not-easily replaceable resources is a transgression of long-term ecological
carrying capacity.
Among cultural values essential to the sustainability of the
United States are, for example, Freedom of Speech, Rule of Law, and Respect for
a shared Heritage and English Language --all basic to social cohesion, national
unity and national preservation.
Increasingly in the second half of the twentieth century,
however, the social movement known as Cultural Marxism began to transform the
USA itself.
Cultural Marxism's advocacy of Politically Correct speech
rather than Free Speech, and multiculturalism/multilingualism rather than
National Unity under one shared Culture and Language are, arguably, threats to
the USA itself.
The threat is not random but purposeful. Leading
self-identified Cultural Marxists have stated that the destruction of Western
Civilization, Western Nations, and Christianity are among their Goals.
And why would the Cultural Marxists adopt those Goals?
Because they facilitate the transfer of the Property, Wealth, and Power of the
Founding Stock of Western Nations, to the Cultural Marxists themselves?
Unavoidably, one questions the seriousness of the challenge.
Are the United States and its citizens threatened by the Cultural Marxists'
push for Politically Correct speech, multiculturalism, multilingualism, mass
immigration, unequal rights for certain categories of Citizens, 'Globalism' (as
opposed to Internationalism) destruction of 'Sovereign Nations' (an
"obsolete concept" a recent European Union document claimed), and the
displacement of the Founding Stock and Religion of Western Nations?
Have the USA's most cherished institutions been so
infiltrated and degraded that they
reflect the success of Lenin's injunction: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it
ourselves!"?
Or is Cultural Marxism merely a passing ideological fancy
that will soon pass into the Dustbin of History?
CCN believes these are very important questions, and thus
solicits supporters' input in answering them.
To facilitate our supporters addressing these questions, CCN
plans to distribute several notable essays addressing Cultural Marxism.
The second of these -- 'What Is Political Correctness?' by
eminent Military Historian William Lind, is reproduced below. Please e-mail
your constructive comments to ccnetworkinc@gmail.com.
And, if you support CCN in our efforts, please make a
much-needed donation at www.carryingcapacity.org.
Thank you!
What Is Political Correctness?
By William S. Lind
Most Americans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our
homes were safe, to the point where many people did not bother to lock their
doors. Public schools were generally excellent, and their problems were things
like talking in class and running in the halls. Most men treated women like
ladies, and most ladies devoted their time and effort to making good homes,
rearing their children well and helping their communities through volunteer
work. Children grew up in two-parent households, and the mother was there to
meet the child when he came home from school. Entertainment was something the whole
family could enjoy.
What happened?
If a man from America of the 1950s were suddenly introduced
into America in the 2000s, he would hardly recognize it as the same country. He
would be in immediate danger of getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he
would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that he
shouldn't go into certain parts of the city, that his car must not only be
locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep at night
without locking the windows and bolting the doors - and setting... the
electronic security system.
If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would
probably cheerfully pack their children off to the nearest public school. When
the children came home in the afternoon and told them they had to go through a
metal detector to get in the building, had been given some funny white powder
by another kid and learned that homosexuality is normal and good, the parents
would be uncomprehending.
In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a
reference to the "little lady," and say he was happy to see the firm
employing some Negroes in important positions. Any of those acts would earn a
swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired.
When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a
nice suit, hat, and possibly gloves. She would not understand why people
stared, and mocked.
And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned
on the television, they would not understand how pornography from some sleazy,
blank-fronted "Adults Only" kiosk had gotten on their set.
Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the
1950s as fast as they could, with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story
would be of a nation that had decayed and degenerated at a fantastic pace,
moving in less than a half a century from the greatest country on earth to a
Third World nation, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The fall of Rome
was graceful by comparison.
Why did it happen?
Over the last forty years, America has been conquered by the
same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force
is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the
traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping
much of it away. In its place came fear, and ruin. Russia will take a
generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can.
The ideology that has taken over America goes most commonly
by the name of "Political Correctness." Some people see it as a joke.
It is not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules,
formal and informal, that govern relations among people and institutions. It
wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant
extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also controls
thought. Who dares to speak of "ladies" now?
Just what is "Political Correctness?" Political
Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism - Marxism translated from economic into
cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did
not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the
1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in
Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the
transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt
School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering
the question, "Who shall save us from Western Civilization?" The
Frankfurt School gained profound influence in American universities after many
of its leading lights fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape National
Socialism in Germany.
The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later
influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create
"Critical Theory" and "deconstruction." These in turn
greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher
education gave birth to what we now call "Political Correctness." The
lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.
The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural
Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with
classical Marxism the vision of a "classless society," i.e., a
society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition. Since that vision
contradicts human nature - because people are different, they end up unequal,
regardless of the starting point - society will not accord with it unless
forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first
major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian
ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on
campuses where "PC" has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of
the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.
The second major parallel is that both classical, economic
Marxism and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history.
Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the
means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by
which groups - defined by sex, race, and sexual normality or abnormality - have
power over which other groups.
The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare
certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for
the actual behavior of individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers and
peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of
capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women,
homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous and white men as
evil. (Cultural Marxism does not recognize the existence of non-Feminist women,
and defines blacks who reject Political Correctness as whites).
The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic
Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the
bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the "representative" of
the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power
(including through our own government), lay penalties on white men and others
who disagree with them and give privileges to the groups they favor.
Affirmative action is an example.
Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of
analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation.
For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists, the
analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction "proves" that
any "text," past or present, illustrates the oppression of blacks,
women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text
(regardless of their actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony
analyses that twist the evidence to fit preordained conclusions, but they lend
a 'scientific" air to the ideology.
These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental.
They exist because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical
Marxism, and is in fact a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of
Marxism, cultural Marxists were "read out" of the movement by
classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural
Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the
same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.
Political Correctness now looms over American society like a
colossus. It has taken over both political parties - recent Republican
conventions were choreographed according to its dictates, while cultural
conservatives were shown the door - and is enforced by many laws and government
regulations. It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the
entertainment industry. It dominates both public and higher education: many a
college campus is a small, ivy-covered North Korea. It has even captured the
higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who
departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.
The remainder of this short book will explore the subject of
Political Correctness further: its history, its method of analysis
(deconstruction), and the means by which it has attained its influence,
especially through education.
But one more question must be addressed at the outset, the
most vital question: how can Americans combat Political Correctness and retake
their society from the cultural Marxists?
It is not sufficient just to criticize Political
Correctness. It tolerates a certain amount of criticism., even gentle mocking.
It does so through no genuine tolerance for other points of view, but in order
to disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is. The
cultural Marxists do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to appear
totalitarian until their victory is assured.
Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy
it. They must use words it forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates;
remember, sex is better than gender. They must shout from the housetops the
realities it seeks to suppress, such as the facts that violent crime is
disproportionately committed by blacks and that most cases of AIDS are
voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts. They must refuse to turn
their children over to public schools.
Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must
behave according to the old rules of our culture, not the new rules the
cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not cops or
soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies. Children should not
be born out of wedlock. Open homosexuality should be shunned. Jurors should not
accept race as an excuse for murder.
Defiance spreads. When other Americans see one person defy
Political Correctness and survive - and you still can, for now - they are
emboldened. They are tempted to defy it, too, and some do. The ripples from a
single act of defiance, of one instance of walking up to the clay idol and
breaking off its nose, can range far. There is nothing the Politically Correct
fear more than open defiance, and for good reason; it is their chief
vulnerability. That should lead cultural conservatives to defy cultural Marxism
at every turn.
While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few
Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different
set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At
present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance,
and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of
defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the
window-dressing of "sensitivity," "tolerance," and
"multi-culturalism."
----William S. Lind has a B.A. in History from Dartmouth College
and an M.A., also in History, from Princeton University. He was formerly a
director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress
Foundation in Washington, D.C., and is a vestryman at St. James Anglican Church
in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio.
To support Carrying Capacity Network's work visit www.carryingcapacity.org or
Send a check in a Carrying Capacity Network Business Reply Envelope or in a regular stamped envelope to:
Carrying Capacity Network, Inc.
Mailing address:
Carrying Capacity Network, Inc. | P. O. Box 457 | San Francisco, CA 94104-0457
Washington, DC address:
Carrying Capacity Network, Inc. | 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 | Washington DC, 20006
www.carryingcapacity.org
Pennsylvania Residents: The official registration and financial information of Carrying Capacity Network, Inc. may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling toll free within Pennsylvania, 1-800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
Note: CCN is anti-mass immigration but NOT anti-immigrant.
No comments:
Post a Comment