If what has happened since 2016, is in any way a yardstick by which to measure the current social and/or political climate in this country, then I predict that 2020, will be known to history as the ‘Year of the Triggering’.
The complete and utter rout of the political left, following December’s General Election, and the Labour Party’s worst defeat since the 1930s, will live long in the memory, but not for what I believe to be wholly obvious reasons.
The total rejection of the Labour Party’s hard-left rhetoric by the British electorate, has unleashed a virtual Tsunami of vitriolic spite, and violent anger, among sections of the population, the likes of which, has not been previously witnessed.
At least in my lifetime.
The reasons for this collective outrage, can be attributed to any number of things, but in my opinion, it is clearly underpinned by a pernicious and destructive belief structure, and one which, until very recently, has not made itself so clearly visible, but is now impossible to ignore any longer.
This belief structure, this virulent, noxious and poisonous ideology, which has infected a large part of the population on both sides of the Atlantic, being continually stoked by the mainstream media for the last decade, is not even a recent thing, although there are those who will tell you otherwise.
It has taken a little over a century for it to become embedded in Western society, to the point where millions of people, from the youngest, right through to those, who frankly, should know better, have become contaminated by it’s teachings, and we are now witnessing the fallout.
Social media is where the outrage appears to be at its most acute, and Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, most specifically, where the outpouring of the pure, unadulterated hatred emanating from the left of the political arena, has been simply breathtaking.
Thankfully, most of the hatred has been confined mainly to the online world, and has, as yet, not spilled over onto the streets, and into our everyday lives, although, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this will continue to be the case.
If what I have been watching on social media, the undermining, de-platforming and sabotaging of any opposing, or dissenting viewpoints, the rabble-rousing, the streams of insults and continual threats of violence, emanating overwhelmingly from left wing media outlets, Shillabers, ‘Activists’ and social commentators, continues, and/or increases to any degree, then all bets are off.
But I digress.
The 2019 General Election was not only a thumping victory for the Conservative & Unionist Party, but by completely crushing the very real threat, posed by the hard-left lunatics that have infiltrated, and taken total control of the Labour Party, was a win for common sense, sanity, and the democratic process itself.
I have spent the last couple of days, looking for articles and texts which would outline what I believe to be the root cause of this malaise, and to be honest, I have struggled to find anything online which encapsulates most of what I have been trying to illustrate.
However, I did find something, but as the author of the following article, as I understand it, is not known, I am unable to credit the writer, or link to an online source where the original can be found.
I am also unsure as to the date it was written.
I discovered it initially a few years ago, amongst some unrelated documents I was going through, and have tried, but failed to discover the identity of the writer.
But he/she is/was an American.
That aside, I cannot stress how important I believe this piece of writing to be, and if only for that reason, I am going to republish it here, albeit with a few [minor] adjustments to the text, which will bring it right up to date, and include the use of any current terminology.
It’s a fairly long read, and I accept that it may be difficult to digest in one sitting, but it contains one hell of a lot of information in regard to what I believe has happened in this country, (and America) to this country (and to America) and is still happening.
THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS….
“Have you ever wondered, where all this stuff that you are hearing pretty much everywhere at the moment – the LGBTQ rights movement, the fabricated statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the incessant demands, the sense of entitlement and victimhood, and the rest of it – comes from?
For the first time in history, people in the west have to be fearful of everything they say, of what they write about, and even of what they think.
They have grown terrified of using the wrong word, or words, lest those words are rounded on and violently denounced on all sides as offensive, or insensitive, over critical, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or anti-semitic or Islamaphobic, or Transphobic.
We have stood idly by, and watched other countries where this has happened, and we have regarded those countries with a mixture of pity, and sometimes with amusement, because we were simply dumbfounded, that supposedly intelligent people, would have allowed such a situation to arise around them.
A situation where they would suddenly become afraid of what words they can use.
But now, we have that situation here.
Emerging initially on University campuses in the United States, Britain and Europe, and spreading with what appears to be indecent haste, to the point where, it has infected the whole country.
So, where does it come from?
And what exactly is it?
We know it as “Political Correctness.” Which is a term that began as something of a joke, literally in an American comic strip, and many people still cannot grasp how serious it is. It is deadly serious. It has become a disease that has reached pandemic proportions since the beginning of this century, and is a sickness that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, and around the world.
It is the disease of ideology.
Political Correctness is not funny.
Political Correctness is serious…. deadly serious.
If we choose to analyse it, or if we look at it from a historical aspect, it becomes clear 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, it goes back a lot further, fifty years in fact, to the Great War of 1914-1918.
If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism, the parallels become obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than in Universities and Colleges, many of which, to all intents and purpose, are little more than miniature North Korea’s, where the student who dares to cross any of the invisible lines set by up by the gender feminists or the LGBTQ rights activists, or the local ‘minority’ groups, or any other of the sainted “victims” groups that Political Correctness revolves around, quickly finds themselves in a world of trouble.
Within the small legal system of each university, they can face formal charges – some star chamber proceeding – and ultimately, punishment. Take that as a look into the future that Political Correctness intends for any nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole history of our culture, is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality directly contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they, also naturally, use their own ears and eyes to look around and say, “wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see for myself that it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie.
That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Secondly, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.
Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over all other groups.
Nothing else matters.
All politically correct literature is about that. Everything that has gone before is about that one thing.
Thirdly, just as in classical economic Marxism, certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.
In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, certain groups are good – radical feminists, (but only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) people of colour, LGBTQ people and a few others, are determined to be “victims”, and as such are automatically deemed to be good, regardless of whatever they say, or indeed, do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie economic Marxism.
Fourthly, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation.
When the classical Marxists, the Communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, taking away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a university in favour of a person of colour, who isn’t as well qualified, the unfortunate white student is expropriated.
As indeed, affirmative action, in our society today, is a system of expropriation.
Companies owned by white people don’t get a particular contract because said contract is reserved exclusively for companies owned by people of colour, or women.
So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both forms of Marxism have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers that are required. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction.
Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it, and re-inserts any meaning that is required. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender and little else. All of these texts become simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.”
So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we are familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today in the the form of Political Correctness.
Those parallels are not accidental, however, the similarities did not appear out of thin air. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much older than many people appear to be aware of, outside of a small, select group of academics who have studied it.
The history goes back, as I said earlier, to World War I, as do many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, our heritage, our culture, and even our identities, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries, than they had in common with the bourgeois and the ruling class in their own country.
Of course, as we know, 1914 came and went, and that did not happen.
Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to try and kill each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany, and said that there are no political parties now, there were only Germans. And this was repeated throughout Europe,
So obviously, something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it could not be the theory. In 1917, they finally got their coup in Russia, and it did look as though their theory was working, but it stalled once more. It did not spread following the war as the Marxist’s hoped, despite the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers did not support them.
So it appeared that the Marxist’s had a problem. And two Marxist theorists set to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukas in Hungary.
Gramsci said that the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christianity – that they were blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukas, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “who will save us from Western Civilisation?”
He also theorised that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilisation itself.
Lukas gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home-grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government was established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did, was to introduce sex education into the Hungarian school system. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, the workers, as well as everybody else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing”.
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established that took on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates what we know today as Political Correctness.
Essentially, the basis for it was created by the end of the 1930s.
It came about because a very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil had become a Marxist, and had a lot of money to spend. He grew ever more disturbed by the divisions that existed among the Marxists, so he sponsored something that became known as the Marxist Work Week, into which, he brought Lukas and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
He said, “what we need is a think-tank.”
Washington and London is today filled with think tanks, and we think of them as being a very modern invention, when in fact they go back more than ninety years.
Felix Weil endowed an Institute in 1923, associated with Frankfurt University, that was originally going to be known as the ‘Institute for Marxism’. But the people behind it, had decided at the start that it was not going to be to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxists. The last thing Political Correctness wants, is for people to work out that it is in reality, a branch of Marxism. So instead, the name ‘Institute for Social Studies’ was decided upon.
Weil was very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of the definitive book about the ‘Frankfurt School’, as the Institute for Social Research becomes informally known as, and wrote: “I wanted the Institute to become known, perhaps even famous, due to its contributions to Marxism,”
He was successful. The first director of the institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, 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’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the population of the school, are also renegade Marxists. They are still very much very much Marxist in their thinking, but they are effectively run out of the party. Moscow looked at what they were doing, and said, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we are not going to support this.”
Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes: “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”
A lot of the stuff we have been hearing about the last few years – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the LGBTQ studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory.
What the Frankfurt School essentially does, is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s, to create this thing known as Critical Theory.
The term is ingenious because one is tempted to ask, ‘What is this theory?”
The theory, in simple terms, is to criticise.
The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture, and the (established) capitalist order, is not to lay down an alternative.
They explicitly refuse to do do that.
They simply say it can’t be done, that we cannot imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we are living under repression – the repression of a capitalist economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it.
What Critical Theory is about is criticising.
It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, and is designed to bring the current established order down. And, of course, when we hear from feminists, that the whole of society is just out to get women, and so on, that type of criticism is just another derivative of Critical Theory. And it comes from the 1930s, not the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, who, in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphic perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create.
Marcuse in particular by the 1930s, is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute.
So do most of the themes we see in Political correctness, again in the early 1930s.
In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part, socially determined,”
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 manipulating dominating attitude towards nature.” That was Horkheimer writing in 1933 in Materialisms und Moral. ‘The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, “was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.
“Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishisation of labour, (here’s where they are obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkheimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marqis de Sade, favourably, for his “protest…. against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”
How does all this stuff still flood in here?
How does it flood into our universities and colleges, and indeed into our everyday lives today?
The members of the Frankfurt School are of course, Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933, the National Socialists came to power in Germany, and not unsurprisingly, they immediately shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members subsequently fled, and scattered.
They fled to New York City, and the Institute was re-established there in 1933, with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually, through the 1930s, although many of them writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German Society, and destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed towards the destruction of American society.
There was another very important transition when the war came. some of the Institute’s members go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War.
But the student rebels needed theory of some kind. They couldn’t just go out one day and shout “Hell no, we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation to explain their actions.
Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital.
Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 1960s were none too deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for America, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Germany after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls for the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained in America, saw the 1960s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 1960s. That book was ‘Eros and Civilisation.’ Marcuse argues in that book, that under a capitalist order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, a Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order, and that gives us the person that Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his/her sexual instincts are repressed.
We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do your own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will be no longer work, only play.
What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-1960s!
They are students, they are baby-boomers, and they have grown up never having to worry about anything, except eventually having to find a job. And here is a guy writing in a way that they can easily follow. He does not require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them 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 created the phrase, “Make Love, Not War.”
Coming back to the situation people face on university campuses, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the political Right and tolerance for anything, and I mean anything, that comes from the Left.
In conclusion, both America and Britain today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in their history. We are becoming ideological states, and countries with official state ideologies, enforced by the might and power of the state itself.
In “Hate crimes” we now have have people serving prison sentences for political thoughts and ideas. And its going to go a lot further, and that category is going to be expanded even further.
Affirmative Action is only part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness in universities is also part of it. Its exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in China, in Italy and now it’s here.
And we still fail to recognise it because we see it as just Political Correctness and simply laugh it off.
My message to you today, is that its not funny, its here, its growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy everything that we have ever defined as our freedom, and our culture.”