the revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their education institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal Egalitarianism.
Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt School
In 1965, the Central Committee approved the Chairman of the Communist Party of China, Mao Tse-tung’s application, for the publication of his Little Red Book, as it would become known in the West, as well as becoming an iconic symbol of the regime. It was an initial measure, to manufacture an artificial, so called ‘Cultural Revolution’, ‘to preserve Communist ideology’ by purging remnants of capitalism and tradition from Chinese society, to impose a dominant cultural ideology consistent with the party’s narrative. It was instructions for how to live with accord to the party and state, and how to be politically correct.
If a citizen acted within the acceptable perimeters, as permitted by the text, they were deemed politically correct. Art, Sport, Ballet and all other aspects of culture were refocused through a political lens and only very specific perceptions of history were permitted. Any critique that contradicted the party line was condemned, to be politically incorrect was to be an enemy of the state.
Progressive parties everywhere have sought to monopolise educational and cultural institutions in order to force those under their thumbs to sing their tunes or to shut up. But having brought about the opposite of the prosperity, health, wisdom, or happiness that their ideology advertised, they have been unable to force folks to ignore the gap between political correctness and reality.
Especially since the Soviet Empire’s implosion, leftists have argued that Communism failed to create utopia not because of any shortage of military or economic power but rather because it could not overcome this gap.
Angelo M. Codevilla
In writing this I wanted to acknowledge the contemporary threat the left poses and how this has changed. At this point I should make a distinction between how support for the Left manifests prior to taking authority, and how the principles are inevitably corrupted when it does gain control, and how a disparity exists between the two positions in practise.
At the Outbreak of WW1, Marx became disillusioned that his life’s work, that he had contributed so much literature towards, seemed to not be materialising in line with his predictions. This was most devastatingly apparent when soldiers identified along national allegiances over class. When the October revolution did occur, it was funded by the German monarchy in an effort to encourage the capitulation of the Tzar, and it was successful in doing so.
The Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, and the Hungarian, Georg Lukacs, argued that the reason Marxist theory failed to occur as predicted, was because the values of Western culture were too deeply ingrained. They concluded that the economic success of capitalism, including opportunity through social mobility, combined with Christianity and individualism, all acted to resist what would occur (if only the correct superstructure were installed) a soil fertile to the ideas. This, they established, had to be achieved in order for economic evolution. The question was whether they could establish a surrogate for the working class, through a combination of other oppressed minorities, to drive momentum in the form of feminists and other racial and religiously persecuted minorities. Under capitalist economics, the working class were repressed, but by applying Freudian psychology to Marxist theory as they attempted, everyone in western culture lives in constant state of psychological repression.
This was a deliberate plot to shield the people from reality by portraying nature as soft like fur, not red in tooth and claw. To see bad results as good intentions and to see oppressive thought control as the act of virtue. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; all with the manipulative intent to break society down into diverse identities, and to frame every issue that emerges as ‘oppressor versus oppressed’ so that the state can impose equality nationalised control under this justification. All of this is done while ignoring the irony of labelling the right as divisive, for being decisive with regard to where the division of obligation can be reasonably drawn.
While continuing the war on the economy they looked to target the very glue that binds western society together, recognising the truth of the ancient proverb, divide and conquer. To attack the value judgments that define Western citizens, the cultural authorities that establish our unique profile and the very practices and institutions that define who we are. The church, accountability and responsibility, the family unit, respect for authority, patriotism, tradition and the concept of truth its self, have all been systematically deconstructed in the press, pop culture and in academic circles under this cynical remit.
Any progressive movement’s nominal goal eventually ends up being subordinated to the…all-important question of the movement’s own power. Because that power is insecure as long as others are able to question the truth of what the progressives say about themselves and the world, progressive movements end up struggling not so much to create the promised new realities as to force people to speak and act as if these were real: as if what is correct politically…were correct factually.
transcending private property, the division of laboUr, and political oppression was never Marxism-Leninism’s core motive any more than worker/peasant proletarians were ever its core protagonists. (Political Correctness)…On the retail level, is about the American ruling class’s need to squeeze the last drops of voter participation out of the Democratic Party’s habitual constituencies. On the wholesale level, it is a war on civilization waged to indulge identity politics
Angelo M. Codevilla
This takes place in universities through their commitment to and application of critical theory, which by its definition criticises not what there is cause to, but for the sake of its own remit. Given that the practices which become established in cultures are successful ones, and given that the West is one of the most successful cultures, in practice it criticises what’s relatively unworthy of criticism.
The stated aims and objectives of some social science courses proudly promote left wing agendas and bias, such as belief in, and commitment to, the destruction of the Patriarchy. Belief in, and commitment to, the distraction of White Toxicity.
Class is now a lesser priority than race or gender, and the economy is less fertile than social divisions. The contemporary left are no longer so concerned about nationalising the free market, but rather to purse the reduction of all subjugation, often the order established from years of continuity with it. Striking and trade unions aren’t as important anymore, they are perfectly willing to comply with the capitalist free market economy (even recognising its success), planting instead, social seeds that will sprout economic compliance. They are content with not owning the means of production (due to their occupation of the means of information in both the press and education).
Less and less do they complain about the needs of the proletariat, and more and more they whine about the wants of the bourgeoisie. They care more about comforting middle class egos with misplaced virtues, than they do for the struggles of the working class. They have capitulated what they historically stood for to an unprecedented degree, now the poor are just a group to hold distain towards for being ‘uneducated’, a cheap euphemism for working class.
They no longer wish to nationalise the lego corporation but a child’s opinion through pop culture. They don’t wish to nationalise the media but what is ‘socially just’. They don’t want to nationalise education but what is ‘politically correct’. They don’t wish to nationalise art, music or sport, but politicise it. They care more about diversity than republicanism, evident by the Royal Wedding coverage. They don’t wish to abolish the church so long as the pope prays to its ultimate deity, of political correctness. They care more about people’s feelings than recognising reality, and critically, they care more about avoiding conflict than discovering the truth.
The Left focus this attention on moral issues so people willingly welcome in refugees and support large social aid budgets, its then necessary to have left wing economic policy to accompany these immigrants and this aid, because although they have nothing when they arrive (and are unable to contribute in any meaningful way to economy), because we are civilised, we will ensure they no longer have nothing. The danger is that we go beyond what we’re charitably capable of and risk our own civility in the process. The public have suffered a sustained barrage of exaggerated and inflated social issues by the mainstream media to the extent we no longer know what causes are genuine or worthy. To quote Yes Minister, social problems increase with direct correlation to the social budget. In other words you can always make up problems to the funding, as we can with foreign aid.
Ideological subversion is the slow process which we call active measures in the language of the KGB, or psychological warfare. What it means is to change the perception of reality.. to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. Its a great brainwashing process which is very slow.. The first (stage) is ‘Demoralisation’; exposure to the ideology of the enemy, in other words Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged with the basic values of American patriotism, the demoralisation process in the US has basically been completed already… Most of it is done by Americans to Americans due to lack of moral standards, a person who is ‘demoralised’ is unable to access true information, the facts tell nothing to him… only when the military boot crushes his balls, then he will understand but not before that. The next stage is ‘Destabilisation’, this time subverter does not care about your ideas, and the patterns of your consumption, what matters are essentials, Economy, Foreign Relations, Defence systems, and we can see in such sensitive areas as economy, the influence of marxist Leninist ideas … arriving 14 years ago, I could never believe the process would be so fast. The next stage is Crisis… it may take only six weeks to bring a country to crisis.. and after crisis, with the violent exchange of power structure and economy you have, so called the period of ‘Normalisation’, it may last indefinitely, it is a cynical expression borrowed from soviet propaganda. When the Soviet tanks moved in to Czechoslovakia in 68’, comrade Brezhnev said “now the situation in Czechoslovakia has been normalised”, This is what will happen to the United States if you allow all the shmucks to bring the country to crisis, to promise people all kind of goodies and paradise on Earth, to destabilise your economy, to eliminate the principle of free market competition, and to put a big brother government in Washington DC. The useful idiots.. Your Leftists, in the United States, all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders.. when their job is completed, they are not needed any more… they will be lined up against the wall and shot
The practical effect political correctness has on our discourse is equivalent to having a conversation about something and completely banning the mention of particular things to do with it. For example, discussing a football match, but being unable to reference the referees impact on the result. Ultimately people are still aware that the referee did have a (sometimes large) impact on the result, and not being able to talk about it doesn’t stop people thinking about it. If they cannot talk about what they think, and are denied their experience, often this is detrimental to the politics it was trying to correct. Movements will be mobilised by disdain just for officials, because there is so much demand for this to be suppled, for a tone of truth to emerge out of all the white noise and lies.
The point here too, is that we do not choose what we believe, but establish a perception of the world through various conclusions and observations. You cannot simply choose not to believe in gravity. People want to trust the mainstream media, but all too often that trust has been eroded because of its embrace of political correctness. This is true of Jesuit’s as it is of someone on the left, but where political correctness has made the press institutes at Feet Street incredible, it seems that in the end they might have been the useless idiots of political correctnesses.
Political correctness and social justice seek to impair freedom of thought by inhibiting what is socially acceptable to say. With constraints on language, free belief is confined to internal considerations. As if 1984, far from warning us of the perils of subversion, instead acted as a guide for the various manipulative and hostile globalist forces that go beyond the reach of our political institutions. To highlight the extent to which this PC culture is a symptom of one brand of politics, employed by one brand of politics, we should re-establish the definition to “Socialist-correctness and Left-wing-justice”, as this is a less ambiguities and more accurate definition.
The West is a product of its own Naivety.. If I had to personify the West I would liken it to a young, middle class, happy-go-lucky girl. Perhaps in her late teens or early 20s. She has grown up in a comfortable household, did well in school, has a large circle of friends and had her pick of subjects to study, at a well thought of university. Her Parents raised her to be thoughtful, open minded and most of all tolerant. She doesn’t have a cynical bone in her body and she truly means well. However this woman is dangerous… She is the corruptible young mind that will kill you with kindness
Love doesn’t conquer all and thinking it does is destruction, disguised as empathy. We should not teach our children intolerance, but we should not teach them to tolerate what is intolerable either. The West is ignorant, and as knowledge is power, ignorance is weaknesses. Political correctness is our Kryptonite, that bubble raps the truth until its no longer visible.
The referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union in 2016 demonstrated a division in the nation that was both unprecedented and unpredicted, and yet similarities can be drawn with other geo-political affairs occurring at the same time, particularly amongst the Western Nations. If we were divided before along traditional economic likes, the referendum demonstrated we have been hung, drawn and quartered along social lines now too.
When the government spent £9 million of tax payers money indicating to the public which way they ought to vote in a demographic referendum via a leaflet sent to every home, we see that it backfired, as indicated by Marshall McLuhan’s famous quote: “The medium is the message”. The fact the government, perceived to be an ‘elite’, were seen to be advising was the message. Whatever was written in support of Remain descended importance. Perhaps this was a sign of the lost credibility of the organ of political correctness or at least its current tune.
the two main parties in this country don’t reflect the divisions in this country any more, they reflect ancient, dead divisions and the real ones between social conservatives and social liberals particularly, and between those who wish this to be an independent country and those who prefer it to be in the European Union, were much better reflected in the referendum and the ghosts of two new parties emerged… If only we could get rid of the old, Dead, corpse parties, we might actually have some real politics in this country instead of dreadful Blairite consensus that we have suffered for almost 20 years… the binary part is this, the Labour Party doesn’t love the poor, and the conservative party doesn’t love the country… It was Richard Nevill who said in the 60’s, there is an inch of difference between the two parties, and its in that inch we all live, an adversarial parliament is very important for freedom, the problem is our current parliament is anything but adversarial, its all Blairite’s from North to South, from East to West
Politics are, by their definition, divisive. If everyone agreed how to proceed there would be nothing to discuss. Yet we are all familiar with the hollow platitudes regurgitated by the left in the absence of any valid criticism of the right, that they are politics of division, an illogical accusation to direct at only one side of that divide. That they use fear, which, far from being genuine or legitimate is somehow conjured up out of thin air, and that those stupid enough to vote for them only do so because they are manipulated or influenced by so called fake news.
People are and have always been their own authority on what to believe irrespective of others. Understanding and respecting this is central to the very concept of being a democrat. Indeed, democracy is something we could quickly lose the faster we entertain such concepts as fake news. All these accusations only serve to demonstrate the dogma of those who simply cannot see that they are two layers of one whole and that to understand each half is to understand the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Never has it been so clear how socially unacceptable it is to be right of centre in mainstream circles. To be a Tory is emotively synonymous with cruelty and apathy above any principles. The Tory Party themselves are embarrassed to be conservative and progressively move to the left to account for this. You have only to look at the Thatcher governance of the 80s to see just how far this capitulation has gone in such a short time with the conservatives now advocating policy that socialists considered radical in the 60s. What effect is this having, and is it something people are comfortable with? Our best candidates are repelled from entering politics because of the vile abuse shown to be disproportionately committed by the left and towards the right. As demonstrated most recently by the abuse Jacob Reese Mogg’s children received, is it not possible political correctness is responsible for developing a culture hospitable to this vitriol?
Now, the very notion of freedom is tarnished, demonstrated by the democratically elected Hungarian government winning on the mandate of pursue illiberal lines of policy. Is it because notions of liberalism have been captured by illiberal forces? Is it because liberalism no longer permits the freedom to disagree with a specific definition of it? Is it because liberalism is not longer liberal, just as political correctness is not longer correct?
I would go so far as to say that the effect this subversion has had, combined with the globalist trends of capitalism, have delivered us to a reality that is more accurately described as an uncommon group of people living under an economic system, for which the political institutes cannot command or account for than any notion of a society.
Because Communism confused destruction of “bourgeois culture” with cultural conquest, it won all the cultural battles while losing its culture war long before it collapsed politically. As Communists identified themselves in people’s minds with falsehood and fraud, people came to identify truth with anything other than the officials and their doctrines. Inevitably, they also identified them with corruption and privation. And so it was that, whenever the authorities announced that the harvest had been good, the people hoarded potatoes; and that more and more people who knew nothing of Christianity except that the authorities had anathematized it, started wearing crosses
Angelo M. Codevilla
The dogmatic insistence on egalitarianism at the expense of all else including optimum performance is evident in the state school debate. Graham Savage, the man who founded the comprehensive school system, put fairness ahead of results. It was always known that it would be detrimental to performance to not select on the grounds of intelligence. He admitted in subsequent papers that it would result in an educational loss but considered it worthy and probably felt virtuous doing so. Instead of considering educational excellence an obligation to their citizens, they considered it their remit do instead focus on political factors at its expense.
Fairness should not be the highest tenet from which to establish cause because nature is not fair. However, we can recognise the consistency of natural law and from this, arrive at as fair a solution as is permissible while still acknowledging reality. As to not be so fair that we strive for unobtainable achievements, there is the danger fairness could contrast sensibility. Inequality is natural. However unfortunate this fact is, that unfortunate exists. This is the source of current division we can see emerging between those only interested in what is correct in political terms, and just in social terms, against those who want to establish what is correct and free from the constraints of social trends or political persuasions.
As the socialist is atheist, he recognises only fairness as defined by him, and that society has to produce harmony because there is no cause anywhere else. This fosters desire to constantly strive for unachievable utopia. If, as Marx claims, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”, then socialism is the religion of the atheist.
As the disparity between what is correct and what is politically correct widens in our political climate, the manifestation of the contemporary left is increasingly comparable to some kind of socialist inquisition like the puritanical zealots that defined the dark ages. It becomes appropriate to consider where the extension of the limits into such an insidious culture of will lead. Where does madness end? Mandatory viewing of women’s football? Encouragement of terrorism against the police? Complaints that telling off children amounts to psychological abuse? Eventually it leads to a culture adverse to reason, logic and evidence. If we cannot prevent it we will be hammering our last nail into the coffin of enlightenment and submerging ourselves back into darkness.
No civilisations are ever immediately established from left wing policies. They emerge eventually when a society is prosperous enough to have citizens who can afford to be liberal enough. It is the unnatural tendency to move away from the concept of a nation, described as an homogenous group of indigenous people within a particular area. This definition is line with the order of nature, rather than towards it’s concept as a social structure that can be separated from its past and twisted into something else.
Marx considered socialism a natural stage in societal development. Just as the industrial age follows the feudal one, he believed it was inevitable that communism would emerge as a result of the exploitative economic system imposed through such industry.
However, the left too ultimately causes the destruction of a nation, because it is not a national movement but an international one. It therefore seeks to align itself more with the foreign than the indigenous and more with the world than the nation. Instead of building up armies to protect the nation, it wants to invite in their invaders, who it is so sympathetic towards the causes of. The idea of protecting itself is an adverse concept to the left because the nation-state itself is unwarranted. The nature of a nation can be reduced down to the borders that define it and as they protest the idea of protecting the border with a wall, often the idea of the border at all disturbs them. Left wing support in a non-socialist nation will always advocate measures to abandon borders because they are a reflection of the complex history that has preceded the geographical divisions with which they form. They are a demonstration of the complexity of reality which is something the left either cannot comprehend or choose to deny to comfort their own egalitarian perceptions of how they want the world to be.
The fact that the left will always support loose immigration policy and won’t comply with austerity measures when they are required deserves an article of its own. However, its worth at least noting that the effect of this immigration will always cause exponential losses for the right in voter demographics, their destiny. Partly because of the way identityies vote in line with their sectarian interests, and partly because they are reliant on the bribery that the left offers immigrants to provide an increasing well of loyal voters. This is a luxury not afforded to the right who’s concern is financial reality. This is a problem for the right which never improves and is not sustainable. It is a hole in the matrix of democracy that Political Correctness continues to rip open.
Although we do not understand everything, such as the nature of the universe or the first cause of existence, somethings we have established. But now, with the constant pursuit of progressivism, we are progressing past what is correct.
We need to emphasise these points very clearly, namely that equality and freedom are contradictory concepts. Society cannot choose to pursue both in equal proportion. If we pursue equality and give everyone the same amount of money, some will spend it quicker while others will save creating inequality. Invaluably under left wing egalitarian doctrine, this would result in the death of those who saved their money because they can be viewed as benefactors of a oppressive system. If we give people freedom however, they are free to pursue what is so deeply ingrained into the human psyche, that hard work will be rewarded, and that by working hard now you can prepare for the future, and for that of your children. If people are free, some will perform better than others and no longer will they be equal. Political correctness leads us to the wrong thing for the right reasons but we must learn to sometimes be cruel in order to be kind. Political correctness was never an act of virtue. It was always a manipulative plot to render citizens malleable to left wing interpretations. Because our executioner wears the striped apron of a sweetshop, we don’t notice he is holding an axe.
The further society drifts from the truth, the more it will despise those who speak it