A Brief History of Political Correctness and Its Origins

A Brief History of Political Correctness and Its Origins  (thanks to Pamela Geller)

A Guide for the Perplexed:
A brief history of political correctness and its origins.
by Cartes A. Jouer

When I was a student at the International School of Tanganyika in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in my teenage years, I attended my ‘Humanities’ class that took place on Tuesday mornings.  The topic of the day was the ’Industrial Revolution’.  After discussing the historical climate of how the industrial revolution emerged, my teacher gave a brief overview of who Karl Marx was and the ideas he had formulated, to explain this monumental historical event.  She explained to us that he was the most “profound thinker” whose ideas changed the direction of history.  He did indeed.  My teacher also noted that his theories were so complicated that many people easily misunderstand him and warned us to take his critics with a “grain of salt”.  I put my hand up and asked my teacher if she would agree that Bolshevism and Maoism had caused the deaths of millions in their attempt to bring about Marx’s Utopian ideas to political reality. And that both Lenin and Mao where avowed Marxists.  It seemed that my questions made her see red (no pun intended).  Slamming her hand on the desk she lividly responded “But they were not TRUE Marxists!!”

I am a Canadian University student, born in Africa and raised outside of Canada, largely in various East African countries and parts of the Middle East. I attended both British and “International Schools”, the former following the UK standard curriculum while the latter adheres to the International Baccalaureate or for short the IB. Just to note, the IB is a recent educational curriculum that I have discovered is becoming quite popular at the growing number of private schools that are popping up in Canada and the United States (and in the West in general).  These schools are where the middle class (when they can afford it) and the wealthy send their children to receive an, allegedly, elite education.  What many parents do not know is that when they send their children to most schools nowadays (both public and private throughout the Western World) they are indoctrinated with an insidious form of Marxist education known as ‘Cultural Marxism’ that inculcates students into a worldview that renders their unable to think critically about any important intellectual issue in the social sciences, both in the present and the past.  The west must be thankful that the sciences are still relatively untouched by this worldview, but that is also, unfortunately, changing.  This, however, is another can of worms best put aside for now.

Since the 1960’s, ‘Cultural-Marxism’ has been consistently and ardently spoon-fed to students from the earliest days of their educational experience.  It has taken over and gradually dominated western institutions for the last sixty years.  On top of that, it is important to note that this worldview has now found its way throughout all of the most important institutions in western societies and is continually making strides to further its dogmatic agenda.  It is through the educational system (specifically universities) that this ideology first made its headway in North America.  Today it is rampant both in public and private schools.  It is also found throughout most of the public K-12 education levels and without a doubt most powerfully at the post secondary level. It has also, unfortunately, found its way into many of the most important bureaucracies and institutions of western countries, such as the Police, the Military, and almost all forms of mainstream media.  Political correctness has become the ideology of an overwhelming majority of the political class, regardless of what western country would be discussed.  This is why, for example, in Canada two of the major political parties (the Liberals, and the NDP) attempt to shape policy guided by political correctness. In the United States government the Democratic Party, the State Department, many other government institutions and certain old guard Republican circles also frame policy motivated by political correctness, or what might otherwise be called ‘progressive politics’ also known as ‘progressivism’.

How is it that the children of the rich and the successful of liberal democracies that live in political orders dedicated to capitalism and individual liberty are imbibing a Marxist worldview that is dedicated to ending their way of life?  In order to understand how and why this is taking place, we must explore the phenomena of ‘Political Correctness’. To do so we must ask a number of fundamental questions that help shed light on the history of this dangerous and insidious ideological worldview:

1) What is ‘Cultural Marxism’, how does it differ from ‘Economic-Marxism’, and how does its educational dissemination lead to a ‘politically correct’ worldview?

2) What is its intellectual history?

3) Who were the leading figures responsible for it?

4) What theories did they each contribute to the success of this ideology?

In order to understand the true meaning of the politically correct frame of mind and how it effects society it is important to examine the ideological origins that cause individuals, organizations, universities, government agencies and media outlets to aid and promote it.  ‘Political Correctness’ is a frame of mind.  Or in other words, it is a lens through which either individuals or organizations are made to see the world.  Those who are ‘politically correct’ must be understood to be under some of the many forms of influence of an ideological framework called ‘Cultural Marxism’.

The cultural Marxist agenda is single handedly traceable to an individual by the name of Antonio Gramsci.  Gramsci was an Italian Communist who was disappointed to see that Bolshevism had failed to sweep across Europe at the end of World War I.  He wrote a book while in prison that essentially called on dedicated Marxists to change the means by which to achieve the reality of their socialist-marxist utopian political dream in western countries.

In his ‘Communist Manifesto,’ Karl Marx had argued that only when a violent revolution led by the proletariat (factory workers) who would rise up and kill off the bourgeoisie (factory owners) could a classless society truly emerge.  He argued that this revolution would take place in capitalistic industrialized countries (such as England and those like it that had spearheaded the industrial revolution).  Marx was wrong and the rest is history, at least to those who are willing to see it.

Gramsci, however, pioneered a new means by which this Cultural Revolution was to take place.  It was not by the use of guns and violence, but by education, through which the gradual erosion of the fundamental ideas that undergird western capitalistic societies would take place.  Gramsci and his peers pioneered a new form of “Social Research”.  Ideas that would be under attack by Gramsci and his followers are those such as the traditional western identity of the family, marriage, religiosity and sexual norms, just to name a few. Their goal was to invert the traditions of western societies in order to achieve their revolution.  Gramsci, however, is not the only individual responsible for the successful dissemination of Cultural Marxism; he simply laid down the foundation.  Through the educational institutions, these cultural Marxists sought to impose orthodoxy of thought and behavior that is totalitarian in nature.

It is important to understand that there are four major parallels between classical ‘Economic Marxism’ and ‘Cultural Marxism’.  ‘Cultural Marxism’ (that causes ‘Political Correctness’) shares with ‘Classical Marxism’ the dream of a society that is “class free” or “classless”, where all are equal in condition, not in opportunity.   The second parallel between the two forms of Marxism is that both explain history through a single lens.  ‘Classical Marxism’ argues that history boils down to those who own the means of production, whereas ‘Cultural Marxism’ argues that certain groups of people have power over others.  The third parallel is that both ideologies divide society into two opposing groups:  One group that is morally good, versus the other that is considered morally evil.  Or in other words, that society is divided between those who oppress and those who are oppressed.  Finally, in ‘Classical Marxism’ this is expressed in the distinction between the proletariat (factory workers) and the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production).

For ‘Cultural Marxism,’ the distinction is no longer simply class, but a conflict between the Western Man and the ‘other’ (Muslims, feminists, homosexuals, natives, Jordanian refugees aka Palestinians …etc), with Western man being the oppressor and all the other peoples the oppressed.  Binding the two kinds of Marxism at the deepest level is the authoritarianism they both advocate in order to solve the alleged social ills they see taking place.  For ‘Economic’ or ‘Classical Marxists,’ it is the violent overthrow of the capitalists at the hands of the proletariat and the cold-blooded murder of anyone who opposes their agenda (refer to the history of Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the purges that took place).  For the ‘Cultural Marxists’ it is the assumption of the moral authority of those groups that they arbitrarily decide are “oppressed” and which they advocate and support.  While ‘Cultural-Marxists’ support the allegedly “oppressed” groups, at the same time they ostracize, demonize, intimidate, often threaten physically, and engage in vitriolic libel against anyone who disagrees with the way they see the world.

A most striking example of ‘Cultural Marxism’ at work today is case of the Muslim American Military Psychologist Nidal Malik Hassan.  On Nov. 5th 2009, at one of the biggest American Army bases, Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan murdered 13 American servicemen and women and wounded 29 others while shouting “Allah Hu Akbar”.  Witnesses prior to the event noted that he was handing out Qurans outside of the local convenience store that he frequented.  The business owner submitted security camera recordings that corroborate the statements made by witnesses.  He was also wearing the traditional Muslim garb.  These are actions that many Islamic Jihadists engage in before going on their martyrdom missions.

As the event subsided from public awareness, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano said the following at a press conference held in the United Arab Emirates capital Abu Dhabi:

“Obviously, we object to — and do not believe — that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this”.  She continued to explain that Nidal Hasan was “an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim Faith”.  Unfortunately her statements could not be further from the truth. Nidal Hasan was a military psychologist at Fort Hood.  His responsibility was to mentally prepare soldiers for deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq.  His reputation, however, was a concern to those who attended his presentations.

A year before Hasan perpetrated the massacre, he gave his classes a comprehensive presentation on Islamic Law and why American Muslim soldiers should disobey orders and refuse to be shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan.  In his presentation he explained that according to Islamic law, Muslims must be faithful to their religion even if they find themselves under the legal authority of a non-Muslim political order.  This was confirmed by blogger and human rights activist Pamela Geller, whose research uncovered the acronym of “SoA (SWT)” found on Nidal Hasans business card.  The acronym is short for Soldier of Allah, hence the SWT acronym that follows.  SWT is the phonetic transliteration of the Arabic invocation that Muslims often say after uttering the word “Allah”; it means ‘may he be glorified and exalted’.  The presentation, to those who where familiar enough with Islamic law and the history of Jihad, was essentially Nidal’s public message to those around him that he was going down the path of other Jihadis.  It goes without saying that all the evidence points towards the fact that Nidal was acting pre-meditatively and in cold blood.  He was motivated by his devout Muslim conviction to follow the classical understanding of Islamic Law and to act upon it.

Senior Law Enforcement officials reported that after reviewing Hasan’s computer and email accounts, it was evident that he had visited numerous websites that espoused classical Islamic ideas on Jihad and encouraged Muslims in non-Muslim countries to wage violence against their ‘Kuffar’ (non-Muslim) oppressors.  Despite this bald fact, the Obama administration went so far as to deny the true Islamic motivations behind Nidal’s actions labeling the incident an act of “workplace violence”. And so we see here a clear example of the case of Nidal Hasan and his Fort Hood massacre as just one example of the endemic political correctness that has made its way into the United States military and the Department of Homeland security, especially under the authority of the Obama administration.

According to the Daily Caller, Obama himself in November 2011 demanded that all training materials used for and by law enforcement national security communities that in any way correlated Islam with violent behavior be dropped, so as to not “offend” Muslims.  After a discussion with Attorney General Eric Holder, Dwight C. Holton said “I want to be perfectly clear about this:  training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for.  They will not be tolerated”.

Continue reading “A Brief History of Political Correctness and Its Origins” »