The psychology of political correctness

A perfect example Right-Wing PC (RWPC) or Fundamentalist PC (FPC). You use PC as the absolute, most derogatory, label you can put on anyone who disagrees with you and if you can add Marxist or communist to the label, to demean your opponent, so much the better.You are using the PC label in exactly the same way you moan about your opponents using racist, homophobic, Islamophobic labels. Some people find your brand of PC to discredit their opinions by guilt and shut them up, pretty unpalatable.Some of us find the views you express here at EvC on every subject to be nothing more than Right-Wing Fundamentalist PC.

No, all you are doing is co-opting the idea to your own purposes because you don't like its true meaning, which is clearly defined by Bill Lind in his classic essay on Political Correctness as Cultural Marxism. Like it or not the term has a specific origin and specific history in Marxism. Sure you can muddy it up to suit yourself but that only amounts to a lie for the purpose of confusion. A typical Marxist tactic by the way.I am not doing anything like PC. I use the term defensively against the leftist accusations that are heaped on me and on conservatives and Christians, not as a weapon as the Left uses it, as personal attack to intimidate. "Haters" is a perfect example of this sort of personal attack, based only on political opinion.The Left labels those who oppose illegal immigration as racists without the slightest justification other than that political opinion, and this is enforced by its refusal even to use the label "illegal" and to substitute the term "undocumented aliens." Typical word magic as the Left loves to use it, which comes down from Cultural Marxism, which comes down from Marxism and the Communist Party."Homophobia" is straight out of the Communist guidebook, part of the Marxist attack on traditional sexual mores, which picked up steam with the Cultural Marxists whose views dominated the universities in the 60s, such as Marcuse's slogan "make love not war" and his book attacking the west, "Eros and Civilization" one of the lines of attack by the Frankfurt School designed to undermine the Judea-Christian morality of the west. It has succeeded.The term "homophobia" originated in psychoanalysis. Freud used it as part of his analysis of some of his patients with repressed homosexual impulses, a German judge named Schreber being a major study of the phenomenon. It was specific to a specific psychoanalytic idea. Freud's theories were anti-western to begin with, but then the Frankfurt School, (Critical Theory, what a joke but that's what they call it, nothing but an attack on western civilization), otherwise known as Cultural Marxism, incorporated his thinking into their Marxist mindset, no longer as a diagnostic category but now a broad attack on people of the "wrong" opinion, and produced "studies" that produced Political Correctness, which includes that label oif opprobrium that is now freely used against opponents of gay marriage to shut us up and get us legally prosecuted. THIS is PC, not your revisionist stuff."Islamophobia" hides the violent nature of Islam because the Left hates the truth of Christianity worse than it hates that violence. I was initially surprised, thinking surely the Left will oppose Islam along with us, but no, the Left equates Christianity with Islam, imputes the same violence to Christians, and you don't even know the purpose of all that is to undermine the West. Or by now you've all been brainwashed to the point that you want to undermine the West because of all the hateful propaganda against it.Does it matter to you that a major role was played in this undermining by the big capitalist foundations, Ford, Carnegie and Rockeffeller, in the early 20th century, which financed the rewriting of American textbooks to gradually change the popular opinion away from the freedoms we thought we embraced to revisionist doctrines that deny those freedoms and bring us in line with Communism? (See interviews with Norman Dodd at You Tube) No, by now Communism is embraced by a great number of people in the west, the propaganda has worked and you don't even have a clue what has been lost or that your opinions have been carefully manipulated. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HUH. The Big Capitalists undermining Capitalism?What has been lost? What has been lost Faith?

The BIG BIG capitalists seem to have an agenda to rule us all through their money. Going back centuries even. The foundations got into it later I guess. Surprised me too when I first heard about it. Bizarre, but apparently bringing the whole world under Communism seemed to them to be the way to get control over it all.Dodd was part of the Congressional Reece Committee convened to investigate the tax-exempt foundations. From about 22 on the counter to around 34 he describes how the CEO of Carnegie invited him to send someone to read the minutes of their meetings and he sent one Catherine Casey, a lawyer who believed the foundations only financed worthy projects, and she found out that they actually manipulated things toward World War ! and later toward teaching collectivism in the schools. Dodd claims this discovery destroyed her mind. There's lots more about this on the video but I figured a shorter segment might be enough for the attention span.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, you know we don't debate by video, come on.And as expected, there is absolutely nothing in the video but the usual unsupported assertions and innuendo.No reasoning person is going to give that any more credence that Big Foot videos.So again, where is the evidence?What has been lost?Will you ever provide evidence involving "Political Correct" statements?

Lind defined it as Cultural Marxism. Whether you agree with him, given the links he proposes it would be absurd to call someone a Marxist on these grounds. The Frankfurt School criticized Marxism as much as well as using ideas from it. That's not Marxism and 'Marxist' is a term that means something specific. By calling people Marxists when what you mean is multiculturalists or whatever, then what you are doing is not speaking English. Ultimately though the Frankfurt School were philosophers. They had ideas about ideas and analysis about analysis. They synergized seemingly disparate ideas to see what happened. Sometimes interesting things came out of their work, and others that followed them. Some ideas grew in popularity and perhaps they influenced policy from time to time. This is free speech and democracy. Not a conspiracy to ruin America. Karl Marx was basically silent on the issue.
Engel was against homosexual rights, but thought they would inevitably come anyway.
Stalin criminalised homosexuality.
East Germany was actually better than West, but it was still illegal there. Same sex was "alternatively viewed as a remnant of bourgeois decadence, a sign of moral weakness, and a threat to the social and political health of the nation" {Hrm, that sounds like what the Right Wing are saying. Holy cow, are the right wing of America actually the communists???} A book which is both critical of Marx and Freud can hardly be called Marxist.
I know you would prefer to live in 1955 western civilization, but I can't think many people would. We're certainly wealthier now. 1955 was the year Eros And Civilization was published and Marcuse argued that repression, particularly sexual repression, was holding civilization backThe idea that Carson, Cruz and Rubio would be contending to replace Obama along with a woman and a socialist would have been a laughable possibility in 1955.The 1957 Civil Rights act hadn't been passed yet, and although racial segregation in schools ought to have been killed dead just last year, the Massive resistance of '56-'58 where racist local governments essentially shutdown the schools depriving thousands of people education rather than allow racial mixture.Whether Marcuse' experiment in fusing a dramatically rethinking of Marx's work (which Marx would have hated) and a rethinking of Freud was right, I think things have improved both from a sexual freedom point of view (not just homosexuals, but allowing women to feel in control of their sex lives and their bodies) as well as many others. Kind of. The term was first used against the field of psychoanalytics for liking homosexuals only when they were believed to be really heterosexuals with an illness, but despising them openly if they believed them to be really homosexual. The term was first used by Weinberg in the above context in the 1960s.Schreber was not a patient of Freud. They never met. And as you say, it was about latent homosexuality causing Schreber's psychosis. Homophobia didn't come up. Huh? Well, let's not forget that the right wing appropriated the term 'Politically Correct' from communism as a means to further smear their opponents as communists.Then the left started using the term ironically in the 70s, as they are wont to do.Then in 1991, George Bush I said:

quote:

---

The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits

---

From that point on really, if anybody suggested showing compassion to others in a way the right wing didn't like they were branded as 'politically correct somethings' You are seemingly still free and not under legal threat for talking. Islamaphobia is using the real problems that exist within Islam as a pretext to treat Muslims poorly, or to misrepresent Islam so as to denigrate all its adherents in some way. Yes we do. But the right wing are bloodthirsty in their opposition, and right wing nationalistic fascists have got a bit of a history when it comes to this so we try and provide a calming environment.Most Muslims want peace, but there are disagreements over what that should look like. Ironing out these disagreements will take time, but we shouldn't spit at Mohammed who works in the local shop just because he has the same religion as some of the crazies, and maybe even agrees with them here and there a little bit.Unfortunately the right typically tells us that the Quran tells Muslims to kill the infidel and that they are allowed to lie with impunity - so we shouldn't trust any Muslims. Which is not an environment in which peace can be agreed.We hate the religion, not its adherents.
The right wing blurs this a little, sometimes to the great anxiety of people. Big money manipulating education is bad. I mean it makes sense. Communism is just Capitalism with one company with a monopoly. I can imagine the guys at the top of the pile might like to accelerate that. But if that was their plan, I hope it was a multigenerational plan. America looks closer to Fascism than Communism right now. Its neither. But the right wing seems overwhelmingly nationalist and authoritarian and rabidly anti liberal and anti-communist. It looks pretty fascist. But its not. I hope.True, very slowly with an acceleration, the people are crying out for more left wingedness in social policies and the pressure is meaning ever increasing left wing social policles are getting through, but it's hardly a rout at the moment. Compare with much of Europe. Most people I speak to, including socialists (who are more common round my parts) laugh at communism as doomed failure. Many even concur that in practice it is simply Capitalism at its logical extreme.I can see how communism as an idea might be coherent in an industrial revolution, but so much of our industry now is service based, with manufacturing done by...the communists and Muslims. This is necessarily true. You are in a campaign cycle, you've inadvertantly defended an adulterer who doesn't know the first thing about Christ and wants to torture people, kick out Muslims, build walls and hunker down. I expect everybody is being carefully manipulated. It's no longer an artform, its a science.

Criticizing some Marxist ideas doesn't change the fact that they were Marxists. They originally named their School for Social Research something with Marxist in the title, then realized that would have turned some people off.Of course you think things have improved. Evreybody loves sexual freedom. That's what Cultural Marxism did in a nutshell: it freed our fallen nature from Judeo-Christian morality. I like to call the whole sixties cultural revolution The Sin Liberation Front. Happy happy happy aren't we?ABE: By the way, there is no doubt in the minds of real Marxists that the Cultural Marxists were/are Marxists, even though the purists among them object to the Freudian input. I had a boyfriend years ago (from Germany but Jewish) who became a professor of history and taught courses in Marxism and recommended books for me to read on the Cultural Marxists. I talked to him a couple of decades later and he was still a Marxist but I thought I detected some waffling: life in America is too nice you see, we don't need the Marxism. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unsupported assertions and innuendo? You leftists are a joke. The guy was on the committee that investigated the Foundations and he's reporting on what they learned. But of course he must be a liar, right? What else?

The fact that he is on some committee has nothing to do with evidence of anything but that the fact he was on that committee. He may well be a liar, but that is not what I said; I said unsupported assertions and innuendo are not valid evidence.This is really pretty basic stuff, Faith.

I suspect you didn't hear enough of it to justify your opinion. The interviewer keeps him from wandering too far off track when it happens, and there are real nuggets of important information in his report, which add up to exactly what is claimed: The (Tax-Exempt) Foundations were definitely engaged in manipulating history and altering textbooks toward collectivism or communism. And probably still are.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Institute for Social Research, they became known as the Frankfurt School when they had to flee Germany. Well, yes. People are more free now than in 1955. I like freedom. I like that men who want to wear a skirt are more free to do so today than then. I like it that a white woman can marry a black man. I like it that teenagers are educated about their bodies in a non-shaming way (in some states). I like that women have more support when they are sexually harassed, but that they can also show their knees if that's what they would like to do. Yeah, any theory which tries to take credit on its own for the entirety of the sexual revolution is probably bullshit. Their ideas were influential, of course. And yes Marxist ideas influenced them.But I'm confused. In Message 72 you called this:

quote:

---

The Communist Party has an unparalleled history in the progressive movement of the United States, from the struggle against Jim Crow segregation, the organizing of the industrial unions, from the canneries of California, to the sweatshops of New York City.

---

'Propaganda'. Now you want us to believe that the Communist Party was single-handedly responsible for these things through a series of devilishly clever conspiriacies? Yes. I like wearing the occasional skirt when its hot. And I like flirting with boys. Since I don't like getting the crap kicked out of me by the Christian Sharia purity police I'm quite happy I can do these things.Of course, the best thing is: You are free to abide by whatever Judeo-Christo-Islamo rules and regulations you want. That hasn't changed. It's just other people aren't forced to. And apparently if you give people freedom - they use it. Freedom really annoys Conservatives, I find.

Do I have the freedom of avoiding seeing you in your skirt when I'm in your neighborhood, or keeping you from flirting with my grandsons? If not, then MY freedoms have been seriously curtailed by yours.

you never had those freedoms. it's like saying that y posting this you've curtailed my freedom to not see your posts

Again, even though we do not debate by video, there is no evidence presented in that video, only unsupported assertion and innuendo just as your editorial comment of "And probably still are."Do you know what evidence actually is Faith?

Well, there used to be obscenity laws where I had the freedom not to see naked people walking around, and whatever else fell under those laws, and at least we still have that one in place. So you are wrong, there certainly are some freedoms FROM this or that the law enforced that we no longer have. What about the "freedom" not to have your child molested by the neighborhood priest. Is that still a freedom or is that going out along with all the rest of standard morality? There is after all now some sympathy for pedophiles there never used to be, and those who object will have lost a freedom when they get theirs. Etc.