Origins of Political Correctness

The origins of political correctness apparently go back nearly a hundred years where some claim it began as cultural Marxism.

It only evolved into what is generally know as political correctness now in the last decade of two of the twentieth century.

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term primarily used as a perjorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society; in pejorative usage, those who use the term are generally implying that these policies are excessive.

History

The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term “politically correct” appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political-lawsuit.

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase “politically correct” was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many political matters.

In the 1970s, the New Left began using the term “politically correct”,[ in the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that “a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too.” Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire, Debra L. Shultz said that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term ‘politically correct’ ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.” As such, PC is a popular usage in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which then was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.

  • Wikipedia

A short version of it’s earlier history: Political Correctness – the awful truth:

Political Correctness started in a think tank in Germany in 1923. It was going to be called The Institute of Marxism but in order to hide its Marxist roots it became known as The Institute of Social Research. The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia. Why wasn’t communism spreading? Because Western Civilization was in its way with its belief in the individual and that an individual could develop valid ideas.

At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing. And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help Western Civilization to destroy itself by undermining its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals. One way to do that?

Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalising your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices. Then use this to stifle any discussion which might show up the lack of common sense in their ideology. And call it something that sounds positive: “Political Correctness.”

That is how Political Correctness came about and why it is the tool of the far left in politics. When Hitler took over Germany in 1933, the Institute moved to the USA (as most of the thinkers were Jewish).

There’s a much longer version in documentation of speeches by Bill Lind in the US: The Origins of Political Correctness

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.

The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off.

My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

I don’t think it’s that bad here but it is a real issue that challenges free speech.

Next Post
Leave a comment

37 Comments

  1. Timoti

     /  21st December 2015

    Whatever the origins, its a disease needing eradication. Rationality is the best antidote.
    Problem is, rationality is in short supply, thanks to political correctness.Talk about an endless loop. Things are becoming so screwed anyone offering a common sense solution to a problem receive accusations of pushing a right wing agenda. We even have PC on this blog with PartisanZ insinuating hate speech with regards to my comments on Muslims.

    Reply
  2. jamie

     /  21st December 2015

    Thanks for that Pete, very interesting.

    I quite like comedian Stewart Lee’s take on “PC” in today’s context: “An often clumsy negotiation towards a kind of formally inclusive language, and there’s all sorts of problems with it but it’s better than what we had before.”

    Lots of interesting observations in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99s19HBs-6A

    Reply
  3. Zedd

     /  21st December 2015

    Respectful speech is one thing… but often PC is BS.. an excuse to curtail free speech. :/

    Reply
  4. When PC goes over the top, I can’t take it seriously either. I would laugh at it or ignore it.
    I wonder at the real agenda though, of journalists, bloggers, etc, who are constantly reporting alleged incidences of OTT PC here and there. I say ‘allegedly’ because in many case I find the stories hard to even believe.

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  21st December 2015

      Yes, too often they prove to be urban myths, or from the spoof book by someone Cerf and another writer whose name I forget-a compilation of inventions of supposed PCisms which were all made up by the two authors.

      The story of the idiot who made a great fuss over the term niggardly and who could have found out very easily that it has nothing to do with ‘nigger’ (it’s Icelandic in origin) is true, alas.

      I can never see why ‘aged persons’ is considered more polite and PC than ‘old people’. Who would say ‘Two aged persons have come to live next door.’ ? The most annoying thing is that people who think that ‘aged’ is politer than ‘old’ usually pronounce it to rhyme with paged and not as age-ed.

      Reply
      • @KCK – a couple of people moved in next door to me; a retard and a cripple. After meeting and talking with them I discovered they liked to be called, “a person with an intellectual disability” and “a physically disabled person”. I told them they were PC wankers and took my welcome-to-our-wonderful-neighbourhood cake back home with me.

        Reply
  5. Rob

     /  21st December 2015

    “Being PC is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
    Unknown

    Reply
  6. kittycatkin

     /  21st December 2015

    I would guess that it’s been around in various forms for a very long time. It sounds good in theory-who would think that offensiveness, exclusion and the rest are acceptable except a minority ?-but it’s a very short and slippery slope to oppression. Unfortunately, people who declare themselves to be unPC too often mean that they are insensitive and offensive, I don’t knoww which is worse.

    The stupidest example I have ever heard of PCspeak (well, one of the stupidest) is when a local child who had so many things wrong with him that his death was probably the happy release of the old cliche, the poor little boy. The headmistress spoke at the funeral and lept referring to him as ‘diff-abled.’ I am not making this up. Surely that’s meaningless. There was nothing that the poor kid could do that anyone else could do and many, many things that he couldn’t do. He was severely DISabled and only an idiot would try to gloss over this.It was like saying that a blind person had different vision..

    Reply
    • FarmerPete

       /  21st December 2015

      When my boy was at preschool he was very eager to please. On one visit the supervisor asked him if he could do his best drawing, whilst she talked to Mum and Dad. The discussion was innocuous, and when it was finished he came over and asked her if he did the best. She told him quite tartly that no one was the best here! I could have brained her, but I contented myself with telling her if she wanted to keep my kid she wasn’t to step on him like that again. I was so pissed. She had framed it for him in the first place and when he trotted over all eager all she did was squash him by repeating a piece of pc BS to a kid to young to understand anything but ‘she told me off for doing what she asked me to do’. And of course in the car on the way home he said he didn’t like her! I decided I didn’t either.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  21st December 2015

        Well, if she asked him to do HIS best drawing, that was what was wanted, not to do THE best one in the class. I think that you’re being a bit precious. It seems a rather conceited question, asking if his drawing was the best ! When you say you were pissed, were you drunk or do you mean that you were pissed off (angry)? We don’t live in America, so there seems no point in copying their language. All this drama seems to have come from you misunderstanding the instruction. Someone’s own best isn’t necessarily the best in the group.

        Reply
        • FarmerPete

           /  21st December 2015

          He was three for heavens sake, and there was no one else. It was us meeting the supervisor after all the other kids had gone.
          He was told to do the best he could and he later came back and said did I do the best? WTF is wrong with that. Conceited? give me a break! It is just a child checking out whether he had done ok. You don’t seem to have much of a clue about handling children if you feel it is ok to put them down instead of encouraging them and telling them what they offered was ok. Way to go – blame the child for the teachers inadequacy.
          Pissed is now a common term here. Sorry if you don’t like it, but tough. It has a specific meaning that is quite descriptive. It means not quite angry, but definitely aggravated or annoyed. But, I guess you knew that and are just being picky.
          There was nothing for me to misunderstand. What it was was a very clumsy handling of a child, and rote spouting of pc BS.

          Reply
  7. So sick of Jewish America committing global genocide against whites.

    [Please try to be more specific and substantiate what you say – PG]

    Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  21st December 2015

      Personally I don’t have a problem with Jews, I even support Israel most of the time these days.

      But when you look at Feminism for example – many of the major Feminist war pigs are Jewish – eg Judith Butler, Naomi Klein, Gloria Steinem. I’m not sure if this list is just USA or Western:

      Bella Abzug
      Kathy Acker
      Rachel Adler
      Larisa Alexandrovna
      Gloria Allred
      Shulamit Aloni
      Rebecca Alpert
      Adina Bar-Shalom
      Pauline Bebe
      Mayim Bialik
      Malke Bina
      Hanne Blank
      Lisa Bloom
      Judy Blume
      Daniel Boyarin
      Susan Brownmiller
      Judith Butler
      Aviva Cantor
      Naomi Chazan
      Judy Chicago
      Hélène Cixous
      Ruth Dreifuss
      Hedwig Dohm
      Andrea Dworkin
      Eve Ensler
      Amy Eilberg
      Jane Evans
      Sandy Eisenberg Sasso
      Susan Estrich
      Susan Faludi
      Merle Feld
      Shulamith Firestone
      Betty Friedan
      Sarah Michelle Gellar
      Ruth Bader Ginsburg
      Ilana Gliechbloom
      Emma Goldman
      Elyse Goldstein
      Lynn Gottlieb
      Blu Greenberg
      Tina Grimberg
      Charlotte Haldane
      Nina Hartley
      Tova Hartman
      Judith Hauptman
      Dorothy Ray Healey
      Susannah Heschel
      Anat Hoffman
      Brenda Howard
      Sara Hurwitz
      Paula Hyman
      Elfriede Jelinek
      Erica Jong
      Elana Kagan
      Roberta Kalechofsky
      Michael Kimmel
      Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner
      Melanie Klein
      Naomi Klein
      Gilah Kletenik
      Edith Konecky
      Barbara Kruger
      Anna Kuliscioff
      Michele Landsberg
      Paulina Lebl-Albala
      Lori Hope Lefkovitz
      Gerda Lerner
      Amy-Jill Levine
      Ariel Levy
      Fanny Lewald
      Rosa Luxemburg
      Frederica Sagor Maas
      Shelby McCabe
      Hana Meisel
      Annie Nathan Meyer
      Haviva Ner-David
      Martha Nussbaum
      Margit Oelsner-Baumatz
      Tillie Olsen
      Judith Plaskow
      Letty Cottin Pogrebin
      Rachel Pollack
      Katha Pollitt
      Virginia Postrel
      Sally Priesand
      Rachel Rosenthal
      Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
      Tamar Ross
      Muriel Rukeyser
      Danya Ruttenberg
      Sheryl Sandberg
      Zalman Schachter-Shalomi
      Rosika Schwimmer
      Drorah Setel
      Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
      Alice Shalvi
      Mendel Shapiro
      Sandy Eisenberg Sasso
      Susan Sontag
      Daniel Sperber
      Annie Sprinkle
      Gertrude Stein
      Gloria Steinem
      Sandra Steingraber
      Elana Maryles Sztokman
      Yona Wallach
      Wendy Wasserstein
      Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
      Naomi Weisstein
      Ruth Westheimer
      Naomi Wolf
      Elizabeth Wurtzel
      Diana Yoel
      Amy Ziff
      Elizabeth Ziff
      Lauren Shay Kaufmann

      Reply
      • kiwi guy

         /  21st December 2015

        In the list above is Susan Brown Miller, a lesbian, who came up with the propaganda concept “Rape Culture”. The book was called “Against Our Will” publishe mid 1970s, it made ludicrous claims such as “Rape Culture” was invented by men as surely as the wheel to oppress wymmin.

        I have lost the link to a homosexual activist from the 1970s who actually demolished Ms Miller’s man hating diatribe – so extreme that even a Leftist homosexual at the time realised just how bat shit crazy she was.

        But as we all know 30 – 40 years later the concept has been embraced by Progressives and used as a propaganda weapon in their assault on Western culture.

        Reply
        • Mefrostate

           /  21st December 2015

          Personally I don’t have an issue with elderly heterosexual white males, but I have noticed that most of the major broad-strokes stereotyping of alternative ideologies or races tends to come from this group. I’m not sure if this list is complete:

          kiwi guy

          Reply
      • Nelly Smickers

         /  21st December 2015

        Wouldn’t fancy being stuck with any of them in Schindler’s Lift 😦

        Reply
  8. kittycatkin

     /  21st December 2015

    So sick of antiSemites making baseless and antiSemitic remarks like this. In case you hadn’t noticed, most Jews are white.If you know that this is happening, it’s odd that nobody else seems to have noticed it. When and where was the last massacre ?

    Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  21st December 2015

      No massacres needed, just a relentless “Long March through the Institutions” and a massive migration of Third Worlders into the West to replace collapsing white population

      Reply
  9. In terms of Political correctness, I would like to ask the Labour Deputy Leader why Labour’s outrage about the Prime Minister being ambushed by a dumb media host about a joke on male rape was so strong, when she was unable to protect an 18 year-old male guest in her home who fled her home in genuine fear of being raped by a male Labour party representative- as reported by the media of the day in minimal terms?

    Reply
    • kiwi guy

       /  21st December 2015

      Yep, notice how the media dropped that one real fast, and Labour has a virtual black out on it.

      Someone try bringing that incident up over at the The Standard with the comrades all closing ranks to protect the sexual degenerates amongst them.

      Reply
      • @KG – No “closing ranks” ever goes on over here, of course? Ain’t no flies on us.

        I don’t know about the incident you’ve mentioned, but if it’s true it sounds awful.

        However, I’m not sure Labour has the level of control of the media you seem to assume.
        Having made the headlines, things mostly run in the media fuelled by public interest, I reckon.

        Widespread knowledge of this is also the reason most “news” is actually press release and advertorial. To shape public interest and opinion, control the headlines.

        Reply
  10. Mefrostate

     /  21st December 2015

    I agree that political correctness is often used to completely quash dissenting opinions, but the other end of that spectrum is the abuse of free speech to justify statements which are intended to willfully cause offense.

    Reply
  11. If you’re not looking back on history to see that Jews have been the hated group for a reason, then you must be looking forwards – and that makes you a progressive and hence a Cultural Marxist SCUM BAG.

    Traditionalism is the ONLY thing fighting Cultural Marxism. The further back we look, the more we are fighting Cultural Marxism. We need White only countries with lots of patriarchal control. We need to take rights such as voting away from women and blacks, and we need to exile all other racial groups. We can only fight Cultural Marxism by reversing it completely.

    All hail the PaleoConservatives – they’re the only political people with any sense nowadays.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_marxism

    Reply
    • @ fick – Mmmm, now where have I heard that before???

      I love “PaleoConservatives” – that’s excellent – I have often suspected that Cro-Magnon Man survives and lives among us, dwelling at the heart of all things military-industrial.

      We must surely return, I agree, to some ultimate ideal form of Patriarchy.
      Ohhh, I know! Islam!!!!!!?????

      Leaving aside the debate, “Is our own society actually ‘free’?”, a society based on free speech contains the necessary checks and balances to accommodate even a significant rebalancing of its formerly grossly unbalanced position, which might be described as Western Christian Patriarchy.

      Reply
  12. I find political correctness a fascinating topic, like ‘popularity’, and the articles cited above very interesting. I’m perfectly willing to accept it started as a Marxist think tank in Germany in 1923 and was ‘rebranded’ to disguise its Marxist origins. (Brings to mind Dr Muriel Newman’s NZ Centre for Political Research?). It was an expression of both history and context, among these post-WW1 radicalism in Germany.

    To say all this is true, for me, is exactly like saying Rothbardian Economics or Anarcho-Capitalism is an expression of colonisation and slavery – its history and context – also almost certainly true. (Some of the things Rothbardians say about slavery are utterly extraordinary. I’ll try to find and post one up). It’s premise, like it or not, is the absolute supremacy of Western Secular Christian Imperial Capitalist Democracy. (Some of those are slight contradictions in terms).

    It is good. Anything that challenges it must therefore be evil.

    In a longer-view historical sense, the world is greatly enriched by Marx, just as it is greatly enriched by Art movements arising from the same post-WW1 German (and European) milleu as ‘political correctness’, notably Dada and Surrealism

    For me personally, it follows therefore, in a free speech context, the world is also enriched by the ‘political correctness’ movement.

    It won’t be taking me over in a hurry, nor will I be denying it out of hand for no good reason.

    Reply
  13. Pickled Possum

     /  22nd December 2015

    Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) based his political philosophy on a simple insight:
    slavery is wrong.

    “When the government takes part of what you earn in taxes, it in effect forces you to labor for the state. Just as the slave does not get to keep what he produces but must surrender it to the master, so must the taxpayer give up part of what he makes to the government.”

    NZ is filled with voluntary slaves = unpaid workers
    Ambulance volunteers whose valuable work is not worth a living wage
    Wharehouse Red Shirts renamed from Child Exploitation …
    I’m pretty sure that unpaid workers is more PC than Voluntary slavery

    Reply
    • @ PP – I imagine Rothbard turning in his grave, not so much due to any ideological discrepancy but the simple logic of it. There are two words involved in your argument.

      1) Voluntary – or Volunteer or “free” and 2) Slavery – or Slave or “captive”

      Rothbard, I’m pretty sure, would go with the “volunteer” component and ignore the slave one. You can’t be both.

      I’m a VAO and I don’t expect to get paid. Paid Officers exist, of course. The service is paid for by a combination of government funding, charitable donation (fund raising) and part-charges. Assuming the government funding comes from voluntary taxation then we are good-to-go eh? If not, well, the choice is between our relatively egalitarian system or an insurance based private system like the good ole’ USA, where a certain portion of the population is more-or-less abandoned by the health system. “You got insurance boy!?”

      Here’s my quote from Rothbard on slavery. It is probably logically and rationally “true”, in the ‘talking head’ sense – I have no heart nor any need for one – although it would be difficult to find a statement with undertones more derisory of slaves and complimentary of slave masters. Good ole’ Dixie huh?

      “The State cannot provide absolute security. The slaves may have believed that their security was guaranteed by their master. But the master assumed the risk; if his income fell, then he could not provide security for his charges”

      https://mises.org/library/ten-ethical-objections-market-economy

      I’m sure the overriding concern of slaves was their master’s financial risk, since it guaranteed their “security” as both prisoners and chattels of their masters, as well as their status as sub-human.
      No way under these circumstances would they have spent any time thinking about escape or the greater concept of freedom.
      Ψ

      Reply
      • @ PP – I have always wondered and perhaps you can provide an insight, if Rothbardians or anarcho-capitalists could, presumably, you would pay no tax whatsoever? (Hence, probably, negating the need for government of any kind?) How then do you see basic infrastructure being provided? Roads? Sewerage? Health? Education? Police? Courts of Law?

        I suppose all these can be privatised, but I worry about the implications of “user pays” on some them?

        Reply
  14. Political Correctness is getting so bad that if you say that all community standards are controlled by Jews you’ll be painted as some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: