Political Correctness Primer – Part 4 – Conclusions

This is the fourth part of a series of postings dealing with political correctness.  In Part 1, the historical background of political correctness was outlined, in Part 2, the various components of the implementation were explored and in Part 3, some concepts and actions within our culture and political landscape were addressed and critiqued.

In this part, summary remarks are made concerning what has been covered in the first three postings, with suggestions provided as to how best to respond to political correctness.  Note that this posting is an open thread, with the possibility of additional conclusions being discussed in the future.

Political Correctness in Real-life Scenarios

In Parts 1, 2 and 3, the historical background and contemporary manifestations of Political Correctness have been examined.  In this section, the understanding gained is applied to several real-life scenarios.  How can a recognition of the goals, objectives and tactics, as well as the underlying ideology be of help?

Review

To recap Part 1, the historical evolution of contemporary Political Correctness can be traced from the Frankfurt School and the Cultural Marxists, who combined with the paleo-Progressives already established in the United States when the Frankfurt School arrived from Germany in the mid-1930s.

Before and during World War II, as the Cultural Marxists were being established in academia and government, there was also the semi-occupation of the U.S. federal government by Soviet spies and fellow-travelers.

After the war, the influence of the Cultural Marxists continued to grow, but there began to be alarm over the Soviet influence in our government, leading to the investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Army-McCarthy hearings during the late 1940s and 1950s; in a few cases there were also prosecutions of Soviet spies.

Then in the 1960s, the Cultural Marxism began to penetrate into the general culture, with the former pro-Soviets joining forces to form the New Left, sometimes referred to as neo-Marxism.  The sexual revolution was one manifestation of that infiltration, along with 2nd-wave Feminism, both affiliated with the Left. Also, the transformation of the Civil Rights movement from the Christian church into more Marxist directions took place, with the Black Power and Liberation Theology as several telling aspects.

However, by the 1970s, enough undeniable information from dissidents and similar concerning massive atrocities – at least 100 million deaths — in the Soviet Union and Red China were exposed that even the most hardcore Leftist intellectuals could no longer support 20th century Communism.  Most important perhaps was the book “Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which combined massive facts with profound expose of the ideology.

Something was needed to recapture the devotion and commitment to Marxism.  A group of French intellectuals created a new variant by the introduction of Postmodernism, which eschewed logic and objective truth and replaced it with power.  This ideology replaced the Marxist model of the oppressive Bourgeois (i.e., factory owners) victimizing the Proletariat (i.e., workers) with the various cultural victim groups being oppressed by privileged oppressors, the most comprehensive of the oppressors being white, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, and Christian.  Today this is referred to as Identity Politics.

By the end of the 1970s, these victim groups were in business—especially in academia—and Political Correctness was the tactic used to both secure and wield power.  By the end of the 1980s, the phrase “politically correct” began to appear; the politics entailed group rather than individual identity, based on Postmodernism/neo-Marxism ideology.

Fast forward to today, and Political Correctness has significant control of culture everywhere in the West.  In the US, nearly all of academia and a significant portion of news and entertainment media are controlled by this ideology, although there is occasional push-back from conservative and classical (i.e., non-Marxist) liberal entities.

In Part 2 of this Primer, the mechanism of Political Correctness is outlined, with both the propaganda (to acquire and retain victim adherents and advocates) and coercive (to bully and silence the opposition) elements.

In Part 3, some of the major elements of Political Correctness ideology are defined, as well as a number of important activities that take place because of the ideology. It is important to note that in all of the actions of Political Correctness, the underlying ideology best referred to as Postmodernism/neo-Marxism is explicitly anti-Christian, anti-traditional family, and anti-Logos (including the rejection of objective truth, logic and dialogue).  Further, both the propaganda and coercive components of Political Correctness are composed of essentially false narratives, and  include heavy use of cultural shaming (e.g., name-calling: “racist”, “homophobic”, “Islamophopic”, etc.), as well as increased suppression of free speech via regulations, intimidation and violence.

Shelby Steele, Black Conservative author of the 2015 book, “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country”, refers to the false narratives that the Left employs to maintain a mindset of victimization as follows:

“…“poetic truth” disregards the actual truth in order to assert a larger essential truth that supports one’s ideological position. It makes the actual truth seem secondary or irrelevant. Poetic truths defend the sovereignty of one’s ideological identity by taking license with reality and fact. They work by moral intimidation rather than by reason, so that even to question them is heresy.”

Examples

Below are some real-life examples of people dealing with feelings of victimization. The question which will need to be asked in each case is the source of that feeling.  Is it associated with an externally crafted narrative based upon Postmodern ideology (i.e., Identity Politics), or is it direct and unassociated with ideology?  Perhaps a combination of both?

Note that even if the sense of victimization is essentially the result of manipulation and ideology, it is nevertheless real, and needs to be dealt with in a sensitive and authentic manner.

A major problem with Identity Politics is the assumption that people in victim groups are without power because they are oppressed by those in the privileged groups.  In other words, it is a simplistic, univariate model, only one cause.  But real life – outside of ideology – is multivariate; there are many factors contributing to a person being disadvantaged or powerless.  Identity Politics does not permit the concept of “responsibility” to be applied to the victim group, nor the idea of competency to the privileged group.  The elites of the ideology define a mother-infant model, where the “victim” is always innocent and blameless, and requires immediate attention.

A further problem with Identity Politics is that there is an assumption made that all members of each victim group think and behave in the same manner; and in fact there is considerable demonization, marginalization and rejection of those in any group who dispute their victim status.   See Black Conservatives as an example.

This is not to deny that there is victimization. In truth, all human beings are innocent victims in some respects, and privileged oppressors in other; life is beset with both undeserved and deserved suffering, and on the other hand none of us can claim pure innocence for ourselves in all dimensions of our lives.

There is another aspect to victimization that should not be overlooked; namely, that the response to the perception of being a victim is usually resentment: resentment that one has been mistreated, discriminated against; or perhaps that others have more money, opportunities, etc.

The problem with that kind of resentment is that everyone in the West is living in the lap of luxury.  Even the poorest of the poor have access to resources that are only found in the West.  That’s why there is great interest in emigration from other countries to the West, and not developing countries, for example.

The resentment expressed by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) on university campuses is especially incongruous. Among the most pampered, wealthy (by world standards), privileged people that ever existed in all of history (i.e., university students, with their parents mortgaging their future to pay the bills, from money obtained through Capitalism), and yet, the SJW students seem to have abandoned all gratitude.

Here are some examples:

Gay man, deeply wounded by the church. This is an extremely sensitive and in many cases a grievesome matter where the entity (i.e., the church) that purports to provide mercy, grace, altruistic love, and salvation, has instead behaved in a manner that has caused deep wounds.

In this case, there’s a third entity that must be taken into consideration: the pronouncements of the Word of God relative to homosexuality.  It’s a very delicate and sensitive matter to be a representative of the Word when dealing with this particular issue.

A person who considers oneself gay often senses that identity at the core of their being.  However, a question needs to be asked: why is being gay the determining factor in their identity?  Part of the answer is that Identity Politics, which is today’s cultural norm, assumes that all people with same-sex attraction (SSA) are to be identified as gay, and thereby according to ideology achieving an innocent victim status, oppressed by heterosexuals, especially Christians (the latter, because of Biblical references to homosexuality).

But why go with the cultural flow? There are other ways to look at identity.  For example, a person might say that they are a Christ follower, who is studying to be a STEM professional, but also who struggles with SSA.  So, what are they? A student? Christian? Engineer?  Or gay?  Or simply an un-labeled, complex, unique person?  And these questions apply to both the persons themselves, as well as the people in the “church” who interact with them.

The bottom line is that churches need to be very concerned about how they interact with people dealing with SSA.  Because this is such a sensitive and potentially divisive issue, there needs to be awareness within the church, such that people who deal with SSA and reach out to the church will not come away wounded.  Yet doing so in a manner that does not compromise Biblical teaching.

Important considerations in such cases are to remember that people who deal with SSA are typically wrestling with a deep spiritual/psychological dissonance within themselves. It must be realized that the cultural context of Identity Politics has an overwhelming and negative influence on anyone dealing with SSA by entrenching those who struggle with the belief that there is no alternative to what may in fact be a fleeting tendency, depending on the severity of the circumstances which led to the confusion in the first place. It is based on the lie that people cannot transform by the power of God at work.

That is not to say that there is any formula to bringing people out of a gay orientation, but simply, to point to the essential truths outlined in Scripture, and let the living Logos have sway in the person who humbly submits to the transformative work of the Holy Spirit.  Needless to say, the Postmodern/neo-Marxist LGBTQ advocates strongly oppose such actions, launching campaigns in various states to ban transformation counseling to minors who struggle with unwanted SSA, and wish to find help.

Many Christians including some in leadership do not have sufficient training, sensitivity and understanding to deal with people in their midst who deal with SSA, but given the cultural climate, it is of utmost importance that this be made a priority, not only in dealing with LGBTQ people, but with any who have felt sidelined or ostracized for being different.  And as part of that training, it is essential that an understanding of the negative influence of Identity Politics and the underlying Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology be provided.

Woman disturbed by gender discrimination. Some of the thoughts in the section above are applicable here as well, especially the cultural context of Identity Politics, whereby learned sensitivities have been inculcated over the past 40 years.

There is no doubt that there are some young women who have experienced dreadful trauma in their early lives, not brought on by the culture, but by other broken people.  Such young women deserve utmost sympathy and protection.  It is not surprising that such people are especially susceptible to the Feminist narrative, whether or not Feminism is of benefit to them.

However, even young women who have not had such life-impacting experiences often find Feminism to be attractive.  Consider these quotes by anti-Feminist Janice Fiamengo relative to young women that have been drawn by the prevailing culture, rather than personal trauma:

The young woman is typically the beneficiary of school programs to help girls succeed all the way from primary school to post-secondary level, and she is taught almost entirely by pro-Feminist teachers, many of them women, who praise her for her insights, her social interactions, and her verbal skills.  She’s told from an early age that she should assert herself, that girls and women’s’ contributions to society are worthy of special praise, and that boys and men have no right to make her feel uncomfortable in any way.

Fiamengo concludes that years-long immersion (perhaps “indoctrination” is a better word) in mainstream Feminist thought has a two-fold effect:

First, it channels any feelings of dissatisfaction, anxiety, resentment or self-dislike that most young people feel at one time of another into anger at male-dominated society which is seen as actively and eternally biased against women.

And second, it creates a powerful, heady and exhilarating rush of euphoria, deeply pleasurable, at perceiving oneself an innocent victim of social forces beyond one’s control.

That’s not to say that there isn’t occasional discrimination experienced by those in this second group; certainly, all of humanity at times undergoes unjust suffering.  But these days, the dominant influence of contemporary Feminism with anti-male animus at the center of its ideology has stacked the cards against boys and men, rather than girls and women.

There is also third group of young women who are drawn to certain aspects of Feminism, but not the entire agenda.  For example, some may resonate with under-representation of women in certain fields, or lack of female CEO’s, for example. However, there may be perfectly understandable reasons why such seeming inequities occur, with Feminist doctrine not involved.  For example, consider Psychology professor Jordan Peterson’s description of why virtually all top-flight female lawyers exit the profession in their 30s.  Note that since Feminism is based upon Postmodernism and its negative view of objective facts and logic, then one must question whether it has anything of lasting value to say on such issues.

The point is that women in this third group have no need to adopt anything from Feminism.  If there is an issue that Feminism supports and is actually reasonable — for example, some kind of anti-discrimination concern — there is no need to involve an anti-male, hyper-victimization, hyper-innocence ideology.  Just fix the problem; if Feminist ideology is involved, it will only bring in all its negativity.

It’s difficult to go further with this example without understanding more background details, but it is very likely that the young woman’s real pain and frustration is strongly coupled with hypersensitivity caused by 2nd and 3rd-wave Feminism.  By this time in our culture, any actual systemic discrimination of women is almost assuredly against the law, or at least subjected to significant public shaming.

Asian who would give anything to be white. This is not as clear-cut an example, because Identity Politics has not been as thoroughly established for Asians as it has for women, Blacks, Hispanics, and LGBTQ-identified people.  In fact, according to some in the Social Justice Warrior world, Asians are considered to be “privileged” because they are so successful in academia and the business world, especially STEM.  So there’s definitely SJW ambivalence.

Additionally, Asians are routinely discriminated against in admission to university, to meet diversity quotas which provide preferential admission for Blacks and Hispanics.  Note that Whites are often similarly discriminated against.  An essay by an Asian-American author Matthew Salesses indicates that there is also plenty of social discrimination against Asians, in a manner perhaps not seen as much for other non-Whites, especially these days.

Here’s a brief expression from Salesses:

The truth is, racism toward Asians is treated differently in America than racism toward other ethnic groups. This is a truth all Asian Americans know. While the same racist may hold back terms he sees as off-limits toward other minorities, he will often not hesitate to call an Asian person a chink, as Jeremy Lin was referred to, or talk about that Asian person as if he must know karate, or call him Bruce Lee, or consider him weak or effeminate, or so on.

Asians apparently defy the Identity Politics paradigm.

Salesses also discusses in some depth his struggles to come to terms with his “otherness”; he was adopted from a Korean mother, and grew up in an affluent section of Connecticut.  It is a fascinating read as he comes to terms with his Korean-ness, but the point for this section is that Asians in America deal with a lot of racism, yet they have not been adopted by the Left as a valid victim.  The observation here is that Identity Politics deals with winners and losers.  If you are a loser (i.e., a victim), according to the ideology it’s because you have been oppressed by the winners, not because of their effort, competency, or good moral character.  No, Postmodernism is about power, and the winners are assumed to have overpowered the losers.

In this example, then, the Asian person would seem to be in a complicated struggle for identity, and he is accused of being a privileged victimizer (because he is Asian) while experiencing ongoing racial unpleasantness; whereas he sees his White counterparts as not dealing with these issues.  Of course, what they have in common is that Identity Politics see them both as privileged.

The point as in the above is that life is difficult, and there is unjust suffering for us all.  But there is also hope, especially for those who become Christ followers, to move beyond resentment and self-pity to the high calling of speaking the truth – the Logos – to a significantly lost world.

Black disturbed because of acute power differential – By way of introduction, it is clear that there is an especially potent grievance mantra promoted by Identity Politics in the case of race, and there is ample historical and some contemporary evidence to support the victim concept for Blacks.

Having said that, in this example, the first question to raise is what is meant by “acute power differential”?  This terminology apparently arises from “Oppression Theory” of Identity Politics, whereby “powered” and “non-powered” groups are paired along lines of so-called oppression.  The critical fallacy here is that the theory assumes that the non-powered find themselves in that position because of the malevolent exercise of power by the powered group to ensure dominance.

No consideration is made for cultural differences affecting productivity, nor individual, personal characteristics of diligence or perseverance.  Further, no attention is given to the disabling effect that a sense of victimization has on many (but not all) people in the non-powered group, producing a sense of depression, apathy and hopelessness.  Thus, the Postmodern ideology blinds people to fundamental origins of non-powered-ness, and further cannot explain the minority of people in these non-powered groups that lead full and successful lives.

And there are additional complications: (1) the true history of some very important aspects of the Black-white relationship in the U.S. relative to political ideology (for example, Democrat vs. Republican) is not well-known, but from the civil war to the present, there continues to be oppression of Blacks by the “Left”, except today it’s paradoxically Identity Politics itself which enslaves; (2) there is a subset of the Black population known as “Black Conservatives” who would not be able to identify at all with the concept of acute power differential.

Black Conservatives constitute a diverse group, but two ways that they are unified are, (1) they have transcended victimhood relative to white racism, and (2) they see Leftist policies as contemporary victimizers of Blacks.  The problem is that the Left controls academia and the media for the most part, so that Black Conservatives are rendered largely invisible, especially within the Black community (where there are lots of derogatory terms directed at them).

Further, it should be noted that among all U.S. immigrant “groups”, those of Nigerian descent are the most successful and prosperous, eclipsing even Asians.  And while not African, there are many immigrants from India who are highly successful, especially in STEM fields.  Any residual cultural bias against people of color might be an occasional irritant, but certainly does not result in a focus on victimization accompanied by resentment for both Nigerians and those from India.

In terms of Black Conservatives – who are descendants of American slavery — these people live without resentment due to victimization; yet most others in the Black community have never heard of them, other than perhaps recent Presidential candidate and now head of HUD, Dr. Ben Carson. People such as Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Star Parker, Mason Weaver, Shelby Steele, Deneen Borelli, David Webb, Kira Davis, Carol Swain, Larry Elder, Jason Riley, Alveda King, Derryck Green, Allen West, and other participants at Project 21; all highly successful, articulate, and not victims as proclaimed by Identity Politics, but who understand that there are intentional victimizers of the Black community; namely, the Postmodern/neo-Marxist Left.

Consider the following 2001 quote from Black Libertarian John McWhorter:

“Victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community’s response to all race-related issues.… Today, these three thought patterns impede black advancement much more than racism; and dysfunctional inner cities, corporate glass ceilings, and black educational underachievement will persist until such thinking disappears. In my experience, trying to show many African-Americans how mistaken and counterproductive these ideas are is like trying to convince a religious person that God does not exist: the sentiments are beyond the reach of rational, civil discourse.”

Twelve-year-old boy excels in his church youth group, but does poorly at school – By “does poorly”, it is meant both lack of interest in studies, and occasional suspensions for behavior.

This boy represents a generation or more of underperforming boys who attend public schools wherever Postmodern Feminism is in control.  The gap in performance between boys and girls is growing at an alarming rate, with less and less boys deciding to go on to college or university.  Of course if they do, they are subjected to even greater discrimination, which may explain some of the decline.

In this example, the difference between the two environments – the church, and the school – are contrasted; how the boy is treated in each environment is dependent on the underlying ideology.  The fundamental difference has to do with the Logos; in the case of the church, the Logos corresponds to Jesus Christ, at once the One who was at the beginning of creation, and also the One who suffered and died for mankind’s sin, and was resurrected to eternal life. Such an environment values each boy as an individual made in the image of God, with great life potential as he follows Biblical teaching on a whole range of life’s issues. And it also constructs a protective and counter-Leftist cultural hedge.  It is an environment which is beneficial and supportive for both boys and girls

On the other hand, in the public schools, the underlying Feminist ideology is anti-Logos; they see logic and dialogue as tools of the evil Patriarchy to maintain power over perpetually innocent women.  There is no room in this ideology for either “great” men, or “evil” women.  It is an environment which intentionally blurs the distinction between male and female, and teaches that gender is socially constructed rather than biologically determined, encouraging boys and girls to discover their own gender identity, even though social constructionism is objectively and logically untrue. But additionally, for boys, their built-in interests and personality trends are shamed and discouraged in favor of more feminine characteristics.  It is an adversarial and damaging environment for them.

With such an unbalanced ideology controlling the thoughts and actions of the education establishment, then the curriculum and accompanying operational procedures and regulations exist to in effect “cure” boys of their evil maleness.

Christina Hoff Summers of AEI maintains that there is a war against boys in our educational system.  She quotes psychologist Michael Thompson who says that in elementary schools, girls are the “gold standard”, boys are treated as “defective girls”.  Summers quotes statistics demonstrating that boys lag far behind girls in reading, awards, and college preparation, but far out distance them in receiving disciplinary action for behavior.

She proposes four initiatives that might be followed to rescue the situation:

  1. Turn boys into readers by assigning material that they would be interested in. Note: this would mean assigning different material for boys and girls.
  2. Inspire the male imagination. As with reading, so with writing: allow boys to write about concepts that they find interesting and captivating.
  3. Zero out “Zero Tolerance”. Boys are getting suspended in number far larger than girls, starting in pre-school, where the ratio is 5 to 1. Give second chances. Let boys be boys.
  4. Bring back recess. Boys especially need to be able to “run off steam”.  And bring back games requiring skill and a bit of minor contact, such as “dodge ball”, and “red rover”.

The Postmodern Feminist movement has created generations of “defective” boys, who turn into emasculated men, confessing their privilege and hoping they’ll be able to speak their minds without hysterical criticism by Leftist females.

In our example, it is clear that the church and the boy’s parent must become educated concerning what their son is being subjected to in the Feminist-dominated public school.  If possible, he should be removed from the school, and placed in a conservative Christian school, or even home-schooled, if possible.

If not possible, then the parents must become as activated as possible, to advocate for their son — and boys in general — in the school, as well as the school district hierarchy.  And in the home, they must endeavor to masculine-ize their son through reading, writing, and listening, as well as bonding with the father, as much as possible.  Clearly this home-medicine is prescribed even for families where the son is NOT involved in an affirming church group.  In fact, step one would be to locate a church for their son which (1) has a strong youth group, and (2) understands the destructive nature of Postmodern Feminism, which dominates public schools, and increasingly much of the culture.

In a recent conversation between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia, the issue of how to dismantle the hold that Postmodernism has on Feminism.  Paglia concluded that “men need to stand up”, but Peterson countered that men are unable to deal with “insane women”.  He suggested that it is sane women than must stand up to their insane sisters.  Whatever approach is followed, until the hold of Postmodern Feminism is broken in Western culture, people on a case by case basis must battle for the boys, to confront the educational establishment to cease discriminating against boys.

Summary

Clearly it is not possible to undertake an in-depth psychoanalysis of the above examples, based on a single one-phrase expression of perceived victimization.  Thus, the examples serve as a device to illuminate the manner in which Postmodern/neo-Marxist victim mantras, designed to gain and retain cultural and political power, may negatively impact individuals as well as the overall culture.  Clearly both the ideologically defined victims and victimizers are impacted, as well as people on the sidelines who might wish to otherwise offer help.

 There is no attempt herein to minimize the real pain expressed and lived out by the individuals cited in the above examples.  It would be very difficult to know how to respond to them, and it is clear that God calls and equips some to provide pastoral care for such people.  Nevertheless, the Postmodern/neo-Marxist context which essentially controls much of our culture, and with only a few exceptions all of academia, creates a hypersensitivity to victimization; and that is transcended with great difficulty, and if not, runs the risk of enslaving its targets.

As a culture, things are not perfect, and more sensitivity is needed, but in all directions: to Blacks, but also whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc.; also, sensitivity to girls and women, but also boys and men.  And to those dealing with various forms of sexual and gender dysphoria: sensitivity, and wise counsel, resisting the wisdom of the world (i.e., Postmodern/neo-Marxism), but informed by the Word of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit as He directs.

To Achieve Change

In late June of 2017, Jordan Peterson stated the following:

Postmodernism is wrong: technically wrong, apart from also being ethically, morally, intellectually, emotionally, and practically wrong.

Hopefully this section as well as the entire Primer has provided detailed explanations on various aspects of political correctness that fully support and illuminate Peterson’s statement.  However, in this section we’ve taken a look at a few examples which provide a glimpse of what people think and feel within the context of the living out of the ideology; in the case of millennials, their entire life.

Not only that, but the reality is that there are many in our culture – especially in the youth – who know of only one worldview, completely encapsulated by Political Correctness, and thus Postmodern/neo-Marxist ideology.  Further, when whispers of dissent occasionally arise, they are labeled as hate speech, and/or demonized with pejorative labels, such as “racist”, “misogynist”, “homophobic”, neo-Nazi, and White-supremacist.  Organizations such as Antifa are recruited to physically intimidate and deal in violence to prohibit the expression of objective truth about the ideology, such as is found in this Primer.

Hence there should be no illusions about easy changes of lifelong modes of thinking.  By the same token, the urgency to provide both the cultural truth and the Christian Gospel Truth could not be greater.  While at its depth, the cultural divide is spiritual in nature as informed in Ephesians 6:12, it is also a cognitive divide which can be penetrated with both the spiritual and philosophical/ideological truth.

So, we must understand that it’s much better to be speaking the truth, than to be intimidated into silence.  The battle is no less than to save Western Civilization from a descent into Marxist totalitarianism and corresponding enslavement.

A Caution

It must be kept in mind that even though political correctness is filled with false narratives and illogical assertions, some of the focus is on people who are troubled – political correctness labels them as victims of oppressors.  However, setting aside that labeling, there are people who are suffering, and that suffering is being exploited by the Left.  For example, for many in the LGBTQ “class”, the personality issues they are dealing with are unwanted: they would give anything to be set free, although because of the pressure from the Left, they are often disinclined to express that desire.

Similarly, there are important issues dealing with race, ethnicity, religion and gender, and we have to be able to strip away the neo-Marxist assessments and remedies, and fashion and implement Christian-based approaches.  A good example — in the case of abortion — are the many crises pregnancy organizations created by Christians that have undoubtedly saved millions of lives.

So while we must firmly and intelligently push back against the devastation wrought by neo-Marxism, we must also continue to be sensitive and act compassionately to those who are in need of help.

Tenets of a Viable 21st Century Conservatism

University of Toronto Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has been an out-spoken opponent of neo-Marxism and postmodernism, and a strong and articulate advocate for free speech.  While he considers himself to be a “classical liberal”, he finds himself strongly aligned with contemporary conservatives.

In a recent speech at Carlton Place, a suburb of Ottawa, he discussed 12 tenets that conservatives should be able to embrace in the ongoing battle for the survival of Western Culture:

  1. The fundamental assumptions of Western civilization are valid.
  2. Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.
  3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and should be promoted.
  4. Borders are reasonable. Likewise, limits on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.
  5. People should be paid so that they are able and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties.
  6. Citizens have the inalienable right to benefit from the result of their own honest labor.
  7. It is more noble to teach young people about responsibilities than about rights.
  8. It is better to do what everyone has always done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.
  9. Radical change should be viewed with suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.
  10. The government, local and distal, should leave people to their own devices as much as possible.
  11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.
  12. We should judge our political system in comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.

In addition, he strongly urges opponents of neo-Marxism/postmodernism to speak the truth – the Logos, which transforms chaos into order — as best one can, regardless of the consequences.  To not speak also has consequences.  He says, “It is not safe to speak. But it is less safe NOT to speak.”

Summary

In the above, the following has been shown concerning political correctness:

  • Its origins come from the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism
  • The architects of Cultural Marxism and its “children” disciplines such as postmodernism, Feminism, etc. saw the destruction of Western Civilization as a necessity to achieve their utopia
  • Among the primary objectives of political correctness are the destruction of Judeo-Christianity, the traditional family, and free speech.
  • Political correctness uses two primary techniques to achieve the transformation of Western Culture: (1) propaganda, consisting of false narratives to recruit and maintain followers, and (2) coercion, to silence the opposition and enforce egalitarianism.
  • Political correctness makes extensive use of postmodern thinking, whereby objective truth, logic, and rationality are dismissed as oppressive constructs.
  • Political correctness uses identity politics to divide the culture into oppressor and victim groups, assuming all people in these groups think and experience life in identical fashion; individuality is not tolerated.

Whenever political correctness appears in your life, ask the question: what is the real objective, and how are they selling it?  In truth, it is ALWAYS about achieving the socialist utopia via the destruction of Judeo-Christian worldview, and the selling is always a smoke screen providing fictitious (although very effective) justification, while hiding the true objectives.  Once this concept is understood, all politically correct utterances are seen in bold font for what they really are.  We must take advantage of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech to protect freedom of speech, and speaking the truth in love, see an end to the advance of neo-Marxism in our country.

Finally, note that there is scripture which establishes the exact context for neo-Marxism and its child, political correctness:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”  (Ephesians 6:12)

Certainly, an entity that consistently seeks the destruction of Christianity is — by definition — a part of the principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places.

This concludes Part 4.  Here are links to the other postings in this series:

Part 1 Historical background
Part 2 Implementation
Part 3 Concepts and Actions
Part 4 Conclusions (this posting)

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>