Political Correctness = Cultural Marxism

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true," the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the "latest thing."

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend.

He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this."

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure," – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – "in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."

The stuff we’ve been hearing about – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

THe book "The Culture of Critique" by Kevin MacDonald explains what groups push this evil agenda...

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. "Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of man’s domination of nature," according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years." "Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his "protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, "Hell no we won’t go," they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of "polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throws 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.
by Bill Lind

 

It's just a case of small groups trying to control the majority so they can increase their power base. The best thing to do is ignore it when possible, fight it when necessary.

If you are a writer or public speaker, write or speak the way you want, regardless of how it will be taken by the public. If everyone does that, the PC movement will have no power. A movement without followers is powerless.

 

Easier said than done. The media IS controlled. The universities are controlled. The media and University system is USED to BRAINWASH and condition the ignorant sheeple err... I mean people. WHen schools, universities and the media push an agenda, there is no escaping it. THe only reasonable thing to do is to PURGE the universities, the PURGE the media and PURGE the schools.

 

noam chomsky says that universities are used to indoctrinate their members to the belief that they are the elite. you have to remember that people going through university are still going throught the formative part of their life, they form their opinions at that critical time that will last them a lifetime. after the age of 18 i say most peoples brains have set like concrete no amount of logic, proof etc will convince them of another view point. for those going through university the mind is forced to keep learning and the curing of the concrete lasts a bit longer, hence the last gasp of the political indoctrination by the loonies.

 

wow. why are we all so afraid?


from my perspective "political correctness" has nothing to do with worrying about which words you can and can't use and EVERYTHING to do with humanity getting to a point where they have the balls to say "it's not ok" to victimise people because they are different. this shouldn't be feared or loathed, it should be applauded.

it is my belief that if you treat people with respect and hold no prejudice against them in your heart it does not matter which words you use. your intentions are always clear. the same is true if you have hatred or judgement in your heart, then you could have all the right words but you would still cause offense.

i personally take offense that this revolution in human respect is referred to by you as an "evil agenda".

as to your criticism of critical theory and cultural marxism. what you say is true. ironically, your words lead me to support these theories. to me, they hold a lot of merit. for example, your "critical theory = criticism" point does not phase me. i believe that we SHOULD speak out when we see that the wrong thing is happening on this planet, even when we don't know 100% what the right thing would be. have you ever heard the famous saying "evil triumphs when good people do nothing"? this is about freedom of speech (the same free speech that you so vehemently defend), and i wish more people were willing to stand up for what they believe in (as you have done - i may not agree with you but i do respect your courage and effort)!

 

well, if you're part of the "victim group", of course you would. You'd be biased in favour of your little group interests at the expense of the majority. Its by design. But its not in my best interest or 90% of Americans. I also want to add that it is pretty obvious that my original post went way way way over your head. You really dont get it.

 

um....what?

you just contradicted yourself...
topolm posting this does not take away anybody's rights to say anything. that is exactly what the PC movement wants to do.

 

That was way too long to read.

First off, this isn't 'the first time anyone in our country had to watch what they said.'

Ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Do you think slaves could say whatever they wanted? Do you think communist groups weren't infultrated by the FBI in the 50's?

Secondly all speech should be protected. Even hateful speech.

But that means the people protesting hateful speech have a right to do so too. Sorrry the Klan, but if there are more counter protesters at your rally then protesters, maybe you shouldn't be such racist vile pricks.

Thirdly, I couldn't stand to wade through all that, but comparing PC to economics is insane crap.

PC can go way overboard, so in those cases, it should be pushed aginst and resisted.

 

fuck political correctness..just say it, do it, whatever

 

but there has to be a line drawn in free speech. yes, people should be alowed to say "i hate whites" "i hate blacks" "i hate women". yes its hateful, but they have the right to their opinion. but if someone said "i hate blacks and they need to be exterminated" THAT is crosing the line. you cant say things which are provoking violence

 

well, the phrase "provoking violence" is unnecessarily broad. Anything that is upsetting can potentially lead to violence...

 

thats what the law is for. there are laws for those kinds of things. in wisconsin, for example, there was such a hate speech law, but the Supreme Court (of the US) said such a law was unconstitutional, in 1996 i think. something about the law attacking the thoughts of people rather than the actions.

and check out fred phelps. i do not agree with what he says at all, but he is a brilliant lawyer who has been using the constitution to further free speech for all the people of this country (though he probably does not see it that way).


as long as what is said is fact or opinion, everybody should be able to say everything they want.

 

There should be no hate crime laws at all because invariably all violence is the result of contempt for your fellow human being, and therefore using a special law to categorize it would be insulting to many victims of crime.

Here's an example:

Hate Crimes Laws will Make You a Lawbreaker!

Ominous legislation now before Congress contains a hidden agenda that could make criminals of Christians.

In 1988 an evangelical pastor in Sweden opened his Bible to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He informed his congregation (which included homosexuals) that God is still angry at sexual perversion and will judge those who practice it.

Several months later, this pastor was serving a four-week sentence in jail. He had violated Sweden's "Anti-Hate" statute, a law that protects groups such as homosexuals from "verbal violence" - public statements which might cause them embarrassment because of their sexual orientation.

It is well known that socialist Sweden is the trendsetter in human engineering. What happens there will probably be taken for granted through much of the world 10 or 15 years later.

But laws in America banning criticism of others? "It can't happen," most will reply. " Not with free speech guaranteed by the Constitution!"

But it can. A hidden agenda toward ultimately restraining free speech surfaced among bills introduced this year in Congress. "Hate Crime" legislation was proposed as a first step toward banishing "prejudice" in America. This bill, deceptively titled "The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000" passed the Senate, but was voted down in the House. Had it passed, it could have laid the foundation for an "Anti-Hate" bureaucracy identical to Sweden's—a bureaucracy which would redefine "prejudice" so as to make the Christian a lawbreaker. Here's how our free speech is coming under attack:

History of Anti-Hate Legislation

Let's briefly review how today's anti-hate legislation, currently before Congress, came into being.

During 1988, the predominant architect of "Anti-Hate" legislation, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, helped sponsor a nationwide, law-student competition to write a model "Anti-Hate" law for America. This law would criminalize not just physical acts of racial violence but statements that might lead to violence.

On April 20-22, the ADL helped sponsor a conference at New York's prestigious Hofstra University entitled "Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship Between Language and Violence." Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), also a pioneer of the hate crimes legislation now before Congress, was the keynote speaker. The winner of the hate crimes competition was announced as Joseph Ribakoff, a law student from Whittier College in California.

In his prize-winning proposal, Ribakoff asserted that with the upsurge of "Hate Crimes" in America, it will no longer suffice for the government merely to outlaw acts of physical violence; it must ban those forms of verbal communication which cause hatred, suspicion, and possible violence against groups of people. Ribakoff recommends that federal and state censorship boards be established to review all films and videotapes before they are shown publicly, determining if they contain statements which might stimulate hatred or contempt for some group of people. If so, an immediate court order would ban the film in America. Ribakoff: "Any person, persons, or organizations which publicly shows a film or movie before it has been submitted and reviewed by the agency shall have committed a misdemeanor."

Further, if anyone is a member of an organization that has publicly shown such a film and intends to remain a member, supportive of its goals, he also will have committed a misdemeanor.

Ribakoff's prize-winning "Group Libel Statute" was not limited to verbal criticism of Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc., but would indict anyone who criticized homosexuals as a group, causing "mental anguish" to members of that minority.

Anti-Hate Bureaucracy

Although the participants in the Hofstra Conference were divided concerning the feasibility of such blatant censorship, the ADL remains determined that some kind of anti-hate legislation become law—even if it is only rudimentary. Thus, the ADL helped to create the "Hate Crimes Statistics Act."1 Here are the specifics as it was submitted to Congress in 1990.

The "Hate Crimes Statistics Act" requires states to determine if crimes committed under their jurisdiction were motivated by prejudice. These include serious crimes, but also such relatively minor offenses as "vandalism, trespass and threat." States are required to relay such information to a federal anti-hate data bank, then to be shared with law enforcement officials throughout the nation.

Thus, if a homosexual is the victim of an offense as minor as "vandalism, trespass or threat," states are forced to determine if the offense were motivated by prejudice—a tedious task. If so, details of the homosexual's case are to be forwarded to the federal government. If the person or group who committed the crime had not yet been found, the government's policy of sharing information concerning the case with state and local agencies might help to apprehend such persons.2 Thus the long arm of the federal government could come to the aid of a homosexual victim in a way that would be out of the question for victims of crimes not motivated by prejudice.

A second bill establishes a "Commission on Racially Motivated Violence," a blue-ribbon panel of 12 members which would receive statistics from the states, define what constitutes "violence" and "prejudice," and report their findings to the President. This panel would dramatize on a national level the problem of violence against gays and other minorities.

Only The Beginning

The ADL-assisted "Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990" was passed by Congress soon after the Hofstra conference. Law enforcement nationwide is now required to report incidents of "hate crimes" for federal review.

Yet, the ADL wants the Justice department to do more than simply record data, it wants federal prosecution of those who "hate." Until now this was not fully possible because the federal government lacks authority to intervene in law enforcement within the states (except for interstate crimes, voting fraud, etc.)

The "Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000" attempted to vastly increase the government's right to investigate and prosecute "hate crimes" everywhere. Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), a co-sponsor, with Sen. Edward Kennedy, of this bill, told me in a letter that this legislation "extends the authority of federal prosecution to crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and disability."

Clearly, this bill would have been a stepping stone toward an anti-hate bureaucracy where Christian teachings which condemn sodomy will be considered "hateful," and "inciting to violence," and thus illegal.

While posing as the arch-defender of free speech, the ADL has a proven record of subtly working to limit it. Ultimately, the ADL may pressure the "Commission on Racially Motivated Violence" to extend the term "Hate Crime" to include "hurtful words" against a minority. Anyone who heckled a marcher in a "Gay Pride" parade would then have committed a criminal act. Anyone who caused "intense anguish" to Jews by accusing their forefathers of the "crucifixion of God" could be indicted. Ultimately, even pastors who heaped guilt and shame upon "sinners" could be open to the charge of "hurtful words."

Few Americans realize that already in such countries as Sweden, West Germany, Britain, Israel, and Canada, laws banning "hurtful words" against groups of people are already on the books. The Canadian ADL lobbied tirelessly for "group libel" legislation for many years. Finally, in 1971, Parliament passed the "Canadian Human Rights Act," banning all written or broadcast statements that cause "embarrassment" to an identifiable group. Under Sec. 319 of this new law, Canadian evangelical Christians, such as James Keegstra and Malcolm Ross, have been indicted and prosecuted because of complaints that they have caused "mental anguish" to Jews by questioning whether a full six million Jews died in the "holocaust." Ross writes that if the Crown's case against him is upheld, such "group libel" laws will supersede all other law, and any complaint, regardless of how vague, as long as it is couched in terms of "discrimination" or "racism," will set the human rights commission machinery into motion."

Under such laws, Dr. Paul Cameron, nationally recognized opponent of gay rights, made arrangements for a public lecture in Canada in which the homosexual lifestyle would be criticized. When he arrived at the border, the cases of books and literature he brought with him were impounded. He was told that in Canada it is against the law to humiliate homosexuals publicly.

Focus on Hate

As "anti-hate" legislation is introduced, and reintroduced, into Congress, the media are focusing as never before on the problem of racial violence, holding up the Aryan Nations, the Klan, and the Skinheads, as examples of what society should outlaw. Yet it is you and I, thinking Christians of a conservative bent of mind, who are in danger of being silenced

While gays, communists, abortionists, radical feminists, etc. are not seen as those who "hate," every kind of "right winger" from Jerry Falwell to "The Order" is increasingly, perceived as a source of "hurtful words." In fact, Christianity itself is coming under scrutiny. A widely distributed book called "Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right" by James Coates3 accuses fundamentalist Christianity of providing an unwholesome seedbed out of which intolerance emerges. This reflects the common Jewish belief that Christianity, by its charge that the Jews and their leaders were behind the crucifixion of Christ, has caused more "mental anguish" to the Jews than anything else in the history of the world. Although an extremist in Israeli politics, Rabbi Meir Kahane's view of Christianity was similar to Coates':

"I have not the slightest sympathy for Christianity or Jesus. As a believing Jew, not only is Jesus not "God" but also he is neither Messiah nor prophet. For the Jew he was a blasphemer, one who attacked the Torah as unchanging divine law and who was a false prophet and heretic.

"As for Christianity, this is the faith that, in the name of Jesus, has made life for the Jewish people a living hell for 19 centuries. In its name, and in the name of Jesus, millions of Jews were massacred and the agony of life under Christians can never be sufficiently described in all its horror."4

Coates maintains that a literal interpretation of the criticism of New Testament pits the fundamentalist Christian against the Jew. Thus, there is no real substance to the claim of televangelists such as Robertson and Falwell that the church wants to "bless" Israel. Coates:

"The resulting "Pro-Semitism" voiced by so much of the liberal right is not much more comforting than the Anti-Semitism spewing from the mouths of the survivalist right… Rabbi Alexander Schindler, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, told an audience in San Francisco in late 1980 that it was "no coincidence that the rise of right-wing Christian fundamentalism has been accompanied by the most serious outbreak of Anti-Semitism in America since the outbreak of World War II."5

At this stage in time, the Jewish ADL tells us we need anti-hate laws to protect the Blacks from whites, the gays from straights, the Jews from Nazis. Many fear that what they really want is a law that will silence forever the historic Christian claim that Jews were behind the crucifixion of Christ, and that Jews must now accept him as Savior to escape damnation (Acts 2:23, 36, 3:13-15, 4:10). Once broad anti-hate legislation is in place, forbidding criticism of "identifiable groups," it will be a small matter to convince humanity (and Congress) that this ultimate "group libel" should be forbidden. The New Testament, the authority behind that charge, would of course also be censored.

Who is Prejudiced?

A major reason why this legislation is so dangerous is that "prejudice," the condition it claims to oppose, is extremely ambiguous. For example, a minister would not think it a form of prejudice to warn a homosexual from his deviant, soul-damning lifestyle. Yet gay rights groups and the ADL would.

Whose definition of prejudice would the government follow if these bills became law?

The testimony of the ADL before Congress makes it clear that the ADL is pushing hard for national acceptance of its definitions The ADL would prefer that:

• <LI class=articlelistwoarrow>Federal definitions of "prejudice" should be modeled after the point of view of the ADL.
  
  <LI class=articlelistwoarrow>Law enforcement personnel should defer to ADL definitions of prejudice when filling out reports on criminal investigations
  
  <LI class=articlelistwoarrow>Law enforcement personnel should submit themselves to ADL-led sensitivity training, making them compliant with ADL definitions prejudice
  
  <LI class=articlelistwoarrow>Investigating officers should be allowed to determine before trial if the accused is motivated by prejudice. (This would set up the local police, assisted by ADL guidelines, as a sort of preliminary jury, opining on matters usually relegated to the court or to the psychologist. This power over the accused is very ominous because...
  
  
• If prejudice is determined, the crime should be considered much more serious, with a stiffer sentence.
  

Hidden Motives

Clearly, this legislation is an opportunity for the ADL to intimidate and manipulate Americans. As stated earlier the ADL exerted relentless pressure upon the Canadian government to ban "group defamation." They succeeded. Now it is illegal in Canada to rebuke homosexuality publicly, or even to publicly state that gays have a higher rate of AIDS than anyone else. In America, the ADL is working even harder. Their initial intention is not to ban free speech entirely, but to convince us that certain forms of speech can be outlawed without doing violence to freedom of expression in general.

Incredibly, despite its Orwellian overtones, this legislation has encountered little significant opposition. Few recognize it as the foundation upon which a system of police state spying and censorship can be built.

Although the "Local Law Enforcement Act" was voted down, Oct 8, 2004, the ADL will introduce a similar bill, with a different title, in the next session of Congress. Now is the time to protest. Inform your senators and congressmen that existing laws adequately criminalize all forms of slander and violence. Not only would anti-hate legislation be costly but, if ADL requests are followed, it would allow "Big Brother" to probe the "motivational" mindset of Americans unconvicted of crimes - a very dangerous, and far reaching precedent.

by Theodore Winston Pike

Footnotes:

1. Legal counsel for the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice (Conyer's committee) told me that the ADL had been extremely helpful in the creation of The Hate Crimes Statistics Act.

2. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (author of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act) in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, June 21, 1988 said that the Hate Crimes Statistics Act" can lead to increased interagency sharing of intelligence information on the criminal activities of hate groups."

3. Coates, James. Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right, Hill and Wang, New York, 1987.

4. Rabbi Meir Kahane, The Jewish Press, New York, Jan. 6, 1989, pp. 49, 54.

5. Coates, p. 257.

6. Statement of Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith on 5 797, S 702, and 5 2000, before the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, United States Senate, June 21, 1988.

 

Obviously there is something you want say, some word, or phrase or speech you want to give that you feel is important, but you feel intimidated to the point where you do not feel you can say it safely. It seems to me this is about more than the desire to tell dirty jokes at your job or use offensive words to describe minorities. What is it that you want to say ? What dangerous, edgy idea do you want to share ?

 

that is irrelevant. It's the principle.

 

HATE SPEACH is an expression of Male Sexual Inadequacy.

Topolm's need for Hate-Speach is the need of every Anal-Retentive Conservative to compensate for the inadequacy of their male sexual identity.

Men, gripped by the anal-stimulation of effeminate fears, subconsciously self-castrate themselves, and thus become Conservatives, worshiping and effeminately re-inforcing the alpha-male authority of patriarchal father-figure ideology.

Thus, Conservatives use Hate-Speach, because, like all latent homosexuals, they must desperately re-inforce their Racial, National, Class, or Religious identities as a crutch to compensate for their inadequate male sexual identity.

Hate-Speach is used by every School-Yard Sissy to protect themselves by finding some one more different than themselves to objectify with a hatefull sneer campaign.

This fascistic group intimidation of others diverts attention from their own Sissy inadequacy.

And, by controlling the destiny of others by intimidating and belittling any association with these now victimized others, the Anal-Retentive Controlling Conservative re-inforces his own desperate sense of Racial, National, Class, or Religious identity at the expense of others.

This also triggers the satisfying Anal gratification of sado-masochistic homo-eroticism.

And this is why Anal-Retentive Conservatives are particularly sensitive to any analysis of their psycho-dynamics.

Sensitive to the revelation that the Conservative Anal-Retentive impulse to control, own and aquire is a latent homosexual impulse.

Topolm's article desperately reveals a complete subconscious projection of the anal-retentive totalitarian impulses of frustrated Conservatives upon those who have exposed these Conservative latent homosexual impulses to an increasingly sophisticated and wise world.

 

I would reply to the article topolm (I only read part of it), but I don't feel like its worth it.

See ya.

 

i do not consider myself part of any "victim group". i do, however, believe that some groups are marginalised or victimised in our society and i do not support that.

please remember that, although affirmative action may seem unfair now, it is trying to "level the playing field" for groups in society that have been trodden down by long periods of institutional and cultural victimisation. the best interests of your 90% (who is this by the way? do you mean white, upper-middle-class men??? that is in no way 90%, no group represents 90% of any population) have been the ONLY consideration for centuries. in my opinion, it is only right that the balance should be adjusted, and it is only natural that this would cause concern, fear, rage even for those who have historically had all the power and benefits.

please do not criticise my intelligence. you do not know me. i DO get it. disagreeing with you does not constitute ignorance. i chose not to respond to all of your arguments simply because of the sheer length of your posting. i understand the issues and arguments, on both sides, i just happen to stand on a different side of the fence from you.

 

LOL!

 

Nope, we're all individuals. To think in terms of groups is vile because this lends to violatating another person's individuality. Remember, Martin Luther King wished that people would be judged by the content of their character rather than their skin color, and affirmative action does exactly opposite.