The term “politically correct” has a long and sordid history, dating back to the 1930’s, whereby the Communist Party USA (CP-USA) would enforce its rigid (and generally mindless) codes of toeing the party line. Thus, on August 23, 1939, when the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was signed, Stalin was praised for his genius, despite the Nazis railing against Communism for years. That was, of course, until June 22, 1941, when Nazi Germany, after having invaded much of western and central Europe, attacked the Soviet Union without warning in Operation Barbarossa. Then, Stalin was praised for his genius in being at war with Nazi Germany. Incredibly, the existence of the “secret” protocols between Hitler and Stalin, regarding how Europe was supposed to be divided up after the war, was denied by the Ruskies, and their lap dog CP-USA affiliates until 1989!
“Politically correct” would reappear in English translations of the Little Red Book of Chairman Mao, supposedly to the chagrin of CP-USA officials, who were wary of the expression by then, as it would turn out, with good reason. For, by the early 1980’s “PC” became a pejorative term used by those on the Right, to ridicule increasingly anal attempts to control language and free speech. And if “PC” immediately suggested “CP,” the popular abbreviation for the CP-USA, so much the better.
We on the Right can ridicule all we want, but the damage has been done. If language and free speech have been controlled in major institutions such as education, large corporate environments, and the elite media, and this has been going on for nearly 25 years, an entire generation exists that has been raised under these pernicious rubrics. Moreover, if language and free speech are controlled, so, eventually is thought itself. It is no accident that coercive persuasion or brainwashing first became widely known as it occurred in communist political prisons after the Chinese Communist victory in 1949 and after the Korean and Vietnamese wars.
No doubt, the concept that has been most distorted—and exploited—in this connection is “racism.” Properly defined, “racism” is the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others.
Note well that the first part of this definition is not necessarily evil at all, but simply recognizes that different people are, well, different—a tautology. And even if people of a certain race prefer to hang out with their same race (you can see this on any college campus), it hardly follows that they believe they are superior, or have a right to dominate the other races.
Sadly, though, even this brief analysis would be considered non-PC and rationalizing racism by many. Which brings us to a curious article that appeared in an otherwise usually clear-headed website that prides itself on being even-handed—Aggressive-Voice. Editor Scott Spicciati (whose life barely brackets the modern age of PC) re-invents himself as an avenging angel in decrying the “racism” of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Trent Lott, Jessie (sic) Helms, Charlton Heston, and, of course, Pat Buchanan. These are, in Scott’s mind, examples of the racist end of the GOP.
Spicciati attacks Buchanan’s references to an earlier, more homogenous America as being inherently racist, and brazenly and mistakenly notes that “…I don’t ever recall historians looking back on that era with pride.” Assuming that the era in question refers to Buchanan’s early life, what little pride most American historians can ever show is usually limited to the WWII and post-war days!
He also betrays a poor understanding of American history when he claims “…the founders were religious and wanted God to play a role in the lives of everyday Americans, but the choice of church and specific religion was to be up to the individual.” Most of the original colonies did, in fact, have an established religion, and Scott would not have seen many Catholics, for example, in Plymouth.
Finally, he more or less agrees with Buchanan on decrying illegal immigration, even if Pat is inflamed by the wrong reasons—the loss of America’s cultural identity and language—and Spicciati apparently only by the illegals “…side-step[ping] the government and avoid[ing] paying taxes but reap[ing] the benefits that come from our checkbooks.” Heck, Scott wants to put the military on the borders to prevent the crossings! Funny how in all his concern for his own checkbook he fails to mention the jobs illegals are taking, under the protection of the one part of the GOP he SHOULD be going after, and that is the country club Republicans who support America’s slave labor movement.
These individuals, largely connected with the hospitality industry, along with purveyors of the low-end Medi-Cal mills, and the Democratic co-conspirators who use illegals to pump up the public education rolls, would be far more meaningful targets than the men he mentions. But being raised under PC, where perceived racism is the greatest of all possible sins, what more can we expect?