What the HEll is............"political Correctness"......and why was it created????

As you have noticed, Kukulkon, you are not being treated seriously. This is not, however, because you have presented irrefutable arguments or that the other posters are not capable of informed discussion. Instead, what has happened is that you posted a rant, not an actual philosophical discussion. It makes broad sweeping charges with no supporting documentation (asserting numerous things that the other posters–from both the Left and the Right–recognize as silly).

When other posters have noted logical errors in your post, you reply that attacking logic is a “liberal trick,” yet no argument that is logically flawed can be supported by logic.

You claim that you want to debate the “issues”? Fine, let’s start with this silliness:

Your first statement has a grain of truth in regards the declared intention of Marxist thinkers. Destroying “the hegemonic white male structure of power” is one (not perfect, but adequate) description of some Marxist goals.

However, you then leap to the conclusion that this can be done only by inverting the power structure. Unless you citations to mainstream Marxists for this belief, those of us who have actually studied the phenomenon will realize that you made it up (or copied someone else who made it up). The destruction of the white male hegemony is not predicated on a non-white female hegemony, but on a destruction of all existing structures in a way that will allow a more egalitarian structure to arise on its own.
(I think the Marxists are no closer to treality than you seem to be, but you shgould at least give them the benefit of treating their goals and beliefs accurately.)

Further, you link your flawed perception of Marxist goals directly to Political Correctness. Unfortunately, many of us were alive and watched when PC arose. Certainly there are many Marxist adherents to the notion. However, the whole PC concept arose from a synthesis of a great many varied and different movements; it did not spring forth from the idea bureau of the Comintern. If you want us to accept that sort of error-laden proposal, you need to support it with facts, not assertions.

I wandered over to the anu sight and read several back issues of the Nationalist Times. I am unimpressed. It is filled with the same sort of fact-free ranting that you have presented here. This is not to say that everyting written in it is totally in error, only that it relies heavily on impassioned writing and avoids considered ideas wherever it can.

As to the goals of the ANU and their desire to return to the U.S. of 1797, I would only point out that without providing a method to disengage from the entire rest of the world without causing our own economy to collapse, they are simply uttering wishes that cannot come true.

(Oh, and if that whole rant in the OP was taken directly from another source, rather than being an original composition of your own, you may want to ask a moderator to substitute a link to the original and delete the majority of that text. We’re not really keen on pasting in major works from other sites.)

I dunno. Stealing from The Onion and posting it as fact? (Missed that one–I didn’t want to spend too much time there.)

No connection to reality in that group.

Your first and second points are historically and factually incorrect. The government (at various levels) has tracked ethnicity (in various forms) since the nineteenth century. The EEOC legislation and agencies were in existence for at least ten years prior to any mention of “PC.” (See Tris’s discussion, prior to yours. PC was actually a Right Wing pejorative applied to the results of people branding certain statements or actions as politically incorrect. Regardless of the good or harm that the ideas passing around as politically (in)correct speech had, they were not instrumental in either defining or establishing the concept of Equal Opportunity.)

Your third point is arguable, but I suspect that the argument will be weak.

I wish I could to support an organization opposed to PC, but not in this case. Look at their reading list on kooky alternative medicines. Ugh! http://www.anu.org/northernvoice-alternativehealth%26science.html

Actually, I remember the liberal American origins of the concept of political correctness; or rather it’s inverse, political incorrectness, which was much more the issue at the time. The anti war movement was the intersection of a wide range of interest groups, in the sixties. Because of the absence of any other unifying issue, it became important not to associate your views on the war with your views on other things, because it was politically incorrect to do so.

An error in politics would dissipate the total power of the movement, and prevent the establishing of viable electoral clout that could actually end the war. To espouse women’s rights, or to belittle women’s rights was politically incorrect in association with events and organizations that had a planned intent to bring about the end the war. Such an error in political action could defeat your only agreed upon goal. It was a very common error. In historic fact, it delayed the end of the war for a long time. Over that same time the cloak of politically correct thinking was stretched all out of shape, and came to imply some general monochromatic view of society that was acceptable to the newly forming left wing of American politics.

In the end it came to mean only that a person had to keep his mouth shut about any disagreement with the common “party line” of the radical chic left. It was more a disaster for the left than any real threat to the right. It’s kind of like the Republicans and abortion. You can believe in individual rights over the right of the State in the matter of procreation, but if you want party support, you can’t talk about it. People hate it when someone thinks for themselves, right after people have decided that they know what that person thinks about everything. They especially hate it when the person disagrees with them.

Isn’t it odd how a direct witnesses account of the stated title to the thread is a hijack? It seems almost weirdly politically incorrect.

Tris

Kukulkon, people like you actually make liberal P.C. look good in comparison.

Has anyone seen my other navy blue sock?

Okaaaay.
Prediction: Kukulkon won’t be around long. (interesting name by the way. 3 K’s. Hmmm.)

First off, the ANU. I looked at the website. Yuck. Just another neo-nazi group dedicated to white supremacy. Strike 1. Actually that’s pretty much three strikes all at once.

I’m not going to say much here because there’s no point really. Just this. Yes, Political Correctness has gotten out of hand. No, it’s not an exclusively Liberal issue, and it’s not any sort of conspiracy either. I believe it’s a concept that’s based on the idea of treating all people with respect, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual preference or religion (I don’t believe the same can be said of your organization). Unfortunately, some people have taken it to extremes and have forgotten that while it’s important to treat people with respect it’s also virtually impossible to say anything without offending somebody. So, rather than try to walk on eggshells and not offend anybody, I prefer to go about my life and say what I believe. Of course, I don’t believe some terms for different people are very nice, so I don’t use them, but I also don’t try to force other people to do the same as me. (Again, I suspect your organization would enjoy using force on people it sees as a threat.)

Anyway, as I said above I doubt you’ll be here long, and I doubt anybody will get through to you. I’m not the most eloquent or even the most clear writer, but I hope I made my point somewhat clear.

That’s Mister, thank you. And I did look at the “party platform.” I read #8 which you quote above and #4, “Establish a ten-year moratorium on all immigration, construct a security fence along the Mexican border to stop the [i}Third World invasion of America* (italics added), and deport all illegal aliens back to their place of origin.”

Also #11 “Withdraw from the United Nations and oppose the New World Order in all its forms.”

And #'s 15-18 “Begin a renewed commitment (through free enterprise, not the government) to space exploration as a healthy expression of Western man’s basic need to discover and explore.”

"Return to a strengthened family unit as the norm for society, rejecting feminism, homosexuality and all other types of so-called “alternative lifestyles.”

“Reject liberalism as the social ideology of the New World Order, an un-American, totalitarian ideology that must be regarded as America’s internal enemy and resisted as strongly as communism has been.”

“Return to Americans their traditional right of freedom of association, including voluntary racial separation(italics added), along with the abolishment of all forms of government-mandated racial discrimination, such as affirmative action and quotas.”

Let’s see, according to your philosophy I would either be imprisoned or exiled because I am a liberal, pro-feminist and I believe homosexuals have the same rights as hetero’s. I also think a security fence along the Mexican border would be an unconscionable waste of resources and pointless besides
Further more I question the definition of “Western Man.” The idea of leaving the United Nations is an isolationist concept that is no longer -if in fact it ever was-practical, viable or sensible. We are part of the world, not separate from it.

I can agree with one point. I would love to see more exploration of space, but with both government and private funding, and accomplished by a coalition of nations that share the risk and the rewards.

As to why I think the way I do, it’s because I was brought up to respect people regardless of their differences or similarities and to believe vehemently that all people have the right to think what they want, say what they want, and live as they want, provided they don’t infringe on everybody elses self same rights. I would never try to abolish conservatism, because like anything else in the universe, liberalism is defined both by what it is and what it is not, and because both views are natural to people. They can’t be abolished.

If you are paying attention you will see that I don’t deny you your opinion, but I do reject it.

So have you actually ever read anything Adorno wrote?

Ok, Kuku, I’ll bite. Just a little, because I doubt there is a nice nougat filling under most of this verbiage.

The crux of your claim appears to be the fact that structuralist neo-Marxism has wormed its way into the highest levels of government and is attempting to subvert the American Way, as it were. I have a few questions.

Adorno and his contemporary thinkers have been completely replaced in the academy by poststructuralists, many of whom are in profound disagreement with postwar German thought. These are the people who are presumably controlling the government in a vast left-wing conspiracy. How do you reconcile this with your original argument?

You proceed to say this:

Kindly be more specific. Exactly how and by the agency of whom did the discredited and replaced Frankfurt School cause such profound political and psychological changes? Since you do not make any explicit arguments about transmission and reception in your OP, it appears that you are committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

PC arose after the transmission of neo-Marxist criticism. So what? What exactly is this milieu that you speak of?

Nonsense. How is this different than any other form of social interaction? And furthermore, what is the incentive/punishment matrix for this kind of conditioning?

Finally:

Who is “they”? Can you point to a single actual individual or group of individuals with demonstrable links to the Frankfurt School or to Marxist social revolutionary groups who has “manipulated” any government, either state, federal, or local, into passing such laws?

Kuku, your argument is vacuous, ahistorical, woolly-thinking trash. There are many, many good arguments to be made against political correctness. Marxist conspiracy ain’t one of them.

For the love of…um…oooookay.

:rolleyes:

Do Mommy and Daddy know that you are playing with the computer?

Oh for the love of…

It has nothing to do with being a liberal or whatever (and yeah, I am a liberal, btw).

You list a site that has references to David Duke, that talks about conspiracy theories, the Illuminati, “Satanic metal”, etc…and expect us to take you seriously?

Here’s the American Nationalist Union’s "platform:
http://www.anu.org/platformoftheanu.html

My personal favorites:

Or what about the articles?

http://www.anu.org/news_clichesthatarekillingamerica.html

Which says:

http://www.anu.org/news_afewsimplesolutions.html

Oh, this one’s a winner!

http://www.anu.org/news_godcriedontuesday.html

Dude, wtf? The guy killed him because he wanted to steal his car-what does his being white have to do with it?

http://www.anu.org/news_rehabilitationofMcCarthy.html

http://www.anu.org/news_courtordersbrainwashing.html

Yeah, we all know Schlinder’s list is nothing but propaganda.

http://www.anu.org/news_ethnicdirtying.html

http://www.anu.org/news_willdaviddukebeelected.html

Yes, POOR David Duke! He’s been SO persecuted!

http://www.anu.org/news_withfactslikethesewhoneedsfiction.html

http://www.anu.org/news_yellowchihuahuavoters.html
Yellow Chihuahua???

But I saved the best for last:

http://www.anu.org/news_serbiantroops.html

Sound familiar? It’s from The Onion. Yes, the acknowledge it as satire, but state that it’s only “too close to the truth” or whatever, and repost the entire article-without listing the source. At the very LEAST, these guys are nothing but copyright violators.

Oooh, here’s ANOTHER Onion article-and it seems they BELIEVE it!

http://www.anu.org/news_congresspassesact.html

They make Free Republic look sane and rational!

(The Straight Dope-the phrase means, what is the story, the real truth? It has nothing to do with drugs, dude.)

This guy makes JanL look sane and rational.

Well, almost.

Moderator’s Note: Please do not post threads whose OP’s consist entirely of essays written by other people. On this board, we respect other people’s intellectual property. We also do not like “Spam” of any flavor.

If you want to refer to someone else’s web page, simply include a link to them.

Yup, and I think that if I relinquish my position right now, I’ll get a good job in the post-apocalyptic world run by women and minorities. Those of you who hold out and struggle against the tide of history will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Or maybe the salt mines.

Either way, I, for one, welcome our new female overlords.

Oh, that’s easy enough to answer.

I posit that the female overlords will rule in pairs, much akin to Roman consuls. For simplicity’s sake, let’s call our hypothetical female rulers Hippolyta and Dido. I expect that you recognize the references, being an educated man.

My job, you see, will be as First Consort. I shall retain no official position or title, but will provide advice, commentary, and other services as desired by Hippolyta and Dido.

The future, you ask? Well, I’m sure you and I can agree that women are naturally jealous and vain creatures, and Hippolyta and Dido will feud over my affections. I shall inform Dido that my duty to advise the overlords takes precedence over any love I may feel for her, and she will dispose of herself appropriately.

With half of the ruling overlords incapacitated, it is a trivial matter to overthrow Hippolyta and assert my authority. I leave determining my new policies as an exercise to the reader.

You know, I think that Ben and Jerry’s New York Super Double Chunk Brownie is Marx’s anti-christ. But what do I know?

Oh… wait… Kukulkon wants actual debate.

Ok then, I’ll attempt to engage in what I feel Kukulkon will class as ‘actual debate’.
Kulkulkon: Oh, wow, you sure are right. I used to be a liberal pansy-ass PC faggot until I read your insightful reasoning, but now I know that it’s all bullshit. Death to those liberal faggots. Haha, now I’ll go say ‘nigger’ a few times.

The Progressive Conservatives joined the Liberals??:eek: :eek: :eek:

I knew Joe was slipping in the Unite the right movement but Fer crying out loud why would he join Chretien?
Oh wait you are refering to some paranoid induced delusional made up party in the United States. “Them” Yeah I agree “They” seem to do a lot these days. “They” are behind everything. As soon as we get rid of “Them” We’ll be better off.

Problem is you are obviously just spouting out nonsense. More than likely it made sense to you because it supported your narrow view of the world that is simplistic and filled with boogie men that are out to make you inferior when it is obvious (to you) that you are superior to those others.

Let me guess, you aren’t as well off as you think you should be. You see other’s you deem unworthy getting a better life than you and it really gets under your skin.

All your life you’ve been told that you should be in charge and suddenly you find out you are working under some minority or worse a woman.
You go surfing one day and find some rascist nonsense disguised as intellegent discourse and because it sounds impressive with big words strung together and seems to say what you want to hear you start using it as your own ideas.
deep down you know that you are not doing as well as you hoped its because of other people destroying America and taking it from some imagined idealized past. That’s right you are a victim and “those people” Are out to make sure you are where they should be.

Am I close, or am I talking to a Millionare Phd. who owns several successful businesses, and just sees the light which we ignorent liberal masses have missed?
Or worse yet some Stupid little Troll.