Political Correctness In American Policy

Karl Marx

The ideas supporting political correctness were first articulated by a group of Marxist professors who, in order to escape Hitler’s wrath, escaped Nazi Germany before WWII. Historically then, we can see that political correctness is the result of cultural Marxism. It is economic Marxism translated into cultural terms. These German Marxists understood that Karl Marx was wrong about the inevitability of the socialist takeover of capitalism. They believed that Marxism must be turned into a stealth project in order to take over free capitalistic democracies. Many of these German Marxists resettled in America, where they and their followers have continued to advocate these ideas. Author and attorney Kelly O’Connell writes about the effect of political correctness on the US:

Political Correctness is first a movement of speech purification which is meant to remove any objectionable content that unfairly differentiates between the speaker and different subgroups. It is also supposed to change behavior by promoting these subgroups. It typically buries traditional morality along the way. The real problem with PC is that it is a theoretical standard which has real world consequences that can be quite appalling.

There is no lack of examples of bad, unintended consequences to the PC movement. Many claim America’s universities have been absolutely degraded by the absurd standards of PC. Another points out the harm it has done to medical services. But the worst influences may be upon US security and warfare. . . .

For example, did the Fort Hood Shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, get preferential treatment because he was Muslim then end up shooting 41 American soldiers while screaming, “Allah Akbar”, ie God is Great—as an Islamic declaration of Jihad? America is so PC friendly, US service people cannot even carry their own weapons on base. . . .

Imagine in how many different ways the PC movement has hampered the ability of America to wage war effectively. These PC-styled Rules of Engagement have so hampered US forces in Afghanistan that the enemy often can claim strategic advantage in planning attacks despite all their weaknesses. . . .

Here are two examples of Rules of Engagement:

If having been fired upon by a shooter who then drops his weapon to his side as soon as he comes under notice from coalition forces, he should no longer be considered an immediate threat and is not to be fired upon, even if he decamps to another location where it is likely he will take up another position to resume firing.

If troops come under fire from a dwelling place which could be considered to have women and children present they are to avoid returning fire and deploy to another safer area.

Read more on this subject. . . .