Definitely the only argument against political correctness.


Donald Trump says: “I think the big problem this country (referring to the US) has is being politically correct.” I agree with him.

In a quest of “politically correct” and not offend anyone (except, of course, Men, whites and Christians who are always fair game), the PC police among us are quick to go after anyone and everyone who utters a name, term, or phrase, that they deem to be offensive.

This has resulted in people being afraid to actually to speak or voice their own opinions for fear of being persecuted. This has also resulted in terminology that is dishonest. Words that do not really describe a problem. Phrases that sugarcoat real meanings. This is not right and actually ends up doing more harm than good.

We have political leader who deemed a real terrorist attack on a naval base (the gunman yelled praise to Allah and had been in contact with terrorist groups before going on his rampage) “workplace violence.” What good does it do to label something that it is not, out of fear of offending – who? Terrorists? Or with the current issues of sexual assault on women, that is just coming to light, in Germany is just been swept ways from the larger media outlets. Being overrun with the narrative of it is not the refugees of knuckle-draggers that are dangerous… it’s just “Men.” This political correct bullshit has got to stop.

Political correctness, at its very core, is the practice of refusing to acknowledge the truth or the facts of a situation because your words may be considered offensive to some people. This is not the same as being purposefully rude or hurtful although some may interpret it that way.

Political Correctness is Marxism. Marxism is the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. In short, Marxism forces the loss of freedom of expression, implies thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state.

In recent years, Western politics has been dominated by a partisan struggle between racial, religious, or gender based groups in which certain groups advance a set of grievances based upon alleged oppression by the majority population.

The Civil Rights movement waged by Black Americans in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s to achieve social and political equality, especially in the South, is a prototype of this kind of struggle. In the 1970s, some women saw themselves as a group which, like blacks, had experienced historic oppression. They, too, conducted a political struggle for equality. In the 1980s, gays and lesbians made a similar effort. In the 1990s and our own decade, immigrant groups were added to the series of aggrieved groups.

Throughout history each demographic groups that are politically organized has a history filled with suffering. In other words, they are part of humanity. Like everyone in the human race, there is a tendency of embellishing the heart of the matter, just so that that we can avoid hurt feelings. History can be written for several intended purposes. If the purpose is to win an argument against someone else, which can lead to a quarrelsome, small-minded kind of history. In other words, History is racist/sexist/and what ever -ist that is applicable.

As I see it, the current definition of a racist/sexist, or whatever, is whether someone identifies more with their particular physical, sexual (gendered) or spiritual race than with membership in the human race. If a community is not “we,” then that community is surly in trouble.

In Western Democracy, contrary to expectations, the well-organized minority often carries the day. Especially when they feel threatened, people are motivated to seek an advantage for their own group. Lobbyists easily gain concessions to benefit narrow interests as the benefit of the general taxpayer. Who represents the public at large? Everybody and nobody. One just assumes that at the top of society’s power structure someone cares. These days that expectation is often misplaced.

The root of political correctness is intimidation. Each of us has the ability to resist that influence or, alternatively, take the easy road of letting someone else do the fighting for us. The first step is simply to stand up and say that this is wrong. The intimidators, though well-positioned in the media and the classroom, cannot withstand a chorus of voices crying out with that message. Partisan perspectives seldom describe the whole truth. There is no “correctness” that does not take into account all the possibilities.

At the root of Western society is not the historical view of any particular people but simply freedom. We must all be free to seek the truth and to speak what is on our mind. No government that calls itself free should have the right to infringe upon this liberty. No single partisan group, whatever its grievances, has a right to speak for everyone.

This is an excellent short video explaining the source and nature of Cultural Marxist movements like political correctness, modern feminism, pansexualism, multiculturalism, “whiteness studies,” etc.

For an in-depth critique of the thinkers whose writings shaped Cultural Marxism, see Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left by the eminent British philosopher Roger Scruton. Scruton brilliantly exposes the pretensions, obscurities, and inanities of Sartre, Foucault, Galbraith, Marcuse, Lukacs, Habermas, Adorno, Rawls, Dworkin and others of their ilk.

Rogue Star 13
Follow Me
Latest posts by Rogue Star 13 (see all)
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Rogue Star 13

Rogue Fact: was red pilled for there was a name for it.

The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection.
Thomas Paine

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="153687">2 comments</span>

  • Thought I can only speak for myself in the matter… I will say that this could be true, it is not factual. Personally, as an member of one with the lack of belief and a skeptic I don not see how this lack of believe of a God, flying pink tea pot, spaghetti monster or Cthulhu will effect a families natural rights? I do not see how an idea will make or break a family when it is simply person opinions and beliefs that will the causal factor of the strife. I would like more details on the concept to fully understand where you are going with this. Thanks for the share.

By Rogue Star 13

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather