"Whoever controls the language controls the debate". So if I can make you believe that Mexicans who have enter this country illegally are to be called 'undocumented workers' and not 'illegal aliens', I win the argument. Because I have made it almost impossible for you to address the issue without being called racist or heartless to want to deport these poor people and/or their families and undermine your arguments with voting populous. (and believe me, that is exactly how the responses are structured. Look at what has happened to Trump when he says he wants to LIMIT immigration from Muslim country until they have been vetted better. He is automatically called an 'racist islamophobe' which in turns, discredits his proposals). This is what political correctness does to the language. It's a subtle way of saying "Shut the Fuck Up" unless you want to be seen in a very negative light.

Frankly, I dont see anything wrong with speaking ones mind. The words that come out are a reflection of the speakers mind only. If those words are really stupid and ignorant, so be it.

If the person who utters them is ever going to relieve himself of ignorance, it will be because he/she hears what they are saying and subjects them to the light of day.

I would much rather people just tell me what they are thinking than to have their real thoughts hidden behind the variations of political correctness that are so popular today. That includes use of the words quoted above- nigger, faggot, etc.

People also should have a somewhat thicker hide, and recognize that the words spoken are just a reflection of the thoughts of the speaker- thats all.

No one ever died by simply being called a nigger or a faggot- it takes real actions to violate someones rights.

ah. I concur :)

I am going to answer before reading the article: Stalin...
After reading the article: Ok, marxs but communitst like stalin put it into practice.
It's funny, those that advocate political correctness and even stereo types are the one's that practice these perversions. They have become what they think about most of the time and have used it as a weapon against the rest of us.

There is Truth...truth is embedded in the physical laws of existence, However, our understanding of the physical laws might always evolve.

I first heard the term on a flight from California to Washington DC in 1990. I was seated next to a group that was discussing an article in the New York Times;

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/wee...

It is an interesting article that rings as true today as it did in 1990.

The term "Stalinist Orthodoxy" is particularly revealing.

"Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down." Mary Poppins was right. When the progressives put forth the bitter pill of telling you how you may and may not speak, they add the sugar of political correctness to make it OK to lose your freedom.

To paraphrase Voltaire’s comment about religion, political correctness began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.

Marxists pull the wool over everyone's eyes and make them question even common sense. "A" is not "A", "A" is oppression. "B" is oppression. Free markets aren't the most MORAL and SUCCESSFUL way people conduct themselves and lives. Free Markets are the pejorative, "Capitalism", an UNFAIR process of big business STEALING from the little guy. Marxism is the philosophy of malcontents. There will always be malcontents who do not like logic or truth because it does not satisfy what is wrong within THEMSELVES. Since there will always be malcontents and people who will not accept responsibility for themselves, how do we combat it?

Great article. Love the Matrix connection. Love Isaac Newton's quote at the end. Truth is harder to discover than ever since so many claim to have it.

Political correctness has been around since the dawn of man - it isn't a new thing. PC is the attempt to hijack language and to deceive men into believing that the lipstick is more important than the pig.

" It's PC whose origins are Marxist."
I don't believe PC or "Cultural Marxism" exist. Maybe the words mean group identity politics, which I believe does exist and is a real problem. In explaining "Cultural Marxism", you cite the Brevik Manifesto, making it seem like the whole thing might be a parody attempting to brand anti-PC as just a code word for one extremist brand of group identity politics.

Having thought a bit more about this article and the concepts eloquently captured, it brings my mind into focus on the why's of Cultural Marxism.

Why would a mind commit cognitive suicide? How can the individual mind subvert itself to larger mass indoctrination? Was Karl Marx truly aware of what he was doing and why, or just wallowing in the mudpool of jealousy, envy, and insecuredness of not matching up to an achieving western culture? The mindset of "if you can't compete then tear it down"? Is it a philosophy of envy and petulance?

It reminds me of the type of children that, if they are losing at a board game of Monopoly, or chess, or checkers, then in a fit of rage they will fling the board and all the pieces off the table, and go away and sulk.

This is a very thought provoking article. It captures some of the generalized observations and complaints about today's culture of complete cognitive dissonance and yet provides some more detailed names and places that apparently started this deliberate war on western culture. That is most interesting.

However, the significance of the reference to Ayn Rand and The Cognitive Science of Narrative eludes me. Can anyone expand upon this?

The article is beautifully written, and is evidence of a superior mind, which is a joy to see. Thank you!

CG, please read the article. It's not for PC. It's against. It's PC whose origins are Marxist.

Thank you.

ah, here is the cg I know. I'll have Vinay respond.

I still thing PC has almost no meaning. In 1990 i meant saying "disabled" or even "differently-abled" instead of handicapped.

Today it is a general-purpose straw man for people too lazy to formulate a real straw-man-fallacy argument. You say, "The argument in favor of [insert proposition here] is PCness, but I disagree with PC."

It can also be the cry of people who want to be rude and make people feel uncomfortable. If someone says they're more comfortable being called "disabled" than "handicapped", normal people just avoid the language that bothers people. People who enjoy making people feel uncomfortable are often unsuccessful in life, and they love the notion their failures are because of PC conspiracy against rude people.

This article reads like a parody that attempts to paint anti-PC people as not just rude people but an Anders Breivik level of evil. So if this article were parody it's close to reaching Godwin's law, trying to associate some idea, in this case anti-PC, with Hitler or his supporters. It sounds though like Kolhatkar writes without irony. He spouts a few words about "individualism" while making arguments premised on viewing people as groups. I can't tell if it's a parody or if he really means it.

According to Orwell, "the purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."

"Every unequal outcome is caused by oppression." Only one of many great lines in this article. Terrific post, K. Thank you.