What is Social Justice and Political Correctness ?


Communists degenerates started to understand that no one shared their views of brutal totalitarian utopias, and shifted to the cultural revolutions. Here an article on Antonio Gramsci.

Subverting Christian Faith

The civilized world, Gramsci deduced, had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years and Christianity remains the dominant philosophical and moral system in Europe and North America. Practically speaking, civilization and Christianity were inextricably bound together. Christianity had become so thoroughly integrated into the daily lives of nearly everyone, including non-Christians living in Christian lands, it was so pervasive, that it formed an almost impenetrable barrier to the new, revolutionary civilization Marxists wish to create. Attempting to batter down that barrier proved unproductive, since it only generated powerful counter-revolutionary forces, consolidating them and making them potentially deadly. Therefore, in place of the frontal attack, how much more advantageous and less hazardous it would be to attack the enemy’s society subtly, with the aim of transforming the society’s collective mind gradually, over a period of a few generations, from its former Christian worldview into one more harmonious to Marxism. And there was more.

Whereas conventional Marxist-Leninists were hostile towards the non-Communist left, Gramsci argued that alliances with a broad spectrum of leftist groups would prove essential to Communist victory. In Gramsci’s time these included, among others, various “anti-fascist” organizations, trade unions, and socialist political groups. In our time, alliances with the left would include radical feminists, extremist environmentalists, “civil rights” movements, anti-police associations, internationalists, ultra-liberal church groups, and so forth. These organizations, along with open Communists, together create a united front working for the transformation of the old Christian culture.

What Gramsci proposed, in short, was a renovation of Communist methodology and a streamlining and updating of Marx’s antiquated strategies. Let there be no doubt that Gramsci’s vision of the future was entirely Marxist and that he accepted the validity of Marxism’s overall worldview. Where he differed was in the process for achieving the victory of that worldview. Gramsci wrote that “there can and must be a ‘political hegemony’ even before assuming government power, and in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony one must not count solely on the power and material force that are given by government.” What he meant is that it is incumbent upon Marxists to win the hearts and minds of the people, and not to rest hopes for the future solely on force or power.

Furthermore, Communists were enjoined to put aside some of their class prejudice in the struggle for power, seeking to win even elements within the bourgeois classes, a process which Gramsci described as “the absorption of the elites of the enemy classes.” Not only would this strengthen Marxism with new blood, but it would deprive the enemy of this lost talent. Winning the bright young sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie to the red banner, wrote Gramsci, “results in [the anti-Marxist forces’] decapitation and renders them impotent.” In short, violence and force will not by themselves genuinely transform the world. Rather it is through winning hegemony over the minds of the people and in robbing enemy classes of their most gifted men that Marxism will triumph over all.

Free-Will Slaves

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a classic study of modern totalitarianism, contains a line that epitomizes the concept that Gramsci tried to convey to his party comrades: “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” While it is improbable that Huxley was familiar with Gramsci’s theories, the idea he conveys of free persons marching willingly into bondage is nevertheless precisely what Gramsci had in mind.

Gramsci believed that if Communism achieved “mastery of human consciousness,” then labor camps and mass murder would be unnecessary. How does an ideology gain such mastery over patterns of thought inculcated by cultures for hundreds of years? Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning “cultural hegemony,” to use Gramsci’s own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination. One need not even control all of the information itself if one can gain control over the minds that assimilate that information. Under such conditions, serious opposition disappears since men are no longer capable of grasping the arguments of Marxism’s opponents. Men will indeed “love their servitude,” and will not even realize that it is servitude.

There you have it, the philosophical basis of social justice, political correctness, and it’s expansionist foreign policy: the color revolutions – all secretly and massively funded by the oligarchy. This has been perfected now in the west and now being exported to the rest of the world in order to create the Brave New World Order.


One thought on “What is Social Justice and Political Correctness ?

  1. I would go further and say that political correctness, while it does have its roots in Gramscian social Bolshevism, is also essentially Maoist in character.

    19th Century tyrants and tyrants of the early modern age–King Ferdinand of Naples, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler–were content to dictate their peoples’ actions. “Oderint dum metuant” was their motto, and their commandment was: “Thou shalt.”

    Mao went further. Maoism seeks to dominate not only a nation’s actions, but its spirit and its desires. Note the endless “self-criticism sessions” and “struggle sessions” in which the persecuted are forced publicly to confess to all manner of sins, most of them usually imaginary, in Maoist dictatorships, the “reeducation camps.”

    For the Maoist tyrant, “thou shalt” is not enough. The would-be Mao is not content to dictate to you what you will do–he also feels entitled to control how his victims feel about their situation, and demands total, complete, eager submission to the State. This amounts to annihilation of the self, straight out of Buddhist mysticism.

    I think it is not a coincidence that we see this particular form of tyranny in East Asia, with its long tradition of terrified peasants bowing and scraping before representatives of kings and emperors who purported to be living gods. It is likewise no coincidence that PC appeared in the West not very long after various watered-down forms of East Asian religion and philosophy became fads among those who consider themselves the Party Vanguard.

    Hitler says “thou shalt.” Mao says “thou art.” PC is Maoist. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s