Bill L. – Chicago, US: For the first time in history of the so called modern, refine, advanced and free society, we have to be apprehensive of what we say, of what we write, and of what we think. We have to be afraid of using the “wrong” words that present word denounces as offensive, insensitive, racist, sexist, or homophobic etc.

We have to ask the question; where does all this classification that we’ve heard it in the schools on the radio, television, work etc. – the feminism, the gay rights movement,  anti-Semitism, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demand for compulsory social enculturation, and the rest of the ideology of superimposed social engineering – where does it come from?

We have always regarded it with some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people of modern day would allow a situation to develop whereas they would be afraid of what words they use.

However we now have this situation reoccurring in these modern times. We have it primarily on college campuses, and we see it spreading throughout the whole society. Where does it come from? What is it?

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we still tend to think of it as only half-serious.

In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great infection of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, and indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically and if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.

It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippie era and the peace movement, as it is commonly miss- believed, but back to World War I.

If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very clear.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on modern day college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered “North Koreas”, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local jewish, black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that Political Correctness revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble.

Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history.

People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true” and consequently power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.

Similarly, Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over the other groups.

Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are ‘a-priori’ good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.


                Adjective: Relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.

                Adverb: In a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation

                1) Applied to knowledge and conceptions assumed, or presupposed, as prior to experience, in order to make experience seemingly rational or possible.

                2) Characterizing that kind of reasoning which deduces consequences from definitions formed, or principles assumed, or which infers effects from causes previously encountered; deductive or deductively

In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, Jews, homosexuals.

These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good, regardless of what any of them say or do (The action of State of Israel against the Palestine is a perfect example whereas the “victims/ a-priori good”, become the actual abusers whilst the rest of the world can’t say anything due to being Politically Correct). Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.

When a white student with superior academic qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.

White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction.

Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-insert/re-interprets any desired meaning. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the racism and suppression of women or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about whose group have/had power over other groups.”

The parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union, and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this.

The history of Political Correctness goes back to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our values, culture, and beliefs down.

Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?”

He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Lukacs got a first success, by getting the chance to put his ideas into practice, when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did, was to introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools in the attempt to break down the morals, values, culture and believes.

This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, which creates Political Correctness as we know it today.

Essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a Jewish millionaire trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist with all his wealth at disposal.

He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he proposes, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington today is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways.

Felix Weil endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism.

However people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decided to name it the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research.

Felix Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1927, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Weil was successful.

The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School,  – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist maverick.

Horkheimer’s initial unorthodoxy is that he was very interested in Freud, and the key for making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is that he essentially combined it with Freudism.

Consequently the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into unification by “Critical Theory.”

“Critical Theory” is the source for the radical feminism, labeled anti-Semitism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, and the black studies departments etc – all these study departments are branches of the Critical Theory.

What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create the theory called Critical Theory.

The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The critical theory is their way to bring down Western (or any other traditional) culture and the capitalist order by not allowing any alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.

They zealously argue that it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what really free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of sexual repression – we can’t even imagine it.

What Critical Theory about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order, culture, values, and beliefs down. When we hear from the feminists that the whole society is just out to get women, whereas in the reality is only a derivative “banner”, of Critical Theory.

It is imperative to understand that is all originating from the 1930s and not the 1960s as it is commonly misconstrued.

Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element using Freudian psychoanalysis.

Particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create.

Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme ideas on the need for sexual liberation, however this school of thought runs through the whole Frankfurt Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again as in the early 60s.

In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

“Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s where they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.”

In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”                           

How does all of this engineered political correctness flood the media today? How does it flood into our universities and indeed into our lives today?

The Political Correctness in modern day

The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist; they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and its members migrated.

They migrated to New York City, and the Frankfurt Institute was reestablished by them in 1933 with the help from Columbia University and Princeton University.

The members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.

There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

In 1937, the Rockefeller Foundation with Marcuse began funding research into the social effects of new forms of mass media, particularly radio. Before World War I, radio had been a hobbyist’s toy, with only 125,000 receiving sets in the entire U.S.; twenty years later, it had become the primary mode of entertainment in the country; out of 32 million American families in 1937, 27.5 million had radios — a larger percentage than had telephones, automobiles, plumbing, or electricity! Yet, almost no systematic research had been done up to this point.

The Rockefeller Foundation enlisted several leading universities within America, and headquartered this network at the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Named the Office of Radio Research, it was popularly known as “the Radio Project.”

Despite the official gloss, the activities of the Radio Project make it clear that its purpose was to test empirically the Adorno-Benjamin thesis that the net effect of the mass media could be to atomize and increase labiality—what people would later call “brainwashing.”

We can see the influence of ‘Radio Project’ today. Look at the public opinion polls, like the television news, have been completely integrated into our society. A “scientific survey” of what people are said to think about an issue can be produced in less than twenty-four hours.

Some campaigns for high political office are completely shaped by polls; in fact, many politicians try to create issues which are rather meaningless, but which they know will look good in the polls, purely for the purpose of enhancing their image as “popular.”

The idea of “public opinion” is not new, of course. Plato spoke against it in his Republic over two millenia ago; Alexis de Tocqueville wrote at length of its influence over America in the early nineteenth century. But, nobody thought to measure public opinion before the twentieth century, and nobody before the 1930’s thought to use those measurements for decision-making.

It is useful to pause, contemplate and reflect on the whole concept. The belief that public opinion can be a determinant of truth is philosophically totally insane. It eradicates the idea of the rational individual mind.

Adorno theorized that the counterpart to the fetishism is a regression of listening. This does not mean a relapse of the individual listener into an earlier phase of his own development, nor a decline in the collective general level, since the millions who are reached musically for the first time by today’s mass communications cannot be compared with the audiences of the past.

Rather, it is the contemporary listening which has regressed, arrested at the infantile stage. Not only do the listening subjects lose, along with the freedom of choice and responsibility, the capacity for the conscious perception of music…. They fluctuate between comprehensive forgetting and sudden dives into recognition.

We listen atomistically and dissociate what we hear, but precisely in this dissociation we develop certain capacities which accord less with the traditional concepts of aesthetics than with those of football or motoring.

Adorno states” They are not childlike … but they are childish; their primitivism is not that of the undeveloped, but that of the forcibly retarded”.

This conceptual retardation and preconditioning caused by listening, suggested that programming could determine preference. The very act of putting, say, a Benny Goodman number next to a Mozart sonata on the radio, would tend to amalgamate both into entertaining “music-on-the-radio” in the mind of the listener.

This meant that even new and unpalatable ideas could become popular by “re-naming” them through the universal homogenizer of the culture industry. As Benjamin puts it…

…Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art. The reactionary attitude toward a Picasso painting changes into a progressive reaction toward a Chaplin movie.

The progressive reaction is characterized by the direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert…. With regard to the screen, the critical and receptive attitudes of the public coincide. .

At the same time, the magic power of the media could be used to re-define previous ideas. “Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Beethoven will all make films,” concluded Benjamin, quoting the French film pioneer Abel Gance, “… all legends, all mythologies, all myths, all founders of religions, and the very religions themselves … await their exposed and re-interpreted resurrection.”

Here, originates the potent theories of social control. The great possibilities of this Frankfurt School media work were probably the major contributing factor in the support given the I.S.R. by the bastions of the Establishment, after the Institute transferred its operations to America in 1934.

Today, the men and women who run the networks, the ad agencies, and the polling organizations, even if they have never heard of Theodor Adorno, firmly believe in Adorno’s theory that the media can, and should, turn all they touch into “football.”

Coverage of the two Gulf War`s should make that clear.

These psychoanalytic survey techniques became standard, not only for the Frankfurt School, but also throughout American social science departments, particularly after the I.S.R. arrived in the United States.

The methodology was the basis of the research piece for which the Frankfurt School is most well known, the “authoritarian personality” project. In 1942, I.S.R. director Max Horkheimer made contact with the American Jewish Committee, which asked him to set up a Department of Scientific Research within its organization.

The American Jewish Committee also provided a large grant to study anti-Semitism in the American population. “Our aim,” wrote Horkheimer in the introduction to the study, “is not merely to describe prejudice, but to explain it in order to help in its eradication…. Eradication means re-education that is scientifically preplanned (modified) on the basis of understanding scientifically arrived at.”

Readers have undoubtedly heard one or another horror story about how an African-American Studies Department has procured a ban on Othello, because it is “racist,” or how a radical feminist professor lectured at Modern Language Association meeting on the witches as the “true heroines” of Macbeth. There is also the removal from the curriculum of Shakespeare`s Merchant of Venice by the powerful Jewish lobby etc.

When the local Women’s Studies or Third World Studies Department organizes students to abandon classics in favor of modern Black and feminist authors, the reasons given are pure Benjamin. It is not that these modern writers are better, but they are somehow more truthful because their alienated prose reflects the modern social problems of which the older authors were ignorant!

If these campus antics appear “retarded” (in the words of Adorno), that is because they are designed to be.

The Frankfurt School’s most important breakthrough consists in the realization that their monstrous theories could become dominant in the culture, as a result of the changes in society brought about by what Benjamin called “the age of mechanical reproduction of art.”

However these origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events.

The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it.

Fortunately for them, and unfortunately the word today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war.

He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization.

Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework remains Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed.

He proposes that we can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play.

What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a Masaya writing in a way they can easily follow.

He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the person who coined the phrase, “Make love, not war.”

Drugs had always been an “analytical tool” of the nineteenth century Romantics, like the French Symbolists, and were popular among the European and American Bohemian fringe well into the post-World War II period. But, in the second half of the 1950’s, the CIA and allied intelligence services began extensive experimentation with the hallucinogen LSD to investigate its potential for social control.

It has now been documented fact, that millions of doses of the chemical were produced and disseminated under the aegis of the CIA’s Operation MK-Ultra.

LSD became the drug of choice within the agency itself, and was passed out freely to friends of the family, including a substantial number of OSS veterans. For instance, it was OSS Research and Analysis Branch veteran Gregory Bateson who “turned on” the Beat poet Allen Ginsberg to a U.S. Navy LSD experiment in Palo Alto, California.

Not only Ginsberg, but novelist Ken Kesey and the original members of the Grateful Dead rock group opened the doors of perception courtesy of the Navy. The guru of the “psychedelic revolution,” Timothy Leary, first heard about hallucinogens in 1957 from Life magazine (whose publisher, Henry Luce, was often given government acid, like many other opinion shapers), and began his career as a CIA contract employee; at a 1977 “reunion” of acid pioneers, Leary openly admitted, “everything I am, I owe to the foresight of the CIA.”

Hallucinogens have the singular effect of making the victim asocial, totally self-centered, and concerned with objects. Even the most banal objects take on the “aura” which Benjamin had talked about, and become timeless and delusionarily profound.

In other words, hallucinogens instantaneously achieve a state of mind identical to that prescribed by the Frankfurt School theories. And, the popularization of these chemicals created a vast psychological labiality for bringing those theories into practice. Thus, the situation at the beginning of the 1960’s represented a brilliant re-entry point for the Frankfurt School, and it was fully exploited.

One of the crowning ironies of the “Now Generation” of 1964 on, is that, for all its protestations of utter modernity and freedom, all of its ideas or artifacts where more than thirty years old and most of the individuals from the new generation has no idea.

The political theory came completely from the Frankfurt School; Lucien Goldmann, a French radical who was a visiting professor at Columbia in 1968, was absolutely correct when he said of Herbert Marcuse in 1969 that “the student movements … found in his works and ultimately in his works alone the theoretical formulation of their problems and aspirations.”

The long hair and sandals, the free love communes, the macrobiotic food, the liberated lifestyles, had been designed at the turn of the century, and thoroughly field-tested by various, Frankfurt School-connected New Age social experiments like the Ascona commune before 1920.

Even Tom Hayden’s defiant “Never trust anyone over thirty,” was merely a less-urbane version of Rupert Brooke’s 1905, “Nobody over thirty is worth talking to.” The social planners who shaped the 1960’s simply relied on already-available materials.

The founding document of the 1960’s counterculture, and that which brought the Frankfurt School’s “revolutionary messianism” of the 1920’s into the 1960’s, was Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization.

It important to note that is was originally published in 1955 and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

As Marcuse would say later (1964) in his One-Dimensional Man, “A comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization, a token of technical progress.” This erotic liberation he misidentifies with Schiller’s “play instinct,” which, rather than being erotic, is an expression of charity, the higher concept of love associated with true creativity.

Marcuse’s contrary theory of erotic liberation is something implicit in Sigmund Freud, but not explicitly emphasized, except for some Freudian renegades like Wilhelm Reich and, to a certain extent, Carl Jung.

Every aspect of culture in the West, including reason itself, says Marcuse, acts to repress this: “The totalitarian universe of technological rationality is the latest transmutation of the idea of reason.

This erotic liberation should take the form of the “Great Refusal,” a total rejection of the “capitalist” monster and all his works, including “technological” reason, and “ritual-authoritarian language.”

As part of the Great Refusal, mankind should develop an “aesthetic ethos,” turning life into an aesthetic ritual, a “life-style” (a nonsense phrase which came into the language in the 1960’s under Marcuse’s influence).

With Marcuse representing the point of the wedge, the 1960’s were filled with obtuse intellectual justifications of contentless adolescent sexual rebellion.

Eros and Civilization was reissued as an inexpensive paperback in 1961, and ran through several editions; in the preface to the 1966 edition, Marcuse added that the new slogan, “Make Love, Not War,” was exactly what he was talking about: ”

Marcuse was aided by psychoanalyst Norman O. Brown, his OSS protégé, who contributed Life Against Death in 1959, and Love’s Body in 1966—calling for man to shed his reasonable, “armored” ego, and replace it with a “Dionysian body ego,” that would embrace the instinctual reality of polymorphous perversity, and bring man back into “union with nature.”

Primary education became dominated by Reich’s leading follower, A.S. Neill, a Theosophical cult member of the 1930’s and militant atheist, whose educational theories demanded that students be taught to rebel against teachers who are, by nature, authoritarian.

Neill’s book Summer hill sold 24,000 copies in 1960, rising to 100,000 in 1968, and 2 million in 1970; by 1970, it was required reading in 600 university courses, making it one of the most influential education texts of the period, and still a benchmark for recent writers on the subject.

Marcuse led the way for the complete revival of the rest of the Frankfurt School theorists, re-introducing Lukacs the long-forgotten idea from 1920 – sex education to America.

Indeed, the eroticism of the counterculture meant much more than free love and a violent attack on the nuclear family.

It also meant the legitimization of philosophical eros. People were trained to see themselves as objects, determined by their “natures.” The importance of the individual as a person gifted with the divine spark of creativity, and capable of acting upon all human civilization, was replaced by the idea that the person is important because he or she is black, or a woman, or feels homosexual impulses.

This explains the deformation of the civil rights movement into a “black power” movement, and the transformation of the legitimate issue of civil rights for women into feminism.

Discussion of women’s civil rights was forced into being just another “liberation cult,” complete with bra-burning and other, sometimes openly Astarte-style, rituals; a review of Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics (1970) and Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch (1971), demonstrates their complete reliance on Marcuse, Fromm, Reich, and other Freudian extremists.

This popularization of life as an erotic, pessimistic ritual did not abate, but in fact deepened over the twenty years leading to today; it is the basis of the horror we see around us.

The heirs of Marcuse and Adorno completely dominate the universities, teaching their own students to replace reason with “Politically Correct” ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfort School.

The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of “repressive toleration”—”tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right”—enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School, who become today`s professors of women’s studies and Afro-American studies.

The most erudite spokesman for Afro-American studies, for instance, Professor Cornell West of Princeton, publicly states that his theories are derived from Georg Lukacs.

At the same time, the ugliness so carefully nurtured by the Frankfurt School pessimists has corrupted our highest cultural endeavors. One can hardly find a performance of a Mozart opera, which has not been utterly deformed by a director who, following Benjamin and the I.S.R., wants to “liberate the erotic subtext.”

In conclusion, world today is in the threshold of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. America and the world is becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state.

Due to these “political hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further.

Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it.

It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming to the states, and we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off.

The message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our culture, values, morals, and especially our religious/spiritual beliefs.

Political Correctness and ISKCON

The initial reaction by the ISKCON devotees who are not familiar and/or sufficiently educated with this topic is; what relevance all that has to do with us. We are devotees and these mundane things like PC have no bearing, relevance and/or influence on our lives and that of ISKCON Institution. Regrettably that is not so.

Unfortunately, spiritual institution ISKCON is not exempt from the attacks on its spiritual values, morals, and beliefs by the hands of Political Correctness. This is especially so if you look at our most prominent academic ‘leaders’ and many other “senior” academically influenced devotees.

If we look for what the majority of them stands for today:

1)     Liberalism; Most of the academic devotees within ISKCON are promoting the form of religious thought that establishes religious inquiry on the basis of presently accepted (politically correct) latitudinarian modern norms, rather than the authority of spiritual tradition. (paramapara, pramana etc)

2)      Gay’s rights/marriages; the most prominent ISKCON academic, sannyasi, guru, gbc, whilst extravagantly living in his private Beverly Hills palace is openly giving blessing to gay marriages while pompously stating how his alleged guru Srila Prabhupada was wrong to call it demoniac in His purports to SB. (Since he has a PHD he knows better) This is the same individual who is not using  neck beads, Brahman tread and the proper garb of an vaisnava sannyasi, as he deems these things external, unpractical and utterly unnecessary. (I guess that does makes sense when you play volleyball and tennis etc) We are having the whole Galva project whose founder bases his whole philosophy on inappropriately interpolating sastric statements that the third gender refers to gays in the attempt to authorize the modern day homosexuality. However all the traditional Sanskrit pundits in India are stating that the Sastric definition of the third gender actually refers to the individuals who are born with both genders (not gay`s) or in modern terms Hermaphrodites and due to political correctness, no one can say anything. If they do, the individual is automatically critically labeled and ridiculed as a gay hater, and/or homophobic etc.

3)     Religious syncretism; is compulsory need of the academic devotees  to re-interpret (adjust/ politically correct) Srila Prabhupada`s teachings and the teachings of previous Acharyas in the attempt to homogenize the apparent dichotomizing differences with academically contrived ‘modern’ politically corrected views in the endeavor to ‘unify’ us with other accepted believes.

a) We have the prominent academic devotee who wrote the book Om Shalom that is available to everyone on SP folio. In the book he is conversing with the Jewish Rabbi and is talking about intimate conjugal relationship between Radha and Krsna without any discrimination. The meat eating Rabbi whose own belief teaches that Vaisnavas should be stoned to death because we worship false G-D/Idol that goes against the Noahide laws. The same academic devotee has written numerous articles justifying and encouraging the attendance of kirtans that are organized and performed by other ‘mayavad/sahajiya’ oriented groups that goes completely against the instruction of SP (our Acharya) on this matter.

b) We are having one of the most recently prominent gbc, Swami/guru who manifested himself from New Vrindavana, teaching the same hodgepodge interfaith style religion, (that SP clearly instructed us NOT TO DO) like his now departed predecessor Kirtananda… …appearing on the TV without tilaka and not mentioning one word of KRSNA, Srila Prabhupada, ISKCON or Vaisnavism, instead he is peddling the sentimental all is one and all is love, slogans.  The same individual is also incorporating adharmic and highly speculative and corporate orientated pyramid counseling systems. Regardless how diametrically opposite these preaching/systems are to the given teachings by Srila Prabhupada and previous Acharyas.

c) We are having ISKCON gurus writing academic papers promoting Hinduzation of ISKCON, demanding that SP teaching be toned town in order to appease Hindu Diaspora. In the same paper are asking that we need to use pratyaksa (sense perception) and anumanta (personal subjective reasoning) as the appropriate tools to reach such conclusion. The same paper proposes that instructions of previous Acharyas  need to be secondary to the above two, as an authority in the process, since their views are not so much relevant in this particular time, place and circumstances.

4) Secular Education; ISKCON has been systematically changing educational policies and programs form Vedic Based paradigm of Gurukula to the modern-politically correct secular based education. Most gurukulas were systematically closed down, and were replaced by secular based day schools, and/ or a secular based boarding school model. (With exception of a few remaining gurukula`s in India whose future is questionable at best). This is especially so if you look and analyze who the individuals on the Ministry for Educational Development (M.E.D) are, and what believes they represent. The secular educational module is already proven program that effectively acculturates the children into automatic acceptance of politically correct views and its applications into day to day lives. It is safe to say that our children after completing such secular education will be programmed to follow unquestionably the established socially engineered politically correct views. Period.

5) Corporate managerial stratagem; ISKCON has systematically introduced Corporate structure into its organizational structure which consists of – Departments, corporate positions, salaries/wages, corporate benefit packages, corporate recruitment based on mundane academic qualification, working conditions, and business training procedures. There is very little distinction between Institutional ISKCON and the corporate businesses where there are employers and obedient employees that are paid to do whatever they are told, that is turning our Vaiṣṇava society into an urban corporate business institution instead of a braminically based rural Vedic Vaiṣṇava society, following the pure teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda.

6)  Women Liberation; Due to pressure from those acculturated in Marxist political correctness, ISKCON has been increasingly changing its policy which is based on Vaiṣṇava society to give women what is seen to be a more egalitarian role in our society. The appointment of women as initiating spiritual masters is sign of ‘affirmative action’ based on expropriation rather than appropriate qualification. There is also the idea that Śrīla Prabhupāda was sexist and not politically correct when he spoke on women and politically correct devotees are either embarrassed about Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements or angered. This mood has led to devotees avoiding issues surrounding Śrīla Prabhupāda statements and the opinion that perhaps these statements need to be systematically censored for more public appeal. Today is all about women vaisnavas and not about vaisnava women, which is sending two totally different messages.

Within the ISKCON movement there are many people claiming to be disciples and/or followers of Srila Prabhupada, however their words and actions/deeds speaks of something entirely else. This is especially so if we look at the definitions for disciple and follower we see that these Politically Correct believes and agendas are diametrically opposed to believes and agendas that were prescribed to disciples/followers by Srila Prabhupada.


Noun:     a)  Follower of the doctrines of a teacher or a school of thought

b)  Personal follower of Jesus during his life, esp. one of the twelve Apostles

Verb:      a)  One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another

b)  Guide (someone) in becoming a follower of Jesus or another leader


Noun:     a)  One who subscribes to the teachings of methods of another; an adherent

b)  Servant; a subordinate

Hence if these Politically Correct individuals within ISKCON institution refuse to accept Srila Prabhupada and his teachings and methods and are systematically undermining and belittling Srila Prabhupada instead, and what he stands for, they most definitely are not by definition his disciples and or followers. Consequently, we have to ask ourselves; if they are not disciples and/or followers of Srila Prabhupada whose disciples are they and most importantly who do they really follow?

So when you think that there is no reason for discussing and understanding the Political Correctness and its purpose, thinking that has no relevance for ISKCON at large… THINK AGAIN!

If we fail to indentify our enemy, namely Political Correctness, it will destroy us, as its purpose is to destroy traditional culture, values, morals, and spiritual beliefs from within.