Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Additional Commentary and References


Why must Americans insist on completely honest public disclosure of everything that is counterproductive in their society?
  One perspective on an ethical issue:  

An opposing perspective on the same ethical issue:
Without honest communication and  
In a world of moral relativism and global-
criticism society becomes distorted    
ism, it is presumptuous to identify "evil"
There exist practical moral tests that  
Moral judgments too risky because they
leaders can reasonably cite to public  
may discriminate against certain minorities
You cannot keep criminals in check  
Moral leaders often too tainted with rac-
  unless you openly condemn them    
ism, xenophobia, bigotry, and reaction.

Sample argument: To remain healthy, leaders in a society must communicate frankly honest views on what is productive and what is parasitic (criminal) to a broad audience, and do this on a racial-biological level as well as use an environmental approach. Typically, people do not know what the real problems are unless they are explicitly communicated to them. Criminals and other opportunists usually do not back off unless they at least get their hands slapped. Just like the way a free market can cause supply and demand forces to come into balance in the economy, honesty and personal liberty generally help society find a fairly stable and productive path. Conversely, when real problems are not dealt with openly and honestly, they tend to accumulate and fester over time and can severely distort society. In essence, the people who should have honestly dealt with problems are dumping "load" on to others who come after them. This is analogous to irresponsible generations who run up national debt and pass on the risk of eventual national bankruptcy (usually manifest as hyperinflation) on to future generations. There are basic standards and moral tests that help define "productive" as a opposed to "criminal" behavior. One example is the question, "Will society stand or fall if everyone practices this behavior?" Without adequate open condemnation, criminals and other opportunists can corrupt society to the point that its very existence is threatened. At this point the only realistic options to resolve the problems may require a high risk of bloodshed. However, as horrible as this situation might become, the ultimate blame lies with the negligent and dishonest people who either created the distorted situation, or allowed it to fester. In either case the blame lies with them, not the people who are forced to finally clean it up. In the long run, truthfulness is always the best policy.
. . .

Sample argument: In a complex multi-racial, multi-cultural, and highly urbanized society one simply cannot afford to put too much explicitly honest information out to the public. This can create considerable agitation. For example, even if it is completely true that Jews are more crooked as a group than the general population, discussing this publicly might hurt their feelings and ruffle the wrong feathers. Similarly, even if we can prove scientifically that blacks as a group are intellectually challenged compare to whites, openly communicating this information might contribute towards serious social tensions and might lead to forms of discrimination. Therefore, rather than try to "tell it like it is," we need to always keep our publicly expressed opinions within certain parameters of what we think the public might find fashionable. Even if it is true that a Jewish controlled national media in the 20th century succeeded in almost completely inverting the original WASP value system that characterized early America, one has to be careful about explicitly identifying this problem. One might appear "anti-Semitic" by explicitly identifying the Jewish source of the inversion, and "racist" by explicitly identifying the source of the early 19th century values. As further examples, to protect Jewish and black interests, it is entirely appropriate to maintain exaggerated accounts of the Holocaust and punish anyone who dares to make criticisms. Similarly, in order to insure that Martin Luther King's image as a popular icon is maintained at all costs, the FBI files that have been sealed for 50 years must remain sealed for this full period of time. It is too risky to allow the chips to fall where they may. We can never really trust people who claim to tell the truth. Everyone tells some kind of lie at some time or another and holds a hidden agenda. Therefore, since it often hard to attain perfect truth, why even bother to try all? We must learn to live with lies.


There seems to be a palpable feeling widespread in America today that straight talk regarding such topics as race, government special privilege, Jewish power, Third world immigration, Christian-Zionist influence over foreign policy, and other sensitive topics might "rock the boat," be "inflammatory," or "hurt people's feelings." Therefore, we should sacrifice truthfulness and stay with certain political correctness guidelines in order to be "good Americans" so that "we can all get along."

The dilemma is that in the long run we usually always pay a price for our ignorance and delusions, both in terms of real costs and opportunity costs. In my Critical Issues discussion I describe some extremely serious economic, demographic, governmental, and special interest trends which threaten to literally destroy America as we know it if they continue along their current path. It may be painful to openly and truthfully address these problems, but a failure to even attempt to have this open discussion will doom America for sure.

The old republican virtue concept meant that private individuals could bear upon their shoulders discussion and deliberation regarding weighty affairs of state. Obviously the citizenry must be informed with truthful, accurate information in order to make sound decisions. Therefore, there must be public respect for plain speaking.

In contrast, the extent to which a society starts compartmentalizing topics and makes marginalizes intelligent truthful discussion is probably also the extent to which it has become corrupt, dysfunctional, and subservient to parasitic special interest. The subservience of truth to politics is the essence of "political correctness."

One source which does an excellent job of exposing the corrupt and subversive nature of the political correctness mentality is William S. Lind in his article "Political Correctness: A Short History of An Ideology." He starts out by observing:


As Russell Kirk wrote, one of conservatism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points. But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.

Therefore, reality must be suppressed. If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts. In the end, the result is inevitably the concentration camp, the gulag and the grave.

While some Americans have believed in ideologies, America itself never had an official, state ideology – up until now. But what happens today to Americans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong? If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies. If they are university students, they face star chamber courts and possible expulsion. If they are employees of private corporations, they may face loss of their jobs. What was their crime? Contradicting America’s new state ideology of “Political Correctness.” But what exactly is “Political Correctness?” Marxists have used the term for at least 80 years, as a broad synonym for “the General Line of the Party.” It could be said that Political Correctness is the General Line of the Establishment in America today; certainly, no one who dares contradict it can be a member of that Establishment. But that still does not tell us what it really is.

Mr. Lind went on in Political Correctness: A Short History of An Ideology to make many important points. To save space, I am offering the condensation of those points that he made in a separate article titled: "PC Marxist Roots Unearthed."


Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS. Everything it touches it sickens and eventually kills. On America's college campuses it has diminished freedom of speech, warped curricula, politicized grading and replaced intellectual integrity with vapid sloganeering. In classroom after classroom, professors offer an ideological rant, which students are compelled to regurgitate to get a grade: the vomit returns to the dog. These places--and they are many--are no longer universities, but small, ivy-covered North Koreas.

Just what is Political Correctness? The "Politically Correct" people on your campus really, really don't want you to know the answer to that question. Why? Because Political Correctness is nothing less than Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.

The parallels are obvious. First, both classical, economic Marxism and the Cultural Marxism that is Political Correctness are totalitarian ideologies. Both insist on "truths" that are contrary to human nature and experience. Contrary to economic Marxism, there is no such thing as a "classless society," and economic incentives matter. Contrary to Political Correctness, men and women are different, as are their natural roles in society; races and ethnic groups have specific characteristics; and homosexuality is abnormal. Since the only way people will accept the ideologues' "truths" is if they are forced to, they will be forced--by the full power of the state, if the Marxists of either stripe can control it.

The second parallel is that both classical Marxism and Cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all history was determined by ownership of the means of production. The Politically Correct Cultural Marxists say that history is explained by which groups--defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality--have power over which other groups.

The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and other evil a priori, without regard for the actual behavior of individuals. Thus economic Marxism defined workers and peasants as good and the middle class as evil, and Cultural Marxism defines blacks, Hispanics, Feminist women, homosexuals and some other minorities as virtuous and white men as evil. Political Correctness does not recognize the existence of non-Feminist women and defines blacks who reject its ideology as whites.

The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists expropriated the property of the middle and upper classes and gave it to the state. Cultural Marxists, on campuses and in government, lay penalties on white men and give privileges to the groups they favor. Affirmative action is an example of this kind of expropriation.

Finally, both types of Marxism employ a method of analysis guaranteed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the method is Marxist economics. For Cultural Marxists, the method is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction first removes all meaning from "texts," then inserts new meaning: one way or another, the text illustrates the oppression of women, blacks, homosexuals etc. by white men and Western culture. The intended meaning of the author is irrelevant.

These parallels are not coincidental. They exist because the Cultural Marxism of Political Correctness is in fact derived from classical, economic Marxism, largely through the work of the Frankfurt School. Following World War I, European Marxists faced a difficult question: why did the proletariat throughout Europe not rise in revolution and establish a new, Marxist order, as their ideology said it would? Two prominent Marxist thinkers, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came up with an answer: Western culture. Western culture so blinded the workers to their true, "class" interests that they could not act on them. So before socialism could come to power, Western culture had to be destroyed. Lukacs in 1919 posed the question, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" As Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary that same year, the first thing he did was introduce sex education into Hungarian schools.

In 1923, Lukacs and a group of German Marxist intellectuals founded a "think tank" intended to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute quickly became known as the Frankfurt School. In 1933, when the National Socialists came to power in Germany, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City.

There, its key figures--Theodor Adano, Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich--developed critical theory," a crossing of Mark with Freud that labeled the key components of Western culture "prejudice," i.e., a psychological disease. The "critical theorists" argues that to eliminate "prejudice," Christianity, capitalism and the traditional "patriarchal" family all had to be destroyed.

The connection between the Frankfurt School and the student rebellion of the 1960s was made primarily by a key Frankfurt School member, Herbert Marcuse--the man who in the '60s coined the phrase, "Make love, not war." Marcuse's books "Eros" and "Civilization" argued that the tools with which to destroy Western culture were, in effect, sex, drugs and rock 'n roll. He popularized the Frankfurt School's ideas in ways the '60s student radicals could understand and absorb, and we now know his work Political Correctness.

So that is Political Correctness' dirty little secret: it is Marxism, Marxism translated from economics into culture. We know what economic Marxism did to the old Soviet Union. Are we going to permit Cultural Marxism to do the same thing to the United States?

Everything that William Lind says is very valuable and true. However, I think it is important to understand another important dimension behind political correctness. It involves much more than a form of ideological imperialism. At root it is motivated by an alien racial spirit. As one example, please see the article "Jewish Activists Created Communism" by the Rev Ted Pike.

The late Dr. William Pierce provided an excellent description of this alien evil in his article " The Faustian Spirit and Political Correctness." Below are some excerpts:

. . .I have thought often about the role of the tool-making instinct in the history and prehistory of our race. And I have associated this instinct with a more general characteristic of our people which I -- and others also -- have called the Faustian spirit. That's the spirit which drives us not only to build things and to invent things but to explore and to try to understand ourselves and the world around us. It is a spirit which makes us seek power not just for the sake of mere power, but also for the sake of progress, for the sake of building new things. It leads us to conquer not merely for the sake of conquest, but also to improve and develop that which we conquer. It leads us to value truth over and above any practical value that truth may have; to value knowledge above any monetary gain that knowledge may yield.

Thinking about these things led me long ago to the conclusion that it is this Faustian spirit which, more than any other trait of our people, led us to become masters of the whole world by the beginning of the last century. Some of the races of Asia are clever enough -- the Chinese and the Japanese, the Jews, the Indians -- but their cleverness has a different flavor from that of our people. We Europeans always have been the preeminent explorers and innovators, the people who explored because we wanted to learn more, not just because we thought there might be some money in it for us.

Neither the Faustian spirit nor the fascination with tools is universal among our people, of course. The Faustian spirit is essentially a masculine spirit, and it often is at odds with both the feminine spirit and the mercantile spirit. When our society is virile and forward-looking and willing to take chances, the Faustian spirit is dominant. When virility is in decline, and we become more interested in comfort and self-indulgence and security and conformity, then the Faustian spirit in us -- in our society, in our civilization -- also is in decline. . .

Dr. Pierce goes on to illustrate how the political correctness spirit in America today reflects malevolent racial animus towards white gentile Americans. He uses the example of the controlled media reaction to the life-threatening AIDs epidemic. This is a very valuable example, because it shows how political suppression of truth has trumped what would have ordinarily been a scientific and pragmatic issue during an earlier period in American history:

. . .whether due to genes or behavior, the fact is that Blacks have a much greater incidence of HIV infection than Whites do. That, however, is what might be called a Politically Inconvenient fact. There are times when the liberals and the Jewish media want to use the fact to persuade us to provide more AIDS relief to Africa, where the disease is decimating the Black population, but they don't want to talk too much about it in America, lest we start wondering why AIDS is spreading so rapidly among African Blacks and perhaps even start asking questions about American Blacks. What the liberals and the Jewish media want us to believe is that there is no substantial difference between Whites and Blacks where AIDS is concerned, and what difference exists is due to White racism or something of the sort which is our fault, not theirs. And one of the most important reasons the Jews and the liberals don't want us to think about Black and White differences with regard to AIDS is that they don't want to discourage sexual contact between Blacks and Whites.

In fact, the Jewish mass media, from Hollywood to Madison Avenue, are engaged now in a crash program to encourage sexual activity between White women and Black males. Every second film coming from Hollywood these days seems to be pairing White actresses with Blacks. And the fashion advertisements from Madison Avenue are showing White women together with Black men much more suggestively than ever before. It is unfortunate, but our women are very susceptible to such suggestions. They are mindlessly eager to do whatever Hollywood and Madison Avenue convince them is fashionable at the moment, no matter how disgusting or self-destructive.

In view of this media campaign encouraging racial mixing, my organization, the National Alliance, has tried to counter it by appealing to the instinct for self-preservation in those White women in which that instinct is able to compete successfully against the instinct to be fashionable. To this end we have distributed a large number of leaflets and stickers warning White women of the AIDS dangers inherent in sexual contact with Blacks. Specifically, our materials warn White women not to have sex with intravenous drug abusers, bisexuals, or Blacks, and it informs them that heterosexual Black males are 14 times more likely to be infected with HIV than heterosexual White males.

Now, the liberals and the Jews don't mind our warning our women not to have sex with intravenous drug abusers or bisexuals, both of whom have a much higher infection rate than the rest of the population, but it drives them into a frenzy of hatred and rage when we warn them not to have sex with Blacks. I mean, that's racist, isn't it? The first thing they do is deny that Blacks are more likely to be infected with HIV than Whites are. And I'm sure that some of the White liberals really believe that. They have tried so hard for so long to convince themselves that Blacks are equal to Whites that they simply can't cope with any evidence that in fact the two races are intrinsically and irremediably different.

What is much more alarming than this liberal inability to deal with reality is the willingness of scientifically and medically knowledgeable people to go along with this denial of reality for the sake of Political Correctness. Three months ago National Alliance members distributed our AIDS warnings on the Austin campus of the University of Texas. The Jews, the liberals, and the Blacks reacted as one might expect, writing hysterical letters to the campus newspaper, organizing rallies against racism, and demanding that the university administration do something to stop the National Alliance's activities on the campus. Decades ago any men with principles, a sense of personal honor, or any regard for the truth were purged from the ranks of university administrators, and what's left is a collection of spineless bureaucrats whose main function is to beg for money and to suck up to Jews and other minorities. The president of the University of Texas, Larry Faulkner, is typical. In response to the demands from Jews and other liberals he issued a statement in which he said of our AIDS warnings:

We deplore the hateful and racially intolerant message expressed in these fliers.

Later in his statement he said:

Hateful messages such as those expressed in the fliers should be rejected by all civilized people.

Well, of course, there is nothing "hateful" or "racially intolerant" in our AIDS warnings. There are no racial slurs, no insults. The only thing said about any race in them is that heterosexual Black males are 14 times as likely to be infected with HIV as heterosexual White males. That's it. Why is that "hateful"? President Faulkner will tell you why it's hateful. It's not true that Blacks are more likely to be infected with HIV, he'll tell you. Our statement about Blacks and HIV is false and is simply intended to prevent loving relationships between White women and Black men. Other campus spokesmen reported that they had checked with knowledgeable campus medical personnel and had been told that our statement about Blacks and HIV is false. The claim that our statement is false appeared in every news story about our AIDS warning which was published in the campus newspaper. Not one faculty scientist stepped forward to point out that our statement is essentially correct and errs only by slightly understating the disparity in HIV infection rates between Blacks and Whites: not one spoke up. And certainly, there are plenty of them who know the truth.

Some of our members distributed a number of our AIDS warnings in Tacoma, Washington, last month, and the reaction by local liberals and media people was essentially the same as at the University of Texas: lots of hand-wringing and moaning about "hate," and, oh, isn't it awful that we can't shut up the haters so that we can all love each other? And some of the hand-wringers were saying things such as, "The only race is the human race, so how can there be a racial difference in HIV infection rates?" Not very masculine thinking, to be sure, but that's what passes for reason in America these days. Of course, the hand-wringers were able to find a few "experts" to bolster their claims about AIDS being an equal-opportunity disease and our statement about the racial disparity in infection rates being false. These claims were repeated in every newspaper story about our distribution of AIDS warning stickers. The Tacoma Reporter, for example, in its June 29 issue, reported:

The Center [sic] for Disease Control's 1999 statistics show that heterosexual African-American males in the United States are only twice as likely to be infected with the AIDS [sic] virus as are heterosexual White males, no surprise to people who understand the lack of education and resources in neighborhoods whose residents are primarily black.

Well, of course, the statistics of the Centers for Disease Control show no such thing, although the Tacoma Reporter apparently found someone working there to tell the liberals what they wanted to hear. The Centers for Disease Control is the government's front line of defense against all of the new, exotic pathogens coming to America with the flood of Third World immigrants so beloved of the liberals. They have to keep track of and try to cope with everything from HIV to drug-resistant strains of the tuberculosis-causing bacillus to the West Nile virus. And when one race is much more susceptible to a particular pathogen than another race, then that's an important scientific fact the Centers for Disease Control needs to take into account. If they begin putting Political Correctness ahead of scientific rigor, we're all in real trouble.

And it was to the Centers for Disease Control that I myself went three years ago for information on the racial disparity in HIV infection rates before preparing our AIDS-warning publications. I went there again just a few days ago to see whether or not the data had changed, and it had. The 1999 data show that heterosexual Black males are now 15 times as likely as heterosexual White males to be infected with HIV. When I checked in 1997 the number was 14, but the racial disparity is increasing; the infection is spreading more rapidly among Blacks than among Whites, and the difference is not due to White racism.

It's understandable, of course, that liberals don't want to believe that there is such a huge disparity in infection rates between Blacks and Whites. They don't want to believe such a big number, because it implies a real racial difference, a genetically based difference. It undermines their whole egalitarian ideology.

Well, liberals are liberals. They are suffering from their own spiritual disease, their own disease of the soul. They've always been sick. What is really alarming now is that their sickness has infected our scientific and academic communities. Information no longer is judged on the basis of whether or not it is true, but rather on the basis of whether or not it is Politically Correct. That is one of the principal reasons why our civilization is in a state of decline today. . .

To summarize, we have widespread political correctness in America today because America is no longer being run by genuinely honest men with a passion for truth or a benevolent public spirit. Instead, we are run by crooks and exploiters who driving the country into the ground. We must insist on completely honest public disclosure of everything that is counterproductive in our society or else we will only continue to live in a very corrupt society in the throes of terminal decline.

Return to question 22

Proceed to commentary for question 23


Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.