Sunday, February 06, 2005
The True Origins of Political Correctness
This article, recreated in full below, appeared in a major banking journal entitled International Currency Review: Journal of the World Financial Community. I am surprised it appeared there. If anything, it exposes the sordid underbelly of political correctness in this society as well as reveals its dangers. Communism is not dead! It is a myth that Soviet Communism died in 1989! But because the majority of Americans believe this myth, they are not likely to believe that the American workforce is slowly being Sovietized, and that Communism is being built, little by little, right here!
This seems appropriate to post following the Hans-Herman Hoppe situation (see previous post below). It comes courtesy of Terry Hayfield, who has researched the ongoing Communist developments thoroughly (his name for these developments is the Permanent Revolution). All italics and emboldened in the original. Hayfield is actually mentioned in the article as one of the authorities on the subjects he treats. His views must be taken seriously.
Political Correctness: A Trap Into Which Banks Have Fallen.
A Revolutionary Dagger Thrust Deep Inside the Guts of the Western Workplace.
It is odd and disturbing how highly intelligent bankers and businessmen simply fail, even at this late stage, to understand anything at all about the World Revolution. Yet one of its most lethally effective components--'political correctness' in the workplace--is specifically designed as a pretext for the surreptitious insertion of revolutionary 'change agents' into businesses, corporations, institutions, think tanks and places of work generally.
So why don't banks, businesses and corporations 'get' this? Think! What IS 'political correctness', where does it come from, and why on earth has it infected the whole of Western society so suddenly, over the past few years? The necessary answers to these basic questions can be summarized as follows:
1. What is 'political correctness' in the workplace? It is a long-researched, carefully calibrated form of mass mind-control. It substitutes allegedly 'consensus' notions, almost all of which are deceptions, distortions and lies, for the perceptions developed over centuries of civilization. This is achieved by means of fear, exploiting a basic psychological phenomenon of society, namely, the fear of social ridicule, or of being different. It exploits ignorance, and its reign is dictatorial. Mass mind-control, by definition, excludes scope for independent thinking, to which it is opposed. 'Political correctness' takes many forms, from dictating and imposing Marxist notions of every description, to requiring 'diversity' prescriptions in all workplaces. Other manifestations of this offensive include the creation of pretexts for complaints about 'discrimination,' which arise from the (false) impression of equality in all dimensions of human activity and existence. An ideology which prescribes total equality 'defends itself' by the device that any 'breaches' of the norm of false equality are ipso facto justifications for 'discrimination' claims. Industry, banks and all other workplaces are now suffering from, or under permanent threat of, discrimination cases, most of which represent attempts by alleged 'victims' to extract as much cash out of their employer as greed will allow, and have no foundation other than in the perverse mentalities of the mind-controlled 'politically correct' parties to such actions, including the collaborating elements of the legal profession.
2. Where does 'political correctness' in the workplace come from? It is a classical Soviet-Leninist revolutionary tool and concept, which was delivered in carefully packaged format to the gullible United States by Abel Aganbegyan, President Gorbachev's most influential economic adviser in the early years of Peristroika, and the Soviet dictator's 'industrial adviser.' It was in that capacity that Aganbegyan travelled to the United States with Gorbachev's delegation in 1987, even though it was not clear (at the time) what Gorbachev's domestic industrial adviser could contribute to the Soviet leader's 'opening' to the West. However Aganbegyan's own writings reveal which his objectives were. In order to understand our point, it is necessary to be aware that under overt Communism, the Leninist revolutionaries were in the habit of promulgating their prescriptions for the whole world, within the context of 'domestic' Soviet Bloc criteria. By this means, Abel Aganbegyan was able to disguise, for instance, his prescriptions for the Western industrial, office and banking workplace by framing his concepts and prescriptions as though they applied exclusively to the Soviet Bloc environment. In reality, since Lenin's Revolution is the World Revolution, they were intended to apply to the Western workplace, beginning with American industrial businesses and utilities and winding up in the 'engine room' of capitalism--the powerful fiat money banks.
Abel Aganbegyan's prescriptions for the US and Western workplace are found in 'his' book Inside Perestroika: The Future of the Soviet Economy, translated from the Russian text by the London-based 'conservative,' Helen Szamuely [Harper & Row, New York]. This contains such Leninist-collectivist gems as: 'Recent developments in technology and the organization of production have made labour more and more of a collective affair. This means that the work of one individual affects the work of a whole group of people involved in the productive process'; and 'the crux ... is to convert the factory worker into the boss.' And here, on page 84, is the evidence of an instance of how the Soviets transferred their devious, intentionally subversive collectivist, 'politically correct' thinking directly onto the naive and unsuspecting American shop and office floor:
"When I was in Washington as special advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev during his talks with President Reagan, I had breakfast with the well-known Chicago businessman Joseph Ricci, head of the Chicago Research and Trade Company [sic], a company active on the Chicago and other stock excmanges.'
"On my next [sic] visit to the United States, I paid a special visit to Chicago because I wanted to see for myself how the members of the company--from director to junior--worked. I was insterested in their new approach to the organization of and payment for work. Joe Ricci is a fervent advocate of the new system, and he was particularly anxious to prove that its starting point was the collective. He paid a great deal of atteniton to the compatability of workers in each subsection, comparing it to the family, where there is a head and other members who love each other and work well together. He maintained that ... the company managed to achieve its results thanks to the joint collective labour that was a counterbalance to individual competition wihtin the collective."
Space precludes further investigation of this key source of workplace subversion derived from the bowels of the Soviet (Leninist) Academy of Sciences, of which of course Aganbegyan was a key alumnus. But please take it as read from this correspondent, who is also the long-serving Editor of Soviet Analyst, that this is the source of the workplace destabilisation offensive that is now wracking and threatening every bank and business in the confused and disoriented West.
3. Why has workplace 'political correctness,' in all its devious formats, infected the whole of Western society so suddenly, over the past few years? The answer can be summarized in a slogan invented by the United States' best-informed and most authoritative expert on Leninist workplace subversion, Terry Hayfield of Fostoria, Ohio, a former trade union leader who realized, far earlier than anyone else, how the Soviets' workplace subversion techniques were being systematically replicated all over the United States (from whence they have spread back to Europe). Terry's slogan reads as follows:
'If Communism is DEAD ... No-one will notice if it is being instituted in America.'
This is a variation of the dictum of Baudelaire to the effect that when the Devil makes himself invisible, it can be taken for granted that he is deadly serious. Furthermore, the primary political 'actives' within the Reagan Administration, and its two extensions to date, Bush I and Bush II, have been, and remain, a bunch of so-called 'Neocons' from New York academies. 'Neocon' is a US weasel cover for the real political orientation of these fake 'conservatives': Trotskyism. Yes, there was, and remains, a wholesale penetration by the 'Fourth International' within the Republican Party and among its political appointees.
Trotskyite 'political correctness' seeks to replace all independent thought--and the ability to think, which is supposed to be taught at universities--with prepacked revolutionary Leninist claptrap. The ultimate objective was well summarized in the 1960s volume entitled 'Soviet Political Thought: An Anthology,' selected, translated and edited by Michael Jaworsky [The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MA, 1967], in the following terms:
'The cultures of different peoples, national in form, will be increasingly imbued with the same Communist content. Their drawing together on this basis will provide a mightly stimulus to the mutual enrichment and development of national cultures and in the long run will lead to the formation of a single, deeply international culture that will be truly the culture of all mankind.'
Banks Should Stop Collaborating.
Businesses, industrial corporations, banks and governments in the West that are implementing the myriad components of 'political correctness,' both generally and in the workplace, are active accomplices with the covert Soviet Leninists in realising this dimension of the World Revolution. Workplace 'political correctness' is a lethal sword which has been plunged into the flabby stomach of capitalism. It is a revolutionary tool, a pretext for the destabilisation of the workplace.
Its purpose is nothing less than to undermine capitalist work relations and to convert them to collectivism. And those engaged in implementing it are promoting a socialist socieyt, the true nature of which, when fully realized, will come as a nasty shock to all the 'innocents' concerned. On page 301 of the last-mentioned volume, we read as follows:
'The socialist society will be forced to apply the most resolute measures for a long time (including the liquidation of people who are especially dangerous to the socialist system) against people who are harmful and deliberately destructive to socialist production, i.e., those who seek to undermine the socialist state and to re-establish the capitalist system.' Short of its 'Cold War era' language, this means that in the 'politically correct' society being constructed, there will be no place at all for dissenters of any kind. They won't exist.
When Morgan Stanley's chief executive, 'Phil' Purcell, reached an out-of-court settlement in July, coughing up $54 million to stop a case brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], some $42 million was allocated to 'diversity training,' and to 'recompensing' other aggrieved (i.e., greedy) female harridan-employees. In Britain a woman named Satya Kartara has been causing mayhem at Royal Mail, where she is styled 'Head of Diversity.' She joined the UK Post Office from British Home Store (Bhs), where she was 'Director of Change.'
Now, as we may have mentioned previously, wherever 'change' is used without terms being defined, it means 'revolutionary change.' Do you see what we mean now about workplace 'political correctness' being a ploy of the Revolution?
This seems appropriate to post following the Hans-Herman Hoppe situation (see previous post below). It comes courtesy of Terry Hayfield, who has researched the ongoing Communist developments thoroughly (his name for these developments is the Permanent Revolution). All italics and emboldened in the original. Hayfield is actually mentioned in the article as one of the authorities on the subjects he treats. His views must be taken seriously.
Political Correctness: A Trap Into Which Banks Have Fallen.
A Revolutionary Dagger Thrust Deep Inside the Guts of the Western Workplace.
It is odd and disturbing how highly intelligent bankers and businessmen simply fail, even at this late stage, to understand anything at all about the World Revolution. Yet one of its most lethally effective components--'political correctness' in the workplace--is specifically designed as a pretext for the surreptitious insertion of revolutionary 'change agents' into businesses, corporations, institutions, think tanks and places of work generally.
So why don't banks, businesses and corporations 'get' this? Think! What IS 'political correctness', where does it come from, and why on earth has it infected the whole of Western society so suddenly, over the past few years? The necessary answers to these basic questions can be summarized as follows:
1. What is 'political correctness' in the workplace? It is a long-researched, carefully calibrated form of mass mind-control. It substitutes allegedly 'consensus' notions, almost all of which are deceptions, distortions and lies, for the perceptions developed over centuries of civilization. This is achieved by means of fear, exploiting a basic psychological phenomenon of society, namely, the fear of social ridicule, or of being different. It exploits ignorance, and its reign is dictatorial. Mass mind-control, by definition, excludes scope for independent thinking, to which it is opposed. 'Political correctness' takes many forms, from dictating and imposing Marxist notions of every description, to requiring 'diversity' prescriptions in all workplaces. Other manifestations of this offensive include the creation of pretexts for complaints about 'discrimination,' which arise from the (false) impression of equality in all dimensions of human activity and existence. An ideology which prescribes total equality 'defends itself' by the device that any 'breaches' of the norm of false equality are ipso facto justifications for 'discrimination' claims. Industry, banks and all other workplaces are now suffering from, or under permanent threat of, discrimination cases, most of which represent attempts by alleged 'victims' to extract as much cash out of their employer as greed will allow, and have no foundation other than in the perverse mentalities of the mind-controlled 'politically correct' parties to such actions, including the collaborating elements of the legal profession.
2. Where does 'political correctness' in the workplace come from? It is a classical Soviet-Leninist revolutionary tool and concept, which was delivered in carefully packaged format to the gullible United States by Abel Aganbegyan, President Gorbachev's most influential economic adviser in the early years of Peristroika, and the Soviet dictator's 'industrial adviser.' It was in that capacity that Aganbegyan travelled to the United States with Gorbachev's delegation in 1987, even though it was not clear (at the time) what Gorbachev's domestic industrial adviser could contribute to the Soviet leader's 'opening' to the West. However Aganbegyan's own writings reveal which his objectives were. In order to understand our point, it is necessary to be aware that under overt Communism, the Leninist revolutionaries were in the habit of promulgating their prescriptions for the whole world, within the context of 'domestic' Soviet Bloc criteria. By this means, Abel Aganbegyan was able to disguise, for instance, his prescriptions for the Western industrial, office and banking workplace by framing his concepts and prescriptions as though they applied exclusively to the Soviet Bloc environment. In reality, since Lenin's Revolution is the World Revolution, they were intended to apply to the Western workplace, beginning with American industrial businesses and utilities and winding up in the 'engine room' of capitalism--the powerful fiat money banks.
Abel Aganbegyan's prescriptions for the US and Western workplace are found in 'his' book Inside Perestroika: The Future of the Soviet Economy, translated from the Russian text by the London-based 'conservative,' Helen Szamuely [Harper & Row, New York]. This contains such Leninist-collectivist gems as: 'Recent developments in technology and the organization of production have made labour more and more of a collective affair. This means that the work of one individual affects the work of a whole group of people involved in the productive process'; and 'the crux ... is to convert the factory worker into the boss.' And here, on page 84, is the evidence of an instance of how the Soviets transferred their devious, intentionally subversive collectivist, 'politically correct' thinking directly onto the naive and unsuspecting American shop and office floor:
"When I was in Washington as special advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev during his talks with President Reagan, I had breakfast with the well-known Chicago businessman Joseph Ricci, head of the Chicago Research and Trade Company [sic], a company active on the Chicago and other stock excmanges.'
"On my next [sic] visit to the United States, I paid a special visit to Chicago because I wanted to see for myself how the members of the company--from director to junior--worked. I was insterested in their new approach to the organization of and payment for work. Joe Ricci is a fervent advocate of the new system, and he was particularly anxious to prove that its starting point was the collective. He paid a great deal of atteniton to the compatability of workers in each subsection, comparing it to the family, where there is a head and other members who love each other and work well together. He maintained that ... the company managed to achieve its results thanks to the joint collective labour that was a counterbalance to individual competition wihtin the collective."
Space precludes further investigation of this key source of workplace subversion derived from the bowels of the Soviet (Leninist) Academy of Sciences, of which of course Aganbegyan was a key alumnus. But please take it as read from this correspondent, who is also the long-serving Editor of Soviet Analyst, that this is the source of the workplace destabilisation offensive that is now wracking and threatening every bank and business in the confused and disoriented West.
3. Why has workplace 'political correctness,' in all its devious formats, infected the whole of Western society so suddenly, over the past few years? The answer can be summarized in a slogan invented by the United States' best-informed and most authoritative expert on Leninist workplace subversion, Terry Hayfield of Fostoria, Ohio, a former trade union leader who realized, far earlier than anyone else, how the Soviets' workplace subversion techniques were being systematically replicated all over the United States (from whence they have spread back to Europe). Terry's slogan reads as follows:
'If Communism is DEAD ... No-one will notice if it is being instituted in America.'
This is a variation of the dictum of Baudelaire to the effect that when the Devil makes himself invisible, it can be taken for granted that he is deadly serious. Furthermore, the primary political 'actives' within the Reagan Administration, and its two extensions to date, Bush I and Bush II, have been, and remain, a bunch of so-called 'Neocons' from New York academies. 'Neocon' is a US weasel cover for the real political orientation of these fake 'conservatives': Trotskyism. Yes, there was, and remains, a wholesale penetration by the 'Fourth International' within the Republican Party and among its political appointees.
Trotskyite 'political correctness' seeks to replace all independent thought--and the ability to think, which is supposed to be taught at universities--with prepacked revolutionary Leninist claptrap. The ultimate objective was well summarized in the 1960s volume entitled 'Soviet Political Thought: An Anthology,' selected, translated and edited by Michael Jaworsky [The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MA, 1967], in the following terms:
'The cultures of different peoples, national in form, will be increasingly imbued with the same Communist content. Their drawing together on this basis will provide a mightly stimulus to the mutual enrichment and development of national cultures and in the long run will lead to the formation of a single, deeply international culture that will be truly the culture of all mankind.'
Banks Should Stop Collaborating.
Businesses, industrial corporations, banks and governments in the West that are implementing the myriad components of 'political correctness,' both generally and in the workplace, are active accomplices with the covert Soviet Leninists in realising this dimension of the World Revolution. Workplace 'political correctness' is a lethal sword which has been plunged into the flabby stomach of capitalism. It is a revolutionary tool, a pretext for the destabilisation of the workplace.
Its purpose is nothing less than to undermine capitalist work relations and to convert them to collectivism. And those engaged in implementing it are promoting a socialist socieyt, the true nature of which, when fully realized, will come as a nasty shock to all the 'innocents' concerned. On page 301 of the last-mentioned volume, we read as follows:
'The socialist society will be forced to apply the most resolute measures for a long time (including the liquidation of people who are especially dangerous to the socialist system) against people who are harmful and deliberately destructive to socialist production, i.e., those who seek to undermine the socialist state and to re-establish the capitalist system.' Short of its 'Cold War era' language, this means that in the 'politically correct' society being constructed, there will be no place at all for dissenters of any kind. They won't exist.
When Morgan Stanley's chief executive, 'Phil' Purcell, reached an out-of-court settlement in July, coughing up $54 million to stop a case brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], some $42 million was allocated to 'diversity training,' and to 'recompensing' other aggrieved (i.e., greedy) female harridan-employees. In Britain a woman named Satya Kartara has been causing mayhem at Royal Mail, where she is styled 'Head of Diversity.' She joined the UK Post Office from British Home Store (Bhs), where she was 'Director of Change.'
Now, as we may have mentioned previously, wherever 'change' is used without terms being defined, it means 'revolutionary change.' Do you see what we mean now about workplace 'political correctness' being a ploy of the Revolution?
