“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Recognize this? It's the first Amendment to our Constitution, the first of our rights defined in the Bill of Rights. Note that it's structured to limit Congress' powers to rule over Americans. In other words, the People, from whom Congress derives its power, retained to themselves these rights by forbidding Congress to tamper with them.

How does this relate to PC? It expressly forbids Congress to enact legislation regulating what one can say and, by implication, what one can think. Yet Political Correctness targets specifically those things and Congress has become an accessory to that effort.

What is Political Correctness (PC)?

According to Philip Atkinson: "Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour [sic], which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state."

Why PC?

Again, according to Philip Atkinson: "The declared rational [sic] of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour [sic] that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the mentally impaired, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration."

Note that Philip Atkinson has defined the "why" in terms of its "declared" rationale which appears to be innocent and intended to increase civility in our society. Is it necessary to achieve this end? Of course not! We were, imperfectly perhaps, a very "civil" society long before PC was conceived. We achieved and maintained this state by being TOLERANT! To the extent that individuals and groups of individuals with some commonality remain tolerant of those without that commonality PC is unnecessary. In mathematical terms infinite tolerance =  zero need for political correctness. PC, by its very nature enables and promotes intolerance and divisiveness. That, in fact, is the very reason it is promoted by the Anointed.

Promoting balkanization of our heretofore tolerant society is the undeclared rationale for the practice of PC in the United States.

"The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about." -George Orwell, "1984"

Controlling thought is the ultimate power sought by those who wish to rule in a totalitarian state. This intent has been openly admitted not only in Orwell's fictional world in his book "1984" but in the writings and speeches of such masters of totalitarianism as Hitler and Stalin:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns; why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin

"Hitler was a master at developing thought control as a means to power and control. "...the requirements of the Führerprinzip obliged him to dominate and control other people. Indeed, the most basic single characteristic of both his personal life and his system of government can be reduced to one overriding need: to force others to do his will."

"Hitler relied primarily on terror and propaganda to gain control over others."  He "...realized that it (terror) was politically effective when it invoked insecurity, fear and anxiety." ... "Uncertainty was essential. Victims should not be able to tell whether they had done something wrong, might have done something wrong or failed to do something they should have done." (Robert G. L. Waite, "The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler", pg. 99)

The stress on making terror irrational and indiscriminate is also a means of intimidating people who are not directly involved. Promulgating incidents of those who have fallen victim to the forces of Political Correctness when there is no rational explanation for their situation helps to create in the innocent observer a feeling of incomprehensible anxiety which, in turn, leads to a propensity to seek solace in Group Think, i.e., to surrender one's right to individual thoughts and feelings.

The Anointed's ongoing campaign to transform open dialog and freedom to speak one's mind into a cause for, in many cases, legal action is nothing more than the Anointed's attempt to criminalize "...the most private, personal and subjective part of our lives - what we think". (Tammy Bruce, "The New Thought Police", pg. 46). The very fact that two, similar actions can be judged and punished differently depending on whether or not one falls within the category of a Hate Crime clearly demonstrates that what a person is thinking at the time the action was taken has taken on a new importance in the United States today. "Make no mistake - "hate crime" is a euphemism for Thought Crime..."  so that the government can "...prosecute people for what they think in addition to what they do." (Tammy Bruce, "The New Thought Police", pg. 47).

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a

scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -

neither more nor less"

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make

 words mean so many different things".

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty,

"which is to be master - that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Wm. Jefferson Clinton

 

"Definition is power. When a photographer takes a picture, he or she decides what is in the picture, and what is left out, what is highlighted and what is blurred. Two photographers shooting the same scene can create totally different images of it. The same is true with issues. If you have the power to define an issue, you go a long way to determining what is relevant and what is not. In doing that you have a huge effect on who wins and who loses."  [emphasis mine]- Jesse Jackson

Who does Jesse see losing? If the Anointed's vision is to provide what's best for everyone why would Jesse be thinking of winners and losers? Is it because he sees himself as one of the Anointed and they expect to be the winners when the untermenchen are properly subjugated and have surrendered their individual rights to the world defined by the Anointed? Hmmm?

Within the context of politically correct speech it is necessary to recognize that the Anointed subscribe to the premise articulated by Humpty Dumpty, Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson - that is that they are the master of words and do not recognize any constraints upon themselves as the result of what they say or may have said in the past. On the the other hand, because they see themselves as the masters they reserve to themselves the right to interpret the "speech" of the "untermenchen"  and demand "training" if it seems to mean that there is a deviation from their accepted norms of thinking. All this is necessary if one is to create a form of institutionalized anxiety that is needed to reinforce the state of inferiority and fear needed to bias the general population toward a socialistic form of government that can be exploited by the Anointed in their ongoing quest for control and power.

However, very fact that the Anointed promote 'group think' and have recourse to violence, if necessary, to oppress those whose views are not congruent with theirs is proof that they are, in their subconsciousness, convinced of the untenability of their own ideology.