The Psychology of Political Correctness

Source: Free Speech - September 1997 - Volume III, Number 9

The Psychology of Political Correctness

by Dr. William Pierce

Today I’ll discuss something I’ve discussed earlier, but it’s very important and is worth talking about over and over: having the courage to speak up for what we believe. Courage of this sort — moral courage — has always been important, but now, with the enemies of our people pushing hard to silence opposition to them and their destructive policies by enacting new legislation against what they call “hate crime” and “hate speech,” moral courage is essential for our survival.

We have a President who is running around the country trying to drum up support for a repressive program of legislation he says is necessary to “pull America together” and achieve racial harmony. He is telling the groups to which he speaks that they don’t have much longer to wait before there will be a non-White majority in America, and then the White racists — the “haters” — won’t be able to cause any more trouble. Mr. Clinton is gloating that soon there will be a truly multiracial America: an America without a “dominant European culture.” He is gloating about this, and many of his audiences are gloating with him and cheering him when he says this. All we have to do now, he tells them, is keep the racists under control with new laws until we get rid of this “dominant European culture.” And many of the audiences cheering him when he says this are White students and faculty members at American universities.

It is the trendy, fashionable thing these days to be anti-White. It is fashionable to let everyone know how much you despise White people and European culture and how much you admire Africans, Indians, Jews, Orientals, and mestizos; how superior you believe their cultures to be; and how much you look forward to seeing them become a majority in the United States.

I remember witnessing the beginning of this fashion when I was a university student myself back in the 1950s and then a professor in the 1960s. What I noticed first, back in the 1950s, was the pressure to make the universities more “democratic” — that is, to admit a great many more students. The argument was that the universities were too “elitist,” that rich kids went to the prestigious private universities and thereby earned a ticket to an easy and prosperous life, while working-class kids were denied these opportunities. This argument was pure baloney. I was a poor kid myself, but I had applied myself and won a scholarship to a prestigious private university, as had many of the other students at my university. That was Rice University, in Texas. There has not been a time, at least during the past 60 years, when a student with real scholastic ability was kept from getting a good university education in America by having no money.

The anti-elitists began prevailing by greatly increasing the number of curricula. Subjects that were more appropriately taught in trade schools, or perhaps as high school electives, became the basis for new university curricula. We used to joke about offering courses in basket-weaving, golf, or fly-tying in order to accommodate students who had no aptitude for mathematics or history. All too soon these jokes became reality. And students who couldn’t even pass a course in basket-weaving were brought in on athletic scholarships.

But this dumbing down of the universities wasn’t the most important part of the destructive work carried on there. The key was our enemies’ gaining control of the socialization process at the universities. This was even before television had become the dominant opinion-control medium that it is today. Teenagers arriving at a university are somewhat disoriented and unsure of themselves. They are on strange turf. A few have the self-confidence and inner strength to find their own way, but most don’t. Most look to those around them for guidance. The Jews were the one coherent, self-conscious group at most universities, both among the students and the faculty, and they began dominating the discussions. Always very verbal, very pushy and outspoken, they made themselves heard while others kept their opinions to themselves. With academic standards relaxed, students had more time to spend in socializing activities. By the 1960s these activities were firmly in the grip of the Jews and their leftist collaborators. Incoming students were subjected to intense social pressure to conform their ideas and opinions to those of the Jews and the leftists. Political Correctness became the prerequisite for social acceptance, and social acceptance was an overwhelming need for many students. They could be made to spout any sort of nonsense or wickedness, even to believe it, if that would lead to popularity.

I remember witnessing this phenomenon, but I didn’t fully understand its significance at the time, so for the most part I kept my opinions to myself. I didn’t have time for a lot of socialization anyway. I feel guilty about that now. I really should have spoken up much more loudly. I should have encouraged others to speak up. I should have organized opposition to the Jews and the leftists. But I didn’t. Mostly I just went about my own work. Of course, there were no American Dissident Voices broadcasts for me to listen to and to help me understand what was happening and to encourage me to take a stand. You don’t have that excuse.

The Jews have been way ahead of the rest of us in understanding psychology and the way it can be applied to control the thinking and the behavior of the people around them. They used the same techniques of brainwashing in the Soviet Union back in the 1920s and 1930s to control the non-Communist majority around them. They kept everyone immersed in discussion groups, in worker-education groups, in “sensitivity training” seminars, and the like, using a constant barrage of words, first to disorient people and then to bring them into conformity with what was Politically Correct. They had dissidents confessing to their own thought-crimes in group sessions, pledging to think only correct thoughts in the future, and begging to be punished for their past errors. The same mind-control techniques are used in cults today to control the minds of the cult members. People susceptible to this sort of socialization can be made to believe anything and do anything, even commit mass suicide, in order to receive and retain group approval.

It is in the universities where the Jews have used these socialization techniques to do the worst damage. They have White students enthusiastically promoting programs aimed at the extinction of the White race. When we remember the mass suicide of cult members at Jonestown a few years back or more recently the mass suicide of the Heaven’s Gate cult members in California, we should not be surprised that Bill Clinton is cheered by groups of White university students when he tells them that the end of the “dominant European culture” in the United States is in sight.

Jews, of course, are not the only ones able to use psychological techniques capable of controlling the minds of cult members or university students. What’s needed is a group setting where these socialization techniques can be used, group leaders with verbal skills adequate to use the techniques effectively, and a group of people sufficiently lacking in self-confidence and sense of self-worth that they crave acceptance by the group more than anything else. Intelligence by itself is no protection against this sort of mind control. Even bright people are susceptible, so long as the need for group approval is strong enough. Women are more susceptible than men on the average, and the sort of wimpy, ‘sensitive” men we are seeing all too much of these days are more susceptible than those with more normal glands, but even men who seem strong and assertive can be brainwashed by the sort of socialization techniques used at American universities today.

I have in front of me a recent newspaper column by a journalist, Gwynne Dyer, which provides a splendid example of the sort of mind-set which is formed by this socialization process. He is a true Clintonista, and he looks forward in his column with glee and eagerness to a future in which his own race will be extinct. He exults over the soaring rate of miscegenation in America and the increasing influx of non-White immigrants. He is especially pleased by the fact that White women who have served in the armed forces, where they are subjected to a brainwashing program based on the same psychological principles used by the Jews at our universities and are exposed to a high concentration of Blacks in every facet of their daily lives, are seven times as likely to couple with a Black male as are women who have not had military service. His real hero, after Bill Clinton, is Tiger Woods, the hopelessly mixed, part Chinese, part Negro, part White, part Indian golfer. He thinks that it is just wonderful that someone can have such a mixed-up ancestry and still learn how to hit the little, white ball into the hole. If mischlings can win golf tournaments, he believes, why then obviously they can do everything else. He concludes his column with the gloating prediction: “It will take another generation or two, but the old racist games are over — and the future is light brown.”

It is too easy to dismiss this sort of anti-White raving as a “sickness.” Certainly, Gwynne Dyer and all who think like him are spiritually sick, ideologically sick, but most of them were more or less normal, healthy people before going through the socialization process I have described. In most people the need to be accepted, the need to be part of the group, the need to be fashionable, is strong enough to overcome reason and instinct. If such people are socialized in a healthy way, if their attitudes are shaped by leaders who have healthy racial and social attitudes themselves, they will develop a healthy spirituality, a healthy racial ideology. But when the socializing influences are Jewish, we end up with desperately sick people like Gwynne Dyer.

I began my comments today by saying that it is essential for our survival as a race that a great many of us have the moral courage to speak the truth, to stand up for what we believe in the face of the sort of sickness exemplified by Gwynne Dyer and Bill Clinton. The Jews have succeeded in subverting our universities, they have succeeded in converting them into factories for turning out moral basket cases like Gwynne Dyer, because we did not stand up to them back in the 1950s and 1960s: I and many others who knew better. I didn’t really understand the full significance of what was happening back then Ñ but you don’t have that excuse.

It is essential to speak out now because what the Jews are doing to our young people is by no means inevitable. It is by no means irresistible. It depends for its success on there being no effective opposition, no credible opposition. The situation is very much like that described by Hans Christian Anderson in his story about the emperor’s new clothes. As long as no one had the courage to speak out, the hoax worked. But when one little boy said aloud, “Look, mama, the emperor is naked,” the bubble burst; the illusion was shattered; the hoax collapsed. The Jews are able to persuade people to believe things contrary to reason and instinct because they are able to create the illusion that everyone else in the socialization group already believes these things. This illusion provides a strong pressure to conform. But when someone has the courage to stick a pin in their illusion, they lose this advantage.

I have another newspaper column on my desk. It is from the New Orleans Times-Picayune, which is part of the Jewish Newhouse chain, and it was written by a thoroughly socialized Clintonista, who was formerly an editorial writer for the paper. He now belongs to a group of socialized Christians in St. Petersburg, Florida, who have been meeting regularly for the past two years to keep each other appropriately “sensitized” on racial issues. And they try to bring new members into their group and use socialization techniques on them to bring them into conformity with the party line.

They made the mistake of inviting a man to their group who has the habit of saying what he believes instead of what he thinks others want to hear. It really tore the group up. The columnist’s aim in writing this particular column seems to have been to show that there’s still a lot of “insensitivity” in the White population which needs to be cured. He quotes the dissident’s comments at the meeting. The dissident, Tom, told the others that he didn’t see why Whites needed to apologize to Blacks for anything. Whites didn’t force Blacks into slavery, Tom said. Blacks were enslaved by their own kind in Africa and then sold to White or Jewish slave dealers and brought to America, he told the group. And Blacks today ought to be grateful for that, Tom said. If their ancestors had not been brought to America, the present generation of Blacks would be in Africa today instead of in America, and their lives would be far worse.

Now, this is just the plain, unvarnished, historical truth, but it’s a Politically Incorrect truth, and the others at the meeting couldn’t deal with it.

They went through the familiar hooting and loud groaning routine, which is supposed to shame a dissident into changing his views. They rolled their eyes back and threw their hands up in exasperation. They gasped in disbelief that anyone could hold such bigoted views. But none of these techniques worked on Tom. He just kept coming out with more truths. He told them, “I guess it must hurt some people to hear that, but it’s the truth.” Poor Tom: he just didn’t understand that the truth is the last thing these people wanted to hear. What they wanted was more reinforcement for the falsehoods and perverse ideas which already had been imposed on them.

One Politically Correct White man at the meeting told Tom angrily, “I want to throw up! What you say makes me want to vomit.” Another member of the group, referring to Tom, remarked with hatred in his voice, “He hasn’t learned anything!” A Politically Correct White woman stared bitterly at Tom and said, according to the columnist, “Why is it that we have to take this from him? Why should the people who are hurt always be the ones who answer with kindness? Why do we have to keep opening our hearts up to bigots?”

All of this hatred, this disapproval and pressure to conform directed at Tom made him uncomfortable, but he stood his ground. He refused to repent or to retract anything. The others couldn’t cope with this unexpected behavior. The meeting broke up with some members wondering aloud whether the races could ever live together in peace.

It’s hard to say what effect Tom’s courage and honesty had on this group in the long run. Most of the members probably recovered from their shock and began admiring the emperor’s new clothes again. They already had been too thoroughly socialized, and Tom was the only dissident among 35 true believers. But Tom may very well have caused one or two waverers to rethink their positions. He may have caused a few of them to make contact with reality again. And if Tom had said what he believes to the whole group from the time the group was formed, he probably could have prevented the flight from reality to Political Correctness for many more of the members.

We have a similar situation at our universities today. Not everyone is equally weak and eager to parrot the party line. Many still have a bit of independence in them, a bit of respect for truth. All these waverers need is to hear one little boy say, “But, mama, the emperor has no clothes on.” All they need is one example of courage and honesty, and they will be able to resist the Jewish brainwashing. The lemmings, of course, the people with no internal sense of direction at all, the ones who must have group acceptance at any cost, will still follow the Jewish party line in many cases. But in many other cases the Jews will not be able to create the necessary illusion at all. They will not be able to make even the most impressionable and eager-to-conform young people abandon reason and instinct and begin rooting for the annihilation of their own race.

And that, my friends, will be a real accomplishment. If you can, with a simple demonstration of courage and honesty, keep one other person from being socialized by the Jews — if you can open the eyes of one young White woman and keep her loyal to her own race, if you can keep one young White man in touch with racial reality — then your life will have been worthwhile. Your existence will have been justified.

And if you and enough others make a regular habit of standing up for the truth, of standing up for what is right, we will foil the Jews and the Clintonistas and guarantee a future for our people. We will assure that, contrary to what Gwynne Dyer would like, the color of the future will be White.

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946