[The text below represents an edited transcript of this Tomorrow’s World program.]
Are You Easily Offended?
Trigger Warning: If you are offended by Political Incorrectness, this telecast is not for you.
When did political correctness begin? And why do we have it? Who’s behind it? And, where is it leading us? Is it humorous, harmless, or hurtful? And should we fall in line with the ever-changing language landscape referred to as “P.C.”?
Here’s another important question: What would Jesus do? Would He be led about by social engineers, as a bull is, with a ring in his nose? Or would He be politically incorrect? How can you know?
Most of us living today have grown up with the constantly changing language of political correctness. The term itself became part of our vocabulary in the 1960s and ‘70s when drugs, rampant sex, and Vietnam War protesters flooded American university campuses. The change in how we expressed ourselves often appeared silly, foolish, and laughable. But is it to be laughed off?
Stay tuned as I’ll show you what is behind P.C. and answer the question of what Jesus would do.
Language Affected by Dangerous Politics
A warm welcome to all of you from all of us here at Tomorrow’s World, where today I’m addressing the subject commonly referred to as political correctness. Have you ever considered what’s behind this ever-changing language landscape? Where did it begin? And what’s the end-goal of those promoting it? Boston University professor emeritus Angelo Codevilla explains:
“The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself” (Malcolm Kline, “The Origin of Political Correctness,” Academia.org, November 18, 2016).
He explains that it began as a joke among communist party insiders—as in:
“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”
“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct” (Kline, Academia.org).
Conservative author Bill Lind asks an important question that too few consider, and he sees it holistically, as part of a greater picture:
“Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning—the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it—where does it come from?” (Bill Lind, “The Origins of Political Correctness,” Academia.org, February 5, 2000).
Lind then confirms P.C.’s Marxist-Leninist underpinnings and warns that there is nothing humorous about its intended goal.
“The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious” (Lind, Academia.org).
It’s a mistake to think of Political Correctness in isolation.
It’s part of a greater political movement, as indicated by Codevilla and Lind. Many in America think in political terms of liberal (meaning left) and conservative (meaning right), but fail to recognize that there is both liberal and left and these are not the same. Leftists, unlike liberals, are socialist totalitarians. Let’s call them what they are—Marxists—and they are working to destroy America and other Western countries. It should be obvious to anyone taking an objective view of what is taking place around us that their goal is to tear down Western democratic nations, and make them into something very different from their roots.
As self-confessed liberal Kirsten Powers explains in The Silencing: How the Left Is Killing Free Speech, the left is not liberal, but illiberal, sometimes referred to as progressive—and who isn’t for progress? Powers writes:
On campuses there are speech codes, so-called “free speech zones,” and a host of “anti-discrimination” policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with the liberal dogma. The illiberal left’s attempts to control the public debate are frequently buttressed by a parade of childish grievances. They portray life’s vagaries as violations of their basic human rights and demand the world stop traumatizing them with facts and ideological views that challenge their belief system. They insist colleges provide “trigger warnings” on syllabi to prevent them from stumbling upon a piece of literature that might deal with controversial or difficult issues that could upset them.
The illiberal left yearns for a world sanitized of information that offends them (Powers, The Silencing, p. 6).
The goal of the illiberal left is to tear down and destroy.
P.C. is merely one tool in a broader campaign that involves denigrating authority, destroying the nuclear family, and controlling speech, behavior, and even thought. While Tomorrow’s World is not political, we can call out and expose the ultimate object of their campaign of destruction. They seek a world without God. They wish to forever remove the moral underpinnings of an orderly world that are found in the Bible. The Bible is God’s instruction book, a manual for mankind to know how to live. Lind minced no words when he explained nearly 24 years ago: “Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms….”
The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses… 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 black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted ‘victims’ groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble…. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole” (Lind, Academia.org).
Controlling Language, Controlling Thought
But, this subject is only one tool in a greater movement undermining the foundations of Western civilization, and that movement seeks to remove God and His word from our world forever.
Consider where we are today. As explained in the first portion of this program, what we see is nothing less than Marxist totalitarian dogma. And it is no longer confined to university campuses. It has crept into education at all levels, including the earliest introduction to children’s education. It’s everywhere, from the military, to media, to business—large and small. It’s expected and enforced. Corporate America (and this is not confined to America alone) in too many cases is now requiring employees to declare their preferred pronouns below their names. Even if it is simply,
Mr., he, and him,
or,
Mrs., she, and her
To not do so is to put one’s job at risk. That’s where we are today. Who would have thought we would see such things, even as recently as ten years ago?
Political Correctness is often viewed by sincere and naïve people as an attempt to be compassionate and non-offensive to an ever-growing list of individuals placed in protective categories. According to one website, some examples of which I’ll refer to in this ptogram,
The politically correct euphemisms help us to avoid discriminating against other people on the grounds of: a) age, b) appearance, c) gender, d) health, e) personality, f) race, g) relationship status, h) religion, i) social status, and j) work (“Discover 100 Politically Correct Euphemisms,” PurlandTraining.com, 2020).
Now, here are a few of the examples listed by this source:
Instead of “Able-bodied” say “Non-disabled”
Instead of “Dead” say “Terminally unavailable”
Instead of “Deaf” use “Hearing impaired”
Instead of “Blind” use “Sight impaired”
Instead of “Elderly” or “old people” say “Senior citizens”
And, here’s my favorite when it comes to foolishness:
Instead of “Bald” say “Follically challenged”
(PurlandTraining.com)
Individually, and superficially, some of these language modifications may appear harmless or humorous—even compassionate. But referring to someone as “follically challenged” is nothing short of silliness.
At the same time, as brought out by Kirsten Powers, young people are being indoctrinated into the idea that they should be offended by any perceived slight. The term used to describe these offenses is micro aggressions. One must wonder what the future holds for an overly sensitive generation offended by almost anything. How will they cope in life if the story of “Old Yeller” places them in deep depression because they experienced the loss of their beloved dog? Such a personal event is painful—I understand that firsthand—but it’s part of life. As the saying goes—Get over it!
So why are these social engineers doing this? What is their end game? Dr. Codevilla asks:
Why does the American Left demand ever-new P.C. obeisances? (Kline, Academia.org)
He goes on to explain:
In 2012 no one would have thought that defining marriage between one man and one woman, as enshrined in U.S. law, would brand those who do so as motivated by a culpable psychopathology called “homophobia,” subject to fines and near outlaw status (Kline, Academia.org).
Note that dishonest use of language is employed here. If you disagree with homosexuality, for any reason, you must be phobic—fearful. It is not politically correct to say so, but that’s a lie. Codevilla continues:
Not until 2015–16 did it occur to anyone that requiring persons with male personal plumbing to use public bathrooms reserved for men was a sign of the same pathology. Why had not these become part of the P.C. demands previously? Why is there no canon of P.C. that, once filled, would require no further additions? Because the point of P.C. is not and has never been merely about any of the items that it imposes, but about the imposition itself (Kline, Academia.org).
A Linguistic Assualt on Godly Principles
Probably not all people behind Political Correctness are avowed Marxists, but they understand that how people express themselves linguistically changes how they think. And don’t be naïve—these people are dedicated to changing the way that you and I think! While some changes appear humorously silly, others have a darker reason behind them—to turn upside down all biblical and traditional values and bring about an amoral, anything-goes world. Immoral choices are promoted, but if that choice brings tragic results, it’s never one’s fault. A drug addict must be referred to as someone who is chemically dependent. This deflects personal responsibility and the stigma of the truth. After all, much of current pop-psychology involves convincing us that whether we are:
Addicted to drugs
Abusing alcohol
Over-eating
Hopelessly in credit card debt
or
Chronically late for work,
it is not our fault. Tardiness syndrome is the label, but frankly, your boss doesn’t care about labels—show up for work on-time or be fired, or as P.C. puts it—“become a victim of restructuring.”
Much of what is called P.C. goes beyond a distraction—it’s dishonest deception. When we know someone who is clumsy and refer to him as uniquely coordinated, it is as though he, first of all, is coordinated, just different from the rest of us. An illegal alien is exactly that, but these social engineers don’t want us to state the truth. To them, he is neither illegal nor an alien, but an undocumented worker. Such an expression deflects from the truth that he is in the country illegally. Juvenile delinquents become children at risk. Now of course they are children at risk! Because they’re delinquent!
And here is one that MS Word seeks to change: mankind, to humankind.
While humankind is a legitimate word, why the insistence on avoiding the equally legitimate word mankind?
What is behind this is something quite sinister. It is part of a broad design to degrade both men and women and the roles they play in society. Anything with man in it must be changed:
“Man on the street” to “Average person”
“Man up” to “Be brave”
“Manhole” to “Maintenance hole”
“Man-made” to “Synthetic”
and,
“Manpower” to “Workforce”
(PurlandTraining.com)
And rather than man or woman, it should simply be people. Why? Is it too difficult to discern the agenda behind it all?
The attack against the way we were made is relentless and political correctness is a powerful tool to transform the way we think. What may have appeared silly and humorous at first has become a relentless attack on normality and morality.
Nowhere is there a more sinister attempt to change thinking than in the matter of the way God made us—male and female. Even if an American Supreme Court Justice cannot tell us what a woman is, any normal thinking person without an agenda or panel to satisfy, can. You are here, able to understand this, as the result of a sperm from a man and an ovum (egg) from a woman, coming together and carried in the womb of the woman—not a man. But how often we hear people fall prey to leftist jargon, as in “the gender assigned at birth.” No, dear friends, it is not assigned. It’s biology and every right-minded person knows that. We should not fall for such destructive word games.
Yes, there is a very small percentage of people who are born intersex, meaning that their genitalia are ambiguous, but to use this rare fact is a ruse. These are not the men competing in women’s sports or invading women’s changing rooms. These are not the girls encouraged by social media to solve their teenage insecurities by taking testosterone, binding their chests, or worse.
God’s Words are Plain and Clear
I said I would answer the question, “Would Jesus be led about by political correctness?” The answer is quite simply, No. God does not conform to mankind’s agenda-driven word games of oppression wrapped in compassion. He calls human actions as they truly are. [1 Corinthians 6:9]
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
God does not sugarcoat immorality, paper over lies, or fail to punish for unrepented sin. He says it as it is in Revelation 21:8:
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Revelation 21:8).
Furthermore, the prophet Isaiah condemns those who play word games and turn language upside down, calling evil good, and good evil. It is God who is the reliable source determining right from wrong. [Isaiah 5:20]
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20).
Supposedly intelligent university students may not be able to tell you how many sexes there are, yet for most of us, it’s quite simple. A child is born, and parents rejoice over a boy or girl. Until recently, they did not fret over some dishonest socialist-inspired construct that the newborn falls within a spectrum. They naturally understood by observation.
While addressing the Pharisees, Jesus confirms what Moses recorded in Genesis 1, that there are only two sexes. Note it in Matthew 19:4:
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,’ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?” (Matthew 19:4–5).
None of this is meant to say that we should needlessly offend anyone. The Apostle Paul instructed the people of Colossae, [Colossians 4:6]
Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one (Colossians 4:6).
And when Jesus came and spoke in His hometown synagogue, [Luke 4:22]
… all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth (Luke 4:22).
Yet, He did not shy away from speaking the truth to them. He, nor we, should enter into someone’s fantasy world of confusion. We should speak the truth. And Jesus was never concerned about pleasing men, paving over the truth, nor being politically correct. The result of His honesty with those of His hometown is found a few verses later.
So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff (Luke 4:28–29).
Yes, there is sometimes danger in speaking the truth—and doing so requires two things: honesty and courage.
Political correctness is seen by many to either be silly and harmless, or caring and compassionate. It may be silly, but it’s not harmless, it’s not caring, and it’s not compassionate. Satan is the father of lies, and he must revel in the party joke,
Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.
Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.
As Bill Lind concluded in his “Campus Report” 24 years ago, he said:
In conclusion, America [and I’ll add Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom and some other countries] today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further…. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My 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 freedom and our culture (Lind, Academia.org).
Political Correctness is part of a larger agenda at work today.
There is nothing innocuous about it. It may not have been around when Jesus walked the earth, but understand from the scriptures that Jesus and His servants would not have fallen prey to an agenda hostile to scripture.
I hope you profited from this video.
If you found it helpful and want to learn more, be sure to get your free DVD “A Culture in Crisis” by clicking the link in the description, or go to TWTV.ORG/Crisis.
We here at Tomorrow’s World want to help you understand our world through the pages of the Bible. So be sure to like, subscribe, and hit the bell so you don’t miss another video.
Thanks for watching! See you next time.
