The Great Plantation: Political Correctness Is Not Universal (Part 2)

Editor’s Note: This will be another long day. I will continue to update this article later in the afternoon.


Wait, what?

Does this strike you as a very odd combination of influences?

Georg Hegel, Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche were all men of the 19th century. Michel Foucault was a philosopher and historian of the 20th century. I’ve thrown Foucault in for good measure because I have dabbled in all their writings for years and all four of these men are “historicists.”

George Fitzhugh was a pro-slavery antebellum Southerner who criticized the dominant paradigm of liberal capitalist democracy in his day. He was also a “historicist.”

“Historicism” can be defined as “the idea of attributing meaningful significance to space and time, such as historical period, geographical place, and local culture.” If you may have noticed, I also write about virtually everything on this blog from a “historicist” perspective. It is a habit that has stuck with me since I first read Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals back when I was in college at Auburn. I’ve since vastly expanded the depth of my historical knowledge over the last 18 years. I truly love history. I love reading about history even more than writing about politics.

So, it will suffice to say that I have been heavily influenced by all sorts of thinkers who were outside of the dominant liberal paradigm. Karl Popper once dubbed Plato, Marx and Hegel as the primaries enemies of free society. He wrote two books attacking them called The Open Society and Its Enemies. I own both volumes because I perceive some serious flaws in free society.

Anyway, back to my genealogy of political correctness …

Georg Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche and even Karl Marx wouldn’t have recognized political correctness either. It didn’t yet exist in their times. Political correctness was inspired by Marxism, but Marx himself was interested in analyzing class relations under 19th century free-market capitalism and industrialism. Marx didn’t give much thought to race and wrote little about the savage parts of the world like sub-Saharan Africa. I’m fairly sure that Friedrich Engels was also a racist homophobe.

The original communists and socialists weren’t anti-White. They weren’t even anti-capitalist. Instead, they believed that industrial capitalism was progressive. It was a stage of History that had succeeded feudalism that Europe was going through which would be in turn succeeded by socialism. Many of these people WERE anti-Christian, but they saw Europe as the central stage in which History as they saw it was playing itself out. They were focused on economics and wanting to make Europe socialist through class warfare and weren’t into all the weird obsessions of political correctness. The Soviet Union under Stalin demonized and outlawed homosexuality as “bourgeois decadence.”

So far, you should be noticing a broad historical pattern: this tendency in Western thought to believe that morality is universal and available to everyone … the virtue ethics of Aristotle can be practiced by everyone, the Christianity of the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era was to be practiced by everyone, the project of science was something that could be practiced by anyone, the universal human rights of the Enlightenment were also to be practiced by everyone, which is why slavery became such a controversial issue, and even in the 19th century the most radical leftists, which is to say, the socialists and communists ALSO believed that everyone would live in paradise in their post-capitalist utopia.


Adolf Hitler is the great crossroads in European history.

After exploring the issue in depth to trace the origins of our present cultural disease, I have concluded that the roots of political correctness doesn’t really go much further back than Hitler. The Jim Crow South of the 1930s was racially segregated. It had eugenic sterilization laws. Southern culture was in fashion in hit movies like Gone With The Wind (1939). There was as yet almost no such thing as a self-loathing White Southerner. In fact, the New South was dotted by Confederate monuments. Even after World War II, Hank Williams was still writing music in a South that was recognizably Southern.

Here is the full extent of the British Empire inherited by Winston Churchill. It had lost the United States in the American Revolution, but otherwise it was strong in 1939:

Slavery had been abolished in the 19th century.

Even after the Enlightenment and Romanticism, the sun had still never set on the British Empire. On the contrary, ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacy’ and ‘colonialism’ reigned over the British Raj and much of sub-Saharan Africa from Cairo to the Cape of Good Hope in Cecil Rhodes’s Empire. If anything is true, the rise of Darwinism had reinforced racialist thinking.


Don’t get me wrong.

I’m not saying that Hitler is to blame for the present state of Western civilization. It is true that the Third Reich was intensely polarizing and that World War II was nothing but European civilization self destructing in a gigantic bonfire. Life would never be the same afterwards.

The real story is much bigger, however, than what happened in Hitler’s Germany. The rise of Jewish wealth, power and cultural influence in the 20th century, particularly in the establishment of its dominance over the emergence of the mass media and thereby culture, is a story that really involves all European nations. It involves Russia after the October Revolution. It involves the United States since the 1930s and 1940s. It involves the British Empire and the Zionist project in Palestine.

There have been many destructive wars in European history. The American War Between the States was the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil. The Wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th centuries were the bloodiest wars ever fought in Europe until the Great War and Second World War. In every other case, European civilization rebounded from those wars, but something was different after World War 2 and that difference was that Jews had been thrust into the cockpit of European culture.


Nick Fuentes does a great job illustrating the stupidity of political correctness and identity politics here:

Do you see now what has uniquely happened to the Baby Boomer generation?

They were the first generation to grow up in the aftermath of the Second World War. These people grew up in a world in which Jews had established their dominance over Western culture by literally controlling the cultural means of production, i.e., the mass media.

What happened in the late 20th century in the United States and other Western countries? There were all kinds of strange things happening in our culture.

Take for example the rise of Conservatism, Inc. and the creation of its cherished myth of “Judeo-Christianity.” We live in a world in which a giant menorah is now lit every year on the lawn of the White House and we are forced to use the politically correct term “Happy Holidays.” What the hell is “Judeo-Christianity” and where did this Christian Zionist nonsense come from? Who believed in or wrote about “Judeo-Christianity” and “anti-Semitism” before the Baby Boomer generation and the 20th century? There appears to have been very, very little interest in either issues.

What happened to Western European Christian civilization and culture?

As far as I can tell, there was almost no interest in this bizarre moral creed which has replaced Christianity at the center of our culture. It was just fabricated in the 20th century and sold to the Baby Boomers who were indoctrinated, deracinated and decultured through the mass media and college.

Here’s a list of the new “sins” of the 21st century:

White Privilege
White Supremacy
“Hate” (defined as something only White people do)

Here is the new definition of “virtue” in the 21st century:

Social Justice

If you are “woke” in the 21st century, it means you have embraced this new doctrine. You are someone who practices “social justice” aka political correctness. “Hate” has been transformed from a normal human emotion into, say, something synonymous with whiteness itself. It is really only White people who are potential suspects to be indicted under the new moral system.

The SJW is someone who has completely accepted this way of thinking. It is a way of thinking about morality that is very different from its predecessors in European history.

Political correctness is not a universal moral creed. Anyone could practice Aristotle’s virtues. Anyone could practice Christianity. Anyone could embrace and practice science after the Scientific Revolution. Anyone could embrace and practice the values of the Enlightenment like freedom of speech and tolerance. The Enlightenment also discouraged bigotry and fanaticism while our present society encourages it.

There was always a road to forgiveness under the Christian moral paradigms. If you were Catholic and you have sinned, you can confess to a priest, do a penance and be absolved. If you were a Protestant, basically (emphasis added), you could simply show remorse, repent and reconcile yourself with God. There isn’t any road to forgiveness under political correctness. If you are found guilty of violating our current political etiquette, it is really okay to have your life destroyed for uttering a heretical thought.

I’m starting to see political correctness as a Satanic ideology. It is diabolical in the sense that there is an inherently evil logic at work in the system. If the Antichrist wanted to create a moral paradigm, I think political correctness would do the trick.

Look at it this way: it incites everyone else who is human against Europeans, it incites the young against their parents, women against their fathers and husbands, homosexuals against heterosexuals (heterosexuality is now defined as something malignant in a total “transvaluation of values”), immigrants are incited against the native born. It is pure cultural poison that has accomplished its purpose which is solely to sow discord and division and to foment “hate,” not end it.

Political correctness is GENERATING hate. It leads to hate because Europeans are uniquely denied a positive sense of ethnic, cultural and racial identity for some sick, twisted reason. Everyone else up to and including transsexuals is granted an identity that is legitimate and collective interests that are legitimate. The inevitable consequence of political correctness is the radicalization of young White males who are uniquely denied these things under the present social order. It is a paradigm that creates the “extremism” problem we have seen on display from Charleston to New Zealand.

The so-called “extremism watchdogs” are the problem, not the solution to “extremism.” They are the enforcers of this absurd moral paradigm. They are the incubators of hatred, radicalization and violence. What’s more, they have made a windfall off of it too.


How does the SJW practice his confession?

Have you seen the witch hunting mobs on Twitter? Have you seen the Antifa violence? The SJW isn’t doing something good with his or her life like, say, becoming a modest person or a temperate person or a generous person or even a pious person. They don’t even believe in Heaven.

No, these people are engaged in evil and wickedness. They are driven by a spirit of malevolence, not humility. This is why they are fanatics, zealots and enthusiasts.

Note: We will continue this train of thought in another long ass post for another day. I’m glad that I have put it out there now. Hopefully, it will stimulate some debate.



About Hunter Wallace 12381 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. We are very aware of the evil effects of political correctness on society in general and the right in particular. What gets noticed less is the harmful narrowing effect it has had on the left itself. Nabokov noticed the more politically radical the Russian the more traditional his cultural tastes. Lenin’s tastes would be considered today as far right. Stalin was a big fan of the anticommunist writer Bulgakov, watching his play on the White Guard numerous times. And when the party began to apply Marxists analysis to the Russian language, he wrote a book denouncing the effort, proclaiming that the Russian language was a common inheritance of the Russia people and the party should leave it alone. The founders of Marxism itself were similarly “right wing” in their cultural affections. Marx’s favourite novelists were Sir Walter Scott and Honore de Balzac. Sir Walter was a romantic Tory, while Balzac’s novels were rooted in the writings of Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald. Engels’s favorite hobby was fox hunting and when local manufacturers were raising money to erect a monument to the recently deceased Prince Albert, Engels was among the contributors. With today’s leftists everything is political and they are incapable of sharing any cultural tastes in common with the right. They are lessor and smaller men than their political fathers.

  2. Nietzsche and Foucault were more perverse extensions of the Enlightenment project to “free” man from moral constraints. They were about Crowley’s “do as thou wilt is the whole of the law” as much as anything. Without moral self-constraint, the will to power becomes all-in-all. If man is just another mechanism of nature, he is just another animal.

    Critiques of capitalism as state-sponsored usury (which ends up using credit to supplement wages instead of higher compensation for labor) and therefore “wage slavery” are a better antidote to the inequities of the industrial system than Marxism. In Marxism, all roads lead to central planning by murderous tyrants. Hunter’s reprinting of some of Fitzhugh’s writing led to me ordering “Cannibals All.” A minor preoccupation of mine over the years has been the problem of how to make a peasant into a member of the leisure class, which appears to have been taken up by thinkers like Fitzhugh and Calhoun. Due to the dismissal of all antebellum thinkers as racist exploiters, though, I was never exposed to any of them. Which is a shame, because they appear to have approached that very problem with a moral philosophy missing from Marxism.

    • Nietzsche’s nihilism was a symptom of the moral crisis that was already unfolding in his time. It would become much more serious in the 20th century. I also went through a nihilistic phase, but eventually I thought my way out of it.

    • Fitzhugh had a very unique take on free-market capitalism that was similar to some of the things said by Marx and other socialists. He was a critic of “socialism” though.

  3. No, these people are engaged in evil and wickedness. They are driven by a spirit of malevolence, not humility.

    You are clearly misunderstanding their motivation. Perhaps non-white SJWs are driven by a spirit of malevolence, but white SJWs, it seems to me, are overwhelmingly driven by a desire to prevent harm being done to people – the kind of harm that the more extreme forms of WN would surely cause.

    Imagine if William Luther Pierce had somehow taken power in America. That would have been extremely bad news for non-whites. Massive amounts of harm would have been done to them. SJWs strive to prevent such a scenario from ever unfolding. And since they believe “racism” inevitably leads to that scenario, it’s racism they passionately denounce. This passion appears to blind them to the anti-white resentment that political correctness is fueling, but that is not the same thing as “malevolence.”

Comments are closed.