B. U. G. S.

The man who did my last interview is a former California professor of Political Science who was born and raised in Croatia, then Yugoslavia. It was a Communist state. But he thought Political Correctness was an American product. I pointed out to him that it is a Marxist term.

My interviewer had the honesty to admit he had not realized that. Nobody seems to realize it but me. He then translated the term he was raised with from the Reds from the Croatian and it was “political rectitude” which is a synonym for political correctness.

That sort of basic observation seems to be my particular gift.

Or curse. Gang, it is actually SCARY when you see so many things that are so obvious and no one else notices them. You get the feeling that you are surrounded by Pod People.

No one talks about real Marxism these days, so no one realizes the wildly obvious fact that regular correspondence between them throughout their history has included the term “political correctness.” This is another case where the REAL theory is so silly that the left does not discuss it and the respectable right obediently doesn’t.

Nowadays when someone says he is a Marxist, he ignores the REAL meaning of the word. He says that means he believes in “the class struggle.” Not only is that not true, it has nothing to do with Marxism. The class struggle to Marxism is exactly like evangelism to Christianity. A Christian is not “one who believes in evangelism.” Christianity claims to believe in the crucifixion, the resurrection, supernatural things.

Evangelism is part of the practice of Christianity, but it has nothing to do with what Christianity IS. Marxism is one of an endless historical progression of Wordist ideas that advocate a class struggle that popped u in every literate society for thousands of years, but that does not define Marxism.

Marxism is about the thousandth recorded system that believes in a class struggle. No society has ever been without some form of THAT as preached by radical. To say Marxism is belief ion “the class struggle” is like defining Pentecostals as “people with feet.”

Marxism is based on Rousseau’s idea that animals and savages have no sense of property, no borders, no pecking order whatsoever. Like every other theory of its time. Marxism says man’s genes demand that we return to the natural order of a classless, borderless society like that of the animals and savages. This is not mentioned today because it is so laughable.

This leaving the Rousseau Assumption alone is not confined to the Marxists or even to the political left. Everybody knows that all of the assumptions on which every theory today is based, the Rousseau Assumption, has been blasted to pieces by discoveries about animal behavior in the last half of the last century, But everybody ignores it and hides in their Book.

What everybody does NOT notice is that social sciences have not changed one iota because of this revolution in knowledge. O’Reilly is as fanatical as any Marxist in denouncing “the idea that one person is just naturally smarter than another.” Hannity, Baby Jesus, insists that if we knew The Book we too would be like the beasts of the field, though he has no idea what the beasts of the field are like.

Everybody still goes on the assumptions from before the finding of facts like chimpanzees hunting and eating monkeys and patrolling their borders with a ruthlessness that would solve the Mexican Border Problem instantly. The class system is so strong in all herd animals that it would startle a Victorian Brit.

But no social theory today, left or right, takes the slightest notice of this. Their Book was written before it came up, so they will nod when it is mentioned, but then go on to what they always said.