In our previous Straightway article, we presented the historical background and philosophy of the quest for human “utopia” by men such as Cain, Nimrod, and later, Plato in his work Republic. In the last four hundred years, there has been a philosophical and ideological proclivity to sway the populace toward a dependence upon not only a state-controlled government but also, eventually, toward a global one. The twentieth century brought the powers of socialism and communism to the forefront in many countries; these countries were governed through the will of an individual or an elite, all-powerful body of rulers. Literary writings have increasingly called for all mankind to submit to its societal unit, government, or State. Several of these literary writings have become the blueprint for that which we are presently confronting today, as evidenced in our own country’s ever-escalating submission to greater Federal control of its citizens. Such a view began in the days leading up to the Civil War when the Federal powers pressed to overthrow and control the individual states’ rights and powers. This oppressive ruling power is seen today through numerous incidents of the Federal government overturning in the “federal” court system what the individual state courts have passed.
When Plato wrote the Republic, some critics declared that men would not tolerate such control of their lives; they also observed that the only way such a government could succeed would require either deception or force. Communism has used both tactics in its conquest of other nations and their governments. When deception failed, they forced upon the people their own philosophical belief. Today, to help bring America under Washington’s control, the manipulative “political correctness” ploy has become the aggressive weapon infiltrating every facet of society. We are on the threshold of such political correctness pressing and molding us for a coming one-world government to be controlled by the man whom the Bible calls Antichrist.
In philosophy the term that designates this centralized power that governs and controls a people is called the State. Let us consider briefly the State in philosophy.
The Subtle Philosophy of Control
The German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) taught that universal reason reaches its height in a society of free individuals, each subordinating its individual reason to the universal reason. In Hegel’s thinking, the individual, if living by himself and exercising his own mind, is not free. Only as he blends himself with the group does he attain to true freedom. Hegel held that history has been striving throughout time toward the realization of a perfect state, a state in which each member so blends himself with the whole that the will of the whole is his will. For Hegel, there is a universal reason to be discovered throughout history. This reasoning is seen working itself out in one society and then shifting to another. Thus, when one society destroys or conquers another, this universal reason shifts to another group and continues to work itself out. The conqueror becomes the agent of this universal reason. War, therefore, is justified in Hegel’s mind because it is the means by which progress is made.
The communist planners Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), along with other early socialists derived certain beliefs from Hegel, especially the idea that change is but the road to better things. (This has been the cry of our present Administration in Washington.) They held that one type of society that appeared good at one time would inevitably give way to another which would be seen to be better; in essence, a synthesis of opposites. Thus a society based on private property would give way to one in which socialism was supreme. They saw in Hegel a philosophical justification for the new society, which they desired.
When Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) came to prominence in philosophy, he had no use for equality or anything that suggested democracy, and certainly not a Republic. The “will to power” was his dominant idea. In the struggle of the universe, this will to power is expressed; and the most powerful of wills wins and has the right to win. If others are weaker and are unable to survive, that is good, because the weak should be destroyed to make room for the strong. He recognized differences among men and believed that these differences should be magnified. The more powerful should rule, and the weaker should be ruled. Slavery seemed perfectly natural to Nietzsche; and he contended that women, being weaker than men, cannot be expected to have the same rights as men. Thus, he repudiated all that had been held by that long line of philosophers whose constant theme had been the equality of all men and the right of all to share equally in the goods of society. For Nietzsche, society is merely a field in which the strong have a chance to demonstrate their strength and win their rewards, while the weak are defeated and dragged from the arena to be disposed of completely. To him, since inequality is characteristic of nature and the natural state of man, it is unnatural to replace it with a forced equality. This approach truly was the philosophical height of evolution.
One point of view is basic to the great mass of recent writings that deal with matters of the State. There are those who follow more or less completely the lead of men from Plato to Nietzsche holding that inequality is the natural state of man. Here, each member of the state must take his proper place in the social structure. These men argue that it is perfectly right and natural that some should be rulers and others should be ruled—that the ruled should not question the acts of the rulers. Such writers spurn democracy, socialism, and all other systems of human equality and freedom. Plato saw democracy as the open door to anarchy. He would prefer a philosopher-king as ruler and all others at their rightful places in a tightly organized system. Hegel carried this idea one step further when he held that certain states or groups of individuals were by nature superior to others and therefore should rule them. This, of course, is the basic point of view of all totalitarian systems of government. Hegel declared that only as the individual blends himself with the group does he attain to true freedom. History has been striving throughout time toward the realization of a perfect state, a state in which each member so blends himself with the whole that the will of the whole is his will. The Hegelian system was adopted by the Prussian state, a former state in Northern Europe, that became a military power in the 18th century; this state eventually formed the modern German empire. Many Prussian thinkers held that the Prussian state was destined to carry forward the realization of universal reason through its eventual conquest of the world.
The Education Needed for Control
To the extreme of the social emphasis in education are the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). He held that society warps the child and that its influence is wholly evil. Consequently, he advocated protecting the child from society until he was so completely developed that society could not destroy his inner nature. In his famous book Emile, Rousseau outlines the education of a boy in a manner which is natural and spontaneous. Emile, the hero of the story, is to be permitted to develop in accord with his own nature, without interference. Education is protective, a means of shielding the child from the influence of society (and religion) which warps the natural growth of his real self. He believed that the child should be able to do anything he wants to do, with no moral restraints—that he should not be taught about God, the Bible, morals, or anything of the basics of society. He must be free to do whatever he wants: freedom was Rousseau’s watchword. Out of this was born the “child-centered” schools. All instruction began with those things in which the child was interested, and moved along as his interests grew.
Educators have supported different presuppositions concerning education. However, they generally fall under two fundamental principles: the control of society or the control of nature upon the child. Which of these should dominate? Should education be a matter of building citizens according to a socially accepted and determined pattern, or should it be a following of the inner nature of the child? Here again was the age-old problem of the individual and the group. Which should dominate? Whatever the ideological foundation, both were strongly against religion and the concept of God being taught to the child.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) approached education from the point of view of the state. During the 1808 French occupation of Berlin, one of the darkest moments in the life of the Prussian state, he arose to deliver his famous Addresses to the German Nation. In these speeches he argued for group unity and social solidarity in order to create a new and strong nation. As a basis for this unity, he advocated a strong system of education which would mold the people into a whole. Education, for him, was to be a means for building a nation, a state, and populace molded to the ideals of the State.
In contrast, Wilhelm August Froebel (1782-1852) believed firmly that the nature of the child was good and that it should be allowed to grow naturally. Education for him was a process of permitting and making possible this natural growth of the child. Froebel went further than Rousseau in that the child is not merely an individual but also a member of a group. The child must be educated to accept the values of society.
It is the belief today that the State should have absolute control over all education and that the fundamental purpose of education is to train and mold individuals into service and submission to the State. The whole totalitarian educational system in Germany, Italy, and other totalitarian states is of this nature. It is controlled completely by the State, and no one is permitted to do or teach anything except that which will contribute to the building of citizens who will devotedly serve the state in obedience to the will of its ruler.
We continue to witness the powers of the Federal government increasing its control over education to such a proportion that we could see before the end of this present Administration in Washington the outlawing of both private and home schools. This move would attempt to remove any educational approach independent of the State’s philosophy. More and more, through subtle inroads of deceptive manipulation, the Federal government is making mandatory requirements that eventually will eradicate such schooling. If the State views all forms of education under their protective canopy, this could eventually include Sunday schools associated with the Church. These too would be viewed aversive to the State. Harbingers of such changes can be seen in the present Administration’s desire to force all schools to be accredited by the Federal government.
How will such a takeover in education begin? Will it be through the Federal governments overseeing its need of “national security”? Will this security include the need of the State observing the curriculum to see if anything is being taught that would be against the political correctness of the State? Could such intrusion come through a threatening disease that will necessitate the closing down of schools by the State for health security reasons? In return, to reopen the schools, would new guidelines be implemented with a personal physician appointed to regularly give examinations? Would this then include privately questioning the children periodically on how the home and school are handling discipline and moral situations? All of these scenarios have already been discussed at length by our government. If it becomes law for all schools to become accredited, such accreditation could be forced under the guise of “quality education,” with guidelines implemented that will make sure political correctness will be the presupposition of all the curriculum taught. Will all forms of education be forced under the canopy of the State in order to control what is being taught? Will this include the subtle closing down of all church schools by implementing taxes on the school itself, and no longer viewing such a school as part of the Church? Thus, with taxes becoming such a burden, will smaller schools no longer be able to stay in the business of education? Yes, the talk behind closed doors is already well under way for the changes to come soon, very soon.
The Powers of Political Correctness
The concept of “political correctness” is that weapon by the State and the media of our times that seeks to restrict any alternative of expression other than that which is presented by the controlling power. It is clearly evident in our day and time that political correctness will only tolerate those viewpoints that are likeminded, and it definitely will not permit room for any expression of thought that is contrary to the accepted view of the State. This “correctness” has stepped forward as the watchdog to declare what ideas are “correct” and those designated “incorrect.” Then through intimidation or “public policy” it tries to quell and suppress what it deems as the incorrect. This forced and often intimidating ideology comes across with the belief that such restrictions of speech are for the good of society. It is promoted to be that which eliminates prejudice.
Jerry Adler noted the following in “Taking Offense” (Newsweek, December 24, 1990):
[It is not] enough for a student to refrain from insulting homosexuals or other minorities. He or she would be expected to ‘affirm’ their presence on campus and to study their literature and culture alongside that of Plato, Shakespeare and Locke. This agenda is broadly shared by most organizations of minority students, feminists and gays.
In the workforce today, if one goes against political correctness, often he is required to take “sensitivity training” provided either by the company or the school. Such training seeks to correct the thoughts and ideas of the offending individual. The true agenda of such sensitivity training is the reorientation of the individual to the mass’s definition of political correctness.
At this point in America, an individual can be taken to court for an action he has committed against the law. However, we are already crossing the threshold where a person could be taken to court for his thoughts or for his conscience. He could be imprisoned for not “thinking” right according to the State or for having a conscience educated differently. Such a man will be forced to take “sensitivity training” classes to reeducate his conscience and thinking in order to “conform” to the thinking of the Political Correctness. It is one thing to “tolerate” the existence of an evil that the State has legalized; it is another thing when we are forced to believe and acknowledge that that sin or immorality is “all right.”
In 1979, Ray Bradbury published the book Fahrenheit 451. Within the Afterword of his book, these words appear:
The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist, Unitarian, Isis, Italian, Octogenarian, Zen Buddhist, Zionist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Women’s Lib, Republican, Four Square Gospel, feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. . . . Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from the books, then that, until the day when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever.
One may wonder why Bradbury gave such a title to this book: It is at 451 degrees Fahrenheit that paper burns! Of what was Bradbury so afraid? It was his prediction that there would come a generation that would burn books in order to conceal the truth.
We are now feeling the powers to suppress thoughts and words before they can be spoken or written. In recent years, there has been only one book banned by the Federal government in all its schools throughout America—the Bible. It is abhorred more than any other book. This one book is against the political correctness of the State, including its immorality. Therefore it is banned not only from schools but also, in spirit, from all society.
With the greater empowerment of political correctness in the last 100 days, we must prepare for what is ahead. We will see political correctness vastly increase in the public (or more appropriately, “government”) schools, the private workplace, and even the churches of America. Often coming in the guise to quell various forms of discrimination, to the contrary, it has become strongly discriminatory and censorial to anything that challenges government social policy.
Though political correctness began within the colleges and universities in America, it has spread through the public media in its various forms. Once any group takes the helm of political power to the exclusion of others, whether that group be carrying a swastika, a hammer and sickle, a peace symbol, or a Bible, then the nonconformists become outcasts and outlaws. Both speech and behavior in America’s general culture are now being placed under the scrutiny of political correctness. Free speech will go quickly in our country in the near future. Any form of expression that is viewed by political correctness as insulting or provoking violence on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender, or lifestyle will be silenced.
May God enable us to keep biblical truth as the powers of political correctness endeavor to forcefully pull us away by threatening our jobs, our positions in life, our acceptance in society, or our very physical bodies. The Bible predicted such days would come; we must be ready to face whatever the cost may be. May God help us in the hour of testing to be “biblically” correct rather than “politically” correct.