The allure of political correctness is that it offers a path toward more civilized, less offensive discourse that ideally would lead to a more harmonious and just society. However, there is no practicable method for determining the boundaries of speech so that no one would be offended or harmed, and the powerful determine the priorities in deciding what harm should be avoided. So in practice political correctness tends to stifle the speech of the politically weak or powerless, as preventing transgressions against them are considered of lower priority than preventing offenses against the well-connected and powerful. So it tends to further empower the elites while it silences dissent from the powerless.
Also note that in any sphere of human activity that involves interaction with nature, including human nature, models must be used which are of necessity incomplete and approximate. Nature, and any phenomenon in nature which may be perceived and represented, is of unbounded complexity, and so a model, which is of finite complexity, can always be improved upon. That is why no social convention, and no opinion regarding optimal human social interaction, should ever be immune from criticism and scrutiny. Analysis of such conventions, opinions, and behaviors is unbounded in depth, and pat answers are the province of the uneducated and the lazy-minded.
Note that Identity Politics, which has become a significant component of political correctness, divides the common people in an age where technological developments offer the opportunity for them to create common understandings and common values that could lead to the development of a common purpose and create a more healthy and harmonious society. Those who advocate Identity Politics often claim that sexism can best be fought by dividing the society between the sexes and that racism can best by fought by dividing the society between the races. But dividing people by sex is sexism at its most fundamental, just as dividing people by race is racism at its most fundamental.
Also, it should be obvious that individuals are multi-dimensional, i.e., each has individual characteristics, some immutable and some not, on the dimensions of sex or gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, talent or intellectual ability, sexuality, religion or spiritual beliefs, age, health, athletic ability, income, personal or family wealth, educational level, profession or job, physical attractiveness, etc… On each of these dimensions, an individual may be advantaged, disadvantaged, or somewhere in between. So to properly determine whether someone is advantaged or privileged overall, one would have to examine the entire list of dimensions and note one’s position in each, but this is rarely done. I suspect what mostly happens is those individuals who are underprivileged overall but who are privileged on the dimensions most often emphasized, i.e., race and sex, pay most of the price of being labeled “privileged,” while those who are actually privileged overall are able to position themselves so they escape the negative consequences. And those who are privileged overall but are considered underprivileged on the emphasized dimensions gain a further advantage from what they already have, and they are often the ones who most enthusiastically promote the scheme.
Note that Nationalist Identity is probably the most defensible type of identity, because nations are somewhat closed systems that can resemble a tribe, or they used to be and can be with functioning borders, where people can work together and provide positive and negative feedback to each other to improve the general welfare, including establishing a functional political system that responds to the needs of all the people. Other forms of Identity Politics which lead to other groupings do not form closed systems at all, and cannot form proper tribes, and so there can be no healthy or functional feedback process to improve the group’s general welfare.
Since Identity Politics, particularly when focused on race and sex, obviously causes more harm than good, it seems likely that the movement to popularize it has been subject to manipulation by malevolent outside actors from the beginning. Such action would appear to be consistent with the time-honored technique of the powerful — to divide the common people so that they may more easily be subjugated.
Globalist elites determined that they could minimize resistance if they could transform the left from a movement organized around the struggle of labor vs. capital, i.e., traditional Marxism, into a movement that would inevitably lead to dividing the little people into warring groups. So these elites provided support to help create the “New Left,” which promotes what has been labeled as “Cultural Marxism” (that actually shares some attributes of Mao’s Cultural Revolution) and that focuses on the formation of and empowerment of competing political identity groups. The support was in part direct, but mostly indirect, as the elites provided the New Left with access to mainstream media and the messages, ideas, and values of the New Left were broadly spread, widely promoted, and sometimes even celebrated. This was all done at the expense of the Pro-Labor Left, which had posed a much greater threat to the political-economic power structure, and over time the New Left supplanted the Pro-Labor Left as the mainstream of the left.
Cultural Marxism, in simplest terms, is the idea that all traditional ideas regarding culture, values, moral systems, and social behaviors should be critically reviewed, and that when they are, they have little justification. There appears to be an alternative form of it which advocates that virtually all cultures, values, moral systems, and social behaviors are equal unless they involve advocating or engaging in violence.
Now, I’m not using the term “Cultural Marxism” as has been used by others to claim that the Frankfurt School of social theory, which is the source of Critical Theory and much of the new philosophical approaches of the social liberals, is designed to destroy Western civilization, as that seems overbroad and lacking in reason. Instead, as a result of critically reviewing Critical Theory, I find that certain elites use Critical Theory to advance themselves by tearing down those who would stand in their way. In our current situation, so-called “intellectuals” whether consciously or unconsciously carry water for, are useful idiots of, certain elites who want to tear down present structures in order to redesign society to serve their own interests.
Hiding behind the egalitarian cover provided by Cultural Marxism, the corporate media promotes radical new social trends and belief systems and encourages the use of Identity Politics and Political Correctness to enforce the new beliefs and trends, which are spread by Taliban-like ideological zealots, often called “Social Justice Warriors,” who act as useful idiots for the elites as they stifle free speech and try to quash dissent among the common people. These new ways of thinking undermine all traditional beliefs, values, bonds, expectations, and behavior patterns, which helps to make the little people more malleable as it breaks down their resistance to having their lives and their society transformed so as to better align with the interests of the elites. But what may be more important is that these belief systems atomize society as they create division and social chaos — the little people come to have a wide array of values, beliefs, and perspectives and it becomes impossible for most to agree on important issues and to coalesce to form a strong political force.
These radical beliefs spread under the umbrella of Cultural Marxism not only destroy solidarity among the little people and makes them ineffectual politically, but it also makes them less motivated and less mentally healthy so that they are less productive and often become broken people, as part of a decadent culture producing ignorant, incompetent, impulsive, and irrational citizens with no mooring to any established cultural norms.
The divisions created are problematic over the long term for any human society at a fundamental level. They not only insulate the elites from any serious challenges to their power, allowing problems to fester and the rise of other abuses that follow from unchallenged power, but more importantly it sets women against men, which can only lead over the long term to social disintegration. Men and women were designed by evolution to be different pieces of the same puzzle, so that they would fit together with different needs and different abilities to make a harmonious and healthy society that could survive over the long term. When men and women are convinced that they are competing groups and even enemies, then the myriad of inter-dependencies between the sexes, some known and many unknown, that human societies have depended on for survival throughout their hundreds of thousands of years of evolution are severed, leading to innumerable unpredictable ripple effects that could very easily cripple the society.
But the globalist elites pushing for a NWO and using this New Left, with its Cultural Marxism radically changing social rules that human societies have depended on to provide for the general welfare for millennia, keep on forging ahead, using an army of idealistic youthful dreamers fantasizing about some impossible Marxist utopia, while the elites have absolutely no intention of creating a Marxist state resembling that of the utopian vision of their useful idiots. Instead, they want to create a new type of feudalism with their NWO, where the few, including them, have everything, and everyone else has nothing.