Multiculturalism and Marxism -- Part I

by Professor Frank Ellis

[Joe McCarthy may have been a drunk and everything else. He used a shotgun rather than a rifle. But what's been coming out of the Soviet Union since the fall of the Iron Curtain supports much of what he claimed back in the 1950's about communist activity in the United States. -- Insight magazine, 23 September 2002.]

No successful society shows a spontaneous tendency towards multiculturalism or multiracialism. Successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity. Those who support multiculturalism either do not know this, or, what is more likely, realize that if they are to transform Western society into strictly regulated, racial-feminist bureaucracies they must first undermine these societies.

This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to establish Communism in the Soviet Union was. Just as every aspect of life had to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multiculturalists hope to control and dominate every aspect of our lives.  Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs is a softer, gentler tyranny but one with which they hope to bind us as tightly as a prisoner in the gulag. Today's "political correctness" is the direct descendant of Communist terror and brainwashing.

Unlike the obviously alien implantation that was Communism, what makes multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West. Although it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West.

What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicbeskaya pravil 'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control in education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure that all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianism. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.

As Mao Tse-Tung, The Great Helmsman , put it, "Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul." Mao's little red book is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought and by the late l980s  Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the other "isms" -- anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which now dominate university curricula. The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious.

Today's dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.

Some have argued that it is unfair to describe Stalin's regime as "totalitarian," pointing out that one man, no matter how ruthlessly he exercised power, could not control the functions of the state. But, in fact, he didn't have to. Totalitarianism was much more than state terror, censorship, and concentration camps; it was a state of mind in which the very thought of having a private opinion or point of view had been destroyed. The totalitarian propagandist forces people to believe that slavery is freedom, squalor is bounty, ignorance is knowledge and that a rigidly closed society is the most open in the world. And once enough people are made to think this way it is functionally totalitarian even if a single dictator does not personally control everything.

Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is tolerance and diversity. Indeed the multicultural revolution works subversion everywhere, just as communist revolutions did. Judicial activism undermines the rule of law, "tolerance" weakens the condition that makes real tolerance possible; universities which should be havens of free enquiry practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time we find a relentless drive for equality: [Homer], the Bible, Shakespeare, and "rap" music are just texts with "equally valid perspectives." Today Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment would have been repackaged as Crime and Counseling.

In the Communist era, the totalitarian state was built on violence. The purpose of the l930s and the Great Terror [of the French Revolution ] (which was Mao's model for the Cultural Revolution) uses violence against "class enemies" to compel loyalty. Party members signed death warrants for "enemies of the people" knowing that the accused were innocent, but believing in the correctness of the charges. In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering millions of Russian peasants. As cited by Robert Conquest in The Horror of Sorrowing (p. 143), the state's view of this class was "not one of them was guilty of anything, but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything." Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.

This, of course, is the beauty of "racism" and "sexism" for today's culture attackers -- sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations. The charge of "institutional racism" is no different than declaring an entire economic class an enemy of the people. "Racism" and "sexism: are multiculturalism's assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same. If a crime can be collectivized, all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group. When young whites are victims of racial preferences they are today's version of the Russian peasants. Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone, they "belong to the race that is guilty of everything."

The purpose of these multicultural campaigns is to destroy the self. The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or today, PC-man. Once enough people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary; we reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.

The Russian experiment with revolution and totalitarian social engineering has been chronicled by two of that country's greatest writers, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn. They brilliantly dissect the methods and psychology of totalitarian control. Dostoyevsky's The Devils has no equal as a penetrating and disturbing analysis of the revolutionary and totalitarian mind. The "devils" are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting with something they do not understand. The ruling class seeks to ingratiate itself with them. The universities have essentially declared war on society at large. The great cry of the student radicals is freedom, freedom, from the established norms of society, freedom from manners, freedom from inequality, freedom from the past.

Russia's descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building a terrestrial paradise. Dostoyevsky did not live to see the abominations he predicted, but Solzhenitsyn experienced them firsthand. The Gulag Archipelago and August 1914 can be seen as histories of ideas, as attempts to account for the dreadful fate that befell Russia after 1917. Solzhenitsyn identifies education, and the way teachers saw their duty as instilling hostility in all forms of traditional authority, as the major factors that explain why Russia's youth was seduced by revolutionary ideas. In the West during the 1960s and 1970s -- which collectively can be called "the 60s" -- we hear a powerful echo of the mental capitulation of Russia that took place in the 1870s and continued through the revolution. One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation ).

Truth is not something to be established by rational enquiry,  but depends on the perspective of the speaker. In the multicultural universe, a person's perspective is "valued" (a favorite word) according to class. Feminists, blacks, environmentalists, and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth because they are oppressed. They see truth more clearly than the white heterosexual men who "oppress" them. This is a perfect mirror image of the Marxist proletariat's moral and intellectual superiority over the bourgeoisie.

Today, "oppression" confers a "privileged perspective" that is essentially infallible. To borrow an expression from Robert Bork's Slouching towards Gomorrah, blacks and feminists are [as] "case hardened against logical argument" as Communist true believers are. Indeed, feminists and anti-racist activists openly reject objective truth. Confident that they have intimidated their opposition, feminists are able to make all kinds of demands on the assumption that men and women are equal in every way. When outcomes do not match that belief, this is only more evidence of white-male deviltry.

One of the most depressing sights in the West today, particularly in the Universities and the media, is the readiness to treat feminism as a major contribution to knowledge and to submit to its absurdities. Remarkably, this requires no physical violence. It is the desire to be accepted that makes people truckle to these middle-class, would-be revolutionaries.

 Peter Verkovensky, who orchestrates murder and mayhem in The Devils, expresses it with admirable contempt: "All I have to do is raise my voice and tell them that they are not sufficiently liberal." The race hustlers, of course play the same game. Accuse a liberal of "racism" and "sexism" and watch him fall apart in an orgy of self-flagellation and Marxist self-criticism. Even "conservatives" wilt at the sound of those words.

Ancient liberties and assumptions of innocence mean nothing when it comes to "racism." You are guilty until proven innocent, which is really impossible, and even then you are forever suspect. An accusation of racism has much the same effect as an accusation of witchcraft did in 17th century Salem.

It is the power of the charge of "racism" that stifles the derision that would otherwise meet the idea that that we should "value diversity." If "diversity" had real benefits, whites would want more of it and would ask that even more cities in the U.S. and Europe be handed over to immigrants. Of course, they are not rushing to embrace diversity and multiculturalism; they are in headlong flight in the opposite direction. Valuing diversity is [a] hobby for people who do not have to endure its benefits.
---

Multiculturalism and Marxism -- Part II
by Professor Frank Ellis

A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a large growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the "multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society even more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the ideas of the West.

How is such a radical program carried forward? The Soviet Union had a massive system of censorship -- the Communists even censored street maps -- and it is worth noting there were two kinds of censorship: the blatant censorship of state agencies and the more subtle self-censorship that the inhabitants of "people democracies" soon learned.

The situation in the West is not so straight forward. There is nothing remotely comparable to Soviet-style government censorship and yet we have deliberate suppression of dissent. Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin, and Glayde Whitney have all been vilified for their racial views. The case of Professor Rushton is particularly troubling because his academic work was investigated by the police. The attempt to silence him was based on provisions of Canadian hate speech laws. This is just the sort of intellectual terror one expected in the Soviet Union. To find it in a country which prides itself on being a pillar of Western liberal democracy is one of the most disturbing consequences of multiculturalism.

A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current obsession with fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bartold Brecht's principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be. This is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges, street wise, straight-shooting lady policemen, minority computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men. This is almost a direct borrowing from Soviet-style socialist realism, with its idealized depictions of sturdy proletarians routing capitalist vermin.

Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism. It is absolute in its pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives in its attack on its enemies. Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw two conclusions:

First, Multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries. Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state.

Such a society would be well on its way to being totalitarian. It might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education centers and sensitivity training for those sad creatures who still engaged in "white male hegemonic discourse." Rather than the bald totalitarianism of the Soviet state we would have a softer version in which our minds would be the wards of the state; we would be liberated from the burden of thought and therefore unable to fall into the heresy of political incorrectness.

If we think of multiculturalism as yet another manifestation of 20th century totalitarianism, can we take solace in the fact that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed? Is multiculturalism a phase, a periodic crisis through which the West is passing, or does it represent something fundamental and perhaps irreversible? Despite the efforts of pro-Soviet elements, the West recognized the Soviet empire as a threat. It does not recognize multiculturalism as a threat in the same way. For this reason, many of the assumptions and objectives remain unchallenged. Still, there are some grounds for optimism. For example, the speed with which the term "political correctness" caught on. It took the tenured radicals completely by surprise, but it is only a small gain.

In the long term, the most important battleground in the war against multiculturalism is the United States. The battle is likely to be a slow war of attrition. If it fails, the insanity of multiculturalism is something white Americans will have to live with. Of course, at some time whites may demand an end to being punished because of black failure. As Professor Michael Hart argues in The Real American Dilemma (published by New Century Foundation), there could be a racial partition of the United States. We might find that what happened in the Balkans is not peculiar to that part of the world. Race war is not something the affluent radicals deliberately seek but their policies are pushing us in that direction.

I have argued thus far that the immediate context for understanding political correctness and multiculturalism is the Soviet Union and its catastrophic utopian experiment. And yet the PC/multicultural mentality is much older. In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke offers a portrait of French radicals which is still relevant 200 years after he wrote it: "They have no respect for the wisdom of others, but they pass it off with a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear of the duration of a building run up in haste because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery."

Of course, multiculturalism is far from being a solution to racial and cultural conflict. Quite the contrary, multiculturalism is the road to a special kind of hell that we have already seen in the last century, a hell that man, having abandoned and in revolt against God's order, builds for himself and others.

Source. "Fact, Fiction & Fraud," July 2000, as cited in the Nov. & Dec. 2000 issues of The Schwarz Report. (Emphasis added.)

For more on the war being waged against Whites of European descent, see Cultural Marxism vs Western Civilization (below).

For more on the Italian Communist theorist whose "March Through the Institutions" for "Cultural Hegemony" is being implemented by the multiculturalists in order to bring down Western, Helleno-Christian civilization, see Antonio Gramsci

To see how Greek "intellectuals" -- like their spineless counterparts in America -- are tripping all over themselves to be "accepted" by their establishment masters, see "Kissinger: A 'Progressive' Greek" 

For more on how the "utopian experiment" of communism took the lives of over 100 million innocent souls in the 20th century, see the recently published The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press.) for a  precisely documented account of this unprecedented -- and as yet unpunished -- outrage against humanity.

Some editorial comment on the importance of homogeneity:

The following was written by John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius" in The Federalist, No. 2

"It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions and watered it with innumerable streams for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. ...

"With equal pleasure I have often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.

"This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." (Emphasis added.)

We beg the reader to consider that when being exhorted about the marvels of "diversity" and "multiculturalism," -- social constructs that even a cursory reading of history will show have always led to bloodshed, division, and strife -- he is most likely being "sold" something that will work to the benefit of the huckster pitching this myth, and to the ethnic, ideological, or social group to which the huckster belongs.

How the "Grekili" Stole Christmas

Method to the Madness

Peacekey