Multiculturalism mimics Soviet Communism
by F. Ellis
"For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gain spraying out bullets."
George Orwell, 1984.
NO SUCCESSFUL SOCIETY shows a spontaneous tendency towards multi-culturalism or multi-racialism.
Successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity. Those who support multiculturalism either do not know this or, what is more likely, realise that if they are to transform Western societies into strictly regulated racial-feminist bureaucracies they must first undermine those societies.
This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to establish Communism in the Soviet Union. Just as every aspect of life lead to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multi-culturalists 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 descendent of Communist error and brainwashing.
PERVERSION
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 1920's (politicheskaya -pravil 'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behaviour. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure 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-1960's Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilisation with all the latest "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 behaviour, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.
STATE OF MIND
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 all 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 idea of 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 conditions that make real tolerance possible; universities, which should be havens of free inquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time, we find a relentless drive for equality: the Bible, Shakespeare, and rap "music" are just texts with "equally valid perspectives." Deviant and critical behaviour is an "alternative lifestyle." Today, Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment would have to be repackaged as "Crime and Counselling."
COLLECTIVE GUILT
In the Communist era, the totalitarian state was built on violence. The purges of the 1930's and The Great Terror (which was Mao's model for the Cultural Revolution) used 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 1930's,"collective guilt" justified murdering millions of Russian peasants. As cited by Robert Conquest in The Harvest of Sorrow (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." Stigmatising 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 civilisations. The charge of "institutional racism" is no different from 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 collectivised, then 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,"
CREATING ZOMBIES
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. And 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 fully chronicled by two of that country's greatest writers, Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn. They brilliantly dissect the methods and psychology of totalitarian control. Dostoevsky's The Devils has no equal as a penetrating and disturbing analysis of the revolutionary and utopian mind. The "devils" are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting with something they do not understand. The ruling class tries 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 what happens when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building a terrestrial paradise. (Witness Tony Blair's attack on Britain - Ed.) Dostoevsky did not live to see the abominations he predicted but Solzhenitsyn experienced them first band. 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.
TRUTH 'RELATIVE'
Solzhenitsyn identifies education and the way teachers saw their duty as instilling hostility to 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 1960's and 1970's which can collectively be called "the 60's"' - we hear a powerful echo of the collective mental capitulation of Russia that took place in the 1870's and continued through the revolution.
One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is the idea that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation).
Truth is not some thing to be established by rational inquiry, but depends on the perspective of the speaker. In the multicultural universe, a person's perspective is "valued" (a favourite word) according to class. Feminists, blacks, environmentalists and homosexuals have a "greater" claim to truth because they are "oppressed." In their misery of "oppression" 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 and, of course, degenerates White Men. This is almost a direct borrowing from Soviet-style socialist realism, with its idealised depiction of sturdy proletarians routing capitalist vermin.
Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism. It is absolutist in the pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relatives 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.
TOTALITARIAN
Such a society would be well on its way to becoming totalitarian. It might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education - centres and sensitivity training for those sad creatures who still engaged in "white-male-hegemonic discourse." Rather than the hard totalitarianism of the Soviet state, we would have a softer version in which our minds would be 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 recognised the Soviet empire as threat. It does not recognise multiculturalism as a threat in the same way.
For this reason, many of its 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.
One has argued so 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 the French radicals that is still relevant 200 Years after he wrote it:
"They have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it off by 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 with regard to 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 or cultural conflict. Quite the contrary. Multiculturalism is the road to a special kind of hell that we have already seen in this gruesome 20th century, a hell that man, having abandoned reason and in revolt against God's order, builds for himself and others.
Webmaster's note: The following article was emailed to us, its origins unclear, but we believe it to be copyright free. If by reprinting this article we have inadvertently breached some individuals or organisations copyright we apologise.