Originally written over 100 years ago!
7,500,000,000 World Population >>> and just 8% are WHITE!
By Tim Murray
Multiculturalism is Canada’s Ingsoc (Orwellian term). The ideology of a “soft” totalitarian state. A state that does not need gulags, detention camps, or torture chambers to achieve its goals because the ruling political-class can “manufacture consent” through its control of the media, the universities, and government departments.
To use Marxist terminology, the political class— the ruling class–does not need to control the “infrastructure”, it only needs to control the “superstructure”. It is far more important — for their purposes — to control the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) than it would be to control any major corporation listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The most effective way to promote this ideology of “Diversity and Tolerance” and Cultural relativism (Marxism) is to shape the language, to supplant “Oldspeak” with “Newspeak”, to replace accurate descriptions with euphemisms, to make it impossible for younger generations to think subversive thoughts by putting them in a verbal straight-jacket. The point is not simply to deny them the words they would need to express critical thoughts, but through the loss of these words to deny them the ability to form critical thoughts.
Is this not what has been happening step by step in the last forty years, picking up speed as time by passes by? Dumbing young people down by displacing plain standard English with PC jargon? Displacing critical thinking with ideologically programmed responses? Is this not what Canadian universities do now? Is that not their mission? The goal of a liberal arts “education”? Are Canadian universities not just boot-camps of political correctness, factories to churn out soldiers for Multicult Group-Think? Soldiers who one day will occupy the newsrooms, cabinet rooms, staff rooms and board rooms of the nation?
Long ago an American military officer concluded that in order to complete the conquest, displacement and assimilation of Native Americans, “We must kill the Indian in the child”. In other words, for any colonial agenda the final solution to the native “problem” must involve the eradication of native culture—and that culture is best transmitted through its language. It’s a habitual strategy. English occupiers tried to do that in Wales and Ireland, and the Department of Indian Affairs tried to that in Residential Schools here [in Canada]. Now we are doing it to ourselves in our universities. Or rather, they are doing it to us.
Who are “they”? They are not our colonial occupiers but their handmaidens … the Puppet Intelligentsia, the political class who are paving the way for our ongoing conquest by dressing it up as an opportunity to enjoy more “diversity”. Hence the invention of a language and a vocabulary which can frame the invasion in positive terms, and exclude alternative interpretations.
How ironic is it then, that by displacing Oldspeak with Multi-cult Newspeak, young Canadians are able to become reconciled to their own displacement. The political class is killing the Canadian in the child. Source
[For added emphasis, all bolded words by Editor]
By John Bryant
Start with a cage containing five monkeys.
Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.
After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm ! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.
Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.
Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that’s the way it’s always been done around here.
[With very little tolerance given to diversity of thought, this scenario is played out in public schools, universities and places of employment on a daily basis until we are thoroughly conditioned and managed by social constructs that may be detrimental to our own sense of ’self ‘ and well-being.-Editor-]
Stay up to date:
By Raymond V. Raehn
America (or any Western Nation) is today dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values
that we have come to know as “Political Correctness.”
Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. Its roots lie in a version of Marxism which seeks a radical of the traditional culture in order to create a social revolution. >>See N.W.O. Plans For U.S.
Social revolution has a long history, conceivably going as far back as Plato’s Republic. But it was the French Revolution of 1789 that inspired Karl Marx to develop his theories in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia set off a wave of optimistic expectation among the Marxist forces in Europe and America that the new proletarian world of equality was finally coming into being. Russia, as the first communist nation in the world, would lead
the revolutionary forces to victory.
The Marxist revolutionary forces in Europe leaped at this opportunity. Following the end of World War I, there was a Communist “Spartacist uprising in Berlin, Germany lead by Rosa Luxemburg; the creation of a “Soviet” in Bavaria led by Kurt Eisner; and a Hungarian communist republic established by Bela Ku in 1919. At the time, there was great concern that all of Europe might fall under the banner of Bolshevism. This sense of impeding doom was given vivid life by Trotsky’s Red Army invasion of Poland in 1919. However, the Red Army was defeated by Polish forces at the battle of the Vistula in 1920. The Spartacist, Bavarian Soviet and Bela Kun governments all failed to gain widespread support from the workers and after a brief time they were all overthrown.
These events created a quandary for the Marxist revolutionaries in Europe. Under Marxist economic theory, the oppressed workers were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure. When these revolutionary opportunities presented themselves, however, the workers did not respond. The Marxist revolutionaries did not blame their theory for these failures. They blamed the workers.
One group of Marxist intellectuals resolved their quandary by an analysis that focused on society’s cultural “superstructure” rather than on the economic substructures as Marx did. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism.
Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks.” Among Marxists, Gramsci is noted for his theory of cultural hegemony as the means to class dominance. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a
long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.
Georg Lukacs was the son a wealthy Hungarian banker. Lukacs began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning
of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”
When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he instituted a radical sex education program in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what Political Correctness would later bring to American schools.
In 1923, Lukacs and other Marxist intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most came to the United States.
The members of the Frankfurt School conducted numerous studies on the beliefs, attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of what became known as “Critical Theory.”
Critical Theory was essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and
conservatism. These criticisms were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.
The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950, substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists. The book was premised on one basic idea, that the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal-authoritarian family created a character prone to racial prejudice and German fascism. The Authoritarian Personality became a handbook for a national campaign against any kind of prejudice or discrimination on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, another Holocaust might occur on the American continent. This campaign, in turn, provided a basis for Political Correctness.
Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which themselves were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution based on cultural Marxism.
To achieve this, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is “normal.”
As a grand scheme intended to deny the intrinsic worth of white, heterosexual males, the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky believed that oppressed blacks could be the vanguard of a communist revolution in North America. He denounced white workers who were prejudiced against blacks and instructed them to unite with the blacks in revolution. Trotsky’s ideas were adopted by many of the student leaders of the 1960s counterculture movement, who attempted to elevate the black revolutionaries to positions of leadership in their movement.
The student revolutionaries were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolutions. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the Communist revolution. In his book, An Essay on Liberation, Marcuse proclaimed his goals of a radical transvaluation of values; the relaxation of taboos, cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, Marcuse wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.
Marcuse may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the critical link to the counterculture of the 1960s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955.
Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’s service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration
buildings in the 1960s. Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of Political Correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.
One of the most important contributors to Political Correctness was BETTY FRIEDAN. Through her book The Feminine Mystique, Friedan became the mother of the modern feminist movement in America. Friedan was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but she was strongly influenced by it. Her work offers a useful case study of the Marxist roots of Political Correctness.
Friedan devoted almost a full chapter of The Feminine Mystique to Abraham Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Maslow was a social psychologist who in his early years did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse at Bandeis University and had met Erich Fromm in 1936. He was strongly impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology. He wrote an article, “The Authoritarian Character Structure,” published in 1944, that reflected the personality
theory of Critical Theory. Maslow was also impressed with the work of Wilhelm Reich, who was another Frankfurt School originator of personality theory.
The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be fully appreciated unless Betty Friedan’s revolution in sex roles is viewed for what it really was – a manifestation of the social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx. Friedan’s reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School ideology is simply one indicator. Other indicators include the correspondence of Friedan’s revolution in sex roles with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values and the creation of new ones, and with Herbert Marcuse’s transvaluation of values.
But the idea of transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy – which is what a sex-role inversion is designed to do – can be connected directed to Friedrich Engels book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the Sate. First published in 1884, this book popularized the now-accepted feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy. The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comments in The German Ideology, published in 1845. In this work Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory (and its near-relation, androgyny theory) both originated from these sources.
When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness – or cultural Marxism, to give it its true name – present their beliefs attractively. It’s all just a matter of being “sensitive” to other people, they say. They use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking, “Why can’t we all just get along?” The reality is different. Political Correctness is Not at all about ”being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia.
At least the economic Marxists did not exalt sexual perversion and attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done. This short essay has sought to show one critical linkage, that between classical Marxism and the ingredients of the “cultural revolution” that broke out in America in the 1960s. The appendices to this paper offer a “wiring diagram” which may make the trail
easier to follow, along with a more detailed look at some of the main actors. Of course, the action does not stop in the ‘60s; the workings of Frankfurt School are yet very much with us, especially in the field of education. That topic, and other present-day effects of Frankfurt School thinking, will be the subjects of future chapters in this book.
By Peter Brimelow
As I relate every year, the War Against Christmas (in the form of a leaked memo from the Clinton Administration’s HUD) was almost the first thing that VDARE.COM covered when it went live in 1999. Our annual competitions now provide the best compendium of anti-Christmas atrocities on the web.
It’s fun, but it’s also serious: the people who want to abolish Christmas also want to abolish America.
In 2005, the War Against Christmas went mainstream. Several organizations, and famous television personalities, took up the cause. It was great! And it definitely got the Christophobes worried.
In 2006, however, we observed a different pattern. As our blogger Patrick Cleburne showed, the Mainstream Media suddenly began to parrot with eerie unanimity the line that there was no War Against Christmas. According to one count this time last year, there were 106 major newspaper articles denying the War Against Christmas articles and only 18 acknowledging it—a five to one ratio of War Against Christmas denial.
At the same time, the Mainstream Media was quite obviously simply suppressing news of new anti-Christmas atrocities. For example, the peculiar episode where a California high school choir was ordered to stop singing carols at a Christmas show for fear of offending Olympic figure skater Sasha Cohen (who said she wasn’t offended) took days to make it into the national media, and then only in a minor way.
This is what I mean by changing the debate—and keeping on changing it. Obviously, the Christophobes are on the run. They are, quite rightly, shaken by the American backlash when anti-Christmas atrocities do get national attention—as in 2006, for example, when Christmas trees were removed from Seattle airport, which through the miracle of the internet, VDARE.COM was able to report within a couple of hours. They are putting out a smokescreen of War Against Christmas denial to cover their withdrawal while attempting to salvage their cultural power by ridiculing those who dare draw attention to it.
And it works.
Will the TV Christmas crusaders be so vocal this year? Have they even noticed what is going on?
But VDARE.COM has noticed. And we will keep up the pressure, whether resistance to the War Against Christmas is fashionable or not, whether we are ridiculed or not, until America’s Christmas is restored.
I keep a file of Christmas atrocities that readers send as the season approaches. Here are a few:
|Seattle’s indefatigable airport bureaucrats (who are these guys?) have unveiled a 2007 “winter display” without Christmas trees. So much for the claim that there’s no War Against Christmas|
|But Berkley, MI, has been compelled by a citizen initiative to restore its decades-old Nativity display.|
|And Missouri State University has restored a Christmas tree, removed after a faculty member had complained. The spineless college bureaucrats are adding a menorah and a display case full of other “holiday traditions”—but the Christmas tree is back.|
The War Against Christmas is now being denied by its partisans—and even driven back—for exactly the same reason that the Kennedy-Bush illegal alien amnesty was claimed by its partisans not to be an amnesty, and was eventually defeated.
That reason: ordinary Americans, with no leadership from above, spontaneously rose up and organized themselves against it. >>More HERE
VDARE is seeking your DONATION to carry on their fight for IMMIGRATION REFORM
By Daniel Sheehy
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is a busy guy these days securing our border with Mexico—at least that’s what the “mainstream media” wants Americans to think.
During President Bush’s tour of Yuma, Arizona on April 9, we were shown pictures of Bush and Chertoff posing in front of a Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle, implying that the Predator is being used along the border to catch illegal aliens.
Other pictures showed Bush pointing to fencing that has been erected at the border since he visited the same spot one year ago.
“This border is more secure, and America is safer as a result,” the president told several hundred border agents, National Guard personnel, and local law enforcement officials during his visit to Yuma. “I appreciate the hard work of Secretary Michael Chertoff.”
(Read about Bush’s April 9 tour of Yuma in, The One Hundred Year Fence, by Glenn Spencer, one of the people featured in my book, Fighting Immigration Anarchy: American Patriots Battle to Save the Nation. Apparently, a mere 2 ½ miles of double-layered fencing has been constructed along the border with Mexico since Congress approved and Bush signed into law The Secure Fence Act of 2006 just before the November election.)
On February 8, in a story titled Immigration drive kicks into high gear by Nicole Gaouette, the Los Angeles Times reported that Chertoff took “members of Congress on a helicopter tour of the southern U.S. border to promote the administration’s stepped-up enforcement measures.” Accompanying the story was a photo of Chertoff welding a chunk of fence along the Arizona-Mexico border.
These staged photos and appearances are part of a massive propaganda campaign to convince the American people that the border is, or soon will be, under control—so it is time to pass a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill, which is code for a massive new “guest-worker” program and an illegal-alien amnesty.
This is why we are increasingly hearing about federal authorities arresting “illegal immigrants” in various cities across the U.S. Of course, arresting a few dozen illegal aliens once a week is barely a drop in the bucket when there are more than 20 million in the U.S. and thousands flooding across the southern border every day. The arrests are not meant to fix the crisis, but just to give the impression that the government is cracking down. >>Continue Reading HERE
By Judith Moriarty
By Tim O’Shea
By Bob Unruh
A mandatory University of Delaware program requires residence hall students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist” and offers them “treatment” for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, according to a civil rights group.
“Somehow, the University of Delaware seems terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience – the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech,” said a letter from Samantha Harris, director of legal and public advocacy for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to university President Patrick Harker.
The organization cited excerpts from the university’s Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement:
“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to ALL WHITE PEOPLE (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, PEOPLE OF COLOR CANNOT BE RACISTS, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination�.'”
The education program also notes that “reverse racism” is “a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege.” And “a non-racist” is called “a non-term,” because, the program explains, “The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called ‘blaming the victim’).”
The “education” regarding racism is just one of the subjects that students are required to adopt as part of their University of Delaware experience, too, FIRE noted.
The “shocking program of ideological re-education,” which the school itself defines as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs, is nothing less than “Orwellian,” FIRE said.
The school requires its approximately 7,000 residence hall students “to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism.”
“FIRE is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech,” the organization said.
On a foundation blog, a student noted that one residence assistant told students, “Not to scare anyone or anything, but these are MANDATORY!!” And the training program for those who indoctrinate students includes the order: “A researcher must document that the treatment/intervention was faithfully applied (ex: specific lesson plans were delivered to every student, etc.).”
Further, the school requires “a systemic change” as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: “Like it or not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to Embrace and Appreciate that DIVERSITY is ESSENTIAL.” >>More Here
“The goal of ABOLISHING the WHITE RACE is on its face SO DESIRABLE that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition, other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it, we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the WHITE RACE’ is destroyed – not ‘de-constructed’ but DESTROYED.”