Heresy Hunter re-visited

I. There is a recently issued brief in The Spectator (UK) where the author, Melanie Phillips, discusses the Mohammedan–inspired murderer of 13 military personnel at Fort Hood, namely Nidal Hasan. She writes: "It turns out that fellow students of the army psychiatrist... had complained to the faculty about his anti–American propaganda – but were too afraid to file a formal complaint for fear of being accused of prejudice". Further: "no one filed a formal, written complaint about Hasan's comments out of fear of appearing discriminatory". Her conclusion: "It seems that multiculturalism kills".


II. The Spectator brief was a cue.


III. In the late 1990s – during the pre–9/11 era – I wrote an review of a fairly good book entitled: The Menace of Multiculturalism: Trojan Horse in America, by Alvin J. Schmidt (Praeger Publishers, 1997, 211 pp.). The multiculuralist worldview, with the false claim of a social panacea to which its proponents believe it fosters, is now more than ever exposed to be a pernicious ideology that foments only civilizational breakdown – of a once superiorly singular Western civilization, that is; not "culture", which is a term that generically appertains to any society, malevolent or benign. Given this, TH2 figured it would be warranted to post the aforementioned book review (follows next).


IV. Most conservative commentators in North America have now come to acknowledge that the agenda of the radical Left has permeated into the very foundation of the infrastructure of Western culture. Deconstructionism, situational ethics, nature worship, paganism, nihilism, historical revisionism, biological determinism, the politicization of all aspects of personal and public life – such worldviews and others have formed into an ideational superstorm that rages against the bastions of civility and common sense. Family and social life, government and business, the judiciary, universities and the entertainment industry, the media and art – all have been poisoned. Although the origin of this crisis can be traced back much further in time, it can more immediately be fingerprinted to have burgeoned during the 1960s Antinomian Revolution.


V. In the thirty or so years since, the response to this crisis has effectively been silence. Politicians, companies large and small, the churches, administrators and educators have increasingly submitted without protest to the demands of a left–liberal elite. The new elite are not liberal in the sense of classical liberalism, where freedom was kept in check by assuming truths. Rather, modern liberalism proclaims total relativism in matters moral and epistemological, often euphemized with the word pluralism. Now that the young radicals of the Sixties have surpassed middle age, they effortlessly disseminate these relativisms as they wield positions of immense power and influence.


VI. It is this crisis in culture that the American sociologist Alvin J. Schmidt addresses in his book. Schmidt, a former Canadian of German extraction, provides a dauntless assault on what he believes to be the chief cause of the decay in American society, viz. multiculturalism. It “is a leftist political ideology that sees all cultures, their mores and institutions, as essentially equal. No culture is considered superior or inferior to any other.” Except Western Judaeo–Christian culture, that is. The celebration of non–Western cultures, says Schmidt, is really a disguised attempt to supplant the Western value system. In all aspects of American society, multiculturalists are imposing an ideology which discourages the recognition and judgement of people based on qualification and ability. Rather, race, gender and ethnicity determines one’s worth in society.


VII. Schmidt contends, quite convincingly, that multiculturalism is rooted in neo–Marxist ideology, whose purpose is to instill anti–American sentiment into the population. Other cultural commentators have made this observation, noticing that the Marxist rhetoric of a violent “class struggle” has been transposed to areas other than class. The struggle is now more politic, it unhurriedly works within institutions, it influences policy making, and is perpetuated by focussing on racial and gender differences. It is my personal theory that this process of quiet interpenetration has a striking similarity to the notion of “passive revolution”, as advocated by the Sardinian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937). Gramsci said that social change would come not by direct revolutionary confrontation, but by the gradual influx of insurrectionist principles into an already operating cultural matrix. Thus Schmidt’s use of the term “Trojan horse” is an apt analogy.




VIII. Schmidt states that antagonisms between variegated communities are heightened by multiculturalism’s emphasis on “diversity”. The politicizing of differences between various cultural groups does not promote intra–national harmony. Rather, it partitions cultures into uncompromising units of self–assertion. Physical endowments, state in life, or feelings about the world are the factors that empower the citizen. Properly – so goes the argument of those naive, multiculturalism should encourage unity in a pluralistic society by highlighting similarities between various cultures, promoting common ground for a productive public discourse that acknowledges the limits and benefits of each; and likenesses should be made preponderant (in actuality, however, differences between groups are exacerbated). But oil and water do not mix. Theocratic Islamism and democracy, for example, are mutually exclusive units. The divisiveness associated with “group identity”, states Schmidt, merely fosters cultural tribalism. The days of the American melting pot have ended. America has travelled, he writes, “from Melting Pot to Boiling Pot”. If the situation does not turn around, Schmidt forecasts that the ruinous effects of multiculturalism will pilot the U.S. to a condition of chaos and brutality comparable to that of the former Yugoslavia.


IX. Schmidt speaks of the euphemistic absurdities of “politically correct” vernacular. He underscores their consistent vilification of the Christian belief system. He identifies their omission of Western cultural achievements from educational curriculums. He demythologizes multiculturalism’s one–sided portrayal of aboriginal peoples (which is silent about, for example, their slavery, destruction of the environment, cannibalism, human sacrifice). He denounces Afrocentric revisionist history. He unabashedly comments on the vulgarities and health consequences associated with polymorphic sexual activity. Many other insights are provided which prove devastating to those enamoured by half truths and politicized descriptions of the contemporary cultural condition.

X. As a former Canadian, Schmidt has especial concern for the Quebec sovereignty problem. His view is one of sheer pessimism. He sees the dilemma as starting from the very beginning when in 1763 the British issued the Royal Proclamation Act, permitting the French language to have equal status with English. The federal government’s policy of bilingualism is, states Schmidt, “a basket case”. After the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, Canada’s “bilingualism problems with Quebec were exacerbated when it adopted a pro–multiculturalist posture in 1971.” More recently, the “distinct society” status conferred upon Quebec is “unrealistic”. No solution can be found since “inevitably Quebec will secede”. Schmidt’s bases his prediction upon the assumption that the survivance and unity of a country are dependent upon a single language. He also sees Quebec separation as primarily beneficial for Canada. However, Schmidt fails to mention – or does not know of – the multilingual Swiss federation, formed many centuries ago, as a case which challenges his own stance. His unilinguistic stance is valid, but it only goes so far. I would argue deeper and say that morality (as intimately connected with religion) sustains a country. As falls morality, so falls society. It is the lesson of history.


XI. Another concern is Schmidt’s contention that English is the best of all languages in Western civilization. He opines this on the fact that the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the American Declaration of Independence, amongst others, are composed in English. He acknowledges the dangers of linguistic determinism, yet his justifications otherwise still do not preclude the assumption that language alone (English in his case) determines whether a society will be freer and more democratic. This, I believe, is a dubious argument. I do not understand why Schmidt fails to recognize the monumental importance of Latin and its fostering by the Catholic Church, be it reflected in, say, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas or, going back to ancient Rome, in Cicero’s Orations. For that matter, until 1918 all international treatises were first written in Latin.

XII. Schmidt’s book is more of a compilation of facts and figures rather than systematic philosophical analysis of the culture wars. He does not delve into the origins of America’s cultural crisis, though he is acutely aware of the signs of the times. Nevertheless, his work acts as an excellent supplement to such works as Robert H. Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, which is a more thorough examination of the American cultural crisis, even with relevance beyond America’s borders.