Wednesday, January 04, 2012

The Marxist doctrine of Politically Correct Multiculturalism — which is now ascendant virtually throughout the West...

So Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna apodictically announces a recent post. It's not just that I've spent years writing essays refuting that simplistic way of looking at PC MC; it's not just that I probably wrote over 100 comments in various ways trying to correct this simplistic view in the comments fields of various articles at Gates of Vienna over the years; but Baron Bodissey even once featured an essay devoted to my argument, and he claimed at the time to have been at least partially sympathetic with it.

My response there was as follows:

PC MC is not "Marxist". If it were, then that means that (to name a few) Eisenhower, Rudolph Giuliani, McCain, Glenn Beck, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Texas Republican Governor Perry, and nearly the entire body of professors who count themselves as supporters of the philosophy of Eric Voegelin (a staunch anti-Communist and traditionalist who was often deemed "too conservative" for most people) are all "Marxist" -- for every one of these listed as parroted PC MC givens about Islam and about Muslims.

Soon thereafter, someone signed "ABC" posted this retort:

PCMC is Marxist and it is also Capitalist. Both left and right sing its praises. Those that oppose it sit outside this duality.

Cue the head-banging-on-desk emoticon again...


flippinheck said...

Cultural relativism, political correctness and multiculturalism are as much concepts pushed by media marketing strategies in order to make people 'look good', just as any other fashion accessory. In this day and age, it seems more likely that the intellectual indolence of MSM reporters in general has a lasting effect on the general public's tendency to shallowly consume middle of the road opinions just as much as they tend to consume material goods and services en masse, without stopping to think about it. Which makes it easier to push PC MC by seemingly innocuous ways the general public has been habituated to for decades now: TV and newspaper journalism mainly. That's why internet is basically one of the rare instances that may turn PC MC on its head in the long run. But we still have a long way to go before our knowledge gets widespread enough to counteract these tendencies. To some extent, I also believe that the relative hold the MSM still has on societies is the main reason why PC MC is a general aspect of the way Westerners think about these things, and therefore PC MC can't be categorized as innately Left-wing. PC MC spans a whole range of people deluded by its precepts, (neo)conservatives, atheists, secularists, adherents of different denominations within Christianity or even other religions,...etc.

PC MC is a wider issue. It can't be solely attributed to one particular segment of society. To think such a thing is self-delusional to start with. So in that respect I totally agree with you.

Sagunto said...

Hi Hesp -

I know the topic well, since I suggested it at the time ;)

In my first contribution, I wrote this:

"What I like about the thesis, is that it provides an antidote to the oft heard claim among some anti-Islam activists that we need to focus on socialism (for instance) as the main culprit in lowering our defences to the Islamic invasion and aggression. Of course the people who follow this line are no socialists themselves, and the temptation is to blame "the others" for the ascendancy of Islam. Sometimes one wonders if some are really interested in resisting and fighting Islam, or maybe more in fighting the "lefties".[..]"

While I have no intention to join you in a head-banging session, I must say that I do share some of your disappointment.

Truth be told, though, that the Baron never really came out in strong support of this part of your thesis. Both of you were in agreement about another claim, i.e. it not being carried out by some "secret cabal", plotting in smoke-filled rooms to enslave the gullible populace.

Wish I could say that I felt surprised when I read the telling statement about PC/MC being "Marxist", but I must confess that I wasn't, since there's also another version of MC, pushed by some of the self-appointed doom-gurus at GoV, which might be called PI/MC (politically incorrect.. etc). And I have this sneaking suspicion that the undercurrent of Euro/US tribalism (and sometimes even some weird sort of admiration of the Ummah super tribe) one finds in some of the essays, is also a basic ingredient/precursor of different kinds of socialism.

Anyway, between us, we have our own fish to fry (is that proper English?), but on this particular point, I can clearly see where you're coming from.

Take care,

Sagunto said...

Short addition.

Remember the "big tent" topic at GoV? Think that might be part of the explanation, i.e. the desire to accommodate or "host" many different viewpoints in a "movement" that has as its stated goal to resist Islamization of the West (or "Watch" Jihad..).

In another respect, I think it's also a way for some US commenters to reassure themselves that PC/MC is somehow "alien" (in origin) to the US...


Hesperado said...


I would agree with everything you say except for one thing: I wouldn't reduce PC MC to media marketing and fashion, insofar as some of its substance derives from the noetic health of the Western tradition. Were it not rooted in this tradition, and were it as superficial as you imply (though I may have misunderstood you), it would not have the power (= the hold) over the hearts and minds of so many Westerners.

There's a "law" of sorts afoot here, corresponding to a vector:

The healthier a political culture is, the less is a mere fashion able to take hold to sway sufficient numbers of people (including the intelligent among them). Thus, if we see that some phenomenon, some worldview, has indeed taken broad hold, then we must conclude that that phenomenon, that worldview, itself partakes of noetic health and cannot be reduced to the superficial (nor to the diabolical or the Macchiavellian).

The only alternative is to readjust the premise, and begin with the claim that the West is hopelessly diseased (and that the only hope lies in some ecclesiola, perhaps helmed by Baron Bodissey and Dymphna in some underground cave in West Virginia where they have stocked up on phreatic water and canned goods, with Fjordman deputized and an informal "Chiefs of Staff" organized around El Ingles, Seneca III, and others -- with Lawrence Auster given a box of crayons to play with in the corner -- meanwhile, they have grudgingly sprung Breivik out of prison in order to captain their commando unit, since he's the only person who knows how to actually use a gun to defend himself...).

Hesperado said...


Yes, "to have other (or one's own) fish to fry" is correct English idiom.

While we do share the disinclination to locate most of the blame on the Marxist/Leftist bugaboo, I'm afraid I see your fish as only formally distinct from the Marxist/Leftist scapegoat, but substantially still serving much the same function of the same mechanism.

As for the GOV "big tent" -- to expand on your point, perhaps it was a way to elbow themselves into the Movement, as they increasingly found themselves marginalized as a bit too Illuminatish (and "racist/fascist") for the more mainstreamlined bourgeoisie therein.

As for your recurring theme of American exceptionalism, I see no problem in locating the American Revolution within the context of a European intellectual event, philosophically, socially and legally contiguous with Europe in its roots.

Sagunto said...

"I'm afraid I see your fish as only formally distinct from the Marxist/Leftist scapegoat, but substantially still serving much the same function of the same mechanism."

Yes, I know about the way you seek to distort my views, and I have the impression that you just can't help yourself. You have no idea what my position really is, since you use a simple mechanism to defend the dogmatic apriorism that underlies your thesis.

Other thing is, that since you seem blissfully unaware of the economic disaster that is the US, and since you obviously have no conception of the monetary machine that is responsible, you won't comprehend of course, and I can't blame you for that, why I find the dogmatic aspect of your welfare statist optimism so misguided.

My view is optimistic for an entirely different reason, for I see that the idea of freedom and the philosophy of a free society is still able to bring people together. People who are yet uninformed, like you seem to be, can catch on any minute, though I reckon it must be harder for one particular generation known as the baby-boomers. So in this regard, because there still is a residual classical liberal (i.e. free market) mentality that persists among self-reliant Americans, I think the US is better off than most parts of Europe. The discussion of how the people's fight for individual liberty could have huge implications for the ongoing Islamization of our lands would be an interesting one. For sure, that's not at all what's being discussed over at GoV, or at JW, because I fear they promote very different notions of "freedom" and not a free society at all. Part of the problem might also be like I said, generational, CJ baby-boomers marred by cold war rhetoric and entitlement speak, I don't know.

The way I see it is that you're just part of the GoV/JW progressivist infighting on the issue of Islam and the closely associated debate on what should constitute Western civilization. You're the "optimist", they're the "doomers" in your simple scheme of things. I have come to see that both factions don't really have a winning strategy based on a philosophy that can genuinely inspire people.

Oh and PCMC isn't Marxist indeed, it has old roots, but the end-product came to Europe from the US after WW-II.

Take care,

Sagunto said...

My point in short as to why the two CJ factions perfectly complement each other: the "boomers" say "America is a bastion of Freedom", the "doomers" say "we must defend ourselves against Marxism".


flippinheck said...

In any case, I tend to believe that a majority of people rather cling to what they WANT to believe in first instance, rather then looking at what can be discerned from reality and facts. In my opinion, it seems to me that the general public (for want of a better term) would rather adhere to slapdash presumptions, wishful thinking, and naive assumptions with regards to what Islam holds in store for them because it makes them feel safe to bask in the readily available knowledge of so-called experts who haven't thought things through themselves out of sheer intellectual indolence. I think there is a chasm between the intellectual complacency of many who'd rather stick with unverified hypotheses going on inside their mind on the one hand and those individuals (such as yourself) who actively want to test hypothesis by
comparing it with the facts found in reality and who consequently try to either corroborate it or find systematic cause to falsify it as misconceptions in the long run. (like a scientist or a truly independent mind in general) Many people would not even dare embark on such an exercise, because maybe they live with an innate fear of having to stare a damning reality in the face: they might be proven wrong and they don't like to think about the implications. There's a clear difference in my mind between people who want to believe in what can't be guaranteed for sure and those that can truly state they believe in what they KNOW to be right or wrong with regards to Islam. This is basically why I believe the traditional MSM to a certain point can keep the PC MC framework from crumbling for the broader layers of society.

Hesperado said...


The psychosocial-intellectual mechanisms you describe are abstractly cogent and are accurate to explain and predict much of human behavior regarding many issues.

However, one simple postulation in my estimation serves to complicate your thesis: If Muslims were 95% Western whites and if their Islam was a White Power ideology, then all the inhibitions and recalcitrance you describe that motivates and explains the general retardation concerning waking up to the problem of Islam would evaporate, and in fact, under that hypothetical scenario, I dare say there would reign throughout the West a dominantly mainstream and socially popular mindset prone to condemn and oppose Islam and Muslims -- largely absent all the anxious hand-wringing, self-righteous platitudes and truisms, sophistical gymnastics and psychological and intellectual mechanisms of conforming which you describe getting in the way.

Academic said...

LOL -- I've missed you. I finally posted again; hoping to keep up with it a bit more.