[Vision2020] Cultural Marxism:

[Chasuk]

I'm going to have to object to several items in Doug's excerpt.  Some
of it I agree with, although with reservations/provisos, and I will
try to explicate those differences when I come to them.  Without
further adieu, here is my brief deconstruction:

Lind tells us that to understand multiculturalism, we must first
understand cultural Marxism, which is really the same thing.  Those
sneaky Marxists, inexplicably intent on destroying traditional Western
culture, knew that they couldn't fool Americans with any philosophy
overtly borrowing from Karl Marx, so they disguised its true origins
by renaming it multiculturalism.  These evil conspirators infiltrated
Hollywood and academia so successfully that a few generations later
multiculturalism becomes America's state ideology.  The ultimate goal
of multiculturalism is not just the destruction of Western culture,
but of Christianity.

Who is this Lind?  I located this paragraph about him in Wikipedia:

<start quote>
    At a major Holocaust denial conference put on by veteran
anti-Semite Willis Carto in Washington, D.C., Lind gave a
well-received speech before some 120 "historical revisionists,"
conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites, in which he
identified a small group of people who he said had poisoned American
culture. On this point, Lind made a powerful connection with his
listeners.

    'These guys,' he explained, 'were all Jewish.'
</end quote>

I despise what I just did.  It is called an ad hominem attack.  I have
just suggested that Lind is anti-Semitic.  My sincere apologies.  I
disapprove of such tactics, but I can't help but feel that Lind's
likely anti-Semitism   is relevant.  However, I am not using this
tactic to halt discussion, a la Godwin's Law.  Yes, I am frankly
suggesting that anti-multiculturalism might be indistinguishable from
anti-Semitism, or at least a flavor of  xenophobia.  Of course, it can
be logically argued that it isn't a phobia if it is rational.  Whether
antipathy towards multiculturalism is rational or not forms the next
part of this discussion.

What is multiculturalism?  Multiculturalism advocates the tolerance of
distant cultural groups.  It posits that cultural diversity is a good
thing.  It generally accepts that interculturalism is beneficial,
i.e., that the sharing of literature, art, music, fashion, cuisine,
etc., are positive things.

What do the opponents of multiculturalism say?  That depends.  Most
claim that it undermines national identity.  Some fear that it is a
(formerly Jewish) conspiracy hijacked by Muslims, intent on the
Islamification of America (and the world).  Some fear that it will
cause the balkanization of the world.  Some call it cultural
relativism, and accuse it of being the slippery slope to moral
relativism,  in which all barbaric and repugnant practices are
accepted as equally valid choices.

Now for the objections, from my perspective.  I do explicitly embrace
Enlightenment values as universal.  I reject racism, homophobia,
anti-Semitism, torture, infanticide, misogyny, slavery, the death
penalty, and female circumcision as universally repugnant.  That means
pure multiculturalism is unacceptable to me.  That does make me a
hypocrite.    However, I also deny the importance of national
identity.  I object to patriotism or nationalism in all of its forms.
I reject the favored status of Christianity in American politics (or
the deference given to religious belief, period).  I favor the fusion
of literature, art, music, fashion, cuisine, etc., from different
cultures.

I don't care whether my neighbors are Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim,
Sikh, Christian, or atheist, just so long as as it is understood by
all that we live in a secular society.  No theocracies for me.

Is that too much to ask for?  A world which embraces tolerance and
diversity, within the limits of the western Enlightenment, with a
secular government?

Wouldn't that be following the Golden Rule?