Revolution is by strategy and by ideology essentially an enemy of culture, any culture, attacking it without any of the constraints taken for granted in the culture under attack. Revolution operates in a field devoid of all values save one: the destruction of the existing order. This was true of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution under Mao. It was also true, arguably, of the “bloodless” German revolution of 1918 from which the Left emerged in power and, through the 1930s, proceeded to effect the “revaluation of all values,” in Nietzsche’s phrase. If Weimar was nothing else, it was certainly an attack on the culture of pre-war Europe. The only counter-example to this thesis is that of the American Revolution, which belongs much more in the category of colonial irredentism than genuine revolution. Genuine revolution only takes place within an existing cultural/political entity.
The difference I’m appealing to here really demands a separate blog post, but I’ll just say this much here: irredentism is a defense of a culture, specifically a local culture, against an alien outside occupier; revolution is an attack on a specific local culture from within. This means that properly speaking colonial wars of self-determination are not really revolutionary wars, they are irredentist wars. The American revolution tends to fall between the cracks, since the colony actually shared the culture of the “occupier,” thus not exactly falling in the irredentist mold. Yet, arguably, the colony had gone far enough in culture from the occupier to be classed as irredentist.
There are multiple, converging reasons why revolution is and has to be an enemy of the culture within which it is hatched. For one thing, the revolutionaries believe themselves and others like them to be excluded from the culture under attack, and they hate it for that reason. Their usual expression for this reason is that the existing culture is “unfair.” But, more important perhaps, is that they perceive rightly that a culture is an impediment to their program of taking power. A culture unifies and strengthens a social/political whole, so it makes perfectly good sense to go about undermining and eroding the culture under attack.
And the revolutionaries have a point: it is far easier to attack a culture than to defend it, and, once the cultural norms and assumptions lie in tatters and chaos reigns, it is much easier to take the government by force. Witness the two revolutions in Russia of 1917: the first, a democratic one unable to organize an utterly failing state, and the second, taken by force by the Bolsheviks. Out of chaos, tyranny.
But how to undermine a culture? Well, there are some obvious steps. One, infiltrate the universities and turn them into platforms of indoctrination. Two, take over the news media and turn them into platforms of indoctrination. Three, take over the entertainment industry and turn it into a platform of indoctrination. Four, take over the courts and have them legislate from the bench.
A culture is cemented by a social/historical mythology which contains some truths and some outright lies. The fact that it is a mythology is not a fact against it; its function is to provide a social cement. To attack it “as history” is intentionally to miss the point for a political purpose, which, of course, revolutionaries do.
But, lest they be accused of being “nihilists,” as some of them in the 19th century were accused of being, they also bring forward proposals for a “new” set of values, a “new” culture to replace the old. This is a clever strategy, a Trojan horse which conceals a world without any values at all.
The values of this new world are “tolerance” and “acceptance” for any peoples “not like ourselves,” no matter what the implications. But what are the implications?
The new culture is one of “Multiculturalism.”
This is an interesting move. The U.S. motto is “E pluribus unum” (“Out of many, one.”). The revolutionaries’ new motto is: Out of one, many.
Multiculturalism is an ideology with a strategic purpose: it is dis-integrative of the existing social whole.
And there you have it: Multiculturalism is the public ideological face of a revolutionary movement bent on the take-over of the state through the gradual erosion of its historically rooted unifying identity.
Sadly, it’s an easy sell. The progressive fragmentation of the social unity begins with the fragmentation of the whole into ethnic parts. But it has to be seen that this is just the beginning. These parts are still too large. Fragmentation must continue, so further cracks in the social cements must be created. In addition to ethnic divisions, there must also be sexual divisions. Thus, to start, there are the homosexuals as well as the heterosexuals. But this is also not enough, there are also the transsexuals, but there are more yet to come. Add to these the zoophiles, the cannibals, the sadists, the masochists, the coprophiles, the necrophiles, and, of course, the a-sexuals … Dare we add, the pedophiles? They all have identities which must be respected because it’s it’s just so wrong to judge. Be tolerant! Have no values at all!
Yes, this is an easy sell. It’s message goes right to the heart of lazy, drugged, depressed, angry, failed narcissism. Who is immune to that siren call? Certainly not the deranged, screaming, eyes-bulging women of the “Million Women March.” Certainly not the deranged, screaming, eyes-bulging Millenials breaking windows and burning cars at “peaceful protests.”
For the revolutionaries, the beauty of this strategy lies in the fact that a culture’s social and legal conventions and rules presuppose stable and persisting identities and roles.
The revolutionary strategy has been this: to begin by fragmenting the whole into ethnic parts, to progress to ever smaller parts, with the ultimate goal of a population of shape-shifters whose part-identity is a matter of momentary choice.
At this point, the social whole is no longer a nation, no longer a socially cohesive unit, and it is ready to be merged with all the other colorless, dying progressive polities into a single gigantic mass ruled by bleak, faceless bureaucrats at the UN oligarchy.
Oh, brave new world that hath such people in it.