A while back I wrote a series of posts called “The Ultimate Guide to Cultural Marxist Genocide.” This was a long, 7-part series detailing the nature of genocide, and in hindsight it was too much to expect a casual reader to stick with the whole thing. So this is a condensed version of that series putting the main argument in one post. Please check out the original series for important details of the argument.
The first step in the argument is to present the account of genocide given in the United Nations Convention on Genocide:
[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, such as:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcible transferring children of the group to another group.
The three things to take from this is 1) that national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups are the genocide-susceptible kinds, and 2) that genocide isn’t just the result of mass murder, it is the intentional destruction of a genocide-susceptible kind by murder or other means, including 3) “inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
The second step in the argument is Raphael Lemkin’s description of genocide. Lemkin is the father of the notion of genocide, and he fought tirelessly to get it adopted as a crime against humanity. See his Wikipedia entry here. Lemkin said:
“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings [emphasis mine], religion, and the economic existence of national groups and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.” (Lemkin quoted in Stephen L. Jacobs, “Indicting Henry Kissinger: The Response of Raphael Lemkin,” in Adam Jones, ed., Genocide, War Crimes, and the West, p. 80.)
As I have said before, I’m not a fan of the phrase “Cultural Marxism,” but it has caught on and the phenomenon it captures needs a name. If I was asked to define Cultural Marxism I would recite this quote from Lemkin verbatim. According to Lemkin, genocide involves “disintegration” and “the destruction of essential foundations” of genocide-susceptible kinds. This is exactly what Cultural Marxism aka modern multicultural/cosmopolitan liberalism aims to do.
The third step is to better understand “the essential foundations” of genocide-susceptible kinds Lemkin is referring to. Here we need to understand Millikan’s claim that:
“Many kinds of interest to social scientists, such as ethnic, social, economic, and vocational groups are historical kinds” (On Clear and Confused Ideas, p 22).
I have discussed Millikan’s notions of historical kinds in detail here, here, and here. See those posts for the details, but since I’m trying to keep this post short you can think of historical kinds as a group of individuals who have a property in common as the result of natural forces that caused that property to be there. “English-speakers” is an example of an historical kind as the language is copied from individual to individual as each user learns the language. “Baseball players” is another historical kind as the rules for playing baseball are copied to new players. Historical kinds persist through time due to the continuing work of these natural forces, aka the essential foundations, the sustaining force of the kind. If they are prevented from working, as Cultural Marxism, endeavors to do, the group will cease to exist.
There are four such forces when it comes to ethnic groups. I discussed these forces in detail in the full series:
From part 2: Reproduction. Groups must produce new members at least as fast as old members are lost.
From part 3: Homeostatic Compatibility: Shared cultural practices are cooperative conventions that form much of the distinctiveness of groups, and mutually reinforce members to persist in their use.
From part 4: Stable Environment, Territory, or Homeland: The continuance of the historic territory of a group produces cultural adaptations that contribute to the persistence of the group.
From part 5: Emotional Value: Members of a group need to feel an affection or emotional attachment in order to see its value and put in the effort to see to it that group continues to exist
Cultural Marxism is genocidal in that it attacks and prevents the working of these forces that allow ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds to persist.
The crux of my argument is this: ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds require the working of these forces in order to persist. The prevention of the working of these forces by individuals, society, or the state through laws, sanctions, violence, or social pressure, would result in the destruction, in whole or in part, of the genocide-susceptible kind, i.e., would be genocide. Cultural Marxism advocates and facilitates the prevention of the working of these forces. Therefore, Cultural Marxism advocates genocide.
Thus, the forces I discussed in parts 2 – 5 must be allowed to do their job of sustaining ethnic and other genocide-susceptible kinds. Specifically, from part 2, ethnic groups can not be prevented or censored from the reproduction of their distinctive traditions, or from advocating the creation of new members of the kind, i.e, advocating against miscegenation is not in any way morally objectionable.
From part 3: members of an ethnic group can not be hindered or censured for seeking to live among members of their own kind, i.e., “white flight” or any other kind of ethnic clustering is not immoral or objectionable, although introducing the factors that cause it is.
From part 4: an ethnic group has a right to reserve its territory to itself, i.e, borders, immigration controls, or housing discrimination are in no way morally objectionable.
From part 5: an ethnic group has the right to inculcate affection for the group in its members in order to urge them to perpetuate the kind and defend its territory, i.e., patriotic celebrations and displays of ethnic pride, ethnocentrism, or attempts to inculcate group affection among a people, are in no way morally objectionable.
In short, it is perfectly acceptable and unobjectionable, and in no way unjust discrimination, to favor members of your own kind when it comes to a whole host of behaviors and social functions. On the contrary, efforts to weaken and destroy these forces, known as Cultural Marxism, are immoral and unjust and may or must be resisted.
The original series ends in Part 7 with a discussion of the long-abused ancient virtue of loyalty, and discusses and rejects the reasons loyalty is today considered verboten.