Featured Articles

The tactics of Students for a Democratic Society that resulted in the shutdown of Tom Tanredo's speech at UNC Chapel Hill caused shockwaves all across the political spectrum. Critics from the Right and Left decried the actions of the ragtag gang of would-be brownshirts who thought it proper not only to unfurl a banner in front of Tancredo while he was speaking, but also to break windows and pull the fire alarm all in the name of stopping "hate." The North Carolina executive director of the ACLU called the video of the shutdown "chilling" and said the protestors' actions amounted to "de facto censorship."

In all the debate and chatter that followed, two irreconcilable lines of argument emerged. The first came from sensible proponents of free speech who believe that any speech should be permitted, save the usual caveats about yelling "fire" in a movie theater and the rest. The critiques of the student protestors which came from the Right and from principled liberals were made from this angle. The ACLU director above qualified her statement by saying: "Censorship is not the answer to hate speech. Hate speech is protected by the Constitution." Though this is clearly a not-so-subtle smear against Congressman Tancredo and YWC, the underlying logic is clear: no matter the substance of the speech, the First Amendment grants it protection.

The second, more cultivated (bankrupt?) argument came from those on the hard philosophical Left whose egalitarian inclinations extend much further than those who believe everyone should have equal rights under the law. According to this second line of argument, for free speech to exist in the truest sense, designated "hate speech" must not be tolerated. In an open letter to UNC Chancellor Holden Thorpe, Billie Murray, a graduate student at UNC, wrote on behalf of Students for a Democratic Society (the main group responsible for shutting down the event):

It has been argued in the past couple of days that supporters of free speech should be tolerant of all speech. While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated. Put simply, some stories are better than others. The litmus test for these "better stories" include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are "different." Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric [sic] that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.

According to Mr. Murray, the right of free speech should not be neutral to content. It should be denied to those who he believes create "a culture of fear and hate" and do not promote what he feels are "democratic ends."

Bryan McCann, a writer for SocialistWorker.org, echoed this sentiment in his piece on the UNC fiasco, concluding that "activists have a compelling interest in abandoning romantic notions of dialogue with those that hate, choosing instead to confront speakers like… Tancredo precisely because we long for a more just society in which free expression is not only a lofty ideal, but a reality."

In other words, in order to have true free expression, we must stifle free expression. How do these Leftists get away with such bastardized logic? What is the intellectual backing for such nonsense? Like much of the philosophical drivel hardcore Leftists espouse today, the source can be found in the self-identified Marxist and socialist philosopher Herbert Marcuse.

For those not aware, Marcuse was a part of what began as the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University in Germany. Later, the Institute would come to be known simply as the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School was established in 1923 in the aftermath of the First World War. Marxist economic theory had predicted that if a great war were to break out in Europe, the working classes would rise up against the hated bourgeoisie and Communism would reign. Of course, this never happened, and when it came time to raise arms, Europeans rallied to their national flags rather than their respective classes. As a result, the founders of the Frankfurt School determined that it was Western, Christian culture which blinded the proletariat to their true class interests. And so these intellectuals made it their mission to undermine this culture. Thus, "cultural Marxism" was born.

When Hitler rose to power in 1933, the predominately Jewish intellectuals of the Frankfurt School fled to New York City where they continued their work at Columbia University. After WWII, many of the intellectuals returned to Germany, but Marcuse opted to stay in the United States where he eventually became a pop icon for the New Left and the 60's hippie generation. Of particular interest to us is Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance" which is, I argue, the basis for the second line of argument presented above.

In the essay, Marcuse argues that tolerance of free thought and expression should not be viewed as valuable in itself, but should be considered in the context of the society in which it is upheld. For him, "the function and value of tolerance depend on the equality prevalent in the society in which tolerance is practiced." He writes that, in a society such as ours, "the conditions of tolerance are 'loaded': they are determined and defined by the institutionalized inequality (which is certainly compatible with constitutional equality), i.e., by the class structure of society." He goes on to explain that, in a society marked by inequality, access to the means of communication, and hence the instruments of interpretation, is dominated by the forces of the status quo. The media, who Marcuse characterizes as "themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power" are exemplary in this respect.

For Marcuse, free speech is not problematic in itself, if it takes place among rational and autonomous actors, but in a society marked by inequality and what he characterizes as "indoctrination," free speech, in the aggregate, serves the interests and furtherance of those in power at the expense of the "oppressed." To counter this effect, Marcuse proposes we shed the content-neutral "repressive tolerance" and adopt a discriminatory "liberating tolerance." In order to adopt liberating tolerance in a society marked by indoctrination, Marcuse states that "apparently undemocratic means" must be employed, including "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc." In other words, Marcuse asserts that "liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."

While Marcuse admits that this marks an "extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly," he feels that it "is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. [And] I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs."

While this essay was written in 1965, one can only assume that, if Marcuse were around today, he would still consider his plea for the adoption of liberating tolerance just as applicable. But even if this is not the case, it is clear that his line of argument is readily adopted and employed by those seeking to stifle the expression of conservative ideals. If it existed solely in the minds of those on the marginal Left, it would not be dangerous in itself. However, this thinking, which is anathema to the First Amendment's protection of free speech, is widely held and put into practice by university administrators throughout our country in the form of "hate speech" codes.

A 2010 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) which examined the speech policies at 375 of America's largest and prestigious colleges and universities revealed that, of those schools surveyed, 71% of the public schools and 70% of the private schools unconstitutionally restricted student speech.

In the aftermath of the UNC debacle last year, one of the many unsuccessful attempts by Leftists on campus to flip the script and declare themselves victims was to push for the adoption of such a "hate speech" code on campus which would effectively censor groups like YWC who support the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws and the priority of American citizens over foreign nationals (Congressman Tancredo's speech was to be against the "DREAM Act" which would provide in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants, but not American citizens who aren't residents of the given state).

Clearly, ideas do not exist in a vacuum, and given the state of today's universities, the petition of a radical, Marxist intellectual to openly violate our nation's First Amendment rights has become entrenched policy. The good news is there is some precedent for such codes being overturned and civil liberties groups like FIRE have led the charge in defense of free speech. Any students interested in combating their university's Marcusian logic should contact FIRE and consider starting a YWC chapter to turn up the heat on the corrupt administrators who revel as they shove "liberating tolerance" down our throats.

Marcuse claimed that his “liberating tolerance” was necessary in order to protect the oppressed and confront the powerful. As the tenured radicals, left-wing administrations, and pampered student groups like SDS all try to censor commonsense conservative speech, Marcuse’s ideas now serve the establishment itself. The only real rebels fighting against oppression on a college campus wear the black shirt and the war hammer.

This last week, Youth for Western Civilization dropped by the left-wing "Campus Progress" conference here in Washington D.C. It was held in the Omni Shoreham hotel, with the main portion of the conference taking place in an ornate ballroom filled with a massive stereo system and two giant projection screens. The conference was headlined by big name speakers like Samantha Powers, John Podesta, Van Jones, and dozens of other presenters and panelists flown in with all expenses paid for the weekend. At least George Soros isn’t lacking for money in the Obama Recession.

All our favorite leftist archetypes were in attendance:

The advocates for the re-distribution of wealth – You know the type. The angry scowlers of the Al Sharpton strain who demand affirmative action and blame white people for black and Hispanic economic disparities, directing a constant barrage of eye-daggers at anyone who appeared to represent "the man".

Illegal aliens and their apologists – They were there in force. Their main objective is the so-called DREAM Act which would give illegal alien minors the ability to become permanent residents if they go to college. According to these law breakers, borders and sovereignty are a thing of the past... for Western countries. It's of course essential that Mexico, Honduras, Vietnam and all the other places these illegals hail from maintain their sovereignty, culture, and identity, while the United States is transformed from a “melting pot” into a “tossed salad” in the never ending pursuit for diversity and inclusion.

The LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender advocate) legions – These were the most prominent groups there. We were unable to guess the gender of many of them. A number of them were wearing shirts advocating a "marriage boycott" until all states begin issuing "gay marriages". Good luck with that.

Even the restrooms were not safe from social engineering. Each men's restroom was designated as a "multigender restroom."  However, for the women’s restrooms, there was no transgender symbol. Only females were allowed in female restrooms. The irony of this "discrimination" seemed to escape them entirely.

David Cho, the winner of one of the organization’s awards, took to the stage to proclaim that he was an illegal alien. His speech consisted of complaints that even though he had gone through the California educational system (no doubt at significant taxpayer expense) he had difficulties finding jobs due to his "status," which he felt was "discriminatory."

"We now have SB 1070 brewing in Arizona, a state that’s sweltering under the heat of oppression, and we now live in a society which restricts young children and students solely on the basis of their status," he proclaimed. This is the Arizona that recently decided to dismantle the speed cameras in the state, hardly a move consistent with "a state that’s sweltering under the heat of oppression." Left unmentioned was the nefarious discrimination against convicted felons, drunk drivers, and sex offenders "solely on the basis of their status."

Although he was proud to announce that he was "undocumented", and list the jobs he and his family illegally work (many of which are the type in which one is commonly paid under the table), no federal agents showed up to arrest him, nor is there any sign that any legal or law enforcement action will be taken in the future to restrain him from continuing to break the law. One can easily imagine this would not be the case had an American citizen proclaimed "I don’t pay my taxes," "I drive without a license," "I sell marijuana for a living," or any other proud announcement of ongoing and purposeful law violation. Rather than living "in the shadows," criminals like Cho can flaunt their illegal status confidently because they know they have the American Establishment on their side.

David Cho has high ambitions for someone who isn’t even an American citizen: "I ultimately want to become a U.S. Senator, because I want to make changes in this country," he announced. Of course, we want to make changes too, though probably something far removed from the kind of "Change" we’ve been suffering through the last two years. Cho concluded, "Let us rededicate ourselves to the commitment and the involvement in the common effort to create a new society, and a new nation."  One wonders who this "us" is, what "new nation" he wants to create, and why he has to do it here. As Americans, we generally like the nation we have now and don’t want it to be replaced.

The various sessions on specific issues were predictable. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens was the subject of one of the morning sessions, entitled "Out of the Shadows, Into the Streets." The main argument put forth by this panel was that with millions of illegal aliens leeching off the institutions and taxpayers of our republic, "it only makes sense" to give them citizenship. As stated above, their foremost goal is the ludicrously named DREAM Act, which would give young adults illegally residing in the United States the opportunity for permanent residency. Americans who do not have access to a college education or law abiding immigrants who are trying to obtain permanent residency would be ignored. One of the requirements for the law would be "good moral character."  Voluntary deportation and legal entry into the immigration process would be a good test of that, but we are pretty sure that’s not what the panel meant.

The mantra of "multiculturalism" was everywhere at the event, even in areas seemingly entirely unrelated. For example, another morning panel we attended on "The Force of Food" was ostensibly organized to discuss organic and sustainable food movements. A number of YWC members and supporters have recently become intrigued with ideas about backyard gardens and getting away from corporate-produced, processed food (which often relies on huge numbers of illegal workers to produce). Therefore, we actually expected some practical help from this panel. Instead, rather than advice on how to build and organize such movements, the focus was on "getting minorities involved."

The panel centered on complaining that there was a "lack of access" to organic and healthy foods in "minority areas," without addressing the underlying culture of this demographic that creates the market forces that generate this pattern. A self-described "Native American tribal activist," Terrol Dew Johnson, complained that there was only one grocery store on his Tohono O'odham reservation, and that "the largest aisle is soda pop and junk food." Another panelist lamented that the supermarkets have departed Los Angeles, and the new tenants in these buildings are liquor stores.

The federal "Superfund" law which mandates clean-ups of polluted "brownfields" even drew a part of the blame, as one of the panelists said that McDonalds was the only company able to pay for such cleanups before building on certain urban sites. However, one would think that large organic and health food chains such as Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s would just as easily be able to afford such cleanups, were there any demand for such stores from the people who live in these areas. Of course, since the CEO of Whole Foods publicly opposed the Obamacare bill, he might be persona non grata in the eyes of the extreme Left.

One questioner, who appeared to be a middle-to-upper class white girl, asked the panel what could be done to bring organic and healthy foods to her area in Philadelphia, which she described as predominantly black. She talked about how she saw no interest whatsoever from the black community in organic or healthy foods. The panel was unable to come up with any answers, saying that the process would be "slow" and could "take a decade or more" to come up with any noticeable shift. One panelist said that he would be speaking at Swarthmore within a few months, but the questioner replied that "unfortunately" she would be on a month-long vacation in France during that time. It’s doubtful that the Eurotripping activist Left will actually be making changes in inner city dieting anytime soon.

One of the afternoon panels we was called "Race and the Recession." The general theme of this panel was that regardless of the ebb and flow of our global economy, white people are responsible for black and Latino disparities in wealth and income. The most recent evidence was President Obama's stimulus bill which was supposedly intended for minorities. However, some of the money ended up going to whites. This, of course, is "stealing the money from people of color," and "as a country of color, we need more programs to elevate the rainbow coalition."

(We should note that because this was a left-wing event and we are quoting Leftists, the following paragraphs contain vairous expletives and racial slurs.)

Ironically, the other afternoon session which we attended, on the topic of "Promoting Progress Through Comedy," was mechanical and boring. The one exception was a "joke" by Baratunde Thurston of The Onion that Mel Gibson’s black friends must be a "pack of raping niggers," which Thurston said he could "only say… because I’m black."

Van Jones seems to have learned his lesson from last year, and like most of the major speakers took care to sound as mundane as possible. One who didn’t get the memo was an individual of indeterminate gender named Andrea Gibson. She went on a few long rants, saying such things as "Our sky is so perfectly blue, it’s repulsive – somebody tell me where God lives, because if God is truth, God doesn’t live here." Her view on supporting the troops was "fuck your yellow ribbon."

Although her time was expired, she decided to stay for one more rant, since, as she put it, "I can’t get off the stage without being gay." She ranted about "the patriarchy," recounted a fit of rage from her lesbian girlfriend when she commented that she’d "like to eat that checkout clerk," and expressed her anger at people who do not want to redefine marriage to enable her to marry her girlfriend "but the fuckers say we can’t because you’re a girl and I’m a girl!"  One of the best moments of her life was "the time we saw two boys kissing on the street in Kansas, and we both broke down crying, because it was Kansas…we were born again that day!"

Another interesting speaker was Beau Sia, who opened up with "I don’t need a gong to make my entrance, I’m Asian-American!" and recounted a series of racial achievements and his pride in them, statements which would have been described as "racist" and  "supremacist"if they had come from a white person. He then proceeded into another tirade in which he described himself as "a developed nation jerk-off," and rambled wildly about "saving the world" from some sort of apocalypse.

What do we take away from this? Campus Progress seemingly has little to do with generating solutions, even in theory, for issues like the economy, job creation, national security, health care, trade, or education. Instead, it is a collection of tribes united only by their hostility to Middle America and everything that it stands for. It's simply George Soros backing the next generation of Jesse Jackson-style shakedown artists and freakish exhibitionists. They have no solutions for America's future – more than that, they're not even trying.   

The next event being hosted by Campus Progress here in D.C. is "Drag Bingo," featuring "the biting commentary of DC’s best drag queen, Shi-Quita-Lee." I think we’ll pass.

This week on Western Resistance Radio -- the man, the myth, the legend, Dr. Mike Adams.  A columnist for Townhall.com and the scourge of diversity mongers and liberal academics everywhere, Dr. Adams is one of the best columnists and speakers the conservative movement has to offer.  He joined Kevin DeAnna for a conversation on faith, politics, and the state of the modern university. 

Once you've listened, make sure to read his columns on Townhall.com

On Saturday, June 5, Americans will rally in Phoenix, Arizona in support of that state's efforts in fighting illegal immigration and doing the job Obama's federal government won't do.  Daniel Smeriglio is the main organizer of this rally and he took some time out of his very busy schedule to talk to YWC today to talk about his experience in conservative activism, the political situation today, and what we can expect on Saturday. 

We can also announce that YWC President Kevin DeAnna as well as YWC honorary chairman Congressman Tom Tancredo will both be speaking at the rally.  For more information, check out phoenixrally.com

Also, Youth for Western Civilization will be hosting a private reception with Congresssman Tom Tancredo at 9:30 PM Saturday night.  Congressman Tancredo will be making some brief remarks on the situation in Arizona.  Drinks and cigars will be served afterward.  Find out how to become a part of this extraordinary event here.

In this edition of Western Resistance Radio I discuss the continuing effects of the Arizona immigration law, our hostile elite, and the real nature of politics today.  Is it even still possible to appeal to a common American heritage anymore?