The tactics of Students for a Democratic Society that resulted in the shutdown of Tom Tancredo'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.

At the National Association of Scholars website, a black woman who is an assistant director of student affairs at a Southern university exposes the corruption inherent in campus diversity programs from an insider's perspective. Tellingly, she writes under a pseudonym to avoid the social and financial penalties that always come with speaking openly about race.

According to Margaret Matthews, "Multicultural Affairs" departments are obsessed with racial identity and racial bean counting. Her duties are race-based and her every interaction with students is centered on race. University administrators discriminate on the basis of color when selecting students to give campus tours. The programming excludes whites and creates ethnic enclaves with racial grievances on college campuses. 

Naturally, white students are alienated by the hostility and discrimination they encounter when they are defined by their skin color. A climate of "anger, resentment and racial hostility" is encouraged by diversity programs. Eventually, Matthews realized she wanted no part of this hideous racial spoils system, but when she tried to escape by requesting a transfer, she was horrified to discover she had been assigned her own job on the basis of race, not merit.

In the wake of postmodernism, Martin Luther King, Jr's idea that we should judge individuals on the basis of their character became passé on America's college campuses in the 1980s and 1990s. The "diversity industry" sunk even deeper roots in the 2000s.

It will likely take several generations to uproot this poisonous weed in race relations. I expect its legacy of racial hostility will linger on far into the future.

Yesterday, I attended the so-called "March for America" in Washington, DC with two fellow YWC members. We wanted to see the constituency for "comprehensive immigration reform" ourselves. The MSM has already leapt into action to put a pro-amnesty spin on the rally. We are told "a few demonstrators waved flags from other countries." That's not what I saw.

YWC shot about 200 photos of the rally and an hour of footage with two video cameras. I've uploaded all our photos to Flickr here, here, and here. Some of the video footage is below, along with a slideshow with some of the images. We caught all kinds of stuff on tape that the MSM is not reporting.

Impressions:

1.) The crowd that gathered on the National Mall was overwhelmingly Latino. I would estimate that 85% to 90% of the demonstrators were immigrants, illegal aliens, or some type of Hispanic-American. In particular, El Salvador was drastically overrepresented. There also seemed to be more Dominicans and Columbians in attendance than Mexicans.

2.) At least half of the demonstrators were chattering among themselves in Spanish and other foreign languages. The chants from the crowd kept slipping back into Spanish over and over again. We got this on tape.

3.) The crowd that gathered on the National Mall WAS NOT representative of America. I felt highly conspicuous and out of place as a White Southern male from Alabama. I got lots of dirty looks. I kept sarcastically asking my YWC colleagues: where are the natives? It is clear that "comprehensive immigration reform" is supported by a narrow constituency (i.e., immigrants and their families) that will directly benefit from the legislation and opposed by the American Majority who will be forced to pay the costs.

4.) Most of the demonstrators were smart enough to wave the American flag, but the whole scene looked staged on closer inspection. This wasn't a spontatneous outburst of American patriotism like you see at the Tea Parties. Rather, it was tens of thousands of people waving small American flags (which the organizers provided them with) ... because they want something in return, namely, American citizenship and access to taxpayer subsidized public services. It was a PR stunt.

5.) The most passionate demonstrators were the ethnic chauvinists waving their huge foreign flags. There were A LOT of these people on the National Mall. There were so many of them in attendance that I quit snapping photos of foreign flags after 100th or so shot to prove my point.

6.) Some Latino demonstraters had bigoted, anti- European signs. There were signs at the rally which claimed that North America is a "Bronze Continent" that belongs to Indians and Latinos. There were others which claimed that Europeans were illegal immigrants. mECha and La Raza were there.

7.) Communists were at the "March for America" waving huge Red flags with the hammer and sickle and yellow star. These flags were on prominent display (stood out from the crowd) and we shot several photos of them.

8.) We encountered three or four Socialist groups working the crowd. One guy tried to SELL US a copy of The Socialist Action. Apparently, socialists are not adverse to the profit motive! The "Partido Socialista De Los Trabatadores" had a booth in front of the Smithsonian. Another socialist group had a sign that called the Democratic and Republican parties "two parties of racism, imperialism, and anti-worker attacks." Another group of socialists was selling The Militant in English and Spanish." "International Socialists for Social Equality" of the "World Socialist Web Site" had a booth where they were selling books about Leon Trotsky.

9.) Black power groups were at the rally. We saw attendees wearing black power shirts and selling copies of Malcolm X, Black Liberation, and the Road to Workers Power in English and Spanish.

10.) Che Guevera fans were out in force. When we got off the Metro, literally the first guy who approached us was a crazy leftist from LaRouche PAC. For those unfamilar with Lyndon LaRouche, his group believes that America is controlled by the Queen of England who invented AIDS to exterminate black people.

11.) Puerto Rican nationalists were at the rally.

12.) A crowd of filthy anarchists from SDS DC (some without t-shirts) marched down the street with various signs including "Smash the State," "Smash Capitalism," and "Funk the Borders." Apparently, this group attacked a military recruiter with a paint bomb the day before.

13.) As we were leaving, we noticed Latino demonstrators walking over a discarded American flag on the sidewalk. We shot some video of those patriotic Americans which we will share on YouTube.

14.) A group of mimes threatened violence against Roy Beck of Numbers USA and the police escorted him off the National Mall. We also saw the mimes at the rally. Maybe Beck's problem was the security. Leftists kooks were everywhere.

15.) The highlight of the demonstration was seeing a furious American and his wife enter the demonstration after touring the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. I saw him wave his hand and yell at the crowd, "if these people would all get jobs, there wouldn't be a problem."

Final Thoughts:

The tens of thousands of Latinos who demonstrated on the National Mall showed up there because they expect to personally benefit from "comprehensive immigration reform." I doubt a hundred of them would have turned out simply to express pride in their adopted country.

An undercurrent of leftist radicalism and ethnic chauvinism simmered underneath the so-called "March for America." It left me wondering which direction America will take after these people no longer have to put on faux displays of patriotism for access to the welfare state.

Our scene: It is May 1968 at the height of the student rebellion at Columbia. In Hamilton Hall, the research papers of Orest Ranum, an associate professor of history, are burned. For decades, Students for a Democratic Society (a radical Marxist student activist group) denied responsibility for the arson. The fire was the climax of a month of protests at Columbia that provoked the largest police bust ever on a college campus.

Now the truth comes out: Mark Rudd, the Chairman of SDS, has acknowledged that one of his radical leftist followers set the fire. The rebellion at Columbia launched SDS as the spearhead of the New Left. The Weather Underground hatched out of this millieu. Other notables went on to fame in mainstream Democratic politics.

Leftists can get away with anything in America because they control the media and set the ground rules of mainstream political discourse. In his 2008 campaign, John McCain attempted to link Barack Obama with Bill Ayers. The charge fell flat.

This is why we don’t take left wing attacks on us seriously.  Leftists and student radicals aren’t just “linked” to violent thugs – they are violent thugs, and that is all they are.  As the reaction to YWC by the criminals at SDS shows, nothing has changed.