Academic Censorship and Self–Censorship: Once upon a Time in the Land of the Free 

This is a short address given at the dinner, sponsored by the Propertarian Institute in NY, on September 26, after the earlier round table held at the New York University.

Allow me to say a few words about the media witch-hunt targeting now non-conformist intellectuals, including some of our friends here. Firstly, however, let me extend my greetings on behalf of our small party, the American Freedom Party, our Chairman Mr. William Johnson, and our colleagues who also helped organizing our round table.

Let me illustrate this new media witch-hunt in the West by drawing parallels with the former communist East. One of the big advantages of living in communism was the ability of its citizens to grasp quickly the main notion of the political: who is the foe and who is the friend. Even a simple citizen in the Soviet Union, or in the ex-communist Eastern Europe, knew very well that communism was a fraud. The official communist narrative about the upcoming paradise on earth sounded so surreal that it could not be taken seriously by anybody, including communist party bosses. By contrast, in the modern liberal West, and particularly in the US, the ruling class, but also a large number of citizens and academics, do believe in the same crypto-communist message, albeit wrapped up in different words and decorated with a different insignia. The imagery of the former muscled proletarian in Eastern Europe, carrying the hammer and the sickle, has been now replaced by a starving African or a Middle Eastern refugee and for good measure by a tolerance preaching homosexual, designed to induce lachrymose and self-denying feelings among their guilt-ridden White hosts. The repression of non-conformists and dissidents in the West is far more insidious than the repression in the former communist East. It is more subtle, less violent and its jargon, diffused in the mainstream media, academia and among politicians, is less polemical. Moreover, it doesn’t leave martyr’s blood behind — for the time being at least.

It is fundamentally wrong to study communism as an ideology only. Communism is first and foremost an anthropology which is nearest and dearest to the masses regardless of is dreadful consequences. Communism represents the true state of nature, ideal for mass multiracial and stateless societies of people with mediocre intelligence facing diminishing materiel resources and vanishing opportunities. The question arises: Why did then Communism fall part in the late 80s in Eastern Europe? Communism fell apart in the East because its much vaunted goals had already been better implemented in the West:  the welfare state, steady economic growth, and ethnic and racial quota system, known in the USA as “affirmative action.” All those big buzzwords, now legally taken for granted by many US citizens, were tested unsuccessfully in the ex-communist East. Also shut-up and criminalizing words like “Nazi,” “Fascist,” “ racist,” “anti- Semite,” which are now very popular in the American mainstream media and colleges, especially when smearing political opponents, were thrown around in the communist East on a daily basis against any potential trouble maker or a dissident.

It is wrong, however, to assume that citizens in former communist Eastern Europe were all starving for Western freedom, all of being ready to overthrow the communist system. Only a few did. It is also wrong to think that anticommunist dissidents were respected species enjoying mass popular support. They were shunned like a plague even by their family members. We can observe the same type of ostracism and self-censorship  among prominent White academics in the USA, not just on the official state level, but also within their own family and  at their work place.

Although being a frugal and violent system communism in Eastern Europe did offer citizens psychological security and economic predictability which citizen in the USA could have only dreamed about. What most citizens in the communist system craved for were mostly Western commodities and Western standard of living. Those individuals who were a threat to the fake and fragile consensus between the communist rulers and the communized ruled were generally despised and demonized as terrorists.

Where do we go from here? Our future actions will depend on a specific local circumstance. By now, however, we have at least the privilege of being able to decipher our main enemy. It is useless and counterproductive to point fingers at them and call their names. Instead, one must raise a very simple question in order to elicit a very simple answer. Who are the people who benefit most from the overuse of criminalizing words “racists,” “white supremacists” and “anti-Semites”? It is not difficult to make them out.  We know them well. Thanks for your attention.