pealed or, more likely, “modified,” andrnevetyone — including those who were thernfirst to scorn and condemn the originalrnmeasures —then calmly accepts thernmore moderate step back that permanentlyrninstitutionalizes and locks in thernrevolution.rnThe experimental, university phase ofrnthe revolution lasted for about five or sixrnyears—the end of the 1980’s and the firstrnpart of the 1990’s —before the speechrncodes imposed by the first generation ofrnrevolutionaries began to be dismantledrnand replaced by more “moderate” ones.rnThat brief reign, however, was enough torninculcate into the noggins of the nextrngeneration of the nation’s ruling class thernbasic premises of the New Ordernamely,rnthat traditional identities (national,rnsexual, religious) or other suchrncategories are forbidden to certain enemyrngroups but, at the same fime, are obligator)’rnfor certain allied groups. Once thisrnpremise had been slammed hard enoughrnthrough the neurons of the fratty baggersrnand geeks who went through college,rnthere was little need for the rigorousrncodes that carried out the slamming.rnThe graduates themselves could be reliedrnupon to implement similar codes inrnthe social institutions they entered afterrngraduation.rnThat the revolution has now entrenchedrnitself well outside the Englishrndepartments and dormitories of academernought to be clear enough. In 1999, thernfamous incident over the use of the wordrn”niggardly” by a white Washington,rnD.C., city worker led to the worker’s dismissalrnfor using racially inflammatoryrnand insulting language. Most of the nationalrnpublicity about the incident revolvedrnaround the rather grotesque ignorancernof the real meaning and etymologyrnof the word on the part of the poltroonsrnwho objected and engineered the firing,rnbut the comedy merely masked the morernserious implications. In the end, thernworker was eventually rehired, mainlyrnperhaps because he turned out to be arnhomosexual and had the support of thernDistrict’s immense homosexual network,rnand also because he expressed condignrnrepentance for using a word that evenrnsounded offensive to the blacks withrnwhom he worked.rnBut suppose that a city worker hadrnused a genuinely offensive word orrnphrase among his co-workers, a word traditionallyrnregarded as obscene or vulgar,rnand that one or more of his co-workersrnhad genuinely expressed offense at hisrnlanguage. The result would not havernbeen the firing of the offending party;rnrather, he would have apologized tornthose offended, they would have acceptedrnhis apology, and all would have returnedrnto normal. Suppose again that arnworker had actually used a racial epithetrnto describe blacks or other allied groupsrn(epithets about whites—”redneck,” “whiterntrash,” etc.—are permissible, becausernwhites are an enemy group); no apologyrnwould have worked, maybe even the supportrnof the lavender lobby would not havernhelped.rnThe point is that it is not the act of offensernthat is being punished; it is the languagernused and the ideas invoked. Tornuse a word that even seems to point towardrnforbidden subjects is not a breach ofrnetiquette; it is an act of subversion. Whatrnwas being subverted by the word “niggardly”rnwas the power and status of anrnelite class that bases its power on the specialrnstatus of a designated “master race.”rnMuch the same is true of the more recentrnvictim of the now nationally dominantrnpolitical correctness cult, baseballrnplayer John Rocker. For the last couplernof weeks of last year, Mr. Rocker wasrnthreatened with the ruin of his career forrnvarious utterly innocuous remarks hernmade in an interview about the oddballsrnone is likely to encounter while ridingrncertain subway trains in New York City.rnHe retained his career only because, inrnan unnerving imitation of Soviet brainwashingrnpractices, he agreed to undergornpsychiatric counseling for what he hadrnsaid. What was never mentioned in therncourse of the Rocker crisis was that, in thernsame interview, he also made offensivernremarks about women and used languagernthat genuinely ought to bar himrnfrom decent society. Again, it is not thernact of offense that is punishable but thernexact language being used and the ideasrnbeing conveyed. Mr. Rocker, like therngentleman who said “niggardly,” was implicitlyrndiscrediting the status of thernregime’s allies—kids with purple hair,rnunwed mothers, “queers with AIDS,” exconvicts,rnetc. His remarks were not inrnthemselves offensive, but by swiping atrnthe underclass allies of the ruling class,rnthey were subversive.rnThe list could be extended easily, evenrnon a planetary scale, with the internationalrngang-up on Austria this year by the EuropeanrnUnion, Israel, and the UnitedrnStates for even thinking about letting therndemocrafically elected Jorg Haider enterrna government coalition. The war againstrnthe Confederate flag and Confederaternmonuments, the Hispanic crusadernagainst the “Anglo” and “Euro” identityrnof the American Southwest, the everlengtheningrnlist of traditional Americanrnicons that have to be rejected for theirrn”racism” — George Washington, ThomasrnJefferson, Andrew Jackson, Robert E.rnLee, and even (according to an article inrnEbony earlier this year) Abraham Lincolnrn—all are instances of the acceleratingrnpace of the revolution. What is happeningrnis that one set of icons, symbols,rnand (in the cant of the day) “role models”rncreated and established by the old Americanrnculture is being replaced by anotherrnset of icons and symbols created and establishedrnby another culture that hasrnfound a new master race: The VirginianrnConfederate heroes of Richmond’s MonumentrnAvenue are displaced by a statuernof black tennis star Arthur Ashe; a muralrnof Lee in Richmond is altered to suitrnblack demands but is later firebombedrnand vandalized with the slogan, “Kill thernwhite demons”; names of Confederaterngenerals on the city’s bridges are changedrnto names of local “civil rights” leaders.rnThe revolution will probably not finishrnas radically as it began. In accordancernwith the principle of “Two Steps Forward,rnOne Step Back,” it will probably retreatrn(at least temporarily) from its mostrnoffensive and aggressive demands andrnsettle for only partial extirpation of thernold symbolism, one that will allow thern”conservatives” who defend the old culturernto save face a bit and boast of howrnmoderate they are and how they are willingrnto accept change. The moderationrnwill also be more consistent with the interestsrnof the ruling class. But the premisesrn—that the old nation and culture are sornevil that their symbolism must be alteredrnor discarded and that the new dominantrnrace and culture are so good that theirsrnmust be saluted and worshiped as part ofrnthe new public orthodoxy, the new politicalrnformula that justifies the new rulingrnclass —have already been conceded. Itrnwill be only a matter of time before thernlogical dynamic of the revolution isrnworked out fully. As Lenin is also supposedrnto have remarked, “Who says Arnmust say B.” crnE-mail your kttersrnto the editor to:rnJULY 2000/33rnrnrn