lied on informal mechanisms of exclusionrnand repression to control deviationsrnfrom its norms and to enforce its ownrnidentity, and those informal mechanismsrnare located primarily in what we think ofrnas the “culture.” What the multiculturalistsrncall “xenophobia” (the restrictionrnof membership in American society tornpeople who are culturally identifiable asrnAmericans), “discrimination” (the exclusionrnof certain groups from certain kindsrnof participation because they do not adherernto an identifiable American identity),rnand all the rest of the “isms” they listrnare rooted not in the formal laws andrnConstitution of the American state but inrnthe family, religion, communities, andrnschools.rnThe multiculturalists are entirelyrnright: in order to challenge the mechanismsrnof exclusion and repression, overthrowingrnthe state is not terribly important.rnWhat is important is to overthrowrnthe culture. If it’s revolution and liberationrnfrom these “pathologies” and formsrnof repression you’re looking for, forgetrnthe Pentagon, the FBI, and the CIA.rnThe real enemies with whom you havernto grapple are the family meal, the Sundayrnschool, the barber shop, and therncommonly held beliefs that are reinforcedrnand transmitted in those places.rnGiven this strateg}’ and the correctnessrnof its assumptions, the other face of multiculturalismrnacquires considerable importancernas a tactic in carrying it out.rnThe other face of multiculturalism insistsrnthat its challenge is not really radicalrnor revolutionary at all but merely the fulfillmentrnof “democracy” and what thernNAME statement of philosophy elsewhererncalls “the individual’s noble questrnto define one’s relationship and responsibilityrnto our global society.” In otherrnwords, the other face of multiculturalismrnmobilizes its revolutionary agenda by usingrncommonly accepted words and iconsrnof the contemporary dominant culturern—”democracy” and the “global society,”rnnot to mention the ubiquitousrncliches that “America is a nation of immigrants”rnor the “first universal nation”rnor is “founded on a proposition” too abstractrnto permit real cultural content. Itrnuses these words and icons in order torngain a sympathetic hearing from therncommonplace centers of cultural power.rnThis suggests that multiculturalism is asrnpowerful as it is because the groundworkrnfor its revolutionary attack on traditionalrnAmerican cultiire has been laid for it byrnthe contemporary dominant culhire andrnby the jargon that the dominant culturernhas popularized and with which it definesrnitselfrnWhat we have in the United States today,rnthen, are ostensibly three differentrncultures (or subcultures, if you will).rnOne is the tiaditional patriarchal, familycentered,rnEuro-American culture thatrndefines and enforces itself through largelyrninformal mechanisms and with whichrnmost who call themselves conservativesrnidentify to one degree or another. Thernsecond is the dominant culture of thernimperial metropole—the dominant media,rnthe major universities, and nationalrnpolitics. The third is the largely imaginaryrnculture championed by the multiculturalistsrnas the alternative to the firstrntwo (though they usually don’t distinguishrnbetween the first two in the delusionrnthat the dominant culture is simplyrnan extension of the tiaditional one).rnIn fact, multiculturalism is not distinctrnfrom the dominant culture. It survivesrnbecause of the ascendancy of the dominantrnculture’s beliefs (embedded in suchrnterms as “democracy” and the “global society”)rnand enforced behaviors; it flourishesrnbecause it is lodged in the educationalrnand governmental bureaucraciesrnof the dominant culture; it is legitimizedrnby the propaganda apparatus of the dominantrnculture; and its agenda is simply anrnintensification and a continuation of thernagenda of the dominant culture, whichrnis the replacement of the traditional culturernby itself Under the Clinton administrationrnin particular, the dominant culturernhas intensified its war on traditionalrnculture, in explicit alliance with multiculturalistrnlegions. Hence, the president’srnfatuous “race initiative,” which toleratesrnonly perspectives based onrnnonwhite resentment and white guilt;rnhence, the administration’s obsessionrnwith “hate crimes,” the “stealth agenda”rnof which, as Robert Knight of the FamilyrnResearch Council recently noted, is torn”elevate homosexuality [and for that matter,rnall other victim categories excludedrnand subordinated by tiaditional culturalrnidentity] to specially protected minorityrnstatus.”rnIt is true that multiculturalism differsrnfrom the dominant culture in much ofrnits rhetoric and some of its tactics. Thern”diversity” it is always chattering about isrnnot characteristic of the dominant structuresrnof the state, media, and the higherrnperches of the economy, but because therndominant culture does not define itselfrnthrough the same exclusions and repressionsrnthat traditional culture does, “diversity”rnis no real threat to it. What the dominantrnculture excludes and represses isrnthe traditional culture itself, and “diversity”rnis today the principal weapon byrnwhich it seeks to achieve that goal. Byrnenforcing “diversity” as both an ideal andrnan actual practice through affirmative action,rnforced integration, mass immigration,rnand multiculturalism itself, therndominant culture undermines the definingrnmechanisms of the traditional culturernand renders its continued functioningrnimpossible. Since the dysfunctionsrnin traditional culture that result often engenderrngenuinely pathological behavior,rnthat simply reinforces the image of tiaditionalrnculture as inherentiy pathological.rnConventional conservatives are generallyrncorrect that the dysfunctions theyrnperceive in American society are signs ofrndecadence—the weakening of families,rnthe erosion of communities, the inversionrnof sexual morality, and all the otherrnchants in the litany of decline. These arernsymptoms of the decadence of traditionalrnculture, whether induced by its enemiesrnor not; but they are also signs of therntriumph of the dominant culture, whichrnregards them at worst as insignificant irritantsrnor at best as indications of impendingrnliberation from traditional restraintsrnand the defeat of its adversary, traditionalrnculture. The values of the weak, thernweird, the excluded, and the repressedrnprevail because those who inhabit therndominant culture have taken them overrnas devices by which their own leadershiprnis entrenched. Nietzsche understoodrnthis long before the tactic had a namernand long before groups like NAME discoveredrnhow to use the tactic to entrenchrntheir own power. <£:rnLIBERAL ARTSrnOFFICIAL HISTORYrn”John and Robert [Kennedy] werernassassinated in the midst of crusadesrn—against communism, for civilrnrights —that they were prepared torndie for.”rn—from Time, January 12, 1998rnAPRIL 1998/33rnrnrn