The Clare Spark Blog

April 24, 2015

Multiculturalism vs. [Yid] Red spies: which agitates the Right?

atheist-logicThis blog was inspired by the failure of Fox’s Outnumbered 4-24-15 to explain cases of censorship of the popular movie American Sniper ( the topic was repeated on The Five). They became agitated over the threat to free speech, when they could have identified why college administrators were bowing to the will of a small cadre of Islamist protesters at the University of Maryland; these administrators defending multiculturalism at all costs. One wonders why this “moderate” but right-leaning network is so weak on political theory, for it is obvious that “tolerance” versus “Islamophobia” is crucial to job retention in the hipper universities, public or private. (To be sure, unfree speech is the outcome of censorship in the name of diversity, but multiculturalism deters free speech insofar as it encourages essentialist cultural nationalism: see

How to explain this failure of vision? Scholars, television writers, and journalists seeking right-wing readers and eyeballs know that it enhances their reputations to pretend that there remains an atheistic red menace threatening (Christian) America. Even the latest episode of Scandal played the KGB card, resuscitating the Cold War. One wonders why, given the declining membership in the CPUSA since the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939, carefully delineated by historians/political scientists Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Alexander Vassiliev in Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (Yale UP, 2009).

(Perhaps it is lingering antisemitism, for “the Jews” were ‘”disproportionately” represented in the Old Left, and “populism”—antagonistic to “finance capital,” remains popular on both left and right. Even Lenin may be seen as a populist, for he was notoriously influenced by the antisemitic journalist J. A. Hobson. See


Whether or not my suspicions are correct, it is obvious that conservatives frequently confuse left-liberals and communists, frequently conflating them as “totalitarians” and, gulp, progressives—as if the US Constitution, despite its capitulations to Southern slaveholders, was not the vanguard of political thought at the time of its framing, with such as Hamilton and Jefferson not avatars of social and economic progress, despite their differences.

This entire website has been preoccupied with tracing the “roots” of multiculturalism to the German Romantic reaction to the “materialism” of science and Enlightenment as understood in 18th Century France. (See, and The second link suggests Herder’s antisemitism, not noted in the historical commentary on his contribution to the notion of national character/groupiness.)

It is a grotesque misreading of history to think that the old Reds were not anti-racists, hot for “proletarian internationalism” as opposed to (proto-fascist) “nationalism,” and its associated (Gentile) “melting pot.” Indeed, that was the attraction that helped recruit working class immigrant Jews to the Communists, and family ties made a difference to their (liberal) descendants.

It is pointless to go on fingering “the multicultural moderate men” for their covert racism disguised in their rooted (as opposed to rootless) cosmopolitanism, documented throughout my website. And Fox News Channel employees, no less than those of the Wall Street Journal, are above all, oblivious to the history of the Left, and only moderately opposed to the nearly pervasive (often latent) antisemitism that blinds them. For instance, after all the decades I spent around the Left, no one, repeat, no one ever mentioned Saul Alinsky (born a Jew). His significance and influence are figments of certain conservative imaginations.


September 27, 2012

Index to blogs on hate speech

Young Chris Stevens

The revelation today (by Bret Baier of FNC) that the murder of Chris Stevens, the American Ambassador to Libya, along with three other Americans, was not a spontaneous mob response to a video entitled “The Innocence of Muslims”, but was almost immediately understood as an episode in the war on terror, has provoked an absurd response from one Democratic Party ally, Simon Rosenberg, who defended Susan Rice’s appearance on five Sunday talk shows blaming the murders on the video.

It is my suspicion that Fox and others will miss the point of the line perpetrated by the Obama administration (including Hillary Clinton), who have equivocated on the First Amendment by slamming the ugly and mendacious video, apologizing for its very existence. I have seen the same type of argument coming from cultural nationalist minorities since the 1970s: that “positive images” of their groups will advance their interests, and that negative images are responsible for “prejudice” and “institutional racism.”

Such an argument reminds me of the hegemonic liberal line following WW2, that it was Nazi propaganda that moved the normally stolid and sensible German people to follow Hitler. Why was this claim put forth? We needed Western Germany as a buffer against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Such a diplomatic position may explain why antisemitism is not taught in the schools, while “racism” is roundly denounced, to the point where any black nationalist movement gets a pass as an understandable response to generations of persecution.

This absurd claim purporting to explain Hitler’s bond with the German people is at the bottom of the more recent multicultural taboo on negative images and hate speech.  Its source in intellectual history is German Idealist epistemology that privileges stories and visual symbols over class coalitions, class interests, mistakes of leaders (i.e., appeasement, etc.)

Here are just a few of the many blogs that I have written on threats to the First Amendment. I worry that the term “Islamophobia” will take the place of rational analysis of divisions between radical Islamists (jihadists) and those Muslims who have adopted the chief tenets of the civilized West and the Enlightenment.  If Obama is re-elected, I fully expect new rules forbidding debates over the political direction of countries in the Middle East and in the Third World in general. Such rules would be defended as partaking of “internationalism” as opposed to proto-fascism in America, pinned of course on the Right and on any teachers and professors who stray from the established discourse on foreign policy.

Create a free website or blog at