•     Irreducible Complexity.  Behe recapitulated the contentions of his book Darwin’s Black Box.  He presented a quote from Charles Darwin himself that insisted if the existence of complex organs cannot be explained by small, gradual improvemetns over time, his own theory would fail.  So Behe presented the concept of irreducible complexity.  He noted that something as simple as a mousetrap could not have developed step-by-step through natural selection, since all the parts–catch, hammer, spring, holding pin, and platform–must all be present, and in the right configuration, in order to work at all.  There is no advantage to a mutation that grants a creature one or two of the parts.  Behe went on to review the immense, irreducible complexity of even part of the operation of the eye.
•     Random Origin of Life.  Though many laymen still discuss it, “by the early to mid-1960s, the blind chance hypothesis had been rejected by most researchers,” said Meyer.  In an excellent article in First Things (“DNA and Other Designs,” April 2000), Meyer calculates the chances of one functioning protein forming by chance as 1 in 10,125 , a number so small that even assuming that the earth is billions of years old, there is no realistic possibility that the one hundred proteins necessary for the operating of a simple cell could have come together randomly and begun functioning.  This theory of the origin of life is one of three discussed by scientists today. 
•     Natural Selection Origin of Life.  Some scientists have proposed that before what we would normally call life began, some form of natural selection produced amino acids and protein sequences that led to a functioning organism.  But no one can explain how this could happen unless sequences that are, for all intents and purposes, living organisms are first formed by random chance.
•     Chemical Necessity of Origin of Life.  Other scientists speculate that there is something about the nature of substances and chemical laws themselves that make the formation of the building blocks of life more likely.  All the evidence so far gathered points in the opposite direction.
•     Many Earths.  Some argue that there may be trillions of earth-like planets in the universe, thus increasing the chances of life developing randomly somewhere.  But, as Meyer pointed out, the chances of there being many earth-like planets is extremely slim, given the many improbable characteristics of our planet, and even if there are many, the chances of life developing randomly are still very remote.
•     Cambrian Explosion.  The available fossil record indicates that all the major body types of creatures existing today appeared in one relatively short period, not as part of a long gradual process as predicted by orthodox Darwinists.  Evolutionists have come up with speculative theories to explain this phenomenon, but, curiously, said Meyer, most textbooks do not mention it.

•     Conditions of Early Earth.  Scientist Stanley Miller conducted a series of experiments purporting to show that, under the conditions supposedly prevalent when the Earth was young, amino acids could have formed spontaneously.  These substances are the building blocks of life. But in his First Things article, Meyer pointed out that the scientific consensus today, accepted even by Miller, is that the conditions of the early Earth were actually highly unfavorable to the creation of amino acids.  Meyer also noted that Miller’s experiment could produce amino acids only as a result of intelligent design: “Without human intervention,” wrote Meyer, “experiments like that performed by Miller invariably produce nonbiological substances that degrade amino acids into non-biologically relevant compounds.”  At the conference, Meyer said that Miller’s now discredited experiments are still presented in biology textbooks.
•     Peppered Moths.  Though no reputable scientist claims to have observed the evolution of one species into another, scientists claim to have noticed natural selection working within a species.  This does not violate the principle I laid out above, that only God produces new genetic information, but it is interesting to note that at least one famous example is a fraud.  Biology textbooks still use the example of the peppered moths of England.  When the industrial revolution darkened the tree trunks around some cities, the proportion of moths who were dark-colored supposedly increased dramatically, since birds could easily eat the light-colored moths, leaving the dark moths to produce dark offspring.  The problem is, as Dr. Jonathan Wells points out in an article available on the Discovery Institute’s website (another version appeared in The Scientist, May 24, 1999), scientists today recognize that no such pattern took place. They even recognize that the moths hardly ever settled on tree trunks at all.
•     Fossil Record.  Evolutionists use the fossil record as their great trump.  They argue that, independent of any theoretical meandering or other empirical evidence, the fossil record clearly shows the gradual development of one species into another, even if during the Cambrian explosion it happened much faster than they previously believed.  Meyer contends that the fossil record shows species changing into other species–if that is even the right word–that are of equal or lesser complexity than themselves.  In other words, no new information is produced by evolution, and the central narrative that the fossil record is supposed to tell–of simple organisms developing into more complex ones–does not exist.  Evolutionists point to the development of the modern horse as a classic example of the fossil record’s supporting their position.  “Jonathan Wells deals with that in his new book,” Meyer said after the conference.  “They have the order all wrong.  If anything, the record shows a loss of genetic information over time.”
      Human Events, June 16, 2000, p. 14

The Leninist Use of Force and Violence
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

The communists have worked out both theoretical and practical techniques for the achievement of their goal of world conquest.  One of their fundamental theoretical texts is Lenin’s book, The State and the Revolution which has now become the world’s most translated book.
      Lenin was in the process of writing this book when he left Switzerland to return to Russia in 1917 to organize the Communist seizure of power.  The revolution that overthrew the Russian Czar in February, 1917, was not a Communist revolution, but a spontaneous mass rising supported by many different groups of people.  When this genuine revolution took place, most of the important Communist personalities were in exile either in Siberia or in countries outside Russia.  Once the revolution was accomplished, a political amnesty was declared.  Thereupon, Bolsheviks and revolutionaries who had been scattered throughout the world converged on Petrograd.  Stalin returned from exile in Siberia to assume editorship of the Communist Party paper, Pravda.  Trotsky returned from Nova Scotia.  Lenin returned from Geneva, Switzerland, where his pen had been pouring forth a floodtide of literature urging civil war in Russia.  Upon his arrival in Petrograd, he informed the revolutionary workers that he had returned to conquer and govern Russia.  His claim caused considerable astonishment, particularly in the ranks of the orthodox Marxists.  It must be remembered that the Bolsheviks of whom Lenin was leader were but a small party numbering some twenty thousand members.  Lenin’s Marxist critics, when they heard his claim, said, “Farewell, Lenin the Marxist; welcome, Lenin the anarchist!”
      Nonetheless, Lenin achieved the impossible.  Within six months, with a small band of faithful followers, he had stolen the legitimate fruits of the revolution, betrayed the working people of Russia, and established the greatest tyranny and dictatorship the world has ever known.  The State and the Revolution which he was writing at that time is still considered a fundamental theoretical textbook.  In it Lenin sets forth how the Communists are to come to power within the state, and what they must do once they are in power.
      Lenin here concentrates upon the necessity of violence.  He considers government the instrument by which the ruling class controls and exploits the subject class.  All government is class government, and the institutions of a state such as the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, the police power, the tax power, and the educational institutions, are the instruments of the ruling class for the exploitation of the subjective class.  According to Lenin’s thesis, the governments of Europe and America were bourgeois

governments which existed to exploit the people.  These governments could be overthrown only through violence and bloodshed.
      To Lenin the use of force and violence was not to be merely a reaction to force and violence used by the Capitalists.  To him force was an instrument of positive purpose and he was totally devoid of any apologetic attitude toward its use.  He states categorically that violence is essential to their purpose: “The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution.”
      In saying this, Lenin went further than his mentor, Karl Marx, had done.  Marx had allowed the possibility of bloodless revolutions in England and America.  Marx claimed that since the bureaucracy was not developed to the same extent in these countries as in other European countries, and since the police and military power of these states was not so great, there existed the possibility of a peaceful transition to Socialism.  Lenin said that these conditions no longer applied.  In Europe, in England, and in America, the revolution to bring about the transition from the bourgeois state to the proletarian must be violent.  There could be no possibility of non-violent, successful revolution.
      One of the specific crimes for which Lenin mercilessly chastized Karl Kautsky, the leading Marxist theorist of the Second International, was his continued clinging to the possibility of a peaceful transition to Socialism in England and America as had been admitted by Marx.  In his tirade, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, Lenin writes:

Further, was there in the seventies anything which made England and America exceptional in regard to what we are now discussing?  It will be obvious to anyone at all familiar with the requirements of science in regard to the problems of history that this question must be put.  To fail to put it is tantamount to falsifying science, to engaging in sophistry.  And, the question having been put, there can be no doubt as to the reply: the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie;  and the necessity of such violence is particularly created, as Marx and Engels have repeatedly explained in detail (especially in “The Civil War in France” and in the preface to it), by the existence of a military clique and a bureaucracy.  But it is precisely these institutions that were non-existent precisely in England and in America and precisely in the 1870’s, when Marx made his observations (they do exist in England and in America now)!

      The Communist attitude on violence is frequently misunderstood.  Even the opponents of Communism think that the Communists do not necessarily want violence, that they use violence only because the exploiting class resists their assumption of power.  This was never the viewpoint of the Communist leaders, particularly Lenin and Engels.  Kautsky, who was reputed to have learned the entire works of Marx by heart, was viciously attacked by Lenin for his lukewarm attitude toward violence.  Kautsky’s attitude was that they might have to use violence but that if they had to do so it would be regrettable, for violence was bad and corrupted those who used it.  In reply Lenin quoted from Engels’ book, Anti-Dühring:

...That force, however, plays also another role (other than that of a diabolical power) in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms–of this there is not a word in Herr Dühring.  It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of exploitation–unfortunately, because all use of force, forsooth, demoralizes the person who uses it.  And this in spite of the immense moral and spiritual impetus which has been given by every victorious revolution!  And this in Germany, where a violent collision–which indeed may be forced on the people–would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has permeated the national consciousness as a result of the humiliation of the Thirty Years’ War.  And this parson’s mode of thought–lifeless, insipid and impotent–claims the right to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has known.

      Lenin was an enthusiastic advocate of violence.  His revolution was to be no peaceful transition.  It is possible to sense the delight with which he proclaimed Engel’s teaching on this subject:

Have these gentlemen (the anti-authoritarians) ever seen a revolution?  A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon–authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.  Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people

against the bourgeois?  Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

      The second feature of the revolution described by Lenin in The State and Revolution was its purpose.  The purpose of the revolution was not to seize control of the State, but to destroy it.  Most of the book is given over to the thesis that the State must be destroyed.  The State functions in many ways.  It functions through the constitution; it functions through the executive authority–the President, the Cabinet, the Justice Department, the Police Department, the Defense Department; it functions through the legislature, through the judiciary, and through the civil service.  The goal of Communism was not to secure a president exercising constitutional power.  It was not to appoint the cabinet officers such as the Secretary of State or Defense.  The appointment of the judges was not their avowed objective.  The purpose was to destroy utterly the constitution, the legislative system, the judicial system, and the administrative system, to wipe out the State and build a new one in a totally different form.
      Lenin’s argument is based on Marx’s analysis of what had happened in the French Commune in 1871 when the Communards tried to take over the Capitalist State and use it as an instrument of government.  The Commune was soon overthrown.  Lenin said that when a State is allowed to continue, it inevitably carries within itself the seeds of counter revolution.  Its members have their vested interests in the old society.  The State must be destroyed.  This was expressed by William Z. Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party of America in his statement:

No Communist, no matter how many votes he should secure in a national election, could, even if he would, become President of the present government.  When a Communist heads a government in the United States–and that day will come just as surely as the sun rises–that government will not be a capitalistic government but a Soviet government, and behind this government will stand the Red Army to enforce the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

      The assumption of power, then, is by violent revolution leading to the destruction of the State and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The Communists worked out theoretical processes by which this seizure of power was to be realized.  History now records the practical methods by which they have seized power in a number of countries, specifically, Russia, China, and the misnamed People’s Democracies of Eastern Europe.
      The assumption of power may be by various methods  of which three will be discussed.  They are:

1.   Internal revolt through control of the labor union
2.   Military conquest
3.   Piecemeal surrender to military blackmail

Harlem Backers Applaud Castro
by Anita Snow

A church full of admiring American supporters in Harlem erupted in applause early yesterday when Cuban leader Fidel Castro spoke of how pleased he was to shake hands earlier in the week with President Clinton.
      “I feel satisfied by my respectful and civilized behavior with the president of the country that had been host of the summit,” Mr. Castro told the invitation-only crowd at towering Riverside Church.
      It was the first time the Cuban leader has publicly mentioned the much-discussed encounter between the two leaders at the end of a luncheon Wednesday at the just concluded U.N. Millennium Summit, a gathering of about 160 world leaders.
      Back in his olive green fatigues after spending a week in the black suits he favors for presidential gatherings, Mr. Castro treated a crowd of 2,000 ardent American admirers to a four-hour-plus address that began mid-evening Friday night and ended yesterday morning.
      Mr. Castro flew home yesterday morning, ending his first visit to the United States in five years.
      The overwhelming pro-Castro congregation, which at one point serenaded the 74-year-old leader with “Happy Birthday” in belated  honor of his mid-August birthday, dwarfed a group of vocal anti-Castro demonstrators who jeered the Cuban outside the church.
      The highlight of the far reaching address was Mr. Castro’s version of the famous handshake, which the White House at first denied ever took place.
      The encounter occurred at a reception both leaders were attending Wednesday afternoon as part of the summit.
      Suddenly, Mr. Castro recalled, he found himself in a line of leaders being greeted by the U.S. president.

      “I couldn’t run away to prevent passing by that point,” Mr. Castro said, growing animated in his speech, which early on was punctuated by the crowd’s shouts of “Fidel, Fidel, Fidel.”
      “With all dignity and courtesy I greeted him,” the Cuban president said.  “He did the same, and I moved ahead in line.  It would have been extravagant and rude to do any other thing.  The whole thing lasted less than 20 seconds.”
      Cuban solidarity groups invited Mr. Castro to address the church gathering, with many of the invited guests lining up outside the church as early as four hours before the Cuban was set to start speaking.
      “Dear brother and sisters,” he told them, hugging several children who gave him a plastic wrapped bouquet of flowers.  “You have been extremely generous and kind with us.”
      “I came to Harlem because I knew it was here that I would find my best friends,” he added.  Among those in the church were Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters of California and Jose Serrano of New York, both longtime opponents of the 38-year-old U.S. embargo against Cuba.
      Other guests included the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, the former head of the National Council of Churches, who campaigned vigorously for the repatriation of 6 year old Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba, even bringing the boy’s grandmothers to Washington.
      Many in the church wore pins or stickers that said “Free Mumia,” a reference to death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted in the killing of a Philadelphia police officer.  His supporters maintain he did not receive a fair trial and have organized an international campaign for a new one.
      A sign carried by one supporter read: “Hail Castro, Jail Giuliani”–a reference to New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who snubbed Mr. Castro and described him in the days before the summit as a “murderer”.
      Mr. Castro has great fondness for Harlem, having first visited the area during a 1960 trip to the United Nations for that year’s General Assembly.
      The Washington Times, September 10, 2000, p. C11

Multiculturalism and Marxism
by Professor Frank Ellis

No successful society shows a spontaneous tendency towards multiculturalism or multiracialism.  Successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity.  Those who support multiculturalism either do not know this, or, what is more likely, realize that if they are to transform Western society into strictly regulated, racial-feminist bureaucracies they must first undermine these societies.
      This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to establish Communism in the Soviet Union was.  Just as every aspect of life had to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multiculturalists hope to control and dominate every aspect of our lives.  Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs is a softer, gentler tyranny but one with which they hope to bind us as tightly as a prisoner in the gulag.  Today’s “political correctness” is the direct descendant of Communist terror and brainwashing.
      Unlike the obviously alien implantation that was Communism, what makes multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West.  Although it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West.
      What we call “political correctness” actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicbeskaya pravil ‘nost’ in Russian), and was the extension of political control in education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior.  It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure that all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianism.  In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.
      As Mao Tse-Tung, the Great Helmsman, put it, “Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul.”  Mao’s little red book is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought and by the late 1980s Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities.  The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the other “isms”–anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which now dominate university curricula.  The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious.  Today’s dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.
      Some have argued that it is unfair to describe Stalin’s 

regime as “totalitarian,” pointing out that one man, no matter how ruthlessly he exercised power, could not control the functions of the state.  But, in fact, he didn’t have to.  Totalitarianism was much more than state terror, censorship, and concentrations camps; it was a state of mind in which the very thought of having a private opinion or point of view had been destroyed.  The totalitarian propagandist forces people to believe that slavery is freedom, squalor is bounty, ignorance is knowledge and that a rigidly closed society is the most open in the world.  And once enough people are made to think this way it is functionally totalitarian even if a single dictator does not personally control everything.
      Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is tolerance and diversity.  Indeed the multicultural revolution works subversion everywhere, just as communist revolutions did.  Judicial activism undermines the rule of law, “tolerance” weakens the condition that makes real tolerance possible; universities which should be havens of free enquiry practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. 
      At the same time we find a relentless drive for equality: the Bible, Shakespeare, and “rap” music are just texts with “equally valid perspectives.” Deviant and criminal behavior are an “alternative life style.”  Today Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment would have been repackaged as Crime and Counseling.
      In the Communist era, the totalitarian state was built on violence.  The purpose of the 1930s and the Great Terror (which was Mao’s model for the Cultural Revolution) uses violence against “class enemies” to compel loyalty.  Party members signed death warrants for “enemies of the people” knowing that the accused were innocent, but believing in the correctness of the charges.  In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering millions of Russian peasants.  As cited by Robert Conquest in The Horror of Sorrowing (p. 143), the state’s view of this class was “not one of them was guilty of anything, but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything.”  Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.
      This, of course, is the beauty of “racism” and “sexism” for today’s culture attackers–sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations.  The charge of “institutional racism” is no different than declaring an entire economic class an enemy of the people.  “Racism” and “sexism” are multiculturalism’s assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same.  If a crime can be collectivized, all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group.  When young whites are victims of racial preferences they are today’s version of the Russian peasants.  Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone, they “belong to the race that is guilty of everything.”

      The purpose of these multicultural campaigns is to destroy the self.  The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or today, PC-Man.  Once enough people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary; we reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.
      The Russian experiment with revolution and totalitarian social engineering has been chronicled by two of that country’s greatest writers, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn.  They brilliantly dissect the methods and psychology of totalitarian control.  Dostoyevsky’s The Devils has no equal as a penetrating and disturbing analysis of the revolutionary and totalitarian mind.  The “devils” are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting with something they do not understand.  The ruling class seeks to ingratiate itself with them.  The universities have essentially declared war on society at large.  The great cry of the student radicals is freedom, freedom, from the established norms of society, freedom from manners, freedom from inequality, freedom from the past.
      Russia’s descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building a terrestrial paradise.  Dostoyevsky did not live to see the abominations he predicted, but Solzhenitsyn experienced them firsthand.  The Gulag Archipelago and August 1914 can be seen as histories of ideas, as attempts to account for the dreadful fate that befell Russia after 1917.
      Solzhenitsyn identifies education, and the way teachers saw their duty as instilling hostility in all forms of traditional authority, as the major factors that explain why Russia’s youth was seduced by revolutionary ideas.  In the West during the 1960s and 1970s–which collectively can be called “the 60s”–we hear a powerful echo of the mental capitulation of Russia that took place in the 1870s and continued through the revolution.
      One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation).  Truth is not something to be established by rational enquiry, but depends on the perspective of the speaker.  In the multicultural universe, a person’s perspective is “valued” (a favorite word) according to class.  Feminists, blacks, environmentalists, and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth because they are oppressed.  They see truth more clearly than the white

heterosexual men who “oppress” them.  This is a perfect mirror image of the Marxist proletariat’s moral and intellectual superiority over the bourgeoisie.  Today, “oppression” confers a “privileged perspective” that is essentially infallible.  To borrow an expression from Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah, blacks and feminists are “case hardened against logical argument” as Communist true believers are.
      Indeed, feminists and anti-racist activists openly reject objective truth.  Confident that they have intimidated their opposition, feminists are able to make all kinds of demands on the assumption that men and women are equal in every way.  When outcomes do not match that belief, this is only more evidence of white-male deviltry.
      One of the most depressing sights in the West today, particularly in the Universities and the media, is the readiness to treat feminism as a major contribution to knowledge and to submit to its absurdities.  Remarkably, this requires no physical violence.  It is the desire to be accepted that makes people truckle to these middle-class, would-be revolutionaries.  Peter Verkovensky, who orchestrates murder and mayhem in The Devils, expresses it with admirable contempt: “All I have to do is raise my voice and tell them that they are not sufficiently liberal.”  The race hustlers, of course, play the same game.  Accuse [an early 21st century] liberal of “racism” and “sexism” and watch him fall apart in an orgy of self-flagellation and Marxist self-criticism.  Even “conservatives” wilt at the sound of those words.
      Ancient liberties and assumptions of innocence mean nothing when it comes to “racism.”  You are guilty until proven innocent, which is really impossible, and even then you are forever suspect.  An accusation of racism has much the same effect as an accusation of witchcraft did in 17th century Salem.
      It is the power of the charge of “racism” that stifles the derision that would otherwise meet the idea that we should “value diversity.”  If “diversity” had real benefits, whites would want more of it and would ask that even more cities in the U.S. and Europe be handed over to immigrants.  Of course, they are not rushing to embrace diversity and multiculturalism; they are in headlong flight in the opposite direction.  Valuing diversity is hobby for people who do not have to endure its benefits.
      Watch for the conclusion of this article in the December Schwarz Report.
      Fact, Fiction & Fraud, July 2000