Multiculturism is racism

May 5, 2008

It really is! Think about it people. All so called exponents of the Multiculturist worldview always expand upon ideas of the Other, respect for different cultures and tolerance, etc. But these opinions are always broadcast by those in positions of power and privilege, to keep the Other at a safe distance. i.e. usually operating in some demeaning lower strata of the Capitalist system. Our country is multicultural, but who drives our cabs? Works at 711 or service stations, etc? Capitalism is merely importing for itself new exploitable working class units. More easily exploited, in fact sometimes, due to lack of knowledge of Western notions such as unions, access to education before arrival here and even knowledge of the local language and tongue.

Slavoj Zizek noticed how at the same time talk of class struggle was fading from public discourse, the rise of Multiculturist speak was growing. It became an ersatz class struggle. Zizek considers multiculturism a part of Global Capitalism’s hegemonic totality. Zizek notes how whenever we talk of the Other, it is always in a condescending way of what he calls ‘the reduced Other’. The poor Aborigines needs us to say sorry to them, owww, the poor Asian’s need our help with language, aren’t we sweet?, etc. Zizek also notes that we respect other cultures as they fit ours. When issues of Muslim misogyny or religious based terrorism are raised our tolerance ends, or the example Zizek uses of respecting Hindu’s… but even their custom of throwing the wife on the funeral pyre with her dead husband?

Zizek also notes the only way to truly not be racist is to be able to exchange racist jokes with other races and to be comfortable about it. When we play the Political Correctness game its a form of reverse racism, that is equally as insulting as open racism. We consider the Other too ‘sensitive’ to hear racist jokes, we must protect her from our unspoken notions of superiority, etc.

I have long been deeply suspicious of multiculturism as a forced political concept. It can be used to destroy national cultures to create a mish mash nowhere land, ripe for Capitalist exploitation. The ideal ‘wasteland’ where Capitalism’s code can play out in its endless emptyness.

Hiding behind the PC Multiculturist, is always privilege. An understanding that, yes, we tolerate you ‘the Other’, as long as you fit into our general Western humanist liberal perspective. Slightly left capitalist newspapers, theatre, a little tennis, wine tasting, a nice brie, a walk in the park, riding a bike, a little ABC TV, some alternative radio and culture. It’s all so fucking trite and bourgeoisie.

I should like to expand these ideas in another post but for now I’ll leave you with a cool quote from our Slovakian provocateur Mr. Zizek, who says:

“Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all
positive content . . . but nevertheless retains this position as the
privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to
appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures — the
multiculturalist respect for the Other’s specificity, is the very form
of asserting one’s own superiority’

9 Responses to “Multiculturism is racism”

  1. Greg Maxwell said

    I have to take issue with you and the good Mr Zizek on the idea that multi-culti is a tool of the “global capitalist hegemony” (way to use a trite lefty catch phrase Rich). For a start the idea of capitalism having a hegemony implies that there’s an empire and an organised structure behind the success and domination of the world economy by market driven wealth creation. That is slipping dangerously close to tin-foil hat, conspiracy theorist, Illuminati territory.

    As Frank Zappa once said, “communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff”. That’s why capitalism and the market economy works. The hegemony is the hegemony of human nature.
    Which segues neatly into the main thrust of my argument.

    Human nature is the fundamental reason why multiculturalism doesn’t work, won’t work and can’t work. The most successful and cohesive societies are monocultures. They’re not always the most interesting or vital-for that you need the chaotic and random neuronal firings in the public cortex that culture clash brings-but they certainly do work.

    So, if capitalism is successful because of human nature, and multi-culti is bound to fail because of it, why is it being forced upon us? And by whom?

    My contention is that multiculturalism is the latest attempt to achieve primacy by that great denier of human nature – socialism.

    Multiculturalism and political correctness are two of the fundamental pseudo-intellectual, quasi-religious tenets– along with a third: radical environmentalism–that have been widely disseminated by intellectuals unable to abandon socialism even after its crushing failures in the 20th century. These tenets have been slowly, but relentlessly absorbed at all levels of Western culture in the last decade or so–but primarily since the end of the Cold War.

    All three have been incorporated into most Kindergarten to Year 12 curricula and all other learning environments. They have been at the forefront of attempts by leading academics and academic institutions to rewrite most of history and undo thousands of years of Western cultural advancement. And further, as the culture has been completely saturated with this toxic brew, any attempt to question the tenets’ validity or to contest their value is met with hysterical accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, imperialism, bigotry, or–worse of all –intolerance or insensitivity.

    It just so happens, that these tenets represent three of the four pillars that are the foundation of an evolving epistemological, ethical and political strategy that the socialist remnants in the world have developed and are using to prevent their ideology from entering the dustbin of history.

    The fourth being terrorism, which is successfully being exported into the festering breeding grounds of multicultural Europe in particular.

    And all of this is a result of the corrosive influence of postmodernism on breaking down societal structures and its attempt to remake the world in some sort of grand gesture to the intellectual egos of its proponents.

    Alittle graphic to show the current state of play in the socialist revival.

  2. Greg Maxwell said

    Trying to get a picture to show.
    This is the address:

  3. Greg Maxwell said

    We’ll try it once more:

  4. Stathis said

    Couldn’t agree with you more Richard. Being Greek – Australian myself (How’s that for mutilicultural) the West diffuses it’s liberal “capitalist” guilt by creating wonderful terms to portray happy go lucky societies that occasionally eat Chicken Massala or Feta Cheese and therefore “engage” in mutilculturalism and therefore understand the infamous “other” like myself.

    It is simply a case of respect to those who deserve it regardless of race, face and case.

    I despise my wonderful lords in the Eu who designated 2008 as the Year of Intercultural Dialogue that urges me to conduct such dialogue with different entities than myself.

    2009 of course will be designated something else.

    Lessons of Morality from Hypocrites ….

  5. richard777 said

    Hi Greg,

    Great to have you commenting. You still in NZ? We miss you back here, man.

    I never knew you were a political philosopher! But was aware of the scope of your intellect.

    Yes, you have some very clear points especially your lucid pin pointing of Socialism/Communism as the Enemy. By that I mean a lot of the crap the Left tries to push on us to control our liberties, freedoms and right to a hierarchical society based around merit and not stupid notions of equality.

    Its not all bad though is it? I believe in a limited Socialism, especially for things like Health Care, Education and the like, as long as Right ideas are taught in Schools along with Left, so the true beauty and facticity of Right Wing thinking can be explicated. Are you Socialist on Healthcare, Greg, or do you prefer the US model or none at all?

    Capitalism is an ideological system, whether you wear a tin foil hat or not. Just because it has no leaders like Hitler or Stalin or thinkers like Heidegger or Marx does not make it any less a fully automated superstructure. Ayn Rand came closest to being a Capitalist philosopher. But Capitalism has a very clear lack of discernible purpose, goals or ideas beyond profit, protection of capital and amassing of private property. Its opaqueness makes it all the more prevalent, ‘invisible’ and malevolent in my opinion.

    The fascist model acknowledges private property, exploitation as inherent in human interaction, orders of merit and natural occurring hierarchies. The Right takes the Capitalist model and fills it with a mission, a purpose, a goal, ideas, classicism, tradition, etc. This is one of the reasons I prefer the ‘controversial’ fascist model to the Capitalist and Socialist paradigms. Of course, fascism has committed many errors in the past and I am first to point out how these can be overcome in the potential 21st Fascist Internationale.

    But when you say Global Warming is a Left Wing agenda? I have heard your own tin foil hat theories that Global Warming is a hoax, etc., from the likes of Andrew Bolt and others. It is possible that the science could be wrong and the planet not in as great jeopardy as many make out. Granted.

    But what if your Warming deniers are wrong? Whats more do we need their opinions to see the results of pollution, over crowding and environmental destruction in our own cities? Clearly not. In my opinion this issue is as much one of the Right, as of the Left. Hitler even had his own Green Party, an agrarian wing of the Nazi’s way back in the 30’s, under the leadership of Walther Darre. Mussolini also had a deep connection with the Soil and nature. Its clear we need to depopulate, depollute and live in a closer harmony with nature, whether Global Warming is true or not! And if it is true, which it most likely is, foil hats aside, we will be glad we have.

    Fascist measures must be taken in this area in the next 50 years or so in my opinion. Are you in favour of Capitalisms endless stock piling of human consumers and their subsequent pollution without purpose? Just because ‘people want to own stuff’? They can still own stuff and live in harmony with nature, can they not? Why the Capitalist obsession with quantity over quality as Rene Guenon’s metaphysics spell out?

    How do you support the lack of values and nihilism of Capitalism?

    This answers a bit rushed, so excuse any type errors. But I think I’ve made a few points of interest.

    Always good to hear from you, Greg. I’ll post that map you sent, with your permission, too.



  6. Greg Maxwell said

    Hi Rich,
    Lots to address there but I’ll move on the GW thing first because it’s a particular hobby horse of mine.
    My concerns with the hoo haa over global climate change are several. Firstly, I’m not at all satisfied with the Al Gore “debate is over” attempt to stifle dissent and reasonable scientific scepticism. I think that in their desire to counter the Left at every turn, conservative commentaters risk becoming as ideology driven as the Left and simply gainsaying the arguments is insufficient. It lacks nuance and nuance is everything here. The Left has been able to dominate the debate because they have for years dumbed down the standard of public discourse to sound bite level so taking a nuanced argument into that arena is suicide, but responding with simplistic “yes it is, no it’s not, ….yo mama” retorts plays into their hands.
    The truth is that the science is not settled and there’s a good possibility that insolation is responsible for the variations we’re seeing. Remember, we’re only just now really looking at climate in the level of detail that will give accurate results. I suspect some of the early temperature stats were a result of urban heat island effect and encroaching development on isolated weather monitoring stations.
    But, even if it turns out that there is some anthropogenic causality in the mix, the most rabid of GW proponents would have to agree that it’s only going to be a part of the problem. Cyclical patterns in the climate exist and have existed and will continue to exist. So, we have to apportion the blame and decide how much is us and how much is just part of the “shit happens” factor. Having done that, we then have to prepare a response, if there is one.
    It’s this response where I start to really have some issues. Loud leftists have been screaming from the rooftops about drowning fishermen in the Maldives and flooded rice paddies in Bangladesh etc but their response to the idea of climate change is the usual simplistic attempts at income redistribution and other lame “feel good” gestures. Kyoto, carbon credits etc are all designed to take money from rich nations and give it to poor nations without requiring either actually change anything. Blind Freddy knows that Oz isn’t going to cut CO2 emissions by 60%, ever. Lets leave aside the fact that CO2 isn’t a pollutant anyway and not the most potent greenhouse gas. But they couldn’t wind it back that far in a pink fit. And everyone knows it. So what did Kevni07 sign up for? He signed up for a payment to places like India and the former soviet states who have carbon credits due to either a huge population or the fact that they’ve had to shut down their inefficient industries because of lack of capital to modernise. Basically we’ll be paying them to stay inefficient as economies so we can carry on being efficient and making money. It’s delightfully Randian in its irony.
    Then we come to the UN, that most moribund and corrupt of institutions. The gravy train of the GW express has departed the station and they’re “all aboard!!!!” for the bureaucrat excursion to alarmistville. Make no mistake, there’s a lot of Kofi Annaans out there salivating at the thought of all those first class tickets to everywhere to certify carbon credits and declare this development or that carbon neutral.
    Lest I be accused of total negativity, I do have some solutions to propose but they’ll have to wait for another post as I have some work to do.

  7. richard777 said

    Yes, I agree we need two sides of the Global warming debate. We need to factor in all non human related causes of climate change. Lets hope its just a ‘shit happens’ scenario of rising heat and melting glaciers, that would be great.

    But somehow I don’t think so…

    Yes, carbon trading is a silly idea, it may have some beneficial effects, but probably not.

    Yes, The UN is full of hypocrites and ding-a-lings ready to burn airplane fuel flying round the world complaining about Global Warming… and all the Right Wing capitalist catch phrases that go with it.

    And yet, one can’t help but feel we human beings have taken and taken from this planet and multiplied on it like an out of control disease. Malthusian notions are really coming play in the 21st century. Have you read James Lovelock and/or heard his Gaia theory? Or mused on the pessimistic philosophy of John Gray? These not unclever chaps paint a very grim picture.

    I feel regardless of the ‘truth’ of Global Warming or the extent of its damage, we need to reduce our impact on the planet as much as possible, as soon as possible. Carbon trading is pissing in the wind, if the threat is real.

    The developed West is the only power capable of implementing change on a global scale. Also, modern democracies may need to succeed to something more powerful, action orientated and direct to get the job done.

  8. Greg Maxwell said

    OK, now we’re into the meat of the issue. Responses. What and who?
    Let’s assume that there’s some component of the changes that’s human caused and put the scientific debate aside as far as the fact of climate change.
    The planet has gone through ice ages and hot periods before so whatever component we cause is not going to be on the same scale as what nature dishes out. Also, the earth’s ecosystem is not only a huge and complex creature, it’s very robust. If left alone it heals remarkably quickly. In the town closest to the Chernobyl reactor there is already a deciduous forest in the middle of what was a soccer oval when they abandoned it 25 years ago.
    I believe it’s the height of hubris to think that we can affect it very much in a positive or negative sense. We’re just not that significant even though the post-modernists seem to think we are.
    What got western developed society to the position of primacy it has was our desire to improvise adapt and overcome, yet now the mood seems to be that we should all of a sudden try to tiptoe gently out of the room and leave Mother Gaia to snooze.
    My solution is to do what we do best. Invent stuff. Cure the symptom first, then try fixing the disease. There is much wailing, lamentation and gnashing of teeth from the Left about loss of cultures due to inundation of small islands. They seem to have some sort of need to preserve these cultures like a living diorama. Flies frozen in amber as a monument to the inclusiveness of the postmodern ethos. Never considering that these folk might just like to stop living as subsistence fishermen and have a few luxuries. If the islands go under, resettle them. If the lowlands of Bangladesh drown, the amount they’re spending on carbon credits would buy a houseboat for every family and build an aquaculture facility for every community.
    They talk about a few million being displaced over 50 years as though it was some sort of disaster or a herculaean task.
    Ferfuxxaches, the Chinese moved 20 million in 10 years just to build a dam.
    Then, if the money went into R&D on fusion power and clean nuke stations, we’d stop burning coal and shift closer to a hydrogen economy rather than a hydrocarbon one.
    Mad greenies shiver in their boots about nukes but they don’t mention the 5000 people a year who die mining coal worldwide. That’s 125000 people since Chernobyl. Makes the 100 or so who actually died there look rather tame.
    What really pisses me off about all these empty headed alarmists is that they’re trying to force something that’s happening anyway.
    A little science. Most of the energy use is in power generation and heating in the Northern hemisphere. When we burn coal or gasoline, it’s the hydrogen in the molecules that releases the energy. A coal molecule is a big ball of carbon with hydrogen round the outside. So lots of carbon left over when burned. Now we’re using a lot of gasoline and liquid fuels rather than just coal and a gasoline molecule is a chain of carbon atoms with hydrogen all round. Less carbon resultant from the reaction. Now gas is starting to take over from coal and oil and a gas molecule is one carbon atom with hydrogen all round it. Even less carbon. This is a result of the natural progression of technology as we become able to exploit the more difficult to handle, volatile liquids and gases. So the world has been moving towards a hydrogen economy for years, GW or no GW.
    If the interfering postmodernists would STFU and stop trying to force their deconstruction and reinvention on things, it’d naturally progrees by itself.
    More to come,

  9. Greg Maxwell said

    Speaking of Malthusian notions and gaia, George Carlin has a lot in common with my views.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: