Friday, January 18, 2008

The poverty of multi-cultural politics – gender, race, tribe.

Pandering to ethnicity and racism.

by StFerdIII



Multi-culturalism liberalism or marxism chatters endlessly about tolerance, respect and similarity. All cultures are equal, because everything is relative concerning reality, time, space, success or failure. This infantile notion of life is one reason for the failure of modern politics to inspire anything but scorn. Such concepts lead inevitably to what the liberals and marxists supposedly do not like – categorizing people based on skin color, gender, tribal affiliation and usually victim status. It also leads inevitably to the destruction of the majoritarian society.

Many ancient empires were ostensibly multi-cultural. Sumeria, Assyria, Persia, Greece for a time and Rome, Han China, Mongol Asia, modern Russia, amongst many others, all enjoyed hegemony over different ethnicities and tongues. The crucial difference with our own times is that the majoritarian culture was supreme, whilst other cultures were tolerated – within reason. It is hard to imagine Rome calling Jewish terrorists disaffected Jews who do not represent the great Jewish culture. Jewish subversives including Jesus, were simply killed.

Successful ancient and modern empires wre both elastic and resolute. New ideas, blood, and human capital were always welcomed. But within the context of the reigning culture. Without a majoritarian culture, the empire and state will collapse. Just read about the demise of the first multi-cultural state, the Hapsburg family's empire which covered central, eastern and balkanized Europe. With no main theme, culture or shared history, this empire, whilst diverse, tolerant, statist, over-taxed, over-bureaucratized [sound familiar?] had no justification for its existence. In the throes of war it just imploded. Tribes formed their own states with their own sinews and history of land, language, culture and blood.

Or take the world's largest ever land empire – the Russian state – which was spread not by diversity and love but by a resolute and quite determined [and ergo very confident] Russian culture. Within that transnational empire resides 25 or so ethnicities, but it is Russia which rules – not a polytheistic pantheon of non-Russian cults.

Russian distate for putting up with too much diversity is both admirable and frightening. But it is also true to say that a Turkmen living in southern Russia, is mostly better off under Russian tutelage with Russian education, culture, literature and potential economic opportunity than he is under the reigning thug or gang in his native land. Contrary to marxist and neo-liberal opinion imperialism is not necessarily evil.

Yet the historical message around multi-cult politics is clear. Successful empires, both ancient and modern, out of practicality and security need to tolerate different cultural observances – but not to the point of destroying the main culture of the reigning state. This is a historical fact lost on liberals and marxists, which given their wide ranging ignorance on history and human affairs is not surprising. Without a strong culture dominating the rest, the state will simply disappear.

So it is quite disturbing to see and hear identity politics using race, gender and victimhood, being spread across the western world. In the US, Hillary Clinton demands that women vote for her, since being a female she is a victim. This is a woman who has been near to power for 30 years. So how did she get there if real discrimination against 'women' existed? How does she explain the small army of successful women, sometimes quite out of proportion to their involvement in key areas, which can be found in the media, the movies, business, politics and even the military? How does Hillary explain the career of Nancy Pelosi, leader of the US congress? She can't and she won't. Vote for me I am a victim, is her only theme.

Similar nostrums are exhaled by Hussein Obama. Long claims of racism, none of which existed, dominate his book, inform his speeches, and underline his program of 'change'. For Obama change means letting Blacks 'in' to power. How does he explain his own career if society is anti-black? Or that of Bill Cosby, myriad athletes, Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice or the untold numbers of successful blacks in business, law, government and politics. He doesn't and he won't. Vote for me I am black and I am a victim, is his only theme.

Throughout Europe and North America, Muslims have used Saudi money to portray themselves as victims of Islamo-phobia. Now in the UK and Europe it is illegal, punishable by prison time, to equate Islam with violence and terror. Another clear and very reckless case of identity and victim politics.

If Christians had perpetrated 11.000 odd acts of violence, were engaged in 3 major civil wars, and had killed close to 500.000 innocents, during the past 6 years, they would be labeled as Christian terrorists, and even fascists, if the murders were linked to a political program. But in the multi-cultural world of identity and victim politics this is not possible. Though Christians or whites are routinely depicted as fascist imperliats, [note; most Christian churches are incredibly left-wing] the Muslims are now a protected species, immune to criticism or observation. This is not how adult states should be acting.

Multi-cultural politics is in essence hypocritical and demeaning. The entire liberal-marxist concept of tolerance, diversity and relativity if of course, one gigantic scam and lie. Liberals and marxists don't care about diversity of opinion – they demonize and scream against any and all who dare challenge their orthodoxy. They are intolerant of debate, facts, reality and history. For them the world is one technocratic opportunity – nothing can go un-managed, un-resolved, or left to the chaos of personal choice, especially anything concerned with identity politics.

Liberals and marxists have of course no real interest in their supposed pantheon of equality, fraternity and liberty as it pertains to the victim-groups or racial tribes. They instead practice soft racism by telling minorities that without government aid or massive programs of reverse discrimination they will fail. The implication is that women, blacks or 'others' are too stupid to succeed – or so liberals and marxists believe. They tell women to liberate themselves and are thereby shocked when 1 million fetuses are murdered each year, and unfettered sexuality leads to women being viewed, and increasingly acting like, they are nothing but sluts or tarts. Identity politics carries a huge price tag, a cost which we are told to ignore or even to embrace.

Multi-cult politics has many different outcomes at many different levels, many of them unseen or quietly ignored. One thing is certain however, the more that identity, race and gender politics comes to the fore, the more fractured, tribal and less coherent society will become. As society disintegrates, social and cultural bonds will break, and that will be the end of the modern nation state. It will only be held together by government coercion and propaganda. Why would anyone want that?