academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressHere’s how I see the future scenario in the West: There will eventually be a split between the totalitarian humanists with their universalist outlook and the multiculturalists and their cultural relativist outlook. The former will represent the prevailing ideology of the ruling class while the latter will be more representative of the rising underclass composed to a large degree though not entirely of recent immigrant populations.
In the long run, I regard multiculturalism as far less threatening than totalitarian humanism as the former implies cultural separatism and political decentralization while the latter implies centralized statism and compulsory ideologcial and cultural uniformity. This is more or less the position that Alain De Benoist has come to as well. Indeed, multiculturalism may actually be a contributing factor to the disintegration of the overarching state systems we have at present. This is why I believe that anti-state radicals, the radical right, bioregionalists, and left ethno-nationalists should unite against the ruling class in favor of radical decentralization.
Attack the System
Categories: Political Correctness/Totalitarian Humanism
I’m not sure that that TH and multiculturalism can be so neatly separated. I see them as two sides of the same collectivist coin. TH is simply a more all-encompassing version of the racial/gender/sexuality farming that multiculti identity politics promotes: the essential character of both tendencies isn’t really all that different.
“I see them as two sides of the same collectivist coin.”
Agreed, but are they compatible with each other? They’re both obviously collectivist, but it would seem there’s tension between the two. I think the big question is whether multiculturalism can be reconciled with universalism.
“I think the big question is whether multiculturalism can be reconciled with universalism.”
Isn’t that a contradiction? “Totalitarian Humanism” (which I feel is a generous phrase to describe the orthodoxy of the progressive elite (can humanists bomb people into conformity, commit acts of genocide to advance the advent of the utopia? Progressives can, and do) demands universal compliance at the point of a warm gun barrel, multiculturalism, supposedly, “celebrates” diversity. One aims at a “diverse” culture, one at cultural/ideological homogeneity.
Of course this is merely a semantic/ideological distinction; in practice “multiculturalists” do not exist within the elite, the concept was retrospectively created as a progressive gloss for a situation they never anticipated (that none Western cultures would reject their ideology, the one which had given them “everything” for “nothing” once established in the West). You will not find a self identifying “multi culturalist” who is willing to defend the rights of colonists to have cultures with values and customs in contravention of the progressive gospel. Maybe exotic clothing and diets might be “tolerated”, but transgress the dictums of “human rights” and you’re in trouble.
“One aims at a “diverse” culture, one at cultural/ideological homogeneity.”
Yeah, that’s my point and why I see an inherent irreconcilability between the two.
” in practice “multiculturalists” do not exist within the elite, the concept was retrospectively created as a progressive gloss for a situation they never anticipated (that none Western cultures would reject their ideology, the one which had given them “everything” for “nothing” once established in the West).”
Yes, I agree with this for the most part. I think Western “progressives” are so fanatically convinced of the truth and righteousness of their ideology that they automatically assumed that the ostensibly oppressed masses of the non-Western world would by nature share their values. It’s no different than when old guard Marxists discovered that many actual proletarians wanted nothing to do with them.
“You will not find a self identifying “multi culturalist” who is willing to defend the rights of colonists to have cultures with values and customs in contravention of the progressive gospel. Maybe exotic clothing and diets might be “tolerated”, but transgress the dictums of “human rights” and you’re in trouble.”
In many instances, that’s obviously the case. But there are certainly exceptions (the German court cases Hari cities in the interview, for instance). I’ve heard progressives make the argument that female circumcision should be permitted in immigrant subcultures because banning it would be unenforceable or lead to racism (I’ve even heard them use the abortion issue as an analogy on this question). I’ve heard US progressives make the case for a non-criminal handling of the matter of bride kidnapping by Hmong immigrants on the grounds that it’s part of their cultural tradition. There are other examples of this type. I wonder what position they would take on these folks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551155/Human-sacrifice-cult-battles-with-police.html
“…there are certainly exceptions (the German court cases Hari cities in the interview, for instance). I’ve heard progressives make the argument that female circumcision should be permitted in immigrant subcultures because banning it would be unenforceable or lead to racism (I’ve even heard them use the abortion issue as an analogy on this question). I’ve heard US progressives make the case for a non-criminal handling of the matter of bride kidnapping by Hmong immigrants on the grounds that it’s part of their cultural tradition. There are other examples of this type. I wonder what position they would take on these folks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551155/Human-sacrifice-cult-battles-with-police.html “
Problem is to take that view, and I’ve heard similar myself, you have to accept that a whole raft of implicit and explicit progressive ideas have to be foregone. The idea of a techno “liberal” universal utopia for one. If one accepts that certain cultures are going to be practicing female circumcision as a totem for the general oppression of the entire female sex, then one is accepting that the glorious global reign of enlightened “progressivism” isn’t going to be happening anytime soon.
For that reason, if multiculturalism was a fully developed intellectual concept complete with any degree of internal consistency, it would be opposed to progressivism. (Indeed, like so many other ideas taken to their logical conclusion, what you’d get is the argument made here for secessionism). Unfortunately I’ve never heard an advocate of “multiculturalism” make anything like that case. It’s my opinion that most of the advocates of “multiculturalist” supremacy over progressivism are essentially reactionary in that they simply operate on a simple principle of “whatever the opposite of ”racism” is, that’s where I’m at”. I would suggest that these people tend to be outside the elite (and thus can afford to take ridiculous postures without risking the foundations of their power).
There is of course something of a “get out”. The idea that once these “benighted savage (black) cultures” have “evolved” they will come inevitably to a “progressive” culture”. (As enshrined as the Prime Directive of Star Trek Lore). This pathetic intellectual sticking plaster is, obviously, beneath contempt as containing within it the crassest of arrogance, the epitome of ignorance and the most abhorrent crude “white man’s burden” outright old skool racism.