Slavoj Zizek's Multi-Cultural/Ethnic Statism

The Slovenian (Marxist?) philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, in a contribution to day's Guardian (Comment is Free), “Liberal multiculturalism masks an old barbarism with a human face”, clearly expresses his belief in Multi-Cultural/Ethnic Statism and its justifying universalistic (catholic) ideology (“One-Human-Racism”), which denies (and suppresses as “racism”) the importance to ethnicity in determining an individual's sense of personal and group, i.e. national (Gr. ETHNOS = nation), identity.

Quote from article:

“This vision of the detoxification of one's neighbour suggests a clear passage from direct barbarism to barbarism with a human face. It reveals the regression from the Christian love of one's neighbour back to the pagan privileging of our tribe versus the barbarian Other. Even if it is cloaked as a defence of Christian values, it is itself the greatest threat to Christian legacy.”

OED definition of UNIVERSALIST: A person advocating loyalty to and concern for others without regard to national allegiances.

Understanding the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society

Before one can understand the madness, one first has to recognise it, although it has been made very difficult by the social and political taboos which evoke accusations of "xenophobia" and "racism" against anyone who does and dares to say so publically.

I'm sure that many people do recognise this madness, at least from time to time, but dare not say so, certainly not in public, for fear of being branded a "xenophobe" or "racist"; and because it cannot be expressed publically there can be no shared debate, testing or evaluation of this perception, which we are thus left alone to doubt and, in the face of such overwhelming social pressures, eventually reject the validity of, bravely seeking to suppress our own "xenophobic" and "racist" tendencies.

The human brain is such that it can be prevented from recognising even the most obvious things if the taboo against doing so is strong enough. Such taboos can be put in place artificially by post-hypnotic suggestion, for example, or, more naturally, by social and political conditioning, through a regime of rewards and punishments, or promises and threats thereof. Just as we train and condition dogs, so we are trained and conditioned ourselves, to be obedient subjects of the state. The state wants mass immigration and a multi-ethnic society, and thus trains and conditions us, its subjects, to accept it. And if that fails, we are simply bullied into submission by being branded as "racists", just as in the Middle Ages people were trained and conditioned to accept church dogma (and authority), and those who resisted were bullied into submission by accusations of being "heathens", "infidels" or "heretics".

Mass immigration is madness because our country and subcontinent is already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated. Mercifully, Europe's native population has peaked and is now slowly declining, which, for sustainability's sake, is exactly what need to happen. To reverse this natural trend, by encouraging people to have more children and through mass immigration of people's with a higher fertility rate, is utter insanity. It beggars belief that our politicians could be so stupid.

The creation of a multi-ethnic (multi-racial and multicultural) society, which the madness of mass immigration has given rise to, is madness in its own right, because it is difficult enough for people with everything in common to organize themselves harmoniously and get along together. The less we have in common, the more difficult (if not impossible) it becomes.

Which brings us to the method, i.e. purpose, behind this madness and thus to understanding it: the state and capital do not want us organizing ourselves, but as has always been their way, want to keep us dependent on them and do the organizing for us, thus facilitating our self-exploitation as a human environment and resource.

State and capital are so overwhelmingly powerful, and we so utterly dependent on them, that it is difficult to imagine how we can possibly escape their clutches. But if we want our civilization to survive, that is what we must do.

Multi-ethnic Britain exposes the LIE of it being a genuine NATION

Despite the madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and the creation of a multi-ethnic society, perhaps it was necessary, it recently occurred to me, to expose the lie of nationhood on which the British state is based and from which it derives its claim to legitimacy, loyalty and authority over the British population. When we were all essentially the same race, sharing a common ethnic identity, maintaining the deception of nationhood was relatively easy, but the creation of multi-ethnic Britain has changed that.

Now it is a glaring LIE, with all that stands between it and the truth, being the POWER of the British state, on which we all currently depend.

Just as the Bolsheviks imposed multi-ethnic statehood on the Soviet Union, so too Britain's ruling elites - a coalition, analogous to that of aristocracy and clergy in the Middle Ages, of the political right and left - imposed mass immigration and multi-ethnic society on Britain; the former, in pursuit of largely economic interests (i.e. cheap foreign labour); the latter, in pursuit of political and ideological advantage from the "moral high ground" associated with the ideology of multi-racialism and "colourblindness" (the political irrelevance of race and ethnic origins), which arose in overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology and to the unjust and inhumane ideologies of Jim Crow and Apartheid, but was then consolidated, opportunistically, for political advantage and control.

The Soviet Union eventually split up, very imperfectly, into its constituent ethnic groups, and so too, I believe, will Britain. Only we need to make a much better job of it that did the Soviet Union; which we can do, by allowing individuals to freely choose the ethnic group, i.e. mini-nation, they wish to belong to. States, being proprietary, define themselves by the territory they OWN and CONTROL, but not genuine nations, which define themselves by the shared identity and mutuality of their members. If we proceed peacefully, cautiously, with humanity and understanding, we can confront the lie of British nationhood and transform Britain into a multi-national state.

One of these ethnic groups (mini-nations) will, of course, be multiethnic (a melting pot), but not all. Many people will want to belong to their own mini-nation. Sikhs, for example, along with many Jews, Muslims, and people from other ethnic minorities, and, of course, many, like myself, from the indigenous, native European population (to which I number European Jews, just in case anyone was wondering).

Importantly, there is no need for us to get into intractable arguments, or fights, about who belongs where, since everyone should be free to decide for themselves (unlike the present situation, where we are all having a multi-ethnic nationality imposed on us, by the state, whether we like it or not). 

Racism, or statism?

Human nature and behaviour evolved to be not just very sociable, but also deeply tribal. This is as true now as it was 10,000 years ago, the only difference being that the material dependency on our tribe has been replaced by a dependency on the STATE and a MONEY economy. Our emotional need for a sense of tribal belonging remains, however. Under different circumstances and in varying degrees it is now projected onto the state (masquerading as our NATION), the company we work for, the football team we support, a political party, a religion, an ideology, or whatever.

The state did not replace our original tribes by democratic consent (Social Contract, indeed!), but by force, through the swords of an aristocracy, aided by the "moral", intellectual and organizational support of the priesthood, i.e. Church, which received its material reward.

Thus was the state originally created, by a coalition of aristocracy and clergy, to facilitate exploitation of both the natural and human resources at their disposal, to their mutual advantage; notwithstanding the, sometimes deadly, rivalries within and between these two groups (or classes).

Central to facilitating society's exploitation by its ruling elites was the creation of the myth of NATIONHOOD (a nation being the natural extension of our original tribe, a federation of closely related tribes, as when the Greek tribes, which had developed into city states, exploiting slaves rather than their own people, united into a nation to face down the Persian threat). The state was thus able to harness people's powerful sense of tribal belonging and loyalty for its own exploitative purposes.

Effectively, though not consciously, the state domesticated society, just as we domesticate a dog, for example, based on the animal's dependency and a regime of rewards and punishments (or promises and threats thereof) to gain control of and exploit for our own purposes its innate behaviour.

Returning to human nature: when football fans, for example, jeer a player on account of his race, i.e. ethnic difference, it is not usually an expression of racism, as politicians and the media would have us believe, and claim the "moral high ground" for (on which they base their authority and power, on which, in turn, their livelihoods depend), but a healthy, though rude and impolite, expression of tribal belonging. They are jeering at players they FEEL do  not belong to their tribe, or maybe the opposing tribe. Imagine the Japanese sending a football team, half of whom were not ethnic Japanese, but ethnic Europeans or Africans . . . Would that not offend one's sense of ethnic identity in respect to who the Japanese are?

Anyone with a healthy sense of their own, and other's, ethnic identity, would, of course. But the state demands that we suppress and deny (even to ourselves) any sense of ethnic identity, and direct our need for tribal belonging at itself instead.

The answer to my question - racism or statism? - is clearly STATISM.

But how are we (any more than a dog its master) to oppose the mighty STATE?

By peacefully and respectfully cultivating a sense of our ethnic identities, thereby giving rise to a New (multi) Nationalism.

Is our ONLY choice to vote for the BNP . . ?!

Just because America's ethnic European population, under massive state pressure, is rapidly disappearing into the melting pot of an  (ideologically) freely miscegenating society, does this mean that Britain and Europe must do the same . . ?

All Britain's mainstream political parties (which one might collectively call, "Parties of the Pot") obviously assume so.

And what about those of us who want to retain our native,  ethnic, historical and prehistorical identity, much of which we've shared with fellow Europeans (including European Jews) over millennia? Is our ONLY choice to vote for the BNP . . ?!

This is not about "racial purity", which we all know does not exist, but about racial, i.e. ethnic, IDENTITY, which DOES exist and is of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity -certainly for myself. Notwithstanding that there are obviously those for whom, for whatever reason, race and ethnicity are not important, and I respect that.

What I do not respect or accept is their self-assumed right (and self-righteousness) to impose this attitude (of "colourblindness", "indifference to ethnic difference", of "race-doesn't matter", or "one-human-racism", or whatever you prefer to call it) on everyone else, through the overwhelming power of the state, and by accusing of "racism" those who resist.

I want to be on the friendliest possible terms with ethnic minorities and their members (with some of whom I am actual friends, I like to think), but I don't want to go on having to pretend (under pain of being branded a "racist") that we are a PEOPLE and a NATION, which is a STATE LIE I am not prepared to go along with.

Here the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of NATION:

A large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE [my capitals].

The state's spurious claim to nationhood and moral authority

Nazism, through the understandable, but extreme overreactions to it and their political/economic consolidation and exploitation, continues to mortally afflict European societies through the agency of "liberal statism" (or "liberal fascism", as Jonah Goldberg provocatively calls it), which bases its highly successful claim to the "moral high ground" and political power on it, thereby ensuring its domination of society, much as the Catholic Church was able to do in the Middle Ages, whose moral high  ground was its interpretation of the word of God.

 

These extreme overreactions include the total rejection and vilification of taking a Darwinian view of human society (because that is what the Nazis claimed to do) and the ideology of "colourblindness", of indifference to ethnic difference, of "race-doesn't-matter, i,e. is of no social or political significance (e.g. has no bearing on national identity), except to (for) evil "racists", like the Nazis.

 

Both these extreme overreactions have had profound consequence, firstly, because without taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of society (of the power structures of state and economy) we are unable to understand it and solve the massive social, political, economic and environmental problems, which will otherwise, before this new century is out, put an end to our civilisation, and secondly, because ethnicity DOES matter, profoundly, for anyone interested in a deeply rooted sense of personal and group identity and in their life having more meaning than the pursuit and exercise of power (in its various forms), or in having been reduced to a "human resource" and consumer.

 

Of course, these attitudes are not just an overreaction to the horrors associated with Nazi ideology, which the state has cunningly used to hide its own self-interest in not being exposed to the revealing light of a Darwinian perspective, and to legitimize its spurious claim to nationhood and moral authority over a multiethnic society.