Is there a "Universal Man," or is there "The Other," the latter being the position both our Right wing racist and Left wing dhimmi compatriots argue?
If there is such a thing as Other, then perhaps Susan Sontag is right in claiming that white Europeans are the cancer of history. If there is no general Humankind but simply us and groups of others than us, then it's possible that we, if we are white Europeans, especiallly if we are heterosexual males, are the worst of the worst of people on Earth. Perhaps it's true that white Europeans are the worst of Humankind, they being the ones who are responsible for captialism, colonialism, imperialism, enviornmental degradation, nuclear proliferation, all manner of racist atrocities, sexism, and homophobia.
If there is Other, then maybe straight white males, SWMs, are the root cause of all evils on Earth. Perhaps before the triumph of SWMs the world did live in harmony with Mother Nature, guided by the wisdom of matriarchs, living without the evils of war and competition, in a pre-socialist nirvana of peace and plenty in whihc all people except the whute Europeans were happy and satisfied with tending their vegetarian gardens.
If we dismiss the above as laughably stupid we fall for the wiles of the great capitalist conspiracy of believing--against our own interests-- in the fallacy of Truth.
Truth is a conspiracy against the people of the world, a way of making them invalidate their own folk wisdom and intuitions and Will. Truth is a way of subverting the validity of cultures and traditions of the Other. Truth is a concoction of white European men who stripped away the mystic vision of the volk and who replaced it with the cold logic of logic, a mere prop for the propagation of capitalism. By reducing Truth to one single Grand Narrative universal truth, the SWM has priviled his own narrative at the expense of the Other, of his Truth. If there is only one truth, and if it is Europan male heterosexual Truth, then all other truths are diminished and destroyed in the process of privileging the SWM's version of Truth. Truth is cultural imperialism. Truth is a trick played upon the world to make them think there is only Western capitalist truth. Logic and reason are at the root of Western Truth, and those concepts invalidate intuition, mystical knowledge, and communing with Mother Nature. But by so destroying other forms of truth, SWMs also destroy their own "authenticity" by losing touch with the many truths of the universe. And by reifying the Truth as a Grand Narrative the SWM loses touch with alternative truths that would put him in touch with his inner child, with the spirit world, with his kundalini, and c. Therefore, not only does SWM destroy the values of Other, he destroys his own hope of being real in the real universe. He suppports the capitalist Grand Narrative of Truth because he is given crumbs from the table of the vastly rich, whom he in turn supports with his war machinery to be used against the Peoples of Colour, the Thrid World Peoples, and the Wretched of the Earth. All of this occurs because Geo. W. Bush and his oligarch puppet masters want to make more money.
Prior to the world-wide invasion of meat-eating white European males who adopted logic, reason, and rationality and forced the capitalist mode of production on the Peoples, i.e. the Other, people lived in harmony and bliss. The were sensitive to the needs of The Land. They were at one with Mother Nature. There was no private property. There was no conflict between peoples. Earth Mothers nurtured everyone and knew all the traditional remedies to cure whatever ails you. There was no cancer because the food was pure and organic. There were no wars because everyone shared. People loved homosexuals because of their mystic blend of the masculine and the feminine. And so on it goes.
It'd be too stupid to laugh at if it weren't the fact that roughly 50 per cent of Europeans and Americans believe at least much of the nonsense above. The whole programme is philobarbarism, the most reactionary form of Romance fascism going these days. And the Left is on it like flies on garbage. The Left has elevated the stupidities to the highest form of "discourse" available to the truly conscious, as opposed to those who labour under the illusions of the capitalist conspiracies of false consciousness.
The Left is in love with the stupidities of fascism, and they are morally indignant when they hear others, as it were, speak out from premises of "Truth," logic, reason, rationality, or any of the Enlightenment standards of the 18th century. Progress is a capitalist deception, one that must be done away with to restore the ages of authenticity. The Other must have his "voice."
The Left dhimmi is in support of the authentic peoples who have myriad truths, none of them capitalist. The Left must fight against Truth and the capitalist conspiracy of Bush and co. in their struggle for more money for Haliburton and the continued rape of Mother Nature and the destruction of the rain forest peoples, and c. It is the Straight White Male who is the enemy, not the primitives of Islam, for example.
The Left will never lay out their programme as simply as we have done above, so we did it for them. And since it's so simply put they will rage that it's all wrong or something or capitalistic.
For a more sophisticated version of some of the basic arguements of the Left, of the concept of Other, let us turn then to the one philosopher who made it all likely that any of this rubbish should be read and heard: von Herder, the biggest of the proto-Nazi thinkers idolized by today's reactionary Left.
For those who want a prestigious academic ccount of Herder and his work, we offer the link directly below. For others with better sense we suggest skipping it and going to the conclusion further below.
Johann Gottfried von Herder, (1744-1803) is a German philosopher, one-time brilliant student of Kant, and founder of the post-modernist concept of Other. His work relies on philosophical irrationality in opposition to the ideas of the Rationalist Enlightenment. His style is helter-skelter, unsystematic, and intuitive. He bases much of his idea of metapysics and epistemology on organic Will.
Some of us wrongly attribute the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis to Sapir and Whorf, but those who know claim it derives from von Herder, who writes that peoples, volk, are their language made real, and that the people are real in themselves only insofaras they have a language of their own.
A short detour here from Wikipedia explains some of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
Among the most frequently cited examples of linguistic determinism is Whorf's study of the language of the Inuit, who have multiple words for snow. He argues that this modifies the world view of the Inuit, creating a different mode of existence for them than, for instance, a speaker of English. The notion that Arctic people have a large number of words for snow has been shown to be false by linguist Geoffrey Pullum; in an essay titled The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax, he tracks down the origin of the story, ultimately attributing it largely to Whorf. More to the point is the triviality of this observation. The fact that wine fanciers have a rich vocabulary to speak about the tastes they find in wines is not thought of as evidence that their minds work differently; only that they know more than the average person about wine. English-speaking skiers may also have a rich vocabulary for snow.
These ideas have met with some resistance in the linguistic community. Numerous studies in color perception across various cultures have resulted in differing viewpoints. (Berlin & Kay, 1969; Heider, 1972; Heider & Oliver, 1973; Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976; Rosch, 1974)
Recently, however, there has been a resurgence in the idea of linguistic determinism, largely due to a study by Peter Gordon which examines the language of the Pirahã tribe of Brazil. According to Gordon, the language used by this tribe only contains three counting words: one, two and many. Gordon shows through a series of experiments that the people of the Pirahã tribe have difficulty recounting numbers higher than three. (Gordon, 2004) However, the causal relationship of these events is not clear. Critics have argued that if the test subjects are unable to count numbers higher than three for some other reason (perhaps because they are nomadic hunter/gatherers with nothing to count and hence no need to practice doing so) then one should not expect their language to have words for such numbers. That is, it is the lack of need which explains both the lack of counting ability and the lack of corresponding vocabulary.
Politics and etiquette
Some have attempted to turn the hypothesis into a political tool. So-called politically correct language stems from the belief that using (for example) sexist language tends to make one think in a sexist manner. Politically constrained language may however be effective at creating new rules of etiquette, labelling certain disapproved usages as breaches of social custom. It is unclear, however, that political etiquette changes perceptions. Steven Pinker coined the phrase the euphemism treadmill to describe the process in which euphemistic neologisms acquire all the negative associations of the words they were coined to replace (eg: crippled/disabled; idiotic/retarded/challenged/differently abled).
Von Herder's idea is that people are seperate and seperated by thier language, that they become what they are and who they are because of their language. As the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has it, one cannot think of that which there is no word. One can think of that for which there is a word. Forget that this leads to an infinite regress and one will be well on ones way to speking like a politically correct civil servant on television. Von Herder makes Germans German by virtue of the German language they use, wich in turn makes them other than others. The idea of a German volk is concrete therefore because it is obvious that Germans are not Poles or Italians because Germans speak German, get their ideas from German concepts and ideas of reality, which makes them one people different from all others. One could learn other languages, of course, but that would merely make them less German than the true Germans who are unpolluted by cosmopolitanism. (The Jews, for example.)
No one can have a private language, as Wittgenstein goes on about for miles and years. Von Herder claims that those who speak a common language develope into a specific people, e.g. Germans, a group identity that surpasses nationality and politics, amking them a seperate and identifiable people unto themselves. And so it is with all other peoples. The German people, being one in language, and therefore one in culture and mind, are One People. The individual, being nothing without the language group, does not exist as a thing of authenticity. His existence is only valid in combin tion with his volk. Being determined by his group, he is part of the general Will, the over-arching group mind identity of the Volk. He, being one of the German Volk, is not one of Them. Language itself determines his brain's development, and he can never be other than he is, a pure German expressing not himself but the Will of the commonality of Germans.
The German comes from the Land of the Germans, and because there is no good to come from rationality the Land Spirit nurtures the language man, the German Soil makes the German man German because the German Spirit resides in the German Soil, from which the German springs. And if the German language is taken to other lands, as in the case of German runes to India or Iceland, then those places too are German because the German People took themsleves and their Germaness to those Lands and made them German. Therefore, what was once German Land must be later and always German Land embued with the German Geist.
To know about German one must examine the roots of German language, hence the detailed study of folklore and mythology. The spread of interest in the irrationalism of mythology plays into the idea of the anti-rationalism of the Counter-Enlightenment, the privileging of "authentic people" as opposed to the Other.
Those most authentic are those closest today to the UrSpirit of Nature, the First Peoples, those unpollluted with the cancer of Modernity. The Other is privileged in that he is not a SWM in the world at large. The language of captialism keeps us from understanding our inauthenticity. We continue to fall for the lies of Truth because we speak the language of privilege. Those who do not speak the captialist tongue are thsoe who are not Europeans. They are Other. They have their own truth that we cannot understand because we are inauthentic and blinded and stupified by the conspiracy of language, and we are made racists, sexists, and homophobic because we are too stupid to recognize the brain trap of our language. We are "Other." We are in fact the enemy.
If we are smart like the Leftists we will stop privileging ourselves, lackies of the capitalist system, and allow the authentic peoples of the world to run things rightly. We must, if we are to be Leftists, become dhimmis. It is a good thing to let primitives take back the world and restore it to its pre-capitalist goodness when all were vegetarian happy people. Dhimmitude, then, is not only our moral choice, it is our only choice if we are to survive and prevent the death of the planet. We cannot say that Islam is a fascism because we are, by virtue of our being as capitalist stooges, incapable of knowing anything authentic ourselves. We are bad. We must destroy the capitalist system and allow real people to rule the world where we have failed.
If we object to the premises of the Left it's only because we are deceived by virtue of our very being as SWMs, hence proving that we are evil. Our only chance of moral redemption is to be good dhimmis. Those who are are better than the rest of us, we who are stupid Rightwing fanatics who blindly supporti the war in Iraq for the sake of oil company profits and c, are the real enemy of the peoples of the world. Yes, we are the cancer of history. Too bad for us. But we are unstoppable.
We are the Other, indeed, just like everyone else on Earth, and we will prevail in our relentless march toward Progress for all. Man is universal Man. Universal Man has universal rights and it is up to those of us who care about that to destroy the fascist pursuit of reaction. We offer agian the example of William Walker--in any language one cares to read it in.