Objectivists' hidden agenda a Klan mentality

Being an exchange student entails, for the most part, watching and observing, and this is what I have done. I have listened and I have spoken. I have queried and I have tried to understand. But above all of this, the most overt and tangible experience I have witnessed is that of difference. It surrounds us. We live in a cultural and political matrix of diverse discourses and different discursive communities.

In contrast, I find the objectivist leaders to be very different. They are smart men who have risen to the top of a highly competitive vocation. They are good with words and body language, are masters of rhetoric and they can act out the emotions in which their followers revel -- especially righteous indignation and contempt. They draw pleasure from being able to affect and control a crowd (even if it results in the unjust and "irrational" use of force). They are utterly cynical people. They have set the stage alight for new discourses of racism and sexism and they preach the words of Western, white supremacy. They breed an intellectual and cultural arrogance in an attempt to eliminate non-Western and non-Aryan people. Hence, the ideas that flow from their mouths are tainted with savagery. They serve to silence the voices of the "other" and consign their histories and experiences to the margins and to subsume all experience to the dominant Western outlook. They reject all specters of social fragmentation with the project of pursuing a rational, scientific understanding of natural and social reality based on one single theoretical discourse; that of Western, white civilization.

In denying the complexity of everyday life, "objectivists" think that their singular belief system can hope to explain it all, and it is used as a means of imposing Euro-American ideas of rationality and objectivity on other peoples. As Hull himself stated "there is a right way and there is a wrong way" -- and the correct method is of course that of the Western, white man (which is hardly surprising considering that Hull fits this totalizing description perfectly). Furthermore, they argue that multiculturalism and postmodernism, as promotions of diversity, are evil diseases as they regard all cultures are morally equal when in fact they are not. After all, it was our great Western civilization that put the baseball cap on our heads, asserts Hull, and all that non-Western thought has shown us is how "not" to do it.

Gee, three cheers for the West!!

Have you ever heard a claim that is so intrinsically elitist, overtly discriminatory and highly irrational (in true Ayn Rand style)? If Western civilization is the objectively superior culture, then why are so many Americans engulfed in despair?

The first time I heard this, I assumed that no one could take it seriously. But then I realized that I was asserting too much rationality and decency toward these people. I found that they really believe that scientific progress, technology and domination provides a legitimate endorsement for Western, white supremacy. As Herbert Marcuse stated, it is this kind of unrepressed implementation of modern science, rationalism and supremacy that ends in concentration death camps, mass exterminations and the atom bombs. But my most depressing finding of all was the degree to which ordinary people are perfectly content to believe this "objectivist" nonsense, as long as it makes them feel good.

Education now, seems more important to me than ever before. Postmodernism and mutliculturalism are by no means the diseases instituted by the "sadistic" doctors (professors) of our current universities. Do not let these Klansmen manipulate your minds with unfounded and unjust rhetoric while underhandedly trying to implement their own racist and sexist agenda into our education system. We, as an intellectual and moral foundation, must fight against these people and let our "other" voices be heard. Neither postmodernists nor multiculturalists would ever try to denigrate the history and values of the West or reduce it to a lower denominator. What postmodernism and multiculturalism attempt to do, with a broad brush, is to decenter discourse and give hitherto marginalized groups a section of the stage where their voices can be projected, in order to create a more democratic form of social dialogue. "What I want is fact," argues the objectivist, and no one at all, especially the supporters of postmodernism and mutliculturalism, are denying them this. But in the real world, facts do not come in a pure form with their meaning already apparent.

Facts, as historian E.H Carr posits, "are not at all like fish on a fishmunger's slab," rather "they are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use -- these factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch."

Facts, then, need to be interpreted, and different facts or episodes are important to different social groups in which we are simply left with a plurality of histories, each "equally real" and none of which can be compared or declared supreme to the others. Postmodernism and multiculturalism, then, can offer us useful ideas about method, particularly a wariness towards generalization which transcends the boundaries of culture and location. Professors and university discourses are teaching us the importance of avoiding narrowness in the academy which can only be made possible through ensuring the inclusion of a multitude of points of view. This Klan of objectivists are disturbing people who want to suppress and undermine the values and histories of those who do not fall into the category of a "Western, white male," and they are using our universities as a means in which to achieve their racist and sexist ends.

Do not let them do this. I urge every one to speak out and let your words and experiences be heard. Many Western, white men of today are angry -- do not allow them to use their discontent to silence the "other." These people should not be empowered to speak the values and histories of us all. This is pure supremacy and exclusion at its worst. Tolerance, may have been the appropriate term for the United Nations to celebrate a year in history, but tolerance of hatred cannot, and should not, be upheld, no matter what.