As I discussed in the earlier post, one of the methods for generating the psychorium is the rhetorical strategy of the motte and bailey. This strategy is evident in the wielding of the concept of multiculturalism. Critics of multiculturalism are greeted with a retreat into the more easily defended motte, where the assertion is defended that the concept is nothing more than an appeal for a compassionate multiethnic society. However, when neither the clinically normal, nor non-ideologically possessed, are looking so closely the concept's promoters flood back over the bailey, where the term's real meaning is revealed. For, down in the bailey, multiculturalism is revealed not as the expression of a multiethnic society, as such societies have existed all through history. Instead, upon closer examination, multiculturalism turns out to be a social engineering agenda, of the managerial class, framed so as to legitimize the invasive powers of the administrative state.
This cleverly framed agenda operates on multiple levels. First, since a cohesive, well integrated society would experience little justification for the invasive social engineering and bureaucratic paternalism of the managerial class' administrative state, an intervention that promotes, and subsidizes, perceptions of differing ethic identities and interests mitigates the dangers to that agenda which effective assimilation would pose. Additionally, once this intervention (pretty much) inevitably gives rise to ethnic conflict, and the generation of ethnically serve-serving grievances, these sociological and/or historical contestations can be framed as the social ills that require the social engineering intervention of the administrative state's bureaucratic paternalism, and thereby legitimizes the raison d'être of the managerial class and its distinctive form of rationalized rule.1
Of course these managerial class strategies do not discount the prospect of there being legitimate grounds for such ethnic tensions. The tell of the managerial class' agenda is the rhetorical strategy offered in response to such potential conflict. Is it something the majority group can be expected to take seriously? Such as requiring the majority to step away from positions of power, allowing minority groups, ethnic or otherwise, to take control of society; pay bottomless reparations for long past injustices (real and/or imagined); or passively stand by as immigration policies are demographically rigged against their majority status within their homeland?
If the rhetorical strategy being promoted is one that no self-respecting ethnic majority can be seriously expected to endorse, then we know that what we are witnessing is a tool of the psychorium at work.
And the fact that the most aggressive promoters of such strategy are themselves often members of the majority ethnicity is a good tip-off that at its root none of this is really about ethnicity. Multiculturalism is a mechanism of class power. A mechanism though that, given the striking similarity of their modus operandi to that of the managerial class (discussed elsewhere), is all too easily hijacked by psychopaths, in the interest of establishing their pathocratic reign. That is always the end game of those perpetuating the psychorium.
1 For elaboration of all these concepts, and their implications, see McConkey, The Managerial Class on Trial.
Comment: See also: