Tolerance is a false concept, so it is best to give up tolerant politics

I know there's a lot of sexual harassment, racism and bad things right now, and I don't doubt that most people who promote political integrity really do. I'm just saying that the way they approach the problem is instead of solving it, the dominant effect is just controlling and allowing real problems like racism and sexism to survive in a more sophisticated version.

I've always liked this radical example. Let's get the racist [sharks] forts. Yes, they function in a racist way, but for me, the real overcoming of racism does not stand in the ban on racist forts, but that you can set up a social change, and not only social, but an atmosphere change in which you can say the same fort without appearing racist. No racist at all.

When you're alone in a real equality, respect, and so forth, sometimes with dirty jokes, and even through the racist genocitics made in a non-racist form; and with that I mean that you, including me, also make fun of ourselves and so on.

I think American terms are icebreakers. Because it's easy to be non-racist in this correct political way: Oh, I respect what you eat, your national identity, etc. No. What happens to real contact with the other guy? I think it's very hard to get to that contact without a trade in our shame. This works in a wonderful way.

I believe that for me an ideal post-racist situation is that when we say I'm Indian and you're an African and we're constantly talking dirty for each other about ourselves, and for each other, but in such a way that we just laugh and the more we say, the more we become friends of each other. Why? Because that way releases the tension of racism. It solves it. What I'm afraid of, to go back to the question of what's like an epigraph, in political honesty, is that it is a desperate response. They know they can't solve the real problem so they run away just checking what we're talking about. And with a real problem I'm not just implying here economic rediscuity and so forth, but also the symbolic fact of the current social relationship and so on.

You know what people of political fairness need to learn: British customs. Why? Because the British and the Japanese, two different nations, but that are the two countries that are mega-masters of the reproduction of Burtal dominance, despise others but not be offended by good elegant speeches and so on. This is the miracle of truly successful racism: that you reproduce all prejudices, but in a mild tone, seemingly respecting one another and so forth.

What bothers me with political correctness or with other people's intolerance is that tolerance today is a false concept. I've always liked this case: I keep telling my students that if you're against tolerance, what are you, for brutal racism? No. I tell them, okay, there was a man who did a lot against racism, his name was Martin Luther King. Read his sermons. He never even mentioned the word tolerance. If you were to say that white people should be tolerant of black people, he would certainly have laughed.

Political correctness is a highly suspicious idea that attempted to translate racist dominant into terms of tolerance. No, tolerance is a very, very ambitious concept. Too often, tolerance can function as its opposite.

Tolerance often means intolerance for the present. They accept the other as long as it's clean. Like, for example, for political order, the Native Americans, whenever you call them, I don't call them that you know my own Fore, which is true... I met a nativ American, a university man, who told me he hated fellow Americans. Why? For there is that strange delicate culture, which says, "We are the first, but what are you? Cultural Americans or something. They told me that they prefer to be called Indians; at least our name is they say a monument of white people who thought they were in India and we were Indians.

They are so passionately suspicious about this false assessment of white liberals. You know, we often say that we've detonated nature, but Americans like to think differently. They speak to the mountains; they have an organic diological effort and so on. They've shaped this idea so much. One of them told me something else. He gave me a short text that he wrote in which he demonstrated through statistics that Israeli Americans, so-called Indians, killed more buffalo and burned more forests than all white people combined. What's he trying to say? He's trying to say exactly, don't idealize us. You're hallucinating us by making us politically clean, which is the feb. They too can be bad; they too can be terrible, and so on. You know there's a problem with refugees in Europe.

That's why, and I'm sorry to repeat my old story, but that's why I truly admire Malcolm X. You know why? What does X mean? It means we don't have a family name, or a family name. We black slaves were deprived of our roots when we were kidnapped by Africa. But where is his genius? His path was not that of the bestseller's Hollywood Man who wrote Alex Haley, the <x0... the roots” [ang. Roots. Uh, let's find our roots. No, no, no. It means that we have no root; we are deprived of the roots.

What if it gives us new freedom to establish a community more universal than that of white people? It's a genius idea to see what seems to be the terrible trauma of being deprived of your roots you don't have a proper tradition, tradition, family and so on but that gives you a chance for freedom.

Subtitles by: Periscope