An amazing video on the 19th season of South Park which aired at this time, last year, and each of the extremely pertinent social issues that it addressed! Even as offensive, disgusting, and disturbingly evocative as the show South Park can intentionally be, the show is exceptionally skilled at weaving into its narrative incredible commentary on our current societal, political, and cultural climate!

But even better than just spotlighting this hilarious and poignant season of a rude, crude cartoon, the writers over at the YouTube channel Wisecrack use this video to dissect it, studying and unveiling the layered satire, all while explaining the central theories and ideologies behind the shows targets. They even see fit to invoke our pal and fellow social critic Slavoj Zizek! This is a must see!

– – –

The writer of the video, as well as the content they are analyzing, addresses several concepts and perspectives which are directly aligned with the principles and philosophy of Unism, particularly its critique of neoliberalism, censorship, and the cultural cannibalism and hyper-commodification of a consumerist society:

The South Park character Nathan says: “but what is P.C. but a verbal form of gentrification? Spruce everything up, get rid of all the ugliness, in order to create a false sense of paradise? Only one thing can live in that world: ads.”

“In a Neo-Liberal economy, “otherness” and “diversity” have become just another marketable brands, in order to sell anything and everything.”

“Because who needs a real revolution when there’s a clever hashtag?”

“The message is clear: the spectacle of inclusion is good for business.”

It is this realization that has urged us to think beyond the mere spectacle of inclusion, to embrace others for who they actually are, not “based on the the color of their skin, but on the contents of their character,” as Dr. King would say.  Modern day Liberals purport to advance this message, yet through the auspices of Political Correctness and other misguided attempts to alleviate White Guilt by foisting it on others, or other less forgivable attempts to stir up outright racial hatreds and division, the supposed champions of minorities’ issues are far more concerned with lining their pockets: by advancing their own political or professional careers by pandering to certain minority groups, or by more or less visibly exploiting minorities for their financial gain. A great example is the Democrats stance on illegal immigration. While claiming to defend the rights of illegal immigrants and migrant workers, they are directly perpetuating the system of inequality which those same illegal immigrants suffer under! The terribly low wages and abhorrent living conditions of many illegal aliens are a direct result of Democratic Party policies of turning a blind eye to their suffering, while paying lip service to them being a “proud, hard working people.” How patronizing and belittling is it to insinuate that Mexican, Central, and South Americans are, indeed, hard-working, as if there was any question of it?

The cowardice of Liberals to honestly or openly challenge or admonish any actions of any individual who belongs to a minority group, for fear of making an issue “about race” is 100% on par with Conservatives willingness to demonize minorities for those same actions. The difference is Conservatives respond to what they see, and Liberals instead respond to what they wish they saw, for fear of being seen as a bigot. But in so doing, they unknowingly take on many more bigoted viewpoints than the Conservatives, whom they as well demonize and dismiss immediately.

Unism had tired of both of these responses. By acknowledging the fundamental humanity of all people, and sincerely accepting the rights and dignities of all humans, followers of Unism are free to appraise any situation or circumstance, not weighing things unfairly by factors of race, gender, or culture (Conservatives), nor ignoring or over-emphasizing them completely (Liberals), but by the standard of Harm Done To Others, as expressed in the Golden Rule. While some may see following Unism as the equivalent of a person’s proverbial “one black friend” which allows them to be unfairly critical or bigoted about a group of people – to those reflexively accusatory people we ask, what Else would or could one do to express solidarity with all of humanity? How else can some one incapable of becoming black, hispanic, Tunisian, Haitian, Thai, or anything but what they were born, show their universal respect for others, if not to express it and associate themselves with such a cause?

How else would such critics see a universal call for human suffrage take place?

If you have any ideas, please let us know, at unistlife@gmail.com

Sincerely,

@TheUnists