Friday, September 25, 2009

The Non-Discriminatory Principle

Lawrence Auster is a Jewish tribalist who prioritizes fighting “anti-Semitism” over white racial and cultural preservation. White nationalists must be aware of this. Nonetheless, unlike most people in the counter-jihad movement who are so myopic that they can only focus on Islam, Auster has exposed in the plainest, commonsensical English, the axiological principle that is destroying, and will finally destroy in the following decades, our beloved West.

The following is only a part of a speech, “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America,” that Auster delivered at a conference earlier this year. It has been recently published in a book.

The bold-typed and brown highlighting of Auster’s words—definitions and examples of The Principle—are mine:

The Non-Discriminatory Principle

o deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is.

The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life.

The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam as a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us. The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.
I’ve also stolen a couple of the comments from Auster’s blogsite, View from the Right:

Ed L. writes…

Your speech contains the singularly powerful sentence: “What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today.”

The same is true of gay marriage, but on a vastly more compressed scale. Ten years ago, it was virtually unheard of. Until as recently as about six months ago, it was generally considered sensitive and controversial subject matter. Today, however, anybody who opposes it—or even expresses any discomfort with it—is outside the bounds of humanity, according to Prevailing Opinion. Go no further than the lead sentence in the editorial in today’s Washington Post:
“Common decency and the protections guaranteed to all citizens by the rule of law demand that the relationships of gay men and lesbians be respected and recognized.”
Any opposition is outside the bounds of common decency. Note also the pugnacious word demand, which rules out any subjectivism and any willingness to differ on a your opinion, my opinion basis. And how about the “rule of law,” as if human beings with differing opinions have never had any say in the creation or formulation of its specific content (the rule of what kind of law?).

Peter W. writes from Argentina…

Excellent, and, as usual, right on target.

I learned long ago that the ability to differentiate between and among various values, realities, and choices was a mark of a civilization that was farther along the path of being developed and sophisticated (in the truest sense), and that an inability or lack of interest in differentiation was a mark of a more primitive, “back to the primordial ooze” kind of society.

This point was made clear long ago in a commentary on a rather silly fad of the time called “unisex,” where men and women (especially in the Nordic countries, as I recall) tried to look exactly alike in their haircuts, clothing, and style. I can’t remember exactly who wrote it, but it was a William Safire-type piece in the New York Times magazine, I think.

At any rate, rising to the intellectual and emotional challenge of learning to differentiate among and between things and ideas, etc., is hard work, and a job many Americans and others seem unwilling to accept. It seems far simpler and easier not to bother with it and just assume that everyone and everything has equal and eternal value. And of course, many people feel this way right at the same time that they’re differentiating like crazy in the supermarket, the clothing store, and the dating personals.

Calling people to a higher level of thinking and behaving is indeed a frustrating thing.

Larry Auster replies…

Very interesting point. Yes, that is precisely what liberalism is about. It’s so much easier to have a simple phrase or formula (“Everyone’s equal,” “All people want the same things,” “All people long for freedom,” “Discrimination is always wrong”), than to try to understand and articulate the nature of things, people, cultures.

According to Eric Voegelin in The New Science of Politics, it is the very complexity of the world, specifically the complexity of the world as articulated by Christianity, that drives people to simplistic ideologies that basically reduce the world to a single idea and its evil opposite. Liberalism is one such ideology. Islam is another.

P.S. of July 1, 2010

“Liberalism is the most radical
and destructive ideology
that has ever been” —Auster

See also Auster’s Law and Corollary to this principle. At Mangan’s Ben Tillman has recently left a comment that hits the nail commenting about this sentence:

“If there is a single, overarching core principle of the modern liberal worldview, it is the rejection of any form of discrimination, and it is precisely this irrational and suicidal principle that [Geert] Wilders has bravely defied—for which he has been reviled and excommunicated by liberal elites, brought up on criminal charges, and must live under the constant shadow of death threats... In order to survive, a culture must, like a living organism, have a functioning immune system, one that can, yes, discriminate between Self and Other...”

[Tillman responds:] Exactly. Immunology is often defined as the science of self/non-self discrimination, as in Jan Klein’s title, “Immunology: The Science of Self-Nonself Discrimination”. That’s all you need to know to understand the purpose of anti-discrimination laws in Europe and its diaspora. And, theoretically, you have to ask yourself whether it makes sense to suppose that anti-discrimination mandates have been internally generated rather than externally imposed [I guess that Tillman refers to the Jewish Question: see the Blowhards comment quoted in the commentariat section below].

I’ll side with Pasteur and Koch on this issue.


Chechar said...


The author of From Meccania to Atlantis has formulated this suicidal non-discriminatory principle in his own words:

“It is the founding premise of this series that the central undertaking of Western Society in the last 45 years—the attempt to ‘diversify’ itself and to equalize by fiat all people and categories of people, cultures, lifestyles, ideas and religions—has caused a catastrophic misapplication of human energy, attention and resources.”

Chechar said...

In the Blowhards forum a blogger known as GC posted something in a 2007 thread that is germane to the above entry:

* The only way to maintain a holy lie is by persecuting the truth tellers [IQ, HBD, etc.].

* Bottom line: like a man with a sabotaged immune system, the West can no longer make self/nonself distinctions.

* And like a man with a damaged nervous system, the West's internal perceptions are out of sync with the external reality. Consider a hand on a hot stove. It does not matter if the lowly epithelial cells are burned by the million if the nerve cells refuse to communicate this truth to the seat of conscious action. Similarly, the media is the nervous system of a civilization.

* A malfunctioning nervous system will leave an otherwise healthy body jerking around in response to phantasms of racism—or directing its efforts against its own cells.

* My favourite character in Wilson’s The Insect Societies is Monomorium santschii. This species, over evolutionary time, has lost its worker caste altogether. The host workers do everything for their parasites, even the most terrible task of all. At the behest of the invading parasite queen, they actually perform the deed of murdering their own mother. The usurper doesn't need to use her jaws. She uses mind-control. How she does it is a mystery; she probably employs a chemical, for ant nervous systems-are generally highly attuned to them. If her weapon is indeed chemical, then it is as insidious a drug as any known to science. For think what it accomplishes. It floods the brain of the worker ant, grabs the reins of her muscles, woos her from deeply ingrained duties and turns her against her own mother. For ants, matricide is an act of special genetic madness and formidable indeed must be the drug that drives them to it. In the world of the extended phenotype, ask not how an animal’s behaviour benefits its genes; ask instead whose genes it is benefiting.

ben tillman said...

Yes, I was referring to the Jewish role in imposing the "principle" of non-discrimination upon us.

Desi said...

I agree with many of your points.

But the way the white race can be "saved" is by reproducing itself at a high rate, at least at replacement rate, and for some reason they are not doing that.

The reason is educational levels.

The more educated a person is, the less kids he or she has. You see this everywhere around the world, even in places like India and China which are "over-populated".

The higher the socio-economic status, the less kids.

Perhaps White countries need to start giving financial incentives to people over a certain level of education and income to have more than just 1 kid?

In India, because we still have a large percentage of uneducated and poor people who usually have more than 2 kids, we don't have to worry.

What we have to worry about is raising the socio-economic status of that demographic.