Why the non-West and the West hate the West

In a widely discussed article that was spiked at National Review Online, John Derbyshire writes that non-Westerners envy and resent the West—by which he makes it plain that he means the white race—because the West produces better societies than the non-Westerners have any hope of producing. To put his thesis bluntly, nonwhites (many of them, not all, of course) hate whites because they see whites as superior to themselves, while whites alternatively ignore nonwhites, because they see nonwhites as irrelevant to the white world, and fear nonwhites, because nonwhites’ numbers are waxing in relation to the declining white population, and also because so many nonwhites, thanks to our brilliant immigration policies, are already inside the West.

By focusing on the motives and feelings of nonwhites in relation to whites, Derbyshire is in effect presenting the flip side of my analysis of liberalism, which focuses on the feelings and motives of whites in relation to nonwhites. Liberalism tells us that all people should be equal, therefore the evident backwardness of much of the non-Western part of humanity must be overcome. There are two approaches to eliminating this inequality: left-liberalism and right-liberalism. The left-liberal approach to equalizing the non-West is a variant of socialism with its evil double standards: drag down and demonize the successful West while giving vast unearned benefits, including unconditional moral approval, to the unsuccessful non-West. Officially celebrate nonwhite racial identity, as in Black Racism Month, while, if a white person says even a single positive thing about whites as whites, discredit him and destroy his career. (See my pamphlet Erasing America, pp. 42-45.) The right-liberal or neoconservative manner of equalizing the non-West with the West is to provide it with equal political procedures and economic opportunities, namely the democratization of non-Western countries plus the mass immigration of non-Westerners into the West, which will be followed, right-liberals devoutly assure us, by assimilation.

The problem with right-liberalism is that while it claims to be interested only in equal procedures, not in equal results, it still assumes, much like left-liberalism, that everyone really has the same abilities and aspirations, and therefore if the same procedures are in place for everyone, everyone should become substantively equal. When this hoped-for result fails to materialize, the right-liberals become as resentful as the left-liberals. Thus, as the problems with Iraqi democratization have mounted, Condoleezza Rice has repeatedly portrayed the supposed historic flaws of America (such as the lack of women’s franchise in the 19th century) as equal to the historic and current flaws of Iraq, so as to make the disaster of Iraq seem like a success; the worse Iraq shows itself to be, the more America must be put down, in order to make the two countries seem equal. When it comes to any inequality of civilizations, right-liberals are as quick with the racism charge as left-liberals. Thus, when conservative Americans reasonably suggest that there is a difference between Britain and the United Arab Emirates as far as reliability in defending America against Muslim terrorism is concerned, President Bush and his op-ed apparatchniks accuse the Americans of racial bigotry. Meanwhile the whole conservative movement, religiously convinced that any kind of group discrimination is the most evil thing there is, continues to support the indiscriminate legal mass nonwhite immigration that spells the doom of white America and its civilization.

So, putting together Derbyshire’s thesis and mine, we see that the nonwhite world hates the white world for its superiority, and seeks to bring it down, while the white world hates itself for being superior, and seeks to destroy itself.

Furthermore, just as French aristocrats who enjoyed fantastic privileges but exercised no power became an object of contempt to the French masses, privileged white Westerners who put themselves down and act weak and guilty make non-Westerners despise and resent them all the more and seek to undo them.

We now have a simple but, for present purposes, sufficiently complete picture of the current world disorder that is leading to the destruction of the West.

How do we reverse this course to racial and civilizational suicide? Very simply, by reversing course. Instead of denying the racial and civilizational differences that really exist, we need to acknowledge both their existence and their importance. Instead of demonizing and erasing our own racial and civilizational identity, we need to rediscover and re-assert what we once explicitly were and still fundamentally are: the white race; Western man; Western civilization; Christendom. We need, in short, to reject modern liberalism with its false idea of universal equality and return to the traditional and commonsense understanding that the human race consists of various kinds of groupings—ethnic, racial, cultural, national, civilizational, and religious—and that these grouping have their legitimate place in the human and divine scheme of things.

Many readers’ first response to this argument will be to say that it is absurd. Given how diverse the West has already become, how can it assert its historically majoritarian, but now increasingly marginalized, white and Christian character? The answer is that if we fail to assert our historical majoritarian character, we will only keep becoming more and more multicultural and head ever deeper into the abyss. The move toward the abyss can only be resisted and reversed by its opposite—by a restoration of a traditionalist Western consciousness, and a politics to express it.

For a fuller consideration of this problem, see my article, “What is European America?”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 01, 2006 05:00 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):