Why is the white race undoing itself?
Mark A. writes:
Isn’t our acceptance and tolerance of alien cultures (like the Muslims) just an example of greedy whites eager for status? I notice that liberal whites never live in black neighborhoods. They don’t want to move to Iraq. They seem to be engaging in this behavior for two reasons: 1) to make money and 2) to show how much better they are than other whites.
Perhaps World War II was the end of the white race. We took it as far as we could go before descending into the barbarism of 1939-1945. Perhaps this is our death rattle. Our acceptance of “the other” to show how tolerant and diverse we are. God help us.
LA replies:
There is an Australian writer/academic, I think her name is Katherine Betts, whose thesis is that the opening and surrender to nonwhites is primarily driven by status seeking among elite whites. I see that as a factor, sometimes a major factor, but there are larger forces at work than that.
Mark replies:
To ask a very honest question: What are the larger forces? I am very curious. Whites have the money, the brains, and the guns. We have all of that. The only other people with money, brains, and guns are the Asians. And the Asians really don’t get involved in this multiculturalist game. They are all about business.
The blacks have muscle and a few guns, but not much brains and no money. Same with the Hispanics and the Muslims.
Perhaps the white man cannot survive in an affluent society. Perhaps we need hardship to survive. I’m very confused on all of this.
LA replies:
> To ask a very honest question: What are the larger forces? I am very curious.
Liberalism. The whites’ loss of belief in themselves, in their legitimacy as a group, which in turn is driven by the fact that they are the dominant and most successful and most fortunate group, in possession of the most attractive societies. For the same reason that a neurotic, guilt-ridden rich person feels he has to give away all his wealth, whites feel they must give away their existence as a race and civilization.
The problem is fundamental, existential, unavoidable. There are certain larger collective “wholes” that constitute our world, in expanding circles—family, community, ethnic group, church, nation, religion, civilization, race, nature, God. Traditionalism consists in seeing the value of these larger wholes, in helping to make them authoritative and creatively operative in society in a manner appropriate to the nature of each, and in defending and preserving them. Liberalism denies the value and authority of these larger wholes and seeks to undo them in the name of equality and freedom.
The white race is a fundamental datum of history, and of our history in particular. At the organic and civilizational level, it is the largest distinct whole to which we belong, that is, larger than ourselves, but still distinct from the rest of the human race.* Our entire world, the European, Western world—its civilizations, literature, art, politics, religions—everything we have, everything we are, is the creation of the white race, of the white people who came before us. That is our heritage. These things were always at least tacitly understood by white people and taken for granted as simply true. But, under the gaze of modern liberalism, since the white race is the largest and most important of the distinct larger wholes that structure our existence, and since the white race is uniquely successful and powerful, the white race is the main target for destruction by liberalism.
On another point, you may very well be right that it is the excess of wealth—the white race’s very success in the material realm—that has brought out this guilt, and that only hardships can restore our morale.
* Nature and God are the largest “wholes” to which we belong, but they are not particular to a distinct group. However, they are also targeted by liberalism because, like the white race, they are not in conformity with liberal equality.
- end of initial entry -
Robert R. writes:
I was just reading Mark A.’s comments on Liberalism. I think he’s all wrong in his observation. Being a Liberal isn’t about money. I’ve come to believe that Liberalism is a drive toward Godhood. Of course, most Liberals are atheists, but they have some idea of what a god should be—disinterested—above it all. Scratch any Liberal and you’ll find someone who deep-down has a feeling of moral superiority—they’ve evolved! That evolution requires that they not give their own being, culture, race, any preference over any other. Even humans aren’t to be valued over other animals. This, if carried to its logical conclusion will lead to extinction as long as every other “other” isn’t also doing the same. So, Liberalism is a form of suicide and therefore I agree with you that it is a mental disorder.
Of course, in real life, most Liberals are advantaged and have some sort of mental disconnect from that fact and their Liberal beliefs.
LA replies:
Yes, interesting. Darwinian evolution means that you favor your own sub-species over others. Liberal evolution means that you favor other sub-species (and even other species) over your own. Of course, as you point out, in the management of one’s own life, one is saved from the consequences of this belief by the unprincipled exception. :-) But such relief is only temporary.
Peter G. writes:
just finished reviewing some recently posted blogs on the site. As Jesus well stated, you can build a house on sand but it won’t last. Liberalism is not based on real values, rather what’s unreal. From a perspective like that, why would facts ever matter?
A superstitious impulse is what really seems to drive liberalism, the fear of being envied. Contemplate the betrayal of white elites on the historical classes below them, they’re being exposed to hostile foreigners who are favoured by the ruling class.
They’ve erroneously counted on two variables: Whites’ historical willingness to adhere to rule of law and racial allegiance. As these Patricians now insist on forcibly injecting foreigners into the power hierarchy and middle management, things will start to get interesting. Up till now immigration really only affected the bottom rung, movin’ on up…
LA replies:
VFR previously discussed Jack Wheeler’s theory of liberalism as driven by envy avoidance.
Mark A. writes back:
I think your analysis of Liberalism is spot on and very interesting. Perhaps Liberalism is like a cancer and material wealth is like a carcinogen that brings on the cancer. It cannot be a coincidence that the hippie kids of the 1960s came from the wealthiest households that the U.S. had ever seen in its history.
The thought is somewhat perverse, but sometimes I think that the only thing that will shake the West out of its Liberal slumber is an attack from the Muslims that will make 9/11 seem like a historical anecdote.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 18, 2006 02:03 AM | Send