The principles of liberalism which require the suicide of the white race

In November 2007, a commenter calling herself “African Lady living in the West” wrote:

White people and White civilizations should share their wealth, their knowledge and themselves with the rest of humankind.

Another commenter asked:

What obliges the white race to share anything with anyone?

To which I replied:

That’s easy: the principle of the equality of the whole human race. That principle arises from a rebellion against what we might call the cosmic facts of life. What are these cosmic facts of life ?

1 Biological: Human beings are biologically different from each other in their qualities, dispositions, abilities, and outcomes. That is rejected and replaced by the idea that all human beings naturally have or must be made to have the same qualities, dispositions, abilities, and outcomes.

2. Social: Cultures are distinct from and often mutually incompatible each other. That is rejected and replaced by the idea that all cultures are or must be made to be one and equal.

3. Spiritual: God and truth are higher than us. That is rejected and replaced by the idea that there is nothing higher than the individual human self and its desires, and therefore all human selves are equal in goodness and worth.

In rejecting as evil the fundamental realities of biological difference, cultural identity, and moral hierarchy, liberalism prohibits human beings from seeing and dealing with existence as it really is. The common sense of the human race is outlawed. Everything normal, real, and true must be suppressed. The only thing that prevents these suicidal principles from destroying society outright is that liberals decline to practice them consistently.

Another commenter, Mark J., then replied:

It’s helpful to have the liberal viewpoint stated so clearly: that the highest value is equality of material circumstances. Not excellence, beauty, truth, or freedom. Not the dignity gained by standing on one’s own two feet and working towards the fullest use of whatever talents or gifts you were blessed with, and thus earning respect for your discipline and integrity. No, for liberals the most important thing in the world is that no one have to feel envy towards someone who is doing better than they are. If blacks and browns feel envy, then the white world must do anything necessary—even unto annihilating itself—to remedy that.

Does this person really understand the implications of such an ordering of values? If the most important thing is that no one need ever feel envy for someone else who has greater natural gifts, it means, for example, that one must oppose inegalitarian activities such as the Olympics. Why should some of us be denied the thrill of winning a gold medal simply because we were born without superior athletic talent? Or, why should some people be allowed to excel as composers or artists or entrepreneurs or writers or in any other human endeavor? Why should there be any excellence at all in the world, since excellence can only be known by comparison to that which is not excellent? The liberal pursues a grey, flat, Soviet-style world of mediocrity where small, bitter people constantly eye one another to make sure that no one gets ahead of anyone else.

I imagine the writer would argue that she isn’t opposed to excellence, only to some races of people having greater talents for excellence than others. But the same can be said of inequality between any groups or individuals, not only of whole races. Logically, the writer is advocating a world where no one has any more ability than anyone else. The existence of someone more excellent than others would be evidence that something—genetics, upbringing, something—was not equal, and thus the excellent would need to be hobbled so that the mediocre wouldn’t feel the pain of their mediocrity by comparison. First the liberals would eliminate racial diversity, then they would need to eliminate any other sort of variety as well—including gender-related diversity. I suppose their vision would not be fully realized until the entire world was populated with asexual clones having exactly the same genetic makeup, raised in institutions providing exactly the same upbringing.

Horrible. Horrible that people can think in such a way.

[end of excerpt of November 2007 entry]

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

You haven’t just described the principles of liberalism, you have shown the utter annihilationist heart of liberalism. Personality at every level must be destroyed. Liberalism is the ideology of the destroyer; whatever it touches, dies.

LA replies:

Exactly right: liberalism destroy personality: the personality of a nation (Solzhenitsyn said that nations are distinct personalities), the personality of a civilization, and the personality of individuals.

Dan S. writes:

“African Lady living in the West” wrote: “White people and White civilizations should share their wealth, their knowledge and themselves with the rest of humankind.” But isn’t that what is already going on? The West dumps billions of dollars down the assorted third world economic black holes (Haiti being the most recent example), yet we see no inclination of non-Western nations to send their wealth elsewhere (how much did China and Iran give to Haiti?). We also share our knowledge, with our educational institutes full of third world students, many who then go on to use that knowledge against the West (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Umar Abdul-Mutallab come to mind). I’m not sure what this “African lady” intends by white people sharing “themselves” with the rest of mankind (no, I will not use the PC term “humankind”), but the white liberal certainly has given over hisr heart, soul, and mind (if not his body) to the assorted third world causes and peoples and has agreed to commit demographic suicide by allowing the masses of the third world to overwhelm the West. The fact of the matter is it is only white people that are “sharing” (more like surrendering) their wealth, knowledge, etc. with the rest of the world.

February 19, 1:30 a.m.

Daniela writes from Romania:

By the way, I would like to thank you for the African lady living in the West thing. I read it three times and laughed every time, which was good considering that yesterday was a crappy day. The sad part is that even though she is probably fake because she is too articulate for someone holding those beliefs(I don’t know many liberals who can explain their views that well, especially without calling others racists, fascists and the like), I know people who actually think like that.

LA replies:

As I said in the original entry in 2007, I suspect that African Lady is a white male conservative doing a very good parody. However, as you point out, AL’s ideas are indeed held by liberals so it’s valid to reply to them.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 18, 2010 12:52 PM | Send