Federal government forces small-town bank to get rid of Christmas symbols
2009 I wrote
I am always saying that the rule of non-discrimination, if followed consistently, means that no distinct society or culture can exist, no distinct human individual or human family can exist, no distinct species or organism can exist. Nothing can exist, since all things, in order to exist, must be different from, and thus be distinguished and discriminated from, other things.
This week, a team of Federal Reserve examiners ordered
a small bank in Perkins, Oklahoma (population 2,272
) to remove its Christmas symbols and messages. The examiners found that
a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say “Merry Christmas, God With Us.” were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank’s Internet site also had to be taken down.
On what basis? On the basis of Federal Reserve regulations, which prohibit
the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication [which] express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion.
So, for people in a community to be Christian (whether believing Christians or even just “cultural” Christians), for them to put up signs in a bank saying “Merry Christmas, God With Us,” and for them to display a Bible verse at the bank’s website—these acts are not allowed because they are discriminatory
. By virtue of existing
and being expressed
in a community or institution, Christianity, Christmas, and the Bible are discriminatory and exclusive of that which is not Christian
. And therefore they must be prohibited.
Of course, the rule of non-discrimination is not applied to everyone equally. Nonwhite and non-Western minorities get to express their cultural and religious particularity all they want, and even receive millions in government funding to do so. Thus there are Islamic charter schools in this country, public schools formally promoting Islam. But the inconsistent application of the rule of non-discrimination is not the point. The point is that the rule of non-discrimination must destroy everything to which it is applied. And the liberal order applies it to Western culture and all its institutions, in order to destroy them.
Meanwhile, mainstream conservatives somehow never notice this, never notice the strict logic of non-discrimination, but keep mindlessly complaining about some amorphous monster called political correctness. Even while protesting the war against Christmas, they never identify or oppose the rule of non-discrimination which makes that war possible. Why? Because they themselves are liberals, and believe in the rule of non-discrimination.
- end of initial entry -
Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:
You’ve probably explained this, and I’m not getting it. You write: “The point is that the rule of non-discrimination must destroy everything to which it is applied.” So, by that argument, shouldn’t the rule of non-discrimination consistently rally against anything or anyone that happens to have power who is not of the minority races (blacks, Hispanics)?
Yet, this rule is specific and unrelenting in its target. It will always be whites. Even if the Chinese in America start to get really powerful, they will not solicit the same kind of vengeance that is directed to whites. Even if other foreign non-whites (Indians maybe?) get powerful, there will be some grumbling, but they will not be vengefully targeted. In fact, these non-black, non-Hispanic non-whites, in their own way, will start to participate with this rule of non-discrimination, against whites.
I think the historical background, where, to these makers of rules of non-discrimination, whites have committed such an unpardonable sin (bringing slavery, subjugating blacks, building a powerful nation which blacks cannot totally participate in), drives this revengeful spirit. No matter that American blacks are the most wealthy, most educated etc. of all other blacks in the world. No matter all the civil rights and affirmative actions put in place by whites. This “original sin” will never be pardoned.
I think people, the world, non-whites, simply want to scapegoat whites, envious as they are of their successes. Whites who fall into this simply hate themselves, incredible as that seems to me. I have my own theories about that, but I think that the high standards which white culture has set may just be too high and to demanding for these whites, and I really don’t think it is any love for other races that is their primary driving force
The rule of non-discrimination is simply revenge against whites by all the other non-white races, and by self-loathing whites who cannot/will not enter the standards that white culture requires.
Hope this makes sense.
I don’t understand all of this. The one point of yours I get is that non-discrimination is a weapon of revenge used by nonwhites against whites.
But you are missing the main thing. Non-discrimination, at least in the white countries, is primarily embraced and enforced by liberal whites, not by nonwhites. It’s liberal whites who built up this idea, established it, put it into operation, enforced it, with the nonwhites following along and getting what they could out of it.
Thus the driving force is not revenge by nonwhites against whites. The driving force is white liberalism. Of course, white liberalism has the same end as nonwhite vengeance, which is the weakening and destruction of the white world. But white liberalism is the dominant force in this scenario, nonwhite vengeance the secondary force. Why do I say this? Because in the absence of white liberalism, nonwhite vengeance would be helpless against whites, whites would simply reject it and stand against it. But in the absence of nonwhite vengeance, white liberalism would still be able to do its destructive work. Thus white liberalism is the key element, not nonwhite vengeance.
It’s understandable why you would place the emphasis on nonwhite vengeance, as you are naturally focused on the anti-white psychology that you have seen among your fellow non-European immigrants in the West and have written about.very cogently.
Have I answered your question adequately?
Yes, it makes sense. Especially this part:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 17, 2010 01:01 PM | Send
“Because in the absence of white liberalism, nonwhite vengeance would be helpless against whites, whites would simply reject it and stand against it. But in the absence of nonwhite vengeance, white liberalism would still be able to do its destructive work.”
This is an odd way of understanding it, but the group into which I was born, the ruling Amhara of Ethiopia, are/were the “whites” of Ethiopia. Partly because of their generally lighter skin, and partly because of their successive rule of the country for over a thousand years. See this photo of Emperor Haile Selassie, whose demise was orchestrated by other elite Amhara-turned-leftists, which resulted with Mengistu Haile Mariam leading a brutal dictatorship for twenty years. His first task was to kill off, imprison, or exile those same Amhara.