How white liberals see America: as a roiling cauldron of murderous white male bigotry just barely contained by liberal rule
I’ve been following your discussions on white cowardice and brain-deadness [here, here, and here] with great interest. I hope you will permit me my two-cents worth.
- end of initial entry -
Each time I try to have an honest and reasonable discussion of human bio-diversity and Traditionalism with my white friends, the following occurs in less than two minutes:
1) I am called an “extremist” and a “racist;”
2) I am advised that if my ideas and proposals were realized I would not be in this country; and
3) I am told that if somehow I had made it over, I would be nothing more than a peon.
My white friends are completely brain-washed and brain-dead. They do not pause to consider the substance of the discussion for so much as a second. They simply assume that the current dispensation is the only thing that stands between blood-thirsty white bigots who are poised to start lynching minorities and belting women the second our benevolent State nods off. In essence, they have been completely indoctrinated to believe that the majority white population was bestial to women and minorities at all times before the miracle of the counterculture ensconced the New Left (a term they are completely unfamiliar with) within the establishment.
When they give me a chance to speak, they are unable to respond to my simple question regarding this miraculous transformation: If whites were irredeemable savages, always ready to string up a black person, or mercilessly thrash women, how did they turn into such tolerant human beings in scarcely two generations?
Also, they are unable to discuss abstract principles without personalizing them. Even when I concede that my proposals would have likely have excluded me from the country (intentionally), their response is to suggest I leave if I cannot deal with the current regime. When advised that this is a non sequitiur (my staying or leaving will not affect the regime), they turn around and demand that I be grateful to the system that allows me all this “freedom.” When I attempt to explain that I am proposing policies that will make this nation a better place for themselves and their children, not necessarily one that will make me feel better, they reiterate their recommendation to leave if I cannot tolerate minorities or accept female “equality.”
This must be a microcosm of the zeitgeist of my generation. My friends are lawyers and bankers. These are people from middle to upper-middle class backgrounds who hold graduate degrees and professional certifications.
While they don’t suffer from white guilt like their parents, they subscribe almost every New Left notion, such as America being a “land of immigrants” as opposed to settlers (a distinction I have tried to explain in vain). They believe that every man, woman, and retarded child has the “right” to immigrate to the U.S., and that “discrimination” against any group of people is a cardinal sin (not that they would know what a cardinal sin is). Of course, they support “gay marriage” and duly call me a homophobe when I oppose it. While they avoid all-black neighborhoods just like B. Hussein Obama avoids church service, they hold that any discussion of innate group differences is “racist” and that the real problem is “education.” In sum, they are complete creatures of the New Left. Their thoughts are reflexive, not analytic.
This is not cowardice. This is a zombie-like existence. This is a generation that has completely forgotten how to think, and doesn’t care to learn. The average U.S. home is full of DVDs, not books. In Los Angeles, men and women alike divide their time between the gym and “going out.” Conversation is limited to the most tepid subjects. The slightest hint of originality marks one out as an insufferable bore and destroys all chances of meeting pretty girls who just want to have a nice conversation at a nice restaurant.
The future is bleak, Mr. Auster. I really don’t know what we’re trying to conserve. Sometimes I feel like those Japanese holdouts who kept fighting thirty years after World War II. I can’t bear to think that there is simply no one who care about the American Nation that you, and others like you, have been fighting for. The American Nation that was a “light unto the world,” and that continues to inspire me every day of my life.
We live in trying times.
Aditya B. is a man after my heart. It’s not about himself, not about whether he or his grandparents would have been able to come to America under this or that circumstance. It’s about the country and civilization he loves and wants to protect.
With almost everyone else today, it’s all about themselves. America exists to serve them.
David B. writes:
My liberal college professor acquaintance, Professor F., is exactly like the white liberals described by Aditya B.. I saw him a few days ago. He’s as brain-dead as ever.
I tried to explain the difference between settlers and immigrants. Professor F. couldn’t understand what I was talking about. He almost breaks into tears over what was supposedly done to blacks 80-100 years ago.
The crime statistics mean nothing to him. The professor says the Irish and Italians were the criminals in Boston where he grew up and still are, he says. He is in his sixties and is about to retire.
Paul Nachman writes:
What a wonderful statement! It brings to mind a passage from very near the end of The Camp of the Saints, wherein a nonwhite joins up with the last handful of whites resisting the invasion. One of the new recruits, Hamadura, explains his thinking, which he’d also been able to express a bit on a radio interview two weeks earlier:
“What I wanted to tell them,” Hamadura continued, “was that, to my way of thinking, being white isn’t really a question of color. It’s a whole mental outlook. Every white supremacist cause—no matter where or when—has had blacks on its side. And they didn’t mind fighting for the enemy, either. Today, with so many whites turning black, why can’t a few “darkies” decide to be white? Like me. I decided, and here I am. With my four rifles, and my friend Sollarco here. I came across him on the road this morning, and I’ll tell you, he’s got one hell of a trigger finger! Anyway, thank you for coming to our rescue … “
That’s from page 304 of the reprint published in 1995 by The Social Contract Press. Hamadura has already explained that he’s co-ethnic with the invaders from the Ganges, referring to them as “my people.” Nevertheless, he thinks of himself as French.
The small band of holdouts—the last Westerners—all meet their inevitable fate a few pages later, the coup de grace actually administered by warplanes flown by turncoat French.
Alan Levine writes:
Aditya’s comments on the views of his friends are quite interesting, and frightening, but my own experience with students tends to make me think he is a bit overpessimistic.
I cannot resist noting that his friends are lawyers and bankers, who are hardly likely to be typical. Most people, after all, are members of the human race.
Andrew W. writes:
Aditya B wrote:
“They simply assume that the current dispensation is the only thing that stands between blood-thirsty white bigots who are poised to start lynching minorities and belting women the second our benevolent State nods off.”
This phenomenon has fascinated me for some time. This past summer there was an incident in which radio show host Neil Boortz explained that urban thuggery has caused him to move out of Atlanta. He was lambasted by the execrable Ed Schultz of MSNBC for his “racist and violent rhetoric.” Schultz asked his viewers whether this sort of rhetoric was “dangerous” and would lead to widespread white-on-black violence. I don’t watch MSNBC so I can’t be sure, but I’d be willing to wager that Schultz had given no mention to the black-on-white wildings that seemed to be a daily occurrence over the summer. Hypothetical, unprecedented white violence is a grave concern of liberals, while actual non-white violence goes unmentioned. The media wringing its hands over potential anti-Muslim violence every time there’s a new terrorist attack or a terror attack is thwarted seems to fall under this umbrella as well. Do you have any thoughts on the psychology behind this line of thought?
Nothing at the moment beyond what I’ve said in scores of posts over the years. But I can’t link any at the moment.
An Indian living in the West writes:
Aditya B. is wasting his time. The country he is trying to preserve doesn’t exist any more.
I happen to believe that breeding is more important than race. Really, other than biology, what do today’s white college kids have in common with the hardy children of pioneers that settled America in the 19th century? One could make similar comparisons in other countries. What do the current Brits have in common with those who built the modern world in the 19th century? And if we go further back in time, what do the Italians have in common with the Romans? Or for that matter what did the Romans of 410 AD (the year it was sacked by the Visigoths) have in common with the Romans of the Cincinnatus era?
If you want comparisons over an even longer period, what do the Greeks of today (leeching off German money) have in common with the ancients (such the 300 who fought the Persians)?
I think that paradoxically, Aditya’s focus on race precludes him from seeing the truth for what it is. It is true that races differ biologically in some respects. But what truly determines the nature of a people is breeding. The current lot of Americans can be as decadent as they want and they won’t risk having their town burnt to the ground by Red Indians. They can look at the past with contempt and it doesn’t threaten them physically. Not at the moment anyway.
We tend to describe white liberal orthodoxy as “suicidal.” But it is only so if you have a long enough time horizon (in most cases). The average Joe doesn’t have that. Most of the liberals that Aditya describes probably have a lot of money and live in enormous comfort. They live in areas with no dangerous minorities and have no real fear of those things. They have been born in too much comfort and have lived in too much comfort to think those things. They were born in an era when women already had political and sexual freedom. They have been fed large doses of nonsense about multiculturalism and have been taught a version of American history that was invented by anti-American leftists in the 1960s and ’70s.
And by the way, last year the number of non-white children born in American exceeded white children by a slender margin. In a generation or two, whites will be a minority. That is the future. So I’m not sure what can be preserved. It is amazing to think that America was 90 percent white Caucasian in 1960. But that tells us something about how quickly countries can change.
Ironically, he compares himself to the lone Japanese hold-outs in WWII. Actually, those men were not fighting in vain. Japan has still retained much of its original character (although much has also been lost). The Japanese as a nation are probably healthier six decades after WWII than America. Winning is a tricky thing.
Aditya B. writes:
I’d like to respond briefly to your commenters:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 21, 2012 09:20 AM | Send
1. Alan Levine wrote:
Aditya’s comments on the views of his friends are quite interesting, and frightening, but my own experience with students tends to make me think he is a bit overpessimistic. I cannot resist noting that his friends are lawyers and bankers, who are hardly likely to be typical. Most people, after all, are members of the human race.”
I fully acknowledge that my friends may not be representative of the country at large. But I do believe that they are representative of cosmopolitan America. I believe that their mentality and Weltanschauung is representative of most upwardly mobile white professionals residing in all major cities.
2. An Indian living in the West writes:
Aditya B. is wasting his time. The country he is trying to preserve doesn’t exist any more.
Alas, that is my greatest fear. That is why I am so despondent about the future. The road to future prosperity leads through many of the principles and attitudes of the past. My pessimism is the result of a gut feeling that tells me that the country that I am trying to preserve, by utilizing all sources at my disposal to resurrect those principles and attitudes, simply does not exist, because nobody by and large believes in traditional principles.
3. ILW also says:
I happen to believe that breeding is more important than race.
I have a partial disagreement with you. Race is a necessary condition. Not a sufficient one. I do not consider race merely as a biological, i.e. material construct, but a biological and spiritual one. Race by itself cannot lead to prosperity or greatness. The culture impressed upon the race can uplift it and lead it to strive for the Heavens. That Culture has been debauched. And in turn, the white race has been debauched.
I don’t know if this process is irreversible. Although I am a theoretical pessimist, I am an operational optimist. I continue to direct people to sites like VFR and similar founts of knowledge, information and inspiration. I continue to challenge current dispensation in every way that I can.
As one of your commenters said recently: “Hope springs eternal. Literally!”
4. Finally, to Paul Nachman, who spoke about the character Hamadura in The Camp of the Saints:
Hamdura has since long been an inspiration. I consider myself to be a American Hamdura with Mr. Auster as Monsieur Calgues or Colonel Dragase!