Do whites have a compulsion to surrender to nonwhites?

After posting the initial blog entry entitled “Why?”, I had doubts about it and asked several readers’ for their opinions. As a result of some excellent feedback I added qualifying language to the entry and expanded it a bit.

But one thing I did not change was the key line, “This is about whites’ compulsion to surrender to nonwhites.” One person had strongly objected to that and asked what was the evidence for this, particularly in the case of George Will. Another correspondent said that the statement did not seem immediately true to him.

I wrote to him:

I understand that the statement is a kind of “leap” that seems hyperbolic and not immediately supported by evidence. Here is the paragraph in its current form:

This is not about rational calculation. This is about whites’ compulsion to surrender to nonwhites. If the immigrants were Scandinavians, George Will would not be saying what he’s saying.

I could have said the same thing more carefully, like this:

This is not about rational calculation. This is about whites’ total inability to stand against nonwhites and to defend themselves from nonwhites, which, in practice, becomes a compulsion to surrender to nonwhites. If the immigrants were Scandinavians, George Will would not be saying what he’s saying.

But this lacks the directness and brevity I was looking for in a dramatic summary statement. I feel my initial statement is a compressed statement, which can then be unfolded and explained.

The correspondent wrote back:

Well, is it a free-standing, self-starting compulsion?

Or does it stem from a fear of all those things that we might wrap up into a fear of being called “racist.”

(Or, heck, even a fear of getting sued, so a resignation to put up with the crap of “letting other people do their own thing.” For example—having nothing to do with race—failing to chastise other people’s children when they misbehave in public, or putting up with others’ loud cell phone conversations in public.)

I replied:

I didn’t write it out of a logical thought, it just came to me. If I were to try to analyze it, it would be like this:

Initially, it’s as you say, a fear of being called racist, but it’s not just that, it’s also a genuine repugnance at anything that seems racist. But this inhibition/repugnance, since it compels us to remain passive and not to defend our country in the face of an attack, is a void, a non-action. The human mind cannot stand a void. Instead of just passively letting the other side win, one needs to do something and to support something, so one flips over and embraces the other side and actively surrenders to it and actively betrays one’s own countrymen.

All of which leads us back to:

This is about whites’ total inability to defend themselves from nonwhites, which in practice becomes a compulsion to surrender to nonwhites.

Or, as Nietzsche said in The Genealogy of Morals: “Man would rather will the void, than be void of will.”

And does this not describe a reaction that is likely to grow more and more powerful in the West? As people sense our society being invaded, violated, going down, an event that liberalism tells them to accept nonjudgmentally, instead of passively accepting the destruction, they will actively go over to its side, and become its allies? Do we not see something like that happening in the insane immigration bill in the Senate, and in the way people increasingly side with America’s illegal alien destroyers, and against America?

Mark D. writes:

In our mass conversion to Eloi-ism, all our national surrenders are painted as courageous acts of high principle.

Thus, George Will and Pres. Bush become our “enablers” in surrendering to the Mexican invasion, channeling our minds into the appropriate high ideals by which we then categorize and understand our surrender and self-destruction.

So, instead of existing in a void of self-surrender, we erect idealistic stories about our own courage and high ideals. The next step is actually to support those who wish to destroy us, just as you said in your post on Will and the immigration dynamic. We transform our own destruction into a positive enactment of high, liberal ideals.

LA replies:

This is very well-stated. It’s a variation on my idea of “compulsion.” Compulsion sounds like a mad, uncontrollable act. But that’s not the key element. The key element is turning the void of non-judgemnt, non-discrimination, non-self-defense, and passive surrender into a positive act of will, a “positive enactment of high, liberal ideals.”

Someone else just wrote to me that white guilt is all that’s left of Christianity. But as we now realize, that’s not quite a complete formulation, since guilt may express itself in a simple failure to act, in merely passive surrender. So I would modify the statement and say that the positive enactment of white guilt, the positive embrace of our own punishment and destruction, is all that’s left of Christianity.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 31, 2006 12:22 AM | Send