October 22, 2010



Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 22 Oct 2010

By patiently watching events, and through diligent effort, some men are able to learn the difference between true and false. They learn to discriminate between what is harmful and what is helpful. They learn to divide the wolves from the sheep. They learn to distinguish wisdom from foolishness. It is most interesting, in this regard, that the word "discrimination" has come to have a negative connotation. For all right judgment is based upon discrimination, and a recognition of differences. Yet, our public institutions now offer a new wisdom which teaches that everything is alike. In all previous history wisdom has consisted in saying, "No, these two things are different and we must respect these differences." But today, we are told that these things are the same and we are forbidden to suppose any meaningful difference whatsoever.

As an example of the notion that all things must be regarded as alike, consider the curious case of news analyst Juan Williams. National Public Radio (NPR) fired Williams for the following statement, made on Monday Night's edition of The O'Reilly Factor.
Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane ... if I see people who are in Muslim garb ... I get worried, I get nervous.
According to an NPR statement, "[Williams'] remarks on The O'Reilly Factor ... were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst...." In this matter, NPR will not tolerate discrimination. To fear Muslims in the wake of 9/11, to feel nervous about them, is an admission of wickedness and bigotry. It goes without saying that all Muslims are not terrorists; but all the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims. 

Contrary to the impression given by NPR, Williams is no bigot. He merely expressed nervousness about getting on a flight with Muslim passengers. Surely our Muslim friends can understand this. Think back to that fateful day: Thousands killed, massive skyscrapers destroyed, the Pentagon on fire. All of it was accomplished by 19 Muslims, in the name of their religion. Did it leave no impression upon us? Williams meant no offense by expressing his nervousness. Certainly, NPR should understand this - and sympathize with  feelings that are as inevitable as they are natural (though unacceptable to NPR's "editorial standards and practices").

Last year, while waiting for a flight to Dallas, I saw people in Muslim garb near the gate.  When it turned out they were boarding another flight, I felt a twinge of relief. Does that make me a bigot? Does that qualify me for termination? Should I be punished, like Williams? NPR would undoubtedly say that their high editorial standards do not apply to everyone.  

Last week NPR aired a segment in which a Turkish gentleman complained of German racism. It seems he had lived in Germany for some period of years, and the Germans had not accepted him fully into their society. But then, consider how absurd it would be if some nitwit from Germany complain that he had lived in Turkey for several years without being accepted as a Turk. Imagine an American going to China, thinking he could ever be accepted as fully Chinese - and thinking the Chinese were bigots for not admitting him as a member of their ancient race. The idea that different countries must, on demand, treat foreigners as if they were natives has something unreasonable in it; for it neither conforms with human nature, or admits the reality of differences between cultures and peoples. It is, in fact, these differences that form a barrier that is given by our condition as human beings; namely, that we belong to a particular nation, that we speak a particular language, that we share with our compatriots a particular history. Any push to obliterate the particulars of our ethnic identity is to obliterate who we are.

But isn't America a country of immigrants? Yes, of course, though it would be a mistake to deny the necessity of assimilation, and the existence of an identity into which these immigrants should be assimilating. For if every nationality were accepted as somehow American, then there could be no American nationality. Assimilation is therefore what has happened and what must continue to happen (though it is by no means guaranteed to continue). If a country like Germany does not possess this capability, it is not a moral failing. Non-Germans do not have a God-given right to become Germans.

We are told, of course, that multiculturalism is the answer to humanity's "problem"; that war can be eliminated, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. Where did this doctrine originate? Perhaps it originated with the same KGB general in Moscow who invented airline hijacking. From Moscow this bacterium was probably passed to the largest labor union in the United States, the National Education Association, and from thence it entered the curriculum of America's schools, thereby infecting the entire social system with the urge to eliminate distinctions, to stop all discrimination, thereby corrupting our ability to judge people and things. For all right judgment is based upon discrimination, and is based upon a recognition of differences. This is not hatred or bigotry, but common sense. It is not the cause of war, but the proper basis for a genuine understanding between races and nations. In fact, an argument can be made, that to push different peoples together precipitately, under a doctrine that simply denies basic human feelings, is to inculcate a war.

In light of this, we should ask ourselves the following questions:  Has the official language of our institutions degenerated into the negation of those institutions? If such a degeneration has taken place, how did it occur and who encouraged it? Do the huddled "multicultural masses" represent a revolutionary class which promises to succeed where the overfed native proletariat failed? And which political ideology wins if we continue to promote multiculturalism?