Human Universalism, the Most Dangerous Doctrine

Charles Tallis, American Renaissance, April 22, 2016

Immigration
We must destroy it before it destroys us.

The most insidious doctrine whites have ever embraced is the belief in human universalism. The term, which first appeared around the year 1800, has religious origins and, as defined the in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means the “theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved.”

It is not the religious doctrine that is dangerous but the secular version that insists on the universal nature of mankind. This leads to the belief that all racial-ethnic groups and cultures are equal, and even to a belief in the uniform human potential of all individuals.

Universalism has largely replaced Christianity as the religion of the West. Its adherents rival radical Muslims in zealotry and, indeed, punish dissenters. Universalism’s power corrupts public policy and even the sciences. James Watson, the co-discovered of DNA and perhaps the world’s most famous living scientist, was reduced to trying to peddle his Nobel Prize medal after he expressed dissident views on race and lost his job.

Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize winner and heretic.

Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize winner and heretic.

Ironically, universalism is far from universal. Only whites believe in it. Every other racial group considers itself unique and puts its own interests first. A Han Chinese who proclaimed the unity of all mankind would be thought insane by other Chinese.

Another irony of universalism is that the whites who believe it most passionately are, subconsciously, thoroughgoing “racists.” They insist that all non-whites are inherently like them and need only a little assistance in order to take part in the highest expression of universalism, which is the Western Civilization of whites. The idea that everyone is the same means that anyone can become like us. Universalism does not mean whites becoming Saudi Arabian or Cambodian or Haitian. It means Muslims or Buddhists or voodoo priests becoming Americans or Frenchmen.

Of course, this transformation does not come easily, so universalists must lower white or Western standards in order to accommodate other groups. The entire society degenerates as academic and employment criteria are relaxed to accommodate “underrepresented” groups. This is not unique to the United States. As Brietbart recently reported, “The German interior minister has announced his intention to drop educational standards in the country to help migrants get into school or find a training place.”

The dangers of universalism are sharpened by mobility and by numbers. In the past, when white nations were nearly homogenous and the rest of humanity lived far away, universalist-type efforts produced some good, if fleeting, results. Colonialism brought benefits to native populations for as long as it lasted.

Now, the process is reversed. Non-whites are pouring into once-white countries. The former colonizers have convinced themselves that non-whites are the same as whites, have the same universalist perspective, and will treat whites with universalist benevolence. The persecution of whites by black regimes in southern Africa, the contempt for white women shown by Muslims throughout Europe, and the smoldering resentments of South Los Angeles and Newark are all proof to the contrary.

Anyone whose senses are functioning normally knows that human beings–whether groups or individuals–are not interchangeable. Belief in universalism requires indoctrination, which began after the Second World War and increased in intensity to the fanatical levels of today.

Universalism was enshrined in law by the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education and by Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our own government banned the ancient preference for one’s own kind, and proclaimed all people equal.

Europeans are taking similar steps. As Christopher Denson, of the British National Union of Teachers recently explained, “We need to fight to reject this notion of British values, to fight for notions of human values and human rights.” To do otherwise would imply British superiority, which violates the principle of universalism.

Many churches promote universalism by abandoning the traditional teaching of serving one’s own flock, and instead preach a never-ending obligation to non-whites. The “we are one” message makes the original doctrine of Christian universalism serve the same purposes pursued by secular liberals who despise Christianity.

Universalism also breeds anti-white hatred. If all groups are equal, different outcomes must be due to white oppression. Constantly blaming whites for the failures of others teaches both whites and non-whites to hate whites.

The Left and the degenerate Right are alike in embracing universalism, differing only in the means by which they hope to achieve equality. For example, both sides blame the ruin of Detroit on the other’s policies rather than on the obvious fact of racial differences.

The ruins of Detroit: The politics--not residents--are to blame.

The ruins of Detroit: The politics–not residents–are to blame.

Another irony of universalism is that it makes “diversity” one of its watchwords. For the universalist, “diversity” is actually another word for uniformity. It means unanimity in the pursuit of equality by people from groups that are presumed to be indistinguishable but for meaningless “social constructs.”

Perhaps an even greater irony is that if “diversity” really were a strength, it would have to mean that people of different races actually are different. Otherwise, how could mixing “diverse” people be an advantage? If we are all the same, there are no benefits to mixing. According to diversity theory we must persist in believing that we are all the same and interchangeable, but still benefit enormously from mixing. As a practical matter, promoting diversity is just an excuse for anti-white policies.

Universalism is implemented by law. In the early days of the civil rights movement, the goal was equality of opportunity. Since this failed to produce equality we now require equality of results. One of the most insidious ways to achieve this is through “disparate impact” theory, which quantifies the threshold at which racial preferences must be enforced. If the pass rate for protected non-whites on a teacher qualification test, for example, is less than 80 percent of the white rate, the test has an illegal “disparate impact” and is therefore, by definition, invalid. Only standards or qualifications that protected non-whites can achieve at at least 80 percent of the white rate are valid.

The Department of Justice recently issued new guidelines for landlords. It has become much more difficult to refuse to rent to released felons because such a policy has a disparate impact on protected non-whites, who are more likely than whites to have been criminals. Laws against murder, robbery, assault, and rape have a sharply “disparate impact,” so it would be logical to abolish them.

Another failed attempt to achieve universalist goals was busing. Protected non-whites were to be brought up to the level of whites simply by sitting next to them–by osmosis. What effect this might have on white children was never considered.

Another equally fanciful experiment in universalism was the “No Child Left Behind Act” inaugurated by President George W. Bush in January 2002. The enabling legislation was passed overwhelmingly by both Republicans and Democrats, and mandated, in Charles Murray’s words “that all children are to be above average.” Even more absurdly, it required that students of all races perform at the same “above average” level, and imposed penalties if this did not happen. The Department of Education has now issued so many waivers that the program has become meaningless.

Universalism drives foreign policy. Our wars in the Middle East have cost approximately trillions dollars and thousands of lives, and have only made the region more unstable. Our rulers appear actually to have believed that if Muslims were “liberated” from their strong-arm rulers they could become just like us.

As George W. Bush explained in March 2003:

[W]e would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny . . . . We will support the Iraqi people’s aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy.

Iraq

Senator John McCain was only slightly less unrealistic when he noted that it might take 100 years of military occupation to bring democracy to Iraq, but he, too, assume that Iraqis both want and can become like us.

The Pentagon was at one time enamored of the doctrines of Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, formerly of the Department of Defense. His strategic plan for the 21st century is outlined in a 2004 book called The Pentagon’s New Map.

Dr. Barnett wants the United States to bring peace and democracy to the entire world, and to maintain peacekeeping forces–“System Admin,” in his words–wherever they are needed for as long as they are needed. To deprive anyone of the benefits of our universalist impulses would be wicked:

To deny anyone in the Gap [basically the entire Third World] access to the same bright future we may presume as our birthright is to engage in the same sort of exclusionary ideology that dictators of all stripes have long employed to enslave their subjects. In the end, our sin [emphasis mine] of omitting the Gap from a future worth creating will be as reprehensible as any committed by the forces of disconnectedness we now engage in this global war on terrorism. (Page 297)

Thomas P.M. Barnett

Thomas P.M. Barnett

He adds that if we commit this sin, “We all had better be prepared to explain to our kids and grandchildren when they inevitably ask, ‘What did you do during the African Holocaust?’ ” (Page 216) It is the sacred duty of white people to bring the gifts of universalism to Africans and other underprivileged Third-Worlders. Needless to say, the Barnett strategy also endorses massive migration from failed countries to the West.

A more popular treatment of universalism was Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that Western liberal democracy was the final capstone of mankind’s socio-political progress. As he wrote, “It is possible that if events continue to unfold as they have done over the past few decades, that the idea of a universal and directional history leading up to liberal democracy may become more plausible to people.” Eventually, everyone will become just like us.

To his credit, Mr. Fukuyama has now acknowledged that the Islamic world is opting out of liberal democracy for the time being. He is no longer quite so sure about “whether Western values and institutions have a universal significance, or whether they represent the temporary success of a presently hegemonic culture.”

An anthropology book of great popularity, Jared Diamond’s 1997 Gun, Germs, and Steel, locked universalism into its preface:

Why did history unfold differently on different continents? In case this question immediately makes you shudder at the thought that you are about to read a racist treatise, you aren’t: as you will see, the answers to the question don’t involve human racial differences at all.

Mr. Diamond then explains that “far from glorifying peoples of western European origin, we shall see that most basic elements of their civilization were developed by other peoples living elsewhere and were then imported to Western Europe.”

And to take whites down yet another peg, he violates his own rules of universalism by writing that “in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners” because they can survive in jungles where Mr. Diamond would die.

Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book, Outliers, The Story of Success, popularized the so-called 10,000-hour rule, or the idea that if anyone starts young enough and spends enough time practicing he can become an expert in anything. In other words, there is no such thing as natural ability. One of Mr. Gladwell’s examples is the Beatles.

Of course, people who make it to the top have natural gifts and practice. Paul McCartney noted that “there were an awful lot of bands that were out in Hamburg who put in 10,000 hours and didn’t make it.”

These three books are intellectual comfort food for educated whites who cannot deal with the reality of group differences.

There are contrarian works, such as The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington, and A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade, but promoting universalism is the road to fame and success.

Gun, Germs, and Steel won a Pulitzer Prize and resulted in a PBS series of the same name. It is required reading in some high schools. By contrast, A Troublesome Inheritance was harshly reviewed and resulted in an unprecedented open letter in the New York Times Book Review by 144 scholars who damned Mr. Wade’s book. In an earlier era the book would have gone on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, along with Galileo’s works on the solar system.

Universalism is now dominant. However, research continues to uncover the sharp genetic differences between human groups. At the same time, whites who have suffered in silence as their rulers assure them that non-white newcomers are just like them are beginning to fight back. For now, the Internet is the main battleground, so it is no wonder that Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg want to censor it. However, electronic media are so intertwined with the way our society functions that they cannot be shut down. Voices of reason will always find ways to break through. There will be an ever more draconian imposition of universalist polices but there will be ever more confrontations.

Universalism is so obviously mistaken that it can be maintained only through sustained indoctrination, threats of ostracism, and legal persecution. It is a mental disease, promoted by the state, that threatens our race and civilization. We must destroy it before it destroys us.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Charles Tallis

Mr. Tallis is based in the Washington, DC, area.

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.