At his blog The Heritage American, traditionalist Stephen Hopewell adroitly and profoundly turns the tables on a common leftist accusation. Here is a summary; be sure to read the entire post:
Are we Americans paying for the crimes of our ancestors with the decline and imminent ruin of our beloved country? Maybe, but if so, what exactly was the crime? Taking the land from the Indians? Slavery? These are the obvious answers, but I cannot think that the evils we suffer today represent any kind of just punishment or karmic retribution for those events. We have long since done what we could to remedy the inequalities that they supposedly caused.
Perhaps the true answer is the opposite of what we conventionally think: our crime – or, at least, our profound error – is not discrimination, but non-discrimination. We started out feeling that it was not decent, or moral, to “discriminate” against minorities, meaning, mainly, black people; and the principle of non-discrimination gradually took over every functional institution of our society, until these institutions became actively harmful to the interests of the very people they were supposed to serve.
Failure to judge and discriminate unleashes evil and mayhem. Even worse is the aggressive, coercive enforcement of non-discrimination through grievances and lawsuits. The great challenge for traditionalists and conservatives is to find a way to rebuild a society that judges and discriminates as it should.
Two great lines especially worth memorizing: “Our crime is not discrimination, but non-discrimination” and “Failure to judge and discriminate unleashes evil and mayhem.”
Non-judgmentalism is a bogus virtue. Rational human beings must, almost continuously, exercise their judgment (discriminate) simply in order to stay alive.
Those who affect an attitude of ‘non-judgmentalism’ are, in choosing that posture, making a judgment – which in this instance, is to behave injudiciously. So anyone who complains about ‘judgmentalism’ should be laughed at.
Fred Turner’s epic poem The New World shows the Uess in the 24th century. The cities are violent sewers, but in the countryside a renaissance has occurred. The “Free Counties” are aristocratic/meritocratic/eugenic/military city-states which have survived and flourished by re-learning to discriminate.
The ability to discriminate is rooted in analysis and making a decision based on your conclusions.
Logically speaking, if a man and a woman were interviewing for the same job and the man clearly had more experience and the qualities to do the job, he should get it. However in today’s “anti-discrimination” world, the woman would get it to satisfy a federal quota or for fear of getting sued.
When non-discrimination was established, it was to eliminate the biases which prevented the interview from even happening in the first place. I’m of the mindset that if someone is more qualified and displays higher competency, they should get the job. We don’t live in that kind of world anymore.
As a non-Caucasian person, I have to sometimes wonder if I am truly being hired on merit, or if it’s something else. I would rather be turned down for something I am clearly not qualified to do than given a pass. As a teen, I turned down all opportunities to apply for “Colored people’s scholarships” and the like because I wanted recognition on merit, and nothing else. People thought I was crazy. Was I?
I wonder whether the new Diagnostic Manual will include this disorder:
http://unfaircampaign.org/