I encountered difficulty in understanding the follow passage thoroughly:

"It is the play of différance within historical meaning as a non-totalisable figure of auto-immunity which puts the historical, histories and the idea of history itself into deconstruction. These mutations, these deconstructions, continue unabated (it is irreversible, after all). The mutation of the institutions and circumstances of today takes place under the incessant pressure of the future. The mutation is predicated upon the arrival of what comes and further still, the possibility of what might come after it. The future, having arrived, we must always ask, what comes after it. Thus, the open-ended anteriority of the future is what makes history possible. It is the very chance and motor of history as a ground without stability, where any meaning, experience or figure may make itself possible. History is not a thing of the past; it is always a question of the future. It is for this reason that we might offer a couple of related propositions. Firstly, that the future of deconstruction will be guaranteed by the deconstruction of the future, that is, the figure of auto- immunity which makes itself legible as the future. Here, the future is différance, that which generates all generation, makes possible possibility itself, and is the condition of all and every significance. One might say that there can be no future without the future."

What are your thoughts on the meaning of 'auto-immunity' in this context?

Cited from: "Theory and Practice in Language Studies: Henrik ibsen's a doll's house: A postmodernist study"