|South African rioter|
Get this: One in three South Africans are unemployed, and the CBC calls the violence and rioting by South Africans against immigration a sign of "intolerance". (The National, April 17, 2015).
Maybe the CBC is right. Maybe South African blacks are intolerant. Intolerant of poverty and unemployment and seeing that predicament made worse by the unchecked influx of people from other countries who compete for jobs. However, they are not "xenophobic" — another pat phrase that is typically thrown anti-immigrationists. A phobia is an irrational fear, but if you are among the 33% of native-born people who see migrants competing for the same jobs you are, your fear of in-migration would be quite rational, would it not? That's a kind of fear that Wendy Mesley, CBC reporters, the smart set or anyone of 'high station' or income can't relate to. That's why they are quick to brand anti-immigration sentiment as intolerant and xenophobic, and any organization that gives voice to it as "far right".
And who is to blame for anti-immigrant feeling in South Africa (and elsewhere)? White people, of course: "How white people created the conditions for anti-immigrant riots in South Africa".
Didn't you know that all of the world's problems are down to white colonialism? White colonialism is responsible for civil war, ethnic cleansing, overpopulation, disease...you name it. And it doesn't matter if independent nations have been independent for a half century or more. They aren't responsible for their mess. No one who has been victimized by white colonialism and white racism ever is. Even the great grandchildren or great, great grandchildren of victims aren't responsible. Don't dare blame the victims or the children or grandchildren or great grandchildren of victims!
Hence the oft-repeated phrase, "the legacy of racism", a phrase that excuses everything. Flip Wilson used to say that "the devil made me do it." But today, it is the "legacy" that makes them do it.
Malcolm Muggeridge encountered that sort of reasoning when he visited the Soviet Union. Everything that was good was called "an achievement of the revolution", and everything that was bad was dismissed as "a legacy of the old regime". Politicians do that all the time. If they preside over a growing debt, it was because they inherited the problem from a previous administration. The question is, at what point should people or tribes or nations take responsibility for their own failings? When should "victims", real or imagined, stop wallowing in their victimization and move on? When should a man stop blaming all of his problems on his parents? When he is 50? 60? 70 perhaps?
Shouldn't there be a Statute of Limitations on blaming dead people and ancient history for one's problems? So they stole your great grandparents' land. We get that. But what are you doing about your problem right now? Are you doing anything except using the past as a crutch and whining about your entitlements? What about my entitlements? The English stole the land of my great, great grandparents in Ireland. Where is my money? Where is my official apology? Shall I wait for "Reconciliation" before I get off my butt and make something of myself? Do I have licence to drink myself into a stupor because I have Irish blood and my ancestors were uprooted? Do I have to be told by some ethno-cultural leader or educator to be "proud" of my heritage in order to develop "self-esteem"? I thought "self-esteem" was something I earned through hard work and accomplishment. Silly me. I keep forgetting that I am a dinosaur with quaint notions who must be quarantined lest my ideas infect the impressionable.
I guess that before Europeans arrived in Africa, African tribes co-existed in peace, tolerance and mutual respect, just as Aboriginal tribes did here in North America. No ethnic cleansing here, no siree. Xenophobia, nativism and racism were invented by white people. If there were no white people, there would be no xenophobia, nativism and racism, right? Yeah, sure.
|CBC health warning logo. The broadcasting station is liable for a heavy overdose of multiculturalist propaganda.|
Another question. Is not the belief that only white people can be guilty of racism itself racist? And is not what is called 'xenophobia', 'nativism', or 'racism' essentially a manifestation of the in-group favouritism that is hardwired into every human group or species? Is it not just a group survival instinct? An instinct that survived because being cautious or justifiably fearful toward stranger was a selective advantage? If there was no merit or advantage in taking this approach, why would it persist over countless generations in just about any species that you could name? Surely there is a reason that we are vested with, if not a fear of the stranger, then prudent caution when a stranger approaches.
What should command our interest and provoke our curiosity is the fact that in our politically correct culture, 'xenophobia' is considered a pathology, while 'xenophilia' — the perverse love of the stranger or outsider at the expense of one's own people — is not. Why? Why is the defense of one's own group considered reprehensible for white Euro-North Americans, but promoting its assimilation or extinction is not? Why is group loyalty among those of European ancestry thought to be a sin, but white Euro-ethno-masochism and suicide not? Why is anti-white racism thought laudable but white racism, in the sense of identification with one's own race, not? Or rather, why is "White Pride" an ugly expression of despicable bigotry while unapologetic expressions of pride by non-white peoples not? Why is La Raza, for example, able to brazenly declare their intention to reclaim "white America" in the South-West while whites who oppose them are denounced as nativists? This whole issue is rife with double-standards.
Perhaps the best position to take is that every group should be entitled to advocate on behalf of its own interests. Perhaps instead of lashing out at each incident of "xenophobia" that pops up in nearly every country in every part of the world every day, would it not be more useful to just admit that multi-ethnic states don't work? That we are what we are? That we are designed to favour and associate with people like ourselves? That this instinct shouldn't necessarily be something that we need to "transcend"? That making war on human nature is futile?
Didn't the Soviets try to do precisely that for 70 years? And how did Mao's Cultural Revolution work out? Do you think that social engineering will ultimately trump genetics? How many failed experiments will it take to convince you that it won't?
Watching the CBC should come with a health warning.