LATEST

Persons

Terms

Anti-White Buzzwords And Codewords

Article Types

Sunday, 26 April 2015

We Are All 'Xenophobic'

by Tim Murray

South African rioter
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
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.




Related posts:

6 comments:

  1. And the left never calls all of the things they're phobic about phobias. Like claiming that fascism and Holocausts are the logical conclusion of white people building or maintaining a positive racial or ethnic identity. Like seeing every shooting of every black male who violently resists arrest as a return to Old South style "lynching." Or portraying traditional marriage among conservative couples as something akin to female slavery within the context of a "patriarchy."

    The left sees itself as immune to phobias. Or that's the story they tell. In truth, the SPLC in the US is a pillar of the leftist fear industry, building their quarter billion dollar reserves by convincing wealthy liberals that the next Adolf Hitler is walking around at a Tea Party rally somewhere. Universities in North America are collectively the other pillar, today squashing the free speech that they claimed to cherish 45 years ago, back when they saw themselves as the outsiders.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hungarian-AmericanSunday, 26 April, 2015

    There is no profit to be made in allowing people of the same ethnicity and culture only associate with their own kind. You need chaos, mistrust and division to rule over people. Cultural Marxists don't believe half the stuff they spew, they understand it as a way to remain in power.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Plenty of good questions here; but not too many answers. The reason European pride has become a pejorative expression is likely the work of Cultural Marxism in our educational institutions. Universities turn out graduates who hate their own racial identity and who support globalism, multiculturalism, miscegenation and self-abasement. White pride runs exactly counter to those narratives and so any examples have to be promptly stamped out. It has become, for these graduates, a form of religion.

    Curiously, and simultaneously, organized religion has adopted many of the same memes; supporting cross-border aid, refugees, immigration and international organizations. This has the unhappy consequence of giving these mostly-secular graduate students a religious underpinning for their anti-family, anti-group, anti-national feelings.

    The spectacular failures of multicultural countries like Ireland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, India (before partition), the Austro-Hungarian Empire and, of course, the Soviet Union cut no ice with these intellectual robots because critical analysis and logic have been scrubbed out of them and replaced with the incantations and symbols of their new enlightenment. Or to put that another way, logic cannot compete with religious belief.

    And here may lie the key; the solution to the problem. Nationalism is also a religious belief as anyone who has watched The Triumph of the Will can agree. The entry point, I think, lies in the original mandate of the B&B Commission and in the Official Languages Act. Although the mandate has a multicultural qualifier in it, the sentence setting up the commission said it should see: "what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada." Equal partnership of the ' two founding races;' that seems pretty clear. It means Canada was founded by the French and English equally. The Official Languages Act also defines our culture as being French and English, not French, English and Swahili.

    Given all this; the latent nationalism of French Canada is what is needed to rekindle nationalism in English Canada. We need, therefore, to support the Parti Quebecois and French language rights, not for the usual reasons, but because they define a particular European culture. We should all learn French, wave the fleur-de-lis around, and support Quebec independence wherever we see it mentioned. Quebec separatists are closer to European authenticity than we are so we should join them. aux barricades, mes amis!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another question: If whites are racists and xenophobes why do non-whites invariably choose to immigrate to the white countries of the world?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Prof. Duchesne,


    Please don't publish.


    N. Americans have been completely brainwashed by their media.


    In the 1980s and 1990s Ritalin was over prescribed to children who were both white and black from poorer families where both parents worked. They made it sound that kids in Grade 1 who were "hyperactive" would do better at school with these "concentration" drugs. Parents bought the lie.


    As communism was falling in Europe suddenly black culture became ultra-cool. The coolest black kids got too much attention and hung around with each other, alienating blacks who didn't fit in.


    If blacks drop out, if alleged gay students kill themselves: It's white kids to blame.


    The Waterloo County Board of Education did what they called, 'Boosting.'


    LGBT meetings didn't start to stop gay students from committing suicide. They're part of boosting beta male blacks into college.


    The movie 'Philadelphia' came out the same year as 'Schindler's List.' It made it hard to criticize gays and Aids.


    Many students in the 1990s believed that 90% of men were straight and 10% were gay. The best looking redhead males, boys with freckles, blonds were harassed and even raped.


    Darker males needed our developmental psychology.


    Americans are brainwashed. For every Aids case in Germany or Sweden there are six more in the USA.


    The Hollywood Zionists needed America to become conservative to defeat the USSR economically.


    ET and the bug eating in Indiana Jones are popular with boys with brown hair and freckles, fat guys, feminine boys as it's a good way to piss of girls who hate them.


    Good-looking boys with blond hair, red hair, or blue eyes are a bunch of liberals because they interact more with girls in elementary school.


    It's the wealthy Jews; the poor Jews know nothing about ZOG. Neo Nazis are too homophobic to figure anything out.


    Zion is evil. Blond Sweden is good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It appears as if they want to destroy Europe in one grand gesture of suicidal tolerance: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/we-asked-an-expert-happen-if-eu-opened-borders-to-everyone-584

    ReplyDelete

The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of CEC or its contributors. Please follow the netiquette.

Our Facebook Our Twitter Our Gab Our Google+ Our Youtube Our RSS feed