What's Wrong With Nativism?

This is in response to an article, A vote against the mass immigration society, by David Goodhart in Prospect Magazine, which I was unable to post a comment on (LINK to article).

The following quote is taken from the article:

"there is a hard core of nativists and racists . . "

What is wrong with nativism? Why should every indigenous population not enjoy certain indigenous rights and privileges?

Does the fact that our ancestors treated the indigenous peoples of the lands they colonised so badly mean that we should treat our own indigenous population with the same contempt? Our ruling elites seem to think so, although most of us are now ashamed of how our ancestors often behaved towards indigenous peoples.

And what is meant by "racist", which is often simply used to dismiss, demonise and dehumanise anyone who doesn't share the state's post-racial multicultural ideology? Racism is generally equated with the evils of racial hatred, racial supremacism, Jim Crow, Apartheid, and, of course, Nazism, while at the same time being equated with perfectly natural racial prejudice, which virtually everyone is guilty of. Like xenophobia, it is inherent to human nature, both of which need to be understood and controlled in a civilised fashion, but not demonised.

Show me anyone claiming to be without prejudice and I'll show you a liar, or someone with a serious lack of self-awareness.

I confess openly to being a nativist and racially prejudiced, but I'm not a racist, except perhaps to a moral supremacist who has no qualms about demonising and dehumanise anyone who doesn't share his and his state's ideology.

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology, it seems to me, after puzzling over it for many years, serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, i.e. "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) more prejudiced, i.e. less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

It is used by the state and its elites (which the mob is keen to please and emulate) as an instrument of socio-political intimidation and control, a modern, secular replacement, effectively, for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

If you think about it, "celebrating DIVERSITY" is nothing less than Orwellian newspeak for native Britons (and white people everywhere) to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise.

Obama, An Internationalist, Unsentimental about Europe

Obama's Flawed Realism

By Roger Cohen, March 18 2016 (LINK to article)

"Obama emerges as an internationalist, unsentimental about Europe . . "

Which is why globalist "progressives" love him, while the nativist, white Right hates him.

It is important to understand this, rather than indulging one's "progressive" sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority, because otherwise it will rip America, and Europe, apart in civil war.

Why would a self-identifying African American like Obama feel sentimental about Europe? Clearly, he identifies emotionally far more with his African heritage, despite enjoying the fruits of centuries of European civilisation, which he seems to take it for granted, like most whites also do.

That he views climate change as a bigger threat than terrorism, reveals his wisdom.

He is a wise African American, who is "unsentimental about Europe", Europeans and European Americans (apart from some white members of his immediate family). He is far more sentimental about Africa, Africans and African Americans.  And why wouldn't or shouldn't he be?

He was the obvious choice of President for African Americans and for white Americans,who have embraced the ideology of racial self-denial and self-contempt prescribed by western academia, initially in overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust (as well as those of European imperialism, slavery, Jim Crow and Apartheid), which addresses a sense of racial guilt, but conveniently for the West's white elites, also serves as an instrument of socio-political intimidation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

In defence of Xenophobia and Nativism

A Judge’s Message to the Xenophobes

By the Editorial Board, March 5 2016 (LINK to editorial)

". . the xenophobic politics now inflaming the presidential primary campaign [and] . . venomous nativism coming from Donald Trump . ."

Of course, xenophobia can be nasty, as can nativism, but both are inherent to human nature, which is very tribal. 

Clearly, our tribal nature needs to be controlled in an acceptable and civilised fashion, but this is not what the Editorial Board is advocating. Instead they are DEMONISING it, and with it, human nature itself.

Not so long ago it was human sexuality, i.e. particular forms of it (now deemed a private matter and no business of the state) that was demonised, and before that it was our propensity (inherited from Adam and Eve) to disobey divine, i.e. priestly and state authority, which was demonised as "original sin" and, we were told by the priesthood, would lead to eternal damnation, unless we submitted to church/state authority and ideology.

Human tribalism and prejudices (perfectly natural, in favour of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group) are the new "original sin", which only submission to state ideology and authority (now firmly in the hands of "progressive academia", who are heirs of the medieval clergy) can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as "racists", "nativists" and "xenophobes".

Xenophobia is just one side of a single coin, on the other side of which is love of the familiar and one's own.

We should be working WITH human nature, not DEMONISING it as a source of spurious moral authority, power and personal advantage.