Science Talk

RSF Group · Guest

Like 'homophobia', 'xenophobia' is much misused term in the media and
not just by liberals. Consider the fact that Pat Buchanan used it to
describe the Chinese response to Japanese aggression. So, the
patriotic effort of the Chinese to drive out Japanese invaders in the
1930s is said to have been xenophobic in Pat Buchanan's book
'Unnecessary War'. This is funny from someone who's alarmed by the
Mexican invasion of America. For some reason, Americans are patriotic
in stadning up to illegal immigration from Mexico, but it was
'xenophobic' for the Chinese to resist Japanese imperialism in north
China.

But, more often, 'xenophobia' is used by the liberal media to describe
any anti-foreign sentiment, hostility, or violence. Of course, anti-
Americanism in other countries is usually not labeled as 'xenophobic'.
No one calls Cuba and Venezuela 'xenophobic' for their virulent anti-
Americanism. And, the Jews get a pass as well. No one calls Israelis
'xenophobic' for its policies against Muslims. So, Israel's rejection
of the Palestinian 'right to return' is not considered 'xenophobic'.

But, when Americans resist the currently unsustainable levels of
immigration--both legal and illegal--or when Europeans are faced with
ever growing tides of foreigners--mostly black and Muslim--entering
Europe which is already darkening at a rapid rate, that is called
'xenophobic' by the liberal Jewish media in American and by the
liberal politically correct media in Europe.

Now, I'm willing to grant that 'xenophobia' may indeed exist.
Xenophobia can exist for two main reasons. One is due to long
isolation of a people, whereupon the populace has become overly
fearful and suspicious of everything foreign or different. This kind
of xenophobia may or may not be evil. If a long-isolated people are
genuinely fearful of different peoples out of sheer ignorance, they
cannot be blamed for their feelings. We are all naturally afraid of
the unknown. If space aliens were to land in our backyard, we would
feel nervous and anxious too. And in the wild, animals must be
fearful of strange things in order to survive; without such fear, they
are likely to turn into lunch for predators.

But, there's another kind of xenophobia which can be evil. We see such
in North Korea, Mao's China, Cuba, Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany,
Ayatollah Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, etc. This is
fear and distrust based on ideologies of hatred and for the interests
of regimes to maintain their power. The regimes, in order to maintain
total power over the people, spread an ideology of total suspicion,
hostility, superiority, aggression, and/or contempt for everything
that is not of the national or ideological order. Under such a
system, the populace is subject to the doctrine of hate and come to
feel a great deal of hostility to the outside world.
So, in certain cases, it could be said that a regime--and its people--
are afflicted with the pathology of xenophobia.

But, as the term 'xenophobia' is used so liberally these days, it has
no real meaning. For instance, take the recent violence in South
Africa against Zimbabwean refugees. As horrific and brutal as these
violent acts were, were they really 'xenophobic'? Did South African
blacks attack Zimbabwean blacks out of irrational hated or fear of
Zimbabwean race/culture/nationality ? Or, was the violence merely the
explosion of frustration on the part of poor South African blacks who
feel that the influx of Zimbabweans--many of whom receive South
African aid and deal in crime--are making conditions for South
Africans much worse?
One can call the violence on the part of black South Africans thuggish
and enraged but not 'xenophobic'. It had nothing to do with phobia--an
unnatural and irrational fear of something harmless--but everything to
do with real grievances and understandable fears and frustrations.
Most blacks in South Africa are very poor. The last thing they want to
see is people poorer than they coming to take jobs, opportunities,
land, and etc. It's easy for us to pass judgment on South African
blacks, but just put yourself in their position. Suppose you were dirt
poor and had been waiting for houses, jobs, and other necessities of
life for a long time. But, suppose refugees from another nation keep
pouring in. Suppose the government didn't do much to stop this influx
and so even more flooded in; suppose much government aid is being
diverted to illegal newcomers You, who are desperately poor, would
have to compete for jobs and government aid with the people who are
poorer and not even part of your country. How would you feel? This
isn't to say that the violence by South African blacks was
justifiable, but it's certainly not xenophobic. South African blacks
are defending their own livelihoods, security, and hope for a better
life.
Is it xenophobic on the part of Israelis to have built those walls
around West Bank? Or, did Israelis do it for security reasons since
Palestianian terrorists slipped in along with the non-terrorists. Of
course, the walls were unfair in the sense that they indiscriminately
barred ALL Palestinians from entering Israel, but we can surely
understand why Israelis felt the need to do what they did.
And, few Western powers call Israel 'xenophobic' for its anti-Arab
policies. So, why were South African blacks called 'xenophobic' for
what they did to guard their safety, interests, and sovereignty?

'Xenophobia' is most often used to decribe the Right in Europe. All
anti-immigration sentiments are said to be 'xenophobic'. So, if
Europeans want to toss out illegals, it's 'xenophobic'. If they want
to protect their borders, it's 'xenophobic'. If they don't want to
include Turkey--a semi-Eurpean country at best--, it's said to be
'xenophobic'. Or, it's even 'xenophobic' when Brigit Bardot condemned
Islamic ways of slaughtering sheep.
It seems like the real problems among Europeans is pridophobia--
irrational fear of national pride--, survivophobia--irrational fear of
racial survival--, securophobia--irrational fear of national
security--, and auto-racophobia--irrational fear of one's own race--
than 'xenophobia'.
With low birthrates among whites and continued massive immigration and
high birthrates among non-whites, Europe will be Europe no more if
current trends continue. And, that's why many Europeans have said
enough is enough. But, the educated liberal and leftist elite class in
Europe has called this 'xenophobia'. In their dogmatic ideology, all
sense of culture and land linked to race--blood and soil--is the
greatest evil in the world. So, if white Europeans want to keep
Europe mostly white, they are said to suffer from some kind of
irrational fear or hatred. But, is it really an irrational fear or
hatred? It's not like Europeans are saying ALL THE WORLD must be
European. Indeed, Europe is a small piece of real estate when
compared with the rest of the world. Is it too much for Europeans to
insist that Europe remain white? Nearly all of Western Europe can fit
into a giant African nation. Europeans simply want their little
continent to stay white. Where is the sin in that?
When Africans, Arabs, and Asians kicked white imperialists and
colonialists out of their lands, those non-whites were not called
'xenophobes' but national liberators. When the Vietnamese and the
Algerians threw the French out, they were hailed as 'freedom
fighters'. When Afghans threw out the Russians, they were hailed as
'freedom fighters'. So, why it wrong for Europeans to throw out non-
Europeans who came illegally and only cause trouble?
Now, one can argue that European imperialists had arrived in non-
European lands thru aggression and violence. But, it's also true that
non-Europeans arrived in Europe illegally which is a form of
aggression. Also, whereas whites brought the light of civilization
to many backward places on the planet, many illegal immigrants bring
only the darkness of medievalism or criminality and thuggishness.
Also, the number of whites who settled in overseas colonies was mostly
tiny, and when their time was up, they left--like when the British
departed from Hong Kong. In contrast, the numbers of non-whites
coming to Europe--and having babies there--are tremendous. They are
not coming by the 100s or thousands but by the 100,000s or even by the
millions. In America, there may be 20 million illegals already! This
is an invasion far more dangerous than imperialism of old. At least
in the old days, imperialists were called imperialists and invaders
were called invaders. It was not considered politically incorrect for
Asian-Indians to refer to the British as such. But, it's illegal in
Europe to exercise one's free speech to denounce the invasion of
Europe. And, US may end up the same way.
We may blame the feminization of the elites of Europe and the US, but
the people must take the blame too. When their freedom of speech was
taken away, why didn't the majority of Europeans and Canadians march
and protest for free speech? Of course, it may not seem very noble to
march for the freedom to deny the holocaust, but if one freedom goes
today, another goes tomorrow. Those with the power to legislate and
regulate morality will never be satisifed. Notice that stupid hate
crime laws in the US are being expanded in some states to protect
dwarves and fat people.

Another problem with the use of the term 'xenophobia' is the funny way
of defining victimhood. Suppose there's some hostile, enclosed, and
contemptuous muslim community in Europe. Suppose this community feels
little but hatred for the majority white community. Now, this minority
community should indeed be properly labeled as xenophobic since it
only sticks to its customs, values, and laws while disregarding the
laws of the majority community. But, since it's a minority or 'victim'
community, it is not tagged with the label 'xenophobic'. But, if a
white person were to show counter-hostility to this hostile and nasty
community, the white guy is labeled as a 'xenophobe'.
Or, take the gypsies who go from community to community and do little
else but stir up trouble. Many gypsies don't try to assimilate and
don't show much respect for majority peoples and their values. If
anything, it's the gypsies who are culturally insensitive, abrasive,
hateful, and contemptuous. But, since they are seen as a 'victim
group', they can cause as much trouble as they like. And, if people
show displeasure toward the gypsies, it's the former who are said to
be 'xenophobic' though they are only reacting to gypsy hideousness.

Or, take the Jews. Traditionally, Jews have expressed much hostility,
contempt, and arrogance toward their majority goy neighbors. Indeed,
Jews existed as a racial/cultural group for so long because of their
racism/culturalism. Jews didn't want to assimilate into 'filthy goy
culture' for most of their history. And, even when Jews did
assimilate, they decided to do it on their own terms--based on the
radical theories of modern moses Karl Marx. In doing so, leftwing
Jews committed some of the most horrendous acts of evil in world
history. They smashed innumerable churches and other institutions in
Russia and killed millions of people. Yet, notice that Jews are never
called 'xenophobic'. Europeans don't do it because of their guilt over
the holocaust, and Americans don't do it because American media/
academia are pretty much domianted by Jews who control and dictate how
we think, what we see, what we hear.

It's the same thing with 'racism' in the US. Blacks--and certain
other minorities--can express all the racial, cultural, and historical
pride, power, and unity they want. That is not called tribalism,
racism, or whatever. But, if whites do the same, they are said to be
part of a 'hate group'. This is what liberal and leftwing Jews in
America have done to the white race. Whites have been so pussified
that most of them do not even think to have any white pride, power,
unity, etc. Whites are obligated to always think 'inclusively' while
others are allowed and even encouraged to think 'exclusively'. Whites
are made to melt in with others while others are not told that melting
into white society is racial/cultural/national suicide. (So, Obama
tells us that Americans have to learn Spanish instead of Mexicans in
American learning English.) . So, it's whites who must lose their
whiteness in order to submit to the peoples-of-color than the other
way around. Until the 1960s, newcomers to the US felt the obligation
to join in what was essentially a proud white American nation. But,
since then, little by little, white people have been made to believe
that any sense of white or western America is 'racist'. So, it's said
that the concept of the melting pot is evil and violent and hurtful to
minorities. Why should minorities lose their identities in order to
become part of evil white America? (Well, maybe because they chose to
come here!). But, for some reason, whites must give up their whiteness
and melt in with non-whites. This is why liberals praise white kids
who try to act black, take up buddhism, or think Mexico is the
greatest country in the world.

Dave · Guest

"RSF Group" <aegisigea@hotmail.com> wrote

IFF Network · Guest

On Jul 11, 11:16 pm, "Dave" <gasol...@all-costs.com> wrote: