The New York Times apparently considers Indians wild, uncivilized, very primitive, with little or no emotional control, and likely to turn hostile at any minute. It’s all in the recent headline: “The Nativists Are Restless.”
Oh, excuse me. They meant “Natives,” as in, “the natives are restless.” So why did they use the political term “nativist,” a reference to one who believes that the ethnicity which founded a nation should ever be in charge of it? Why did they use the term in a headline clearly reminiscent of 19th century British colonialist concerns on any one of various continents–so full of wild primitives like Africa, India, or North America?
The NYT posted this YouTube interview with VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow, made January 30, during Marcus Epstein’s National Press Club conference on Immigration.
Well, the NYT article is a contumacious condemnation of a recent National Press Club conference in Washtington, DC, on the matter of “Immigration and the 2008 Republican Defeat.” All put together by a nice Jewish boy from Alexandria, VA, Marcus Epstein, the conference showcased such heavy-weights as Bay Buchanan, Jim Pinkerton, and Peter Brimelow. (Here is Epstien’s response to the NYT editorial.)
(Hmm. No “natives” present? I was available by smoke signal. But Epstein said the weather was bad, and even the NYT reporter couldn’t make the conference. Yet, the NYT editorial presumed to offer a detailed assessment of the press conference. There’s real professional press coverage for you, NYT-style, anyway.)
In any case, the NYT believes that anyone who is the slightest concerned about immigration is a virile “racist,” and a “white supremacist.” (They should research my name in the NYT a little more carefully.) Then the editorial procedes to offer a sophormoric, personal condemnation of each spokesperson at the conference, with particular resentment of Peter Brimelow and VDARE.com. As a matter of fact, the NYT did a follow-up editorial blog, with more invective toward Brimelow. Just couldn’t get enough of that Sugar Crisp, I suppose.
Magically, the NYT editorials can muster no quotes from anyone save the young Epstein himself (without source):
“Diversity can be good in moderation — if what is being brought in is desirable. Most Americans don’t mind a little ethnic food, some Asian math whizzes, or a few Mariachi dancers — as long as these trends do not overwhelm the dominant culture.”
So, anyone who is concerned at all about his national ethos (let alone ethnos) is a racist, eh? I guess that means all American Indians are racists. No group in America has fought so hard for so long to preserve its own identity. If white Americans have a similar notion for themselves, and they are to be called racists, then all these other “ethnic” groups in the country which the NYT professes to coddle so fondly are also racists–American Indians preeminantly.
You can’t have it both ways, we should say, though, hypocrisy is the soul of liberalism. Sharp, profound inconsistency is certainly the heart beat of the New York Times editorial staff. It is a bit naive, or “native,” to expect anything different from liberals. We point out this present childish nudity of liberal thought only because it involved American Indians. Make no mistake about it, the New York Times considers Indians primitive, likely hostile, and obviously, racist.