Concerns surrounding “nativism” have seen an American resurgence with the rise and tenuous establishment of Trumpist-Populism. The word is errantly bandied about in paper after paper, article after article, televised news segment after televised news segment. Usage is almost exclusively negative as can be observed from pieces such as The Atlantic‘s, What is a Nativist and Is Trump One? (they respond scathingly in the affirmative). Well, dear readers, it is time we put a stop to this ridiculous chastisement of nationhood and self-determination, for what is nativism but the desire for a people to remain as they are and change along their own lines? Whilst many who would fit the mold of “a nativist” tend to describe themselves as, “patriots,” or, “nationalists,” (a term which is, thankfully, witnessing a resurgence), I submit to you that no upright and native-born American should shy, ever, from the word.
Socio-politically speaking, Nativism is defined as: the political policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture. [Wikipedia]
The Oxford Online Dictionary defines it as: The policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.
One might instinctively recoil at “against those of the immigrants” but if one wishes to protect a thing then one is, axiomatically, protecting said thing from something. Therefore, if one is protecting the interests of natives who else could one be protecting the natives from but immigrants? None but themselves and it makes little sense to protect the native population from its own self-interest. We see here a sort of linguistic sleight-of-hand from the Oxford Dictionary which rather obviously seeks to set the reader against the term – rubbish! For if a immigrant successfully integrates into a society he or she becomes a native. This is admittedly rare, a brief glimpse of America’s racial self-bulkanization being a testament to this, and is a process which takes a great deal of time and effort but it is self-evidently possible.
Being a nativist means putting not only some abstract idea of “the country” first (America First) but rather, putting the people themselves first in terms of national priority. By extension, this necessitates putting that people’s culture first, giving over to it room for growth and improvement and protecting it from invasive and destructive outside forces. To be an anti-nativist is to say, “You American’s who have lived here for generations upon generations who have sweat and toiled to make a home and whose forefathers bled and died for it, and even you legal immigrants who run to these golden and bountiful lands to seek a better placing in the grand ambit of the world, your “roots” mean nothing! We, the transient and tribal, shall cleave them free! We shall displace and overrun you and you shall accept – no – shall adorn that displacement!”
I put to you, dear reader, that this is a vile and grotesque inversion of all that makes up a healthy and productive society. If Americans do not seize upon the nativist vine they are threatened with being pulled underneath the bog of their own pathological altruism, there swallowed up by the invasive tribes who stand only for their own upward ascent.
Replace 90% of the population of the USA with Aborigines and you’d not have the USA. No matter how that number swings, so long as that percentage change is close to or above 50% what one is witnessing is a replacement of one’s own peoples. If, to your mind, a Aborigines man without interest in intergration or subordination towards the prevailing culture who has been granted lawful citizenship is as much an American as you or I then you are, in no uncertain terms, stark-raving mad.
The shield of Nativism is every American’s right, by blood and decree, for the betterment and glory of their future. Without it, a coherent, orderly and lasting American identity is not just threatened, it is axiomatically impossible.