This is the text of a comment I made (which may or may not be approved and published) on an editorial, The Architecture of Segregation, in the Sunday Review of this weekend's New York Times.
First, a quote from the editorial:
". . . the fight against the interlinked scourges of housing discrimination and racial segregation in America is far from finished."
What right does government have trying to prevent racial segregation which the majority of its own citizens clearly want, even if state racial ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology) makes if difficult, if not impossible, without serious personal and/or professional disadvantage, for them to admit to publicly?
The American state has embraced an IDEOLOGY which denies, demonises and suppresses, as "racist", people's natural inclination to identify with members of their own race or ethnic group.
1) Because the state's claim to represent a single PEOPLE and NATION demands it. It is how all "nation states" legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy) clients, at the expense of society at large, its well-being and long-term survival.
2) Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (given man's inherent tribal nature) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s spurious moral authority and power. It is a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.
See first of series of BLOGS in which I elaborate further.