In a World This Dark,
It Is Almost An Insult
To Be Liked
click.jpg

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Wall Street Journal: Anti-White Bigotry Goes Mainstream

From WSJ:

Everytime [sic] I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination," thunders blogger William Jacobson. He's referring to a passage in a Washington Post editorial about critics of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice--a passage that in our view is useful for its clarity.
At issue is a Nov. 19 letter to the President Obama, written by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and signed by 97 House Republicans, which declares that the signatories are "deeply troubled" that the president is considering nominating Rice secretary of state, and that they "strongly oppose" such a nomination.
"Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter," the letter states. We noted Tuesday with some amusement that Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, was claiming that "incompetent" was the latest code word for "black."
The Post focuses on the critics rather than their choice of words. Here's the passage that outrages Jacobson: "Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can't know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy."
[image]U.S. House/Wikipedia.org
Rep. Jeff Duncan is suspiciously pale, according to the Washington Post.
Let's examine this argument carefully. The Post acknowledges that "we can't know their hearts." But it finds a (literally) prima facie reason to suspect them of invidious motives: Almost all of them are persons of pallor. The Post is casting aspersions on Duncan and his colleagues based explicitly on the color of their skin. And it is accusing them of racism!
A couple of other items related to race and politics caught our attention over the Thanksgiving weekend. First, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat and CBC member, resigned from Congress "amid federal ethics investigations and a diagnosis of mental illness," as the Chicago Tribune reports. That sets up a special election to fill the vacancy:
Some Democrats quickly offered to broker a nominee to avoid several African-American contenders splitting the vote in the heavily Democratic and majority black 2nd Congressional District, which could allow a white candidate to win.
This passes with neither editorial comment nor a disapproving quote. It's hard to imagine the same absence of reaction if a group of pols offered "to broker a nominee" with the goal of preventing a black candidate from winning a white-majority district.
Then there's the email from the Obama campaign--yeah, they're still coming, though at a slower pace than before the election--inviting supporters to take a survey. Among the questions: "Which constituency groups do you identify yourself with? Select all that apply."
There are 22 boxes you can check off. Some are ideological ("Environmentalists" and perhaps "Labor"), some occupational ("Educators," "Healthcare professionals"), some regional ("Americans abroad," "Rural Americans"). There's a box for "Women" but none for men, though there's a separate "Gender" question, which hilariously has three options: "Male," "Female" and "Other/no answer." Touré will no doubt soon inveigh against the "otherization" of the Gender No. 3.
What caught our attention were the ethnic categories: "African Americans," "Arab-Americans," "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," Jewish Americans," "Latinos" and "Native Americans" (the last, of course, refers to American Indians, not natural-born citizens).
Notice anything missing?
One explanation for the absence of a "white" or "European-American" category (or, alternatively, several dozen specific European ethnicities) could be that whites tend to vote Republican, and the campaign is interested in Democratic-leaning voting blocs. But several other of the Obama survey categories lean toward the GOP, too: "People of faith," "Rural Americans," "Seniors," "Small business owners" and "Veterans/military families." Counterpart groups that are Democratic-leaning or swing-voting are missing from the list, too, including nonbelievers, urban and suburban dwellers, and the middle-aged (though there are categories for both "Young professionals" and "Youth").
The reason for the absence of a "Whites" category is that white identity politics is all but nonexistent in America today. That wasn't always the case, of course: For a century after the Civil War, Southern white supremacists were an important part of the Democratic Party coalition. They were defeated and discredited in the 1960s, and the Democrats, still the party of identity politics, switched their focus to various nonwhite minorities.
Obama's re-election was a triumph for this new identity politics--but the Post's nasty editorial hints at a reason to think this form of politics may have long-term costs for both the party and the country.
The trouble with a diverse coalition based on ethnic or racial identity is that solidarity within each group can easily produce conflicts among the groups. Permissive immigration policies, for example, may be good for Hispanics and Asians but bad for blacks. Racial preferences in college admissions help blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asians.
One way of holding together such a disparate coalition is by delivering prosperity, so that everyone can feel he's doing well. Failing that, another way is by identifying a common adversary--such as the "white male." During Obama's first term, the demonization of the "white male" was common among left-liberal commentators, especially MSNBC types. The Post has now lent its considerably more mainstream institutional voice to this form of bigotry.
This seems likely to weaken the taboo against white identity politics. Whites who are not old enough to remember the pre-civil-rights era--Rep. Duncan, for instance, was born in 1966--have every reason to feel aggrieved by being targeted in this way.
The danger to Democrats is that they still need white votes. According to this year'sexit polls, Obama won re-election while receiving only 39% of the white vote. But that's higher than Mitt Romney's percentage among blacks (6%), Latinos (27%), Asian-Americans (26%) or "Other" (38%). It's true that Republicans suffer electorally for the perception that they are hostile to minorities, but Democrats also stand to suffer for being hostile to whites.
The danger for the country is that a racially polarized electorate will produce a hostile, balkanized culture. In 2008 Obama held out the hope of a postracial America. His re-election raises the possibility of a most-racial America.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

5 Comments:

Blogger jeppo said...

The danger for the country is that a racially polarized electorate will produce a hostile, balkanized culture.

Just change "will produce" to "has produced" and by Jove he's got it. Obama won 93% of the black vote, 88% of the Muslim vote, 73% of the Asian vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote and 69% of the Jewish vote. Meanwhile, Romney won 61% of the white Christian vote. Welcome to the balkanized dystopia where America used to stand.

We can't say we weren't warned. Liberals have been crowing for years about how the immigration-fueled displacement of white Americans would spell the death of the Republican party, and it turns out they weren't just yanking our chains.

A few lonely voices on the right, like Pat Buchanan, have been sounding the alarm since forever. But he's old and white and dares to speak up for white people, so fuck him. How about a wise Asiatic sage like Lee Kuan Yew, prime minister of Singapore for 30 years, what is his opinion about the issue at hand?

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests or social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion”

Bullseye. Too bad Lee was busy running Singapore when he was really needed in America. From 1960 to 2010, the percentage of whites in the US declined from 90% to 63%. In the same time period, the percentage of Chinese in Singapore remained stable in the 70%-75% range. Thanks to a great patriot like Lee, Chinese-majority Singapore will live forever. Thanks to a series of traitorious US politicians, white-majority America is going, going, gone.

What will the US look like in 20 years time? Where California leads, America follows. California was 78% white in 1970. They voted Republican in 9 out of 10 presidential elections between 1952 and 1988. They gave the US Nixon and Reagan. The economy boomed throughout almost all of this period, and millions of Americans moved there for a better life.

By 2010, California was only 40% white. They've voted for the Democrats in 6 straight presidential elections and will probably never vote for a GOP candidate again. Now they have a loony-left governor and both houses of the legislature are controlled by two-thirds Democratic supermajorities. Unemployment is high, the state is virtually bankrupt, and hundreds of thousands of middle class Californians are leaving for greener pastures.

It was mass Third World immigration that turned California from a conservative stronghold and an economic powerhouse to a Democratic one-party state and an economic basket case in just a few decades. The answer to the question of what America will look like in 20 years is that it will look like California does today. And it will only get worse from there.

Of course it doesn't have to be that way: Third World immigration could be stopped and even reversed. But that would be racist, so it would be far better to let America keep swirling down the toilet than have liberals call us racists. Perish the thought.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:27:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

The sad thought is that by using the meme of political opposition to Bronc=Racism, it leaves no room for anything but undying enmity as the endpoint for all argument.

It's what Madison warned about in the Federalist papers..FACTIONALISM now clothed in color.

Fine, let's dance.

Sooner or later those who work hard, invent, start businesses, and take chances will become discouraged enough that productivity will dip, the balance will tip and this will come apart.

Meanwhile we proceed with no hope and a rising bitter anger, not for our govt, but for the citizens who have chosen it.

We have a civil war without violence going on.

SO FAR.

I'm waiting for a Marco Polo Bridge Incident by the 'progressive' forces.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:23:00 am  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Jeppo, I find you analysis racist BY NATURE.
We are fighting a war racist by POLITICAL INTENT, NOT BY NATURE.

It was the southern and eastern Europeans and the Irish who 'invaded' the USA from the 1840-1924 which made this place a world power. By culture these people shared almost NOTHING with the founders.
Nothing prevents this from being the case today but the idea of multiculturalism .. A POLITICAL IDEA.
E PLURIBUS UNUM
It says that on the money for a reason

Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:27:00 am  
Blogger jeppo said...

The vast majority of the descendants of the Irish and the eastern and southern European immigrants--except for the Jews--now vote for the Republicans. According to CNN's exit polls, white Protestants voted 69-30 for Romney, white Catholics voted 59-40 for Romney, but white Jews voted 71-29 for Obama. One of these things is not like the others.

Why? Because all European Christians share the same basic culture and history in a way that non-Europeans and non-Christians don't. So in the multiracial, multireligious society that 21st century America has become, they are increasingly voting like a bloc for the Republicans, just like Lee Kuan Yew's theory predicted they would.

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests or social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion”

Meanwhile, non-whites voted 80-18 for Obama. Because they made up a record 28% of the electorate, they decided the election in Obama's favour against the will of the white majority (aka the historic American nation) who voted 59-39 for Romney. And as the electorate becomes less white in the future, it will inevitably become less Republican as well. Just like what's already happened in California.

And no amount of pandering to minority groups is going to change this basic truism of human nature: ethnicity and religion trump economic and social interests every time. How did John McCain--probably the single most pro-amnesty, pro-open borders and pro-bilingualism politician in the entire GOP--do with Hispanic voters in 2008? He got only a pathetic 31% of their vote because Hispanics are charter members of the anti-white and/or anti-Christian Democratic coalition, and no amount of GOP Hispandering is ever going to change this elemental fact.

So all the RINOs, neocons, libertarians and other open-borders Republicans now have a choice to make: Do you want a conservative country or do you want Third World immigration? Choose one, because you can't have them both.








Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:31:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Those are interesting statistics.

I don't know what Asians, HIspanics, and Blacks have in common that they would vote as a bloc.

The only thing I can guess is resentment built up against what they perceive as the White power structure. The thing is, the whiteness of the upper echelons of power are a demographic phenomenon which speaks to the development of the United States. They are not a ideological phenomenon, which I guess supports your theory.

Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:03:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home