From the Washington Post:
The elephant in the room
By Kathleen Parker, Published: August 31
TAMPA
Gazing out on the pale continent of the Republican National Convention ... Where are the blacks?
Notwithstanding the dazzling performance of Condoleezza Rice and the GOP’s raucous affection for her, African Americans are scarce in the party of Abraham Lincoln. Republicans can honestly boast of having once been the party of firsts. The first Hispanic, African American, Asian American and Native American in the Senate were all Republicans. But that was before the GOP went south, banished its centrists and embraced social conservatives in a no-exit marriage.
The impression that Republicans don’t welcome blacks and other minorities is, however, demonstrably false. Note the number of minority Republican governors recently elected: Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Brian Sandoval of Nevada and Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Even so, the party is undeniably and overwhelmingly white, and minorities (and increasingly women) don’t feel at home there. ...
African Americans are not a monolithic group, obviously, and many likely would find comfort in the promises of smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, school choice and so on that Mitt Romney put on the table Thursday night. But this isn’t likely to happen. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 0 percent support for Romney among African Americans. (Zero doesn’t necessarily mean none but is a statistical null.) Obama also leads Latinos younger than 35 and women. Romney, alas, leads whites.
Right, because what candidate in his right mind would want a majority of the majority? Doesn't Romney know that the majority has cooties, that white people are icky, and that it's only because of some outmoded tradition that an individual white person's vote still counts just as much as the vote of a cooler individual? When is somebody going to do something about that anyway? And when are white people going to stop being so racist and be more like blacks and favor Obama 100-0?
Posts
147 comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Parker
This broad is "mostly right of center"?!
You're doomed.
Parker also (like seemingly every other MSM pundit) ignores the actual history of black voting patterns in America, and the lesson of that history. Democrats first won a majority of the black vote under FDR, when the party still included Southern Segregationists. Blacks voted for Dems because it was in their economic interest: most blacks were poor, and Democrats offered more assistance for the poor.
The lesson of that should be obvious: symbolic attempts at inclusion (such as W. staffing his cabinet with minorities, or this year's RNC's roster of speakers) are doomed to fail absent an economic rationale for targeted groups to vote for your party.
Don't worry Steve. I am pretty sure that someone will introduce a bill to make the votes of diverse individuals worth more that those of whites to compensate for structural racism or something.
Zero, zip, nothing. Not even some rebellious youth voting against their parents. Romney should have preached how much he admired black political unity and that whites should imitate them as an expression of admiration.
There's an elephant in the room in "The elephant in the room" article.
"Even so, the party is undeniably and overwhelmingly white, and minorities (and increasingly women) don’t feel at home there. ...African Americans are not a monolithic group, obviously, and many likely would find comfort in the promises of smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, school choice and so on that Mitt Romney put on the table Thursday night...Romney, alas, leads whites."
Unfrickingreal.
What to beware of in Texas, OC use to go more Republican than the state of Texas and still goes more Republican than Harris, Travis and Dallas counties.
Printer-friendly versionSend by email
By Robert Cruickshank
Having been born and raised in Orange County, one of my lifetime goals is to see it become a bastion of progressive politics. So I'm glad to see that today the New York Times is finally noticing Orange County is indeed becoming less right-wing and more Democratic:
SANTA ANA, Calif. - Orange County has been a national symbol of conservatism for more than 50 years: birthplace of President Richard M. Nixon and home to John Wayne, a bastion for the John Birch Society, a land of orange groves and affluence, the region of California where Republican presidential candidates could always count on a friendly audience.
But this iconic county of 3.1 million people passed something of a milestone in June. The percentage of registered Republican voters dropped to 43 percent, the lowest level in 70 years.
Adam Nagourney attributes the political shift away from the right-wing and from Republicans to demographic changes, primarily immigration:
At the end of 2009, nearly 45 percent of the county's residents spoke a language other than English at home, according to county officials. Whites now make up only 45 percent of the population; this county is teeming with Hispanics, as well as Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese families. Its percentage of foreign-born residents jumped to 30 percent in 2008 from 6 percent in 1970, and visits to some of its corners can feel like a trip to a foreign land.
There's no doubt that Orange County has become much less white over the last 30 years, though this phenomenon isn't exactly new. And those voters have helped retire right-wingers like Bob Dornan - and helped elect a new generation of Democrats like Irvine mayor Sukhee Kang, who is mentioned in the NYT article.
Although immigration plays a role in the OC's political shifts, it's not the whole story. Nagourney didn't mention that Kang isn't the first Democrat to lead Irvine - the city has had a series of Dems leading it for many years, including Larry Agran and Beth Krom (wh
Yeah, I also liked that part about African Americans not being a monolithic group. I wonder what an actual monolithic voting group would look like?
A white vote should only be worth three-fifths of a black vote.
Too bad. I really liked her book Save the Males but it turns out she's just another screw-whitey bigot. If she really matched the anti-Marxist persona she portrayed in Save the Males I'm sure the Washington "Mark Felt Said it So it is God's Truth" Post would never publish her.
There have been a bunch of superhero movies, but it seems like BATMAN and IRONMAN have been the most successful in the past decade. Why did they edge out Superman, Hulk, Spiderman, and etc? Better directors? That certainly can't be said for IRONMAN, and I'm not a great fan of Nolan's direction.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that both the IRONMAN guy and BATMAN guy are stinking filthy rich, and as such, both movies serve as a kind of 'lifestyles of the rich and famous'.
When Superman isn't doing hero stuff, he's just a boring newspaper man. And when Spiderman is doing wild stuff, he's just some photographer.
But even when Batman and Ironman aren't doing anything heroic like saving the world, they are living the good life, and it's like watching Bill Gates or Larry Ellison living it up and having the time of their lives.
One thing I don't like about reading this blog is that Steve keeps pointing out this kind of insane stupidity that I would otherwise completely avoid. I like to hope that a bunch of liberal ninny websites like Dailykos linked to it, thereby explaining the army of insipidity in the WP's comment section.
It strikes me that a young, cynical and politically ambitious black could really make a killing by going Republican in a red state. The GOP would fall all over themselves to woe him or her..an instant leg up on the competition. Win-win!
Herman Cain certainly knew this.
Have you read the comments underneath? I am not American, so maybe I'm missing something. Are the people who write that piffle stupid or deluded or both? They seem to inhabit some kind of parallel universe where the laws of physics, economics and genetics are quite different.
NZ is almost as PC as America, but after reading the article and the comments I'm actually stunned. The US seems to be suffering from some kind of mass psychosis.
The reason there are so few blacks in the Republican party is that blacks understand that the Democrats are the party of affirmative action, the party that can be reliably counted upon to favor blacks over whites whenever there is a conflict of interest between the two. What can the Republicans possibly offer that would match that?
Off topic slightly but there isn't a chance in the world IMO that Piyush and Nimrata would be in their respective positions within the R-party if they had kept the religion of their respective parents.
Specifically with Asian and Indian American's, it isn't racial politics that have them skew over to the D's as it is the over-religiosity of the R's.
Mind you, the D's aren't much better at dealing with candidates that follow Non-Abrahamic religions either but Asian/Indian Americans feel they are more welcoming in that regard.
To be fair, blacks favor a generic Democratic candidate 90-10 and Obama 95-5.
The blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he is black critique is dumb.
Bascially moderate Republicans have been playing this same tune for 50 years. "We need to attract more Blacks and minorities". So Republicans do everything possible to attract Blacks and minorities and the result is: 95% of AA vote for Obama.
What SPECIFICALLY should Republicans do - that they haven't already done? Ask that question to Moderates and 10-1 you'll just get a lot of blather.
As I wrote in an earlier post, the black population, approx 40 million, is comparable to a nation the size of Poland and significantly larger than many modern states like Norway (5 million) and Sweden (10 million). Yet where does one find in a true democracy 40 million people voting 95% or higher for one party? I can only recall this happening in one-party states like the old USSR and Saddam's Iraq.
If the black vote is not monolithic, monolithic doesn't exist.
She points out that the GOP offers issues that should be attractive to upper- and middle-class blacks. Then she points out that they support Obama 99.99999%.
But it would never even occur to her to ask why that is the case. It just is, and Republicans should feel guilty about it.
Don't you just want to slap her?
Where are they, the blacks, that is? Oh, God, now that's an invitation to a rant. I won't even bother, knowing the basic readership of iSteve. They know where they are.
Then, there's a-hole David Brooks' column which I just read (why?) before I came here.
He seems to think (and so do most of his commenters, of course) that the GOP's convention made too much of what he calls the "strivers" of our nation. To most Americans who don't live on either coast, "striver" has a positive connotation: parents tell their kids to "strive" to do their best in school, to "strive" to find what they love, to "strive" to overcome obstacles life will inevitably place in front of them. Of course, to most Americans (not of the coasts), it's accepted that striving can lead to yes, success, but also to failures. A failure along the way doesn't mean one himself is a failure, however. Ah, but when one succeeds, he can reap the external benefits of his striving if they exist, yes, but more importantly, the internal ones.
Mr. Brooks and his minions seem to think it selfish, all this talk about "striving." They think such talk is evidence of selfishness and only a concern for material wealth.
He begins his column reminding us of the failure of people like Gatsby, who sought material wealth, as if I or anyone else saw Jay Gatsbys in that GOP audience or as if I or any of the millions who were clapping at the references to working hard and building something through self-reliance were clapping for the empty romanticism of "The Great Gatsby."
Does Brooks just run out of ideas?
Is he really this morally bankrupt?
Has he ever been west of Manhattan? DC?
Okay, sorry, back to the woman writer: Where are they?
I suppose they are readying to vote for their same-colored bro who will keep them in their place, for sure.
To get ahead in the media you have to be anti-white. Parker is smart enough to realize this. That is why she would never write "Obama, alas, leads blacks and Jews" since she knows it would be the end of her career in journalism.
Your grade-school tantrums are a constant source of amusement. Oh, middle-aged white guys.
"Small government" is an idea that seems to appeal to many -- until cuts are proposed to government programs that benefit them or their family or business.
As I see it, as the Republican Party moves from further and further right, it will lose its appeal for all Americans (except for the rich and financialy secure retirees).
The bottom line is that most Americans are not very conservative. Given their economic status, while they may vote for their candidates sometimes, most Hispanics and Blakcs will not join the Republican Party or identify with it.
Republicans are driving away white voters too with their continuing march to the right.
They are determined, it seems, to make themselves into a minority party. That's the results of purging their liberal and moderate members over the past 30 years in the name of purity and now pushing out conservative and replacing with very conservative candidates.
With so many people unhappy with both the Democrats or the Republicans, I expect one or more new sizable parties will appear and prosper.
Eventually either one of these new parties will replace the Republicans as the seond big-tent party or we'll end up going from a two-party country to a multiple party country, like much of the rest of the world.
Kathleen Parker is a South Carolina conservative who wants Republicans to win elections by appealing to more than just tax-phobic libertarians and Jesus junkies.
If anything can make inroads with the black electorate in the near future, its school choice (vouchers). (Realistically, by "inroads" I don't mean a majority, just some splitting away.) Advising the GOP to throw that away in the name of appeal and outreach is either stupidity or treachery.
Well, according to a study by Rice University Texas student body will be 66 percent hispanic and whites down to 15 percent in 2050 in the classroom. Even if more illegal immigrants are deported or not hired and some older Mexicans that were legalized under Reagan and got SS and return to Mexico because it is cheaper means that Texas will be mainly Mexican. Surely to disappoint the Gop at best it will be a swing state. The problem with the GOP they think its all tax cuts, budget cuts and regulation cuts, how different people groups perform is ignored by them. If Regulation and Taxing was the reason for good economics then Puerto Rico would have surpass the US in GNP but other factors are involved. Granted, some of the regulation and taxing cause problems with Calif and NY but so does their immigration.
"A white vote should only be worth three-fifths of a black vote." - If they'd cut taxes of whites to 3/5ths(the other half of the compromise) a lot of people would go along with that, except, you know, the government.
Rottweiler Vouchers?
One irony here is that it would be in blacks' best interests not to be entirely owned by one party, as far as I can tell. Democrats only and racial identity politics among blacks hasn't generally led to good governance--I think the Marion Barry/Adrian Fenty ratio is uncomfortably high.
Another irony is that the GOP is in some sense skewered on its own BS rhetoric. In rhetoric and campaign platforms and such, Republicans are going to limit immigration and get rid of affirmative action. In practice, Republican administrations do neither of those things. The rhetoric is necessary both to appeal to white voters voting their economic interests, and to the rather smaller set of racist white voters. But since most voters don't have the faintest clue what a Solicitor General is or what's going on with some Supreme Court case about AA in education, the GOP costlessly evades the rhetoric and follows the ruling class consensus that there shall be AA and an endless reserve army of unemployed campesinos available to keep wages down here in the US.
Everything works out okay for the GOP politicians, except that that rhetoric annoys the smallish number of blacks who might otherwise have voted for them, and similarly the smallish number of hispanics. And I think that's what Parker is complaining about in this column. I imagine this is why it's easier to attract blacks at the top than in the rank and file--the blacks at or near the top, the Rices and Powells and Cains and Watts and such, see the empty rhetoric for what it is, and can kind of shrug it off. The blacks considering voting Republican because they're tired of their crooked black mayor taking their votes for granted and using the schools as a patronage system hear the rhetoric, or have it played back at them, and hear "we hate you," and go back to voting Democrat or at least stay home. You can see a similar dynamic with gays--there are and have been a number of pretty high profile gays in the Republican party (I think the chairman of the GOP during Bush's term was more-or-less openly gay). They know that most of the GOP's anti-gay rhetoric is just BS for the rubes, and at the top, the Republican members of the ruling class are mostly pretty comfortable with gays, just like Democrats are. Most gays are Democrats, though, since they hear the rhetoric and get "we want to lock you up or kill you" from it.
The folks at the top are, I think, not very much like the rank and file. I think the closer you get to the top of the GOP or Democrats, the more you're likely to be some species of authoritarian leader or conman--basically someone who doesn't really have any morals or principles beyond a desire for his own power, and loyalty to the people he needs to show loyalty to in order to get and keep power.
African Americans are not a monolithic group, obviously, and many likely would find comfort in the promises of smaller government...
LOL. Obviously blacks are THE MOST monolithic group in American politics. Apparently now at nearly 100% for Obama.
Kathleen Parker is the Nice Jewish Lady, don't let the name fool you, who once said/wrote that Republicans selected Sarah Palin in order to send out rape fears to White men. The strategy being to get White men to vote McCain/Palin to somehow protect her from being raped by Obama!
I don't think even Chris Mathews/Lawrence O'Donnell/Keith Olberman noticed that dog whistle.
How well does school choice do in places where the expensive suburbs are differentiated from the cheaper ones by where the school district boundaries are drawn? I live in an area like this--your house can have a 20% change in its resale value overnight if the school boundary changes. My guess is that any kind of real school choice undermines that.
We live in a mediocre school district, and send our kids to Catholic school. My guess is that offering everyone in my state vouchers for their kids' education would raise the value of houses in my neighborhood somewhat, and lower them in the expensive neighborhoods somewhat. My intuition is that the expensive neighborhoods' residents won't much like that. Similarly, if we moved to some kind of open enrollment in all public schools by test score or lottery or something, the expensive neighborhoods would lose a whole lot of their houses' value very quickly, because a huge part of the value of their house is that they can send their kids to the all white and Asian public school with good test scores and nice facilities and lots of AP classes available.
"They are determined, it seems, to make themselves into a minority party. That's the results of purging their liberal and moderate members over the past 30 years in the name of purity and now pushing out conservative and replacing with very conservative candidates."
You obviously are living in a parallel universe; over in the universe the rest of us live in, the real owners of the GOP - who were temporarily routed by Reagan - have long since reestablished control and have put forth moderate/liberal Republicans as presidential candidates going on seven presidential election cycles now (28 years!).
Anyone who thinks that either George Bush was a "conservative" much less an "extreme right winger" goes immediately to the chair in the corner with a dunce cap on his head.
The GOP didn't "purge" liberal or moderate members. The GOP membership (which is distinct from the leadership) has been more conservative than the country as a whole since at least the 1960's when southern white Democrats started to vote GOP. This may have made you squishy moderates uncomfortable, but it didn't bother the Brahmins in control of the GOP, who wanted conservative votes but knew how to divert those votes into liberal policies.
The GOP elite is up to its usual dirty tricks again, denying access of Ron Paul delegates to the GOP convention and changing rules at whim to prevent them from having any kind of voice. This is par for the course; any conservative insurrection in the GOP has been dealt with by dirty tricks (Goldwater, Buchanan, Paul - the same pattern; Reagan was the lone exception of insurgent conservative success).
Yes the GOP may use conservative rhetoric that makes you "uncomfortable" (poor baby) but the reality is that it "governs liberal". Most of the Repubs who are claimed to be conservative are hardly that - they simply are the trailing edge of the liberal/progressive wave.
You don't hear conservative Dems whining that the Democratic Party is too liberal and too extreme - this is the usual double standard that only applies to conservatives. Conservatives have to change to "get with the times" as defined by liberals. Your "solution" to this problem is to have the GOP change even faster to conform.
Why even bother have two parties at this point?
This from Sweden on the non-western immigrant population supporting the party of the left against Swedish whites,To no ones surprise, rather than becoming libertarian, immigrants loyally support the Social Democratic welfare state, as their economic self interests and the political culture of their societies would predicts. In the latest Swedish election, only 43% of Swedes but 77% of non-western immigrants voted for the left (this was an unusually bad year for the left, who got 92% of the immigrant vote in 2002!). In the United States, where while only 35% of non-Hispanic whites prefer higher taxes in return for more government services, the figure is 65% for first generation Hispanic immigrants, and 66% for second generation Hispanics.
"In rhetoric and campaign platforms and such, Republicans are going to limit immigration and get rid of affirmative action."
Bwah....?
Maybe in the fevered imagination of Democratic Party propaganda, but the reality is that the GOP has barely talked about illegal immigration at all, and it NEVER suggests limits on legal immigration. As for affirmative action, that has been a dead issue for a decade now. The GOP won't touch it.
The reality of the demonization of white conservatism in the media is a much bigger reality than the reality of tepid GOP rhetoric aimed at white conservatives.
"African Americans are not a monolithic group, obviously..."
Obviously, you're wrong.
"and many likely would find comfort in the promises of smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, school choice and so on that Mitt Romney put on the table Thursday night. But this isn’t likely to happen."
So, why don't they break with the Dems, Ms. Parker? Considering many blacks are very southern Baptist, very fundamentalist, why has that group not left the Dems, huh? huh? huh?
Alas, Ms. Parker, why do these people who care about "smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, school choice" not in the party that espouses these things?
Actually, the Republcians are more to the left, the Welfare is bigger than 50 years ago, the marginal tax rates are the only thing to the right. The Democratic media likes to think the Republicans are dis mating the welfare state but only welfare reform in the 1990's is the only cut the welfare state is expanding except for social issues Republicans more to the left of Ronald Reagan who had the rates down to about 29 percent.
Actually in the 1960's it was the upper middle whites in Orange County and San Diego that lead the modern conservative movement not the south which like George Wallace in some states. What happen is the Republicans betrayed Orange County and San Diego since it was harder to carry California than the South. Southerners became Conservative later according to a book called Suburban Warrors, OC had Utt and John Schmitz who were both john birchers in the old days. But the Republicans betrayed OC and San Diego by flooding both counties by Reagan's legalization act by Hispanic and Kennedy 1965 act by Asians. The white people left and then went back to the Midwest, southwest and south where their ancestors came from. In fact Texas whites that fled were from OC and San Diego and made Texas more conservative among whites.
"NZ is almost as PC as America, but after reading the article and the comments I'm actually stunned. The US seems to be suffering from some kind of mass psychosis."
Calling Paul Ewald and Greg Cochran and any and all parasitologists.
What exactly does she want the GOP to actually do? Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats regardless of how much the Republicans pander to them and that was with Southern white guys like Johnson, Carter, and Clinton running the Democratic Party. Now that blacks "have one of their own as President" the percentage has gone from 90-95 percent to over 99 percent plus, the GOP could put black guys and Condelezza Rice on constantly and they would still be lucky to get 2 percent of the black vote this election. Why chase votes ( and waste money ) you can't possibly get because black people certainly do vote monolithically, far more than any other ethnic group in the American polity by a wide margin. The GOP even gets about 30 percent of Jewish voters typically every 4 years. She has obviously never heard of Lee Kwan Yew who pointed out at least two decades ago that people never vote for the best candidate in multi-ethnic states they vote for their "tribe" except Europeans evidently, and they are evil for even suggesting what blacks do reflexively. This column seems to be a combo of political correctness and boredom. Further proof that P.C. rots your brain.
Blacks are racists. Period.
Kate,
It's okay, hon. You've nothing to be ashamed of. Repeat after me, and do this daily affirmation once in the morning, twice each evening:
"White is beautiful."
Ms. Parker, it seems to me, is just another CINO - conservative in name only.
It's obviously a complete waste of time for the GOP to even consider what blacks think of their policies. Why, for maybe 10% of 13% who don't even vote in high numbers anyway. That's at most, about 1.3%. WHY BOTHER?
Make the GOP more attractive to white people, increase the percentage of white people in the USA, and they'll be in power forever.
I just throw up my hands at how fricking stupid we are as a people to not vote as a bloc, like every fricking other ethnic group. When it comes to other races and ethnic groups, we are the most naive and stupid race on the face of the earth.
There is no such thing as a "white community" - the New York SWPL differs vastly from the Alabama prole, and the California granola, and the Minne-SO-ta plainsman, who has very little exposure to Afircan-American culture.
Ethnicity continues to matter deeply. Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, Minnesota Norwegians, Southern Crackers, continue to identify overtly and latently with the very different European cultures they emerged from. And they would all cavil - yea, even the Germanics!-at the notion of some "superior" Anglo-Saxon bindage.
There is no more a white community than there is a place called the Equator.
And in and of itself the very concept of a mongrel hybrid race of disparate European cultures admixed with a little African-American and Native American stock is untenable, as there is no common cultural framework, outside of some sports like football (and even here, the alegiance varies significantly by region) and drinks like beer, and lip service to some founding documents, viz., the outmoded and thus heavily amended Constitution.
In short, whither a race without a common culture?
To be fair, blacks favor a generic Democratic candidate 90-10 and Obama 95-5.
The blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he is black critique is dumb.
Yep. We'd have to a paleoconservative black GOP presidential candidate to see how far race goes with blacks.
Your grade-school tantrums are a constant source of amusement. Oh, middle-aged white guys.
It's even funnier because what he says true yet the vast majority of whites appear to be so cosmically delusional they won't have a bar of it. To me this is unquestionably the truly funny aspect of the whole thing. Lol, who could have ever thought shoving aside the white man could be so easy (and fun)! I have nothing but contempt for deracinated white nitwits who heap scorn on their own kind. I'm far from anti-white ("anti-anti-white" would describe me well) but I'll gladly, happily, even giddily step on the head of some deracinated white dope who thinks he'll impress me with his "anti-racism." I have no respect for such people whatsoever.
Previous anonymous:
Name just one of your ethnic European cultures that votes as an ethnic bloc. Just one.
The whole concept of living in a multi-ethnic state and thinking that politics can be reduced to anything else besides the concept of who/whom... that's a very white thing, and it transcends ethnicity. Whether it's some Polak in the midwest or an Italian in New York or some Bratwurst eating German American, they all have no clue.
And as far as AA is concerned, we are all alike and all discriminated against equally.
"To most Americans who don't live on either coast, "striver" has a positive connotation: parents tell their kids to "strive" to do their best in school, to "strive" to find what they love, to "strive" to overcome obstacles life will inevitably place in front of them."
It's also a dirty word to most in the HBD community. To them, "striver" suggests someone who achieved through hard work instead of raw IQ, which is contemptible to people whose only achievement in life is a 99th percentile score on some standardized multiple-choice tests when they were 17.
Imagine if a group like Irish-Americans consistently voted 95% Republican, and that went up to 99% when someone with Irish heritage was running.
Would anyone write article like this, criticizing the Democrats for not doing more to "reach out" to the Irish? Would anyone insist that the Irish were not a monolithic block, but were somehow pushed into voting as a block by the unfriendly antics of the Democrats?
Or would the articles be about what's wrong with the Irish, why are they so blind and short-sighted, and why can't they put patriotism above their ethnicity?
Kathleen Parker represents the kind of thinking you find among the "respectable conservatives", those that are given a seat at the elite table. The cost of entrance? Being openly Anti-White.
" Anonymous said...
To be fair, blacks favor a generic Democratic candidate 90-10 and Obama 95-5.
The blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he is black critique is dumb."
Wow! Somebody smart enough, and honest enough to get it. I am speechless.
"Make the GOP more attractive to white people, increase the percentage of white people in the USA,"
Yeah let cut Poland out, tether it to some helicopters and fly it over here.
That's exactly what "conventional wisdom" says: "White people are icky". That statement sums up their world-view very nicely. It must be horrible to look in the mirror each day and consider yourself icky and inferior on account of your light skin. What sick, deranged, people!
Yeah let cut Poland out, tether it to some helicopters and fly it over here.
The idea scares you, doesn't it. The idea of a Republican campaign manager seriously embracing the Sailer Strategy.
All it would take to increase the percentage of white voters would be a concerted effort to identify and deport the illegal immigrant population in the USA, and actually make border enforcement a priority.
Kathleen Parker is a self-hating white person.
I just don't get it. I mean seriously. I just don't get it. I can understand being upset that upstanding black people were treated shabbily 50 years ago. I can understand the desire to try to get past phenotypical differences, to judge people as individuals.
But why thy self-hate? Don't they realize that white folks invented just about everything from the airplane to the transistor to the integrated circuit to binary coding of information? Do they really hate the site of tow-headed kids? Do they feel ashamed they are happier at the site of a sandy haired, long limbed, fair-featured six year old than the typical kid from another population group?
White do whites hate whites?
Anon at 7:36 said,
"Your grade-school tantrums are a constant source of amusement. Oh, middle-aged white guys."
If you're talking to me alone or among others (I am Anon at 6:58), let it be known I am a middle-aged white woman, sir, and darned proud of it.
"It's also a dirty word to most in the HBD community. To them, "striver" suggests someone who achieved through hard work instead of raw IQ, which is contemptible to people whose only achievement in life is a 99th percentile score on some standardized multiple-choice tests when they were 17."
I can only agree with you to some degree here. Yes, I know that there are those in the HBD sphere who harp all the time on their IQs but there are also those who understand the basics of HBD and that means they grasp that personal traits such as impulse control and reward deferment, doggedness, etc. are heritable traits that result in strivers.
Nonetheless, it's true you don't need an IQ of 130+ to run a small house cleaning or window cleaning operation that sends both kids to college and buys a nice, if not fancy, house.
That people like my neighbor can do this is indeed why this country is different from many others as long as you have some "striving" genes.
Dave R,
School vouchers are a non-starter in appealing to blacks. Too many blacks work for the government or have a relative that works for the government.
Any policy that takes away power from the public sector employees will fail with blacks.
"The blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he is black critique is dumb."
_______________________________
Wow! Somebody smart enough, and honest enough to get it. I am speechless."
_______________________________
Well, that, and they get STUFF.
To be fair, blacks favor a generic Democratic candidate 90-10 and Obama 95-5.
The blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he is black critique is dumb."
Blacks voting 90%+ for Democrats because they believe Dems are better on black issues is unremarkable, but whites voting a tad over 60% for Republicans because they believe they are better on white issues is cause for alarm. Yeah, this is a REALLY FAIR analysis.
Listen, LET blacks keep voting 90%+ for Democrats. But then shut up and let whites vote 90%+ for Republicans. Dems can be the Black party (for blacks and people who identify with blacks for whatever reason) and Republicans the White party (for whites and people who identify with them for whatever reason). Deal?
Hello?
Anyone there?
*crickets chirping*
Kathleen Parker is a self-hating white person.
It's her right to be, I guess. The problem is she doesn't really hate herself. She hates OTHER WHITES. She is, in effect, ANTI-WHITE.
"To be fair, blacks favor a generic Democratic candidate 90-10 and Obama 95-5.
The blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he is black critique is dumb."
No it's not. Look, when you put two white candidates up against each other, about 10% of blacks will vote against the near-term economic self-interest of their tribe. They've decided that welfare and being given first dibs on jobs isn't necessarily the best thing for their people, and/or that other considerations -- defense, taxes, whatever -- are more important than that. In taking this position, they mark themselves out as traitors, and are scorned and belittled by their own people and the media, so this is clearly a principled stand, not a whim.
And yet, change the Democrat into a black man, and almost every single one of these people jumps ship. Suddenly people who bucked heavy peer pressure from everyone from family to media, cave in to it in droves. Even the likes of Powell and Rice, who have made careers of being Black Republicans, have a noticeably hard time resisting his siren call.
The fact that the other 90% were already going to vote for the Democrat doesn't mean they aren't also voting for him because he's black.
Of course, if a candidate's skin color were the only thing they cared about, then a black Republican would get 100% of their votes against a white Democrat. I assume that doesn't happen (though with districting working as it does, that scenario probably doesn't come up often). So obviously blacks do care about more than the skin color of the candidate. But they do care a LOT about it, if it can get that contrary 10% to cross the aisle. They care a lot more about it than any other ethnic group out there.
Politics in the US are already racial spoils fights. Whites with their ideological attachment to "democracy" don't want to recognize this. They are bringing a knife, actually a pillow, to a gunfight.
It's not just her, it's those in the media who are out of our sight and thus anonymous that hire people like her. She'd be gone overnight were she to violate the PC rules, and be replaced with someone else who'll spout the approved corrosive nonsense. They get people with the proper mindset and promote them. Without support people like her would be unknown nobodies.
Wait a minute ... you guys don't really believe a black person ever had three-fifths the voting power of a white person, do you? Or that they were ever formally taxed at three-fifths of what a white person was?
In the 1790s, Black males who owned property had the same voting rights as White males, in New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Maryland.
The three-fifths compromise covers apportionment of representatives and direct taxes, and refers not to free Blacks (or Blacks at all) but to slaves.
The more often you make that mistake the less the general public will want to visit iSteve comments. I believe Sailer should block comments like that.
Blacks are not important to elections anyway they are not growing that much. As someone stated immigration is the key and Florida and Texas Republican leadership really doesn't want to do much unless the Mexicans misbehaved which means they get deported once and while hence the against amnesty cities. Republicans in Florida and Texas have the Anaheim city plan have Mexicans do the service jobs that whites don't due and only do something when the Mexican gangs get into trouble. Republicans should tell Florida and Texas Republicans with some exceptions to go to hell.
"Yeah let cut Poland out, tether it to some helicopters and fly it over here."
It worked for the Democrats with Mexico.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/14/romney-lost-the-american-jewish-vote-by-picking-paul-ryan.html
"Kathleen Parker is a self-hating white person."
A self-loving white person who thinks whites should be loftier-goaled than others.
I agree with Anonymous 12:00 when he says, “There is no more a white community than there is a place called the Equator.”
The political struggle in the U.S. is between groups of whites. Government, the media, the schools, and the courts in the U.S. are dominated by one group of whites who govern undemocratically (e.g., legalizing gay marriage in the face of voter opposition) in coalition with their protected groups. The protected groups include blacks, Hispanics, other recent immigrants, gays, lesbians, women and Jews. Jews are in a class by themselves. Because they are both leaders of this dominant coalition and a protected group, they get all the benefits that are available.
This coalition says to other whites, “You better not do anything to hurt any member of these protected groups or I will put the hammer down on you.”
There is really no contest in this uneven struggle. The white Dalit group has lost every battle for the past 50 years.
"It's [the word, 'striver'] also a dirty word to most in the HBD community. To them, 'striver' suggests someone who achieved through hard work instead of raw IQ, which is contemptible to people whose only achievement in life is a 99th percentile score on some standardized multiple-choice tests when they were 17."
Who made you spokesman for the "HBD community"?
I've never read any comments on this blog or similar blogs that expressed contempt for people who may not be in the 99th percentile but who "strive" or work hard. On the contrary, what I've seen over and over again is contempt for those who are handed unearned advantages by government, academia, etc., regardless of IQ.
And your characterization of high IQ people as "those whose only acchievement in life is only achievement in life is a 99th percentile score on some standardized multiple-choice tests when they were 17" is just plain stupid. That kind of BS flies at HuffPo but not here, which you would have seen if you weren't so blinded by your agenda and your self-righteousness.
The blacks overwhelmingly vote for Obama because he is black critique is dumb.
Yes, it is dumb. More precisely, it is a dumb strawman made up by you to clog up the thread. (And check out how breathlessly Road Pizza is agreeing with you. That ought to tell you something.)
Other than Samuel L. Jackson, I know of nobody who has made this claim. Do you?
The actual claim the realists, anti-anti-White folks, rightists, etc. are making is that Blacks vote for Obama because he is a grievance-mongering, pro-affirmative-action, pro-welfare YT-basher. This is the same reason Blacks voted for Clinton, Kerry, Dukakis, and the rest of them.
(Speaking of Kerry and Dukakis, why do people keep voting for people from Massachusetts in the primaries? Is there some secret Indian prophecy predicting victory, and the subsequent habit of riding around in cars that aren't convertibles in towns that aren't Dallas, for someone from Massachusetts?)
All it would take to increase the percentage of white voters would be a concerted effort to identify and deport the illegal immigrant population in the USA, and actually make border enforcement a priority.
Good start. I would add:
Opening the doors to refugees from ANC-condoned, PAC-perpetrated violence in Southern African, and similar violence in Zimbabwe. I want every Rhodesian and Boer resettled in the US by next Wednesday. There are six houses for sale on my block. Pieter and Ian and there oh-so-rapeable wives would make fine neighbors.
Anglo-Dutch culture is not the same as American culture. On the other hand, Anglo-Dutch culture does happen to be the root on which American culture was crystallized.
Moribund American Culture killed Rhodesia and South Africa. Resurgent American Culture must therefore save the Whites of that region.
why don't all just admit it--the reason you don't support a strong welfare state is because you don't want the immigrants and nonwhites to get it. You don't want to pay for nonwhites to sit on welfare.
I ADMIT IT!
Why can't you?
I don't want immigrants to be able to live off of welfare.
I want a strong welfare state. But I don't want to pay for nonwhites and immigrants to be on welfare.
I don't want mass immigration.
I say it is OK is wages are high.
I want to tax the hell out of the rich.
I want far less warfare.
I want the race-spoils, race-guilt, anti-white, pro-multiculti propaganda regime to END.
Is it FORBIDDEN to mix parts of the GOP plank and parts of the Dem plank?
YES, it FORBIDDEN to do such.
But I just did.
Can you do the same?
Yes, it might be true that blacks don't vote strictly according to the race of the candidate, but they do vote according to what race the candidate gives the goodies to. Only Whites are stupid enough to fall for the "proposition nation" claptrap. States have been replaced by races and politicians lobby hard for the biggest piece of the pie, except for clueless Whitey.
Another unstated assumption is that whites voters brainlessly follow the herd while black voters are highly nuanced, weighing up the issues, teasing out conclusions and getting a balanced opinion.
Yet oddly, on-line, I never find this to be the case. In political threads self-identified whites vastly outnumber self-identified blacks. In many cases no one claims to be black at all and if they do its only to bash YT over slavery, bias, racism etc its not engagement with wider political issues.
Parker obviously lives in a very different world to me.
Kathleen Parker is a Nordic beauty.
There are two sides to the GOP.
One side, represented by many people here, prefer a white America and want GOP to be, more or less, a white party.
Another side of the GOP tends to be libertarian and is sincerely into color-blindness and would like all sorts of people in the party(as long as they are for freedom and individualism).
Non-whites stay away from the GOP for BOTH reasons. Blacks and Hispanics see the Racial Side of the GOP and see a bunch of white people sticking to the party for 'white racist' reasons. And indeed, white-centric Goppers really don't want blacks, browns, and yellows in the GOP. You can see those types moaning all over facebook whenever the GOP tries to appeal to non-whites.
BUT, even if the GOP were 100% libertarian and color-blind, it would still fail to attract most blacks and browns since the Democrats don't so much offer equality to non-whites but FAVORITISM. Thus, there's 'affirmative action' for blacks where blacks don't have to play by the rules like everyone else. And Hispanics are rewarded with 'affirmative immigration' where Hispanics can break American laws but still be rewarded with lots of goodies. The GOP cannot compete on those terms, and if it did, it would no longer be the GOP, either in a white-centric way or in a libertarian way.
What about Jews and Asians? Most Jews are Democrats cuz they still see whites as the main obstacle to their total power. As for Asians, many of the younger ones will, as "teachers' pets", go with the prevailing orthodoxy in colleges, and most colleges are liberal. Some Asians may be put off by 'yellow peril' tropes used by GOP, but Democrats also play the 'blame it on China' card. And let's face it, most Americans of all kind just don't like Asians. To be sure, Indian-Americans and East-Asian Americans are different in many ways?
What about Muslims and Arabs? Are there enough in America to make a difference in a few states, like Cubans in Florida? I don't know. Arabs and Muslims must be pissed with the Democratic party for being run by Jews, but then GOP bashes Muslims even harder out of Evangelical Christianism and sucking-up-to-Zionism-ism.
All in all, GOP is implicitly white like cities such as Portland and Seattle, which makes it all the more ironic. Liberals in whitopia cities hate the GOP for its 'white racism', but both operate by a similar logic. They suppress explicit whiteness and favor implicit whiteness.
In an odd way, many white liberals reject the GOP because it's not 'white' enough. There is the racial definition of whiteness, which white liberals reject, but there is also the class/cultural definition of whiteness--as in SWPL--, and one of the hallmarks of being a 'cool and hip white person' today is being for 'gay marriage'. But, white conservative views on 'gay marriage' are more in tune with views held by blacks and Hispanics. So, even though white liberals racially ally themselves with blacks and Hispanics, they 'racially' reject white conservatives because the latter haven't evolved fully into 'white people'(of the SWPL variety). To many white liberals, white conservatives are not 'culturally white' enough. I can't imagine a black community saying a business would be unwelcome because its owners oppose 'gay marriage'. But the white/Jewish part of Chicago seems to think so. Chick-Fil-A isn't 'white' enough.
"NZ is almost as PC as America, but after reading the article and the comments I'm actually stunned. The US seems to be suffering from some kind of mass psychosis."
Looking at history, can you think of another group of people with significant Saxon heritage that similarly suffered mass psychosis?
When this insanity eventually becomes our downfall, who will again erect the museums dedicated to never doing it again?
"Imagine if a group like Irish-Americans consistently voted 95% Republican, and that went up to 99% when someone with Irish heritage was running."
It's 90 and 95%.
Parker and her ilk redole of T.S. Eliot's penetrating timeless wisdom:
"This is the way the world ends: Not with a bang but a whimper."
Off topic slightly but there isn't a chance in the world IMO that Piyush and Nimrata would be in their respective positions within the R-party if they had kept the religion of their respective parents.
Right. Becoming Christian and taking American first names undoubtedly helped them a lot. Now, instead of being Indian invaders, they're now dusky white people.
For Hispanics like Sandoval and Martinez in the Southwest it's even easier.
Imagine if a group like Irish-Americans consistently voted 95% Republican, and that went up to 99% when someone with Irish heritage was running.
Would anyone write article like this, criticizing the Democrats for not doing more to "reach out" to the Irish? Would anyone insist that the Irish were not a monolithic block, but were somehow pushed into voting as a block by the unfriendly antics of the Democrats?
Or would the articles be about what's wrong with the Irish, why are they so blind and short-sighted, and why can't they put patriotism above their ethnicity?
No need to mention the Irish. Southern whites are almost like that already. That's why the GOP keeps winning in states like TX and MS despite being only about half white.
Southern whites, of course, are the #1 butt of jokes in the United States.
Yeah let cut Poland out, tether it to some helicopters and fly it over here.
Not a bad idea. Poles actually know what commies are like, unlike American SWPLs who have a collective crush on Obama.
We have maybe 100% of blacks voting for Obama and against Romney and yet we still have people pretending the black vote is not racially biased and racially motivated!
But ANY White folks who don't vote for the Black Baby Jesus are sinful racist dogs being whistled straight to eternal damnation.
Other than Samuel L. Jackson, I know of nobody who has made this claim. Do you?
Does Obamma is going to pay my mortgage and gas count?
Southern Whites are good in NC, Sc, or Alabama but bad in Florida or Texas. Texas is the illegal immigrant fuel train for the south. There are good guys like Lamar Smith but bad guys like George W Bush or Rick Perry. No wonder a white in the Midwest that disliked illegal immigration as well can't trust the Republicans.
Even so, the party is undeniably and overwhelmingly white, and minorities [sic] (and increasingly women) don’t feel at home there....
The Republican voting base consists of relatively productive people.
The Democratic voting base consists of relatively non-productive people and those who have been duped into putting non-productive people's interests ahead of their own.
Blacks will never be relatively productive, and they will never vote for a party that does not promise to transfer stuff from the productive to themselves.
It's that simple, and it cannot be changed.
"And yet, change the Democrat into a black man, and almost every single one of these people jumps ship"
Come on, Bro, you have a 150+ IQ, you're really not struggling with the difference between 90-10 and 95-5 are you?
"No need to mention the Irish. Southern whites are almost like that already. That's why the GOP keeps winning in states like TX and MS despite being only about half white."
Obama is polling at 0% among Southern whites? I find that unlikely.
"
Of course, if a candidate's skin color were the only thing they cared about, then a black Republican would get 100% of their votes against a white Democrat. I assume that doesn't happen"
Good assumption, Sport...
"Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, pro football great Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, and Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele – all Republicans – banked heavily on getting black voter support. In fact, none of the three black Republicans came anywhere close to getting a majority of the black vote. This was not an aberration.
Blacks have even backed white Democratic incumbents against black challengers in Democratic primaries. The issue for them was the real and perceived notion that the incumbent had done and would continue to do a better job in improving education, getting increased funding for job programs, and neighborhood services."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1016/p09s01-coop.html
I wonder... how many working class, lower-middle class, and poor whites are supporting Obama for ideological reasons and how many are supporting Obama for purely economic reasons(while hating Obama's guts in everything else)?
Everytime the GOP talks about more tax cuts for the rich, I wanna puke.
"Your grade-school tantrums are a constant source of amusement. Oh, middle-aged white guys."
Yeah, we whites should just get our own country and not burden anyone else. Won't it be great when all the whites are gone? It will be just like Africa, India, China. Those lovely bastions of human rights and prosperity. Totally free of violence, hate, and discrimination.
In 2006, Republicans Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann, and Michael Steele won 13%, 20% and 23% of the black vote, respectively, against white Democrats, in House of Rep. races:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3069.shtml
"The issue for them was the real and perceived notion that the incumbent had done and would continue to do a better job in improving education, getting increased funding for job programs, and neighborhood services."
Perceived not necessarily real. Best educational outcomes for blacks are Massachusetts and Texas. Texas also leads the nation in blacks elected to statewide office. You won't see that in blue states. To be elected to statewide office, the whole state has to vote for you, not just your little gerrymandered districts. White libs might vote for a special black like Obama, but they prefer their own white lib reps who "understand" their needs. Wink, wink.
" The issue for them was the real and perceived notion that the incumbent had done and would continue to do a better job in improving education, getting increased funding for job programs, and neighborhood services."
You left out affirmative action, section 8, Medicaid, welfare, WIC, etc. How about suppport for MLK day?
I'm bet black support correlates more with these issues. Just a guess, I'm not a statistician.
If offered Solomon's choice, NAMs would vote to split the baby.
When Blacks or other favored groups vote for Dems they are voting to give themselves a raise. The black sense of entitlement is as boundless as one could imagine. Imagine paying $100 a month to rent a $500,000 home (thanks, section 8). Imagine a magic card that pays for all your food (thanks, EBT). Imagine having a job putting letters in a box for $80,000 a year (thanks, USPS). Imagine having a job where you can never be fired no matter how often you call in sick, come in late, or exhibit complete incompetence (thanks, lawfare).
The GOP can't compete without being an exact replica of Dems, currently they are almost identical.
Truth's argument also implies that White Repubs vote for black Republican candidates such as Allen West or Lynn Swann. Those white voters are colorblind. How nice.
That statement sums up their world-view very nicely. It must be horrible to look in the mirror each day and consider yourself icky and inferior on account of your light skin.
Don't take hypocrites at face value (ha!). It's not their enlightened skin they hate. It's yours.
Truth those were two governor races and one senate race. Only one of which was close.
I guess you would give the Republicans credit for turning the RNC over to Steele then right?
I've never read any comments on this blog or similar blogs that expressed contempt for people who may not be in the 99th percentile but who "strive" or work hard
Then you need to read a little more widely in the HBD-sphere. "Striver" is commonly used as an insult and refers to someone of <130IQ who tries to make up for it by working really hard in his profession. It's the office equivalent of a "grind".
BTW, what is the DNC doing to make itself more attractive to pro-lifers, regular church goers, gun owners, etc? Oh wait, they don't count.
Maybe blacks vote for Democratic candidates because blacks, unlike whites, aren't stupid enough to listen to the plutocrats and theocrats who own the Republican party.
Does Romney stand for anything except enriching his own tiny social class and endless war for Israel? Isn't the real mystery why white people would vote for him?
Whether blacks are polling at 0% for Romney because he's not black enough or because he's not liberal enough is really a red herring. The truth is that for most, it's both. They wouldn't vote for him if he were black, and they wouldn't vote for him if he were (more) liberal, because they already have both in Obama.
Blacks Will. Not. Vote for Romney. The sooner his campaign accepts that, and stops throwing good money and effort after bad trying to win votes that can't be won, the better. It's not because blacks see him as any worse than other Republicans; it's whom he's running against. He can't be blacker or more liberal than Obama, and it would take both to get a significant number of their votes.
So articles like this are a trap. If black voters don't care about color, then that 10% that Republicans normally get is still in play, and Romney just has to figure out how to appeal to them. More NAACP appearances; drop tough talk on welfare; soften the party's stance on AA? There has to be some angle that he just hasn't pandered hard enough on. In the meantime, tacking left loses him core voters.
And it's worse than in a normal election where pandering *might* be able to bump his black vote from 10% up to 12% (in a losing effort), earning him praise from the MSM for being less racist than other Republican candidates. He might lose 5 white votes for every black one he gained, but at least he'd get invited to some beltway parties. In this election, he's going to get 0% of the black vote, period, and the media is going to savage him for it (especially if he wins). That's guaranteed. If he didn't want to accept that, he shouldn't have run against a black president. Any white or conservative votes that he loses by pandering to the left won't be balanced by black votes *or* media acclaim; they'll simply be lost.
"Romney, alas, leads whites".
One could just as easily say, "Obama, alas, leads blacks".
But nobody will.
Gazing out on the pale continent of the Republican National Convention ... Where are the blacks?
Running from even a glimmer of responsibility in any shape or form whatsoever?
But that was before the GOP went south, banished its centrists and embraced social conservatives in a no-exit marriage.
Dumb skirt should ask southerners about "no-exit marriages" some time, she'd get an earful.
Even so, the party is undeniably and overwhelmingly white, and minorities (and increasingly women) don’t feel at home there. ...
...because they all hate anything even remotely resembling fair play or responsibility.
African Americans are not a monolithic group, obviously, and many likely would find comfort in the promises of smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, school choice and so on that Mitt Romney put on the table Thursday night.
"Many," as in, enough to fill a stadium, maybe.
Zero, zip, nothing. Not even some rebellious youth voting against their parents. Romney should have preached how much he admired black political unity and that whites should imitate them as an expression of admiration.
I keep waiting for White pols to do this. Buncha sissies. How hard is it to say: "I LLLLLOOOOOOOVEEE Israel. That's why I want to make our immigration policy like theirs, and build a nice big wall" or, "I LLLLLLOOOOOOOOVEEE blacks, that's why I want to create a White political machine just like the black one," etc.
The reason there are so few blacks in the Republican party is that blacks understand that the Democrats are the party of affirmative action, the party that can be reliably counted upon to favor blacks over whites whenever there is a conflict of interest between the two. What can the Republicans possibly offer that would match that?
I would say "self-respect," but the average black dude could go on a three-state rape-homicide spree without taking a dent in that department. I got nothin' here.
Republicans in Florida and Texas have the Anaheim city plan have Mexicans do the service jobs that whites don't due
How did those jobs ever get done before the brown wave of salvation?
No need to mention the Irish. Southern whites are almost like that already. That's why the GOP keeps winning in states like TX and MS despite being only about half white.
Irish-Americans are like 55 or 60 percent Republican, or in that neighborhood, IIRC. Claiming they're 90 or 95 percent is jackassery.
"I guess you would give the Republicans credit for turning the RNC over to Steele then right?"
They didn't turn anything over to anyone; they did what Dems did with Barry, they held an election and voted in what they thought was their best self-interest.
The interesting thing about the RNC chairman election was that, if I remember correctly, 4 of the 5 candidates were black.
Forget about the Republican party's supposed pandering to white men; the best thing they could do for white men, and for white women, and for the country as a whole, would be to stop pandering to white women.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508
This Parker broad is really quite an imbecile.
Texas its the economics and social issues and the nice white sububurbs taht usually vote Republican,places like Austin are similar to Portland. Hispanics are growing which means that old Texas could become the next New Mexico. Blacks are not growing that much so Republicans can hold on to those states up to 2050 versus at the most 2030 for Texas. Rice University predicts Texas white population in 2050 in the schools is only 15 percent same as California,.
It's her right to be, I guess. The problem is she doesn't really hate herself. She hates OTHER WHITES. She is, in effect, ANTI-WHITE.
The self-hating White person is just a riff on the Jewish term "self-hating Jew", the sort of nomenclature I thought we might adopt. It's an effective put down, because inherent in the terminology is that it's silly to hate oneself, and it's descriptive. Probably more effective than just calling her anti-White, because while it describes her politics it doesn't describe her own treacherous stupidity.
Most so-called self-hating Jews probably do not hate themselves either, but the epithet is effective.
Is it really middle aged guys on here? I'm younger than middle aged (30s), and I was in my twenties when I first turned WNish. I would think it's mostly 20-40 year olds here.
stari_momak, there is a pathology of Whites being Anti-White, which I don't understand, but which certainly exists. Some of it may go back to the old religious desire to self-flagellate. It is especially appealing when the person whipped is not you, but some other group of Whites (say, Southerners)
" The issue for them was the real and perceived notion that the incumbent had done and would continue to do a better job in improving education, getting increased funding for job programs, and neighborhood services."
You left out affirmative action, section 8, Medicaid, welfare, WIC, etc. How about suppport for MLK day?
Uh, what? Those are not funding for jobs programs, better education or neighborhood services.
I kicked it through the goal posts, and like the typical cheater, you want to say that the goal was elsewhere.
"To be fair, blacks favor a generic Democratic candidate 90-10 and Obama 95-5."
I've always been curious about this figure, the 90/10 Dem to Repub breakdown in black voting patterns.
For someone like me from outside the US, could you explain who these 10% of black voters are?
Does is skew higher to black men, or maybe black women? I imagine if you are black evangelical chrisitan you might be motivated to vote Republican in solidarity with other such christians. And like someone else mentioned, the middle to upper middle class blacks vote in even higher proportions for Dems, meaning that a lower class/worker stiff black is more likely to vote Repub?
"Too bad. I really liked her book Save the Males but it turns out she's just another screw-whitey bigot. If she really matched the anti-Marxist persona she portrayed in Save the Males I'm sure the Washington "Mark Felt Said it So it is God's Truth" Post would never publish her. "
She has a son, quelle surprise!
" Anonymous said...
" The issue for them was the real and perceived notion that the incumbent had done and would continue to do a better job in improving education, getting increased funding for job programs, and neighborhood services."
You left out affirmative action, section 8, Medicaid, welfare, WIC, etc. How about suppport for MLK day?
Uh, what? Those are not funding for jobs programs, better education or neighborhood services.
I kicked it through the goal posts, and like the typical cheater, you want to say that the goal was elsewhere."
Uncle. You win. I guess you did mean those programs (are there any other particulars you might have excluded?), but you kept the sun off them with a beautiful umbrella of euphemisms.
Someone much smarter than me once said "a euphemism is a euphemism for a lie."
For someone like me from outside the US, could you explain who these 10% of black voters are?
Let's see. Black IQ average is 85, so somewhere down around an IQ of 75 or below, an increasing number of voters vote incorrectly.
I'm guessing the rest of this 10% have been in the military, or are wealthy.
"And like someone else mentioned, the middle to upper middle class blacks vote in even higher proportions for Dems, meaning that a lower class/worker stiff black is more likely to vote Repub?"
Understand the voting dichotomy in the US: the leftist party, the Democrats, gets the far extremes of the bell curve - the richest and best educated, and the poorest and worst educated. The Republicans get the middle.
So the blacks voting for Republicans (I actually met one once, somewhere) are probably solidly middle class, no more or less. They are probably also disproportionately either in the private sector or the military, and thus in cultures that skew conservative. In America a hugely disproportionate share of employed blacks work for the government.
The self-hating White person is just a riff on the Jewish term "self-hating Jew", the sort of nomenclature I thought we might adopt. It's an effective put down, because inherent in the terminology is that it's silly to hate oneself, and it's descriptive. Probably more effective than just calling her anti-White, because while it describes her politics it doesn't describe her own treacherous stupidity.
Most so-called self-hating Jews probably do not hate themselves either, but the epithet is effective.
It works for Jews, but it won't work for whites.
Criticizing Jews is considered benighted. Criticizing whites is considered enlightened.
Jews are allowed to care for their group interests. Whites are supposed to pretend they don't have group interests.
Given that, how are you going to shame a Kathleen Parker by calling her a self-hating white? She may very well tell you she's proud to be one (proud to stand against hatred and racism and blah blah blah).
Calling them anti-white is worlds more effective. Even if they don't change, it alerts other people to the fact that anti-whitism is a reality and that it merits attention.
Don't take hypocrites at face value (ha!). It's not their enlightened skin they hate. It's yours.
Some white liberals are genuinely and sincerely race-blind, but I think of people like this Kathleen Parker as "liberal white supremacists." Though they'd never admit it, deep down they definitely feel whites are superior. That's why they're horrified when some whites are frank about how they feel. "Oh God, how utterly horrible. Those poor people, just think how hurt they must be! Wicked, wicked white racists!" This attitude also explains their totally irrational confidence that all will be well, I think.
Truth, Five percent is half of the talented tenth.
Gilbert P.
Silver said
"Some white liberals are genuinely and sincerely race-blind, but I think of people like this Kathleen Parker as "liberal white supremacists." Though they'd never admit it, deep down they definitely feel whites are superior. That's why they're horrified when some whites are frank about how they feel. "Oh God, how utterly horrible. Those poor people, just think how hurt they must be! Wicked, wicked white racists!" This attitude also explains their totally irrational confidence that all will be well, I think."
Yes, its a form of noblesse oblige (the nobility must make sacrifices for the good of less well off) taken to an extreme, or as Steve as discussed it a form of status hopping.
At the root of it with many is an innate sense of White superiority hence the belief that all will turn out well in the end. With others it is probably just the aping of thougts and beliefs which they have learned are associated with high status by the MSM and the PTB.
I suppose as a "display" historically you would have to be fairly powerful to advocate policies that will harm your own group (or dumb).
Look how noble and powerful I am ..I am in favor of policies that handidicap and discriminate against my own group.
Analogies to potlatch ceremonies of the Native Americans (giving gifts ... the more you give the higher your status) and Christian marytrdon (sacrificing for the cause) themes as analogies also come to mind.
Probably will not end well for Whites as a group.
I am not sure what could put a stop to this status mongering by White elites in the beltway ...
probabaly nothing short but the extermination of the White race I suppose.
Somehow they need to be shamed for being so Anti-White, but I am not sure how that could be done until Whites are completely powerless and at the mercy of the non-Whites.
Any ideas? Using the term Anti-White to describe attitudes and polcies I think is a start in the right direction I suppose.
you need to read a little more widely in the HBD-sphere. "Striver" is commonly used as an insult
Just go away, Yan Shen.
Given that, how are you going to shame a Kathleen Parker by calling her a self-hating white? She may very well tell you she's proud to be one (proud to stand against hatred and racism and blah blah blah).
The term "self-hating white" indicates she's not comfortable in her own skin, and yet too hypocritical to commit suicide. The term by itself suggests that something is not quite right about her, that she has mental "issues" and is confused. I think even if someone like Parker is confronted with the term and argues back, on the inside it starts to sow a seed of doubt (e.g. should I really hate my kind? Do I hate myself? Does what I believe make sense?)
The term also indicates that she's about to get shunned or written off by the rest of her kind, that she may be marginalized, as in "just another (stupid) self-hating white".
The term "anti-White" for a white person (as opposed to non-Whites) can be countered with "I'm white, how could I possibly be anti-White? That's just stupid."
I like both terms to be honest, and would be glad to see them get more currency. But I like the sort of apoplexy that someone might get into trying to rationalize why they either don't hate themselves (but evidently do, otherwise why were they called that to begin with), or that hating themselves is logical (which is silly IMO).
If you want to learn from experts at persuasion, study Jews. There's a reason they refer to critical outsiders as "anti-Semitic" and critical insiders as "self-hating Jews".
"Maybe blacks vote for Democratic candidates because blacks, unlike whites, aren't stupid enough to listen to the plutocrats and theocrats who own the Republican party.",
You mean like the Obama supporter who thought her Democratic candidate would pay her gas and grocery bills?
"Does Romney stand for anything except enriching his own tiny social class and endless war for Israel?"
Yes. He's the not-Obama candidate and that's good enough for a lot of voters, if the polls are any indication.
"Isn't the real mystery why white people would vote for him?"
No, the real mystery is why you would drag yourself away from conversing with the Lucky Charms leprechaun and clapping for Tinker Bell to post this comment. Thanks for caring and sharing but I really think we'll do just fine without any more contributions from you.
"Look how noble and powerful I am ..I am in favor of policies that handidicap and discriminate against my own group."
Yes, but I also think a large part of it is that they do not see
the harmful effects on the White lower and middle classes (because they live in gated communities or something like them) ... or don't care... or just think it is sour grapes from losers ... or just "racist" to think that way (to care about other members of your race like just about every other group does) ...
They don't see the towns destroyed by Section 8 low income housing, the jobs, college admissions, or postions not obtained by White males because of their skin color or gender, wages destroyed for many working class Whites by flooding the country with immigrants..
There was a WSJ article not to long go called importing poverty that dicussed the fact that almost 50% of new immigrants end up on welfare of some sort.... How is that helping in this country?
Sigh ... someone needs to do a documentary on poor, working, and middle class Whites and have these issues discussed. Maybe that would help.
I wonder if there is a special place in Hell for the Chris Matthews of the world... I hope so.
Of course White women, for the moment, beneift from the racial spoils system via gender AA... but I suspect they will be thrown over at some point by the Democratic party when they are no longer useful or needed to ram through polcies that at the moment hurt primarily White males the most (White females less because of gender AA).
"I want a strong welfare state"
Why?
"Given that, how are you going to shame a Kathleen Parker by calling her a self-hating white? She may very well tell you she's proud to be one (proud to stand against hatred and racism and blah blah blah).
"Calling them anti-white is worlds more effective. Even if they don't change, it alerts other people to the fact that anti-whitism is a reality and that it merits attention."
It might be more effective to start calling such people as Ms Parker "anti-modernists" or "anti-modernity" when it's clear the advancement of mankind has been brought about by the achievements of white peoples who derive from the European continent.
Calling them anti-white is worlds more effective. Even if they don't change, it alerts other people to the fact that anti-whitism is a reality and that it merits attention.
I prefer "racist." That's what she is, and that's what'll sting the most if you say it to her face. It seems like people on our side of the fence are very reluctant to use this word, but I don't quite understand why.
Some white liberals are genuinely and sincerely race-blind, but I think of people like this Kathleen Parker as "liberal white supremacists."
Hey, I've finally got someone using it! :)
Yep. There are tons of LWS out there. They're characterized by their implicit belief that Whites are invulnerable to everything, that their institutions cannot be destroyed or subverted or undermined, that blacks should be handled somewhat like retards (okay to praise, but not to criticize), that Whites, as the eternal and immutable better, must always be the one to take the high road and be the bigger man, etc.
It's yet another example of how Libtards pervert everything to their own twisted ends, via speech (and thus thought) control.
Any ideas? Using the term Anti-White to describe attitudes and polcies I think is a start in the right direction I suppose.
It's a step in the right direction for a couple of reasons, both of them important.
For starters, it's actually that: an actual start. You know, if try to zip your jacket up but you don't start at the bottom where the "latch" (if that's the word) is located, you can run the zipper up and down all day long but you won't be zipping (or unzipping) anything. But if you connect the zipper at the latch, then you're in business, and you can zip up as far as you want.
White activists have lamented for a long, long time that nothing they've tried has really worked, but I'd say they've been zipping like crazy but never managed to connect the zipper at the bottom. They've never really succeeded in gaining any serious sort of traction because their ideas and their facts are just too much for people; they've never really made an effort to begin where the masses are at, and so their ideas have tended to simply pass the masses by.
Saying that is a bit unfair, I know, because white activists have done a LOT of very good work. (Some very poor work, too, but that doesn't negate the fact of the good work that exists.) For instance, over at Unz.org (yes, that Unz, our dear friend Ron Unz) you can access an essay from The Occidental Quarterly June 2002 edition by Richard McCulloch, a rebuttal to objections raised to an earlier essay of his in that same publication. I've read that essay many times and I don't think it's possible to seriously critique it any way: not for its facts, not for its logic, not for its ethics. (And this praise is coming from someone (ie me) who would not only be expected to object but who routinely objects to WN positions.) But there it languishes, mostly unread and mostly unappreciated, and if nothing changes, probably always will.
The second reason is that 'anti-white' is open-ended as well as restrained. That may sound like a contradiction, so I'll explain. Anti-racism is negative; it tells us what not to do. As long as you don't do racism you're free to do what you please. Racism (in the positive sense, or "racialism" or whatever euphemism), on the other hand, is positive; it requires to do something or to stand for something, for some ideal or for some state of affairs. But what? No one really knows. There are plenty of ideas out there but they generate vastly more controversy than they do agreement. 'Anti-white' works like anti-racist/racist; it simply requires behaviors and policies to not be anti-white. This is much simpler and much harder to disagree with.
It's also "restrained." A genuine problem with pro-white activism, especially in it's more forceful form, WN, is its tendency to excite passions well beyond what is ethically warranted, desirable, or attractive. Whites, particularly less educated whites, who describe themselves as "awakened" not only decide to care for their racial interests they not uncommonly go kinda berserk. Their senses become flooded by a torrent of possibilities and fears that they struggle to make sense of. Using 'anti-white' keeps this unfortunate tendency in check, and, I argue, is thus capable of winning support -- widespread and enthusiastic support -- from a vastly greater segment of society than traditional, hate-em-all-style WN. After all, at bottom, whatever else it is, it's always about a bit of goddam racial fairness, even if nothing else. VERY hard to argue against that with a straight face.
Being white is awful. People call you a racist! It's hard and nobody understands. Its so much better being non-white, despite not having as much money or education or safety or health or life expectancy. Being called racist is the worst thing imaginable!
"Its so much better being non-white, despite not having as much money or education or safety or health or life expectancy.
But Asian-Americans do better on all those metrics - ever single damn one - despite being "non-white." Since Asians and Jews do better than average despite being in the minority, you'd almost think that the reason "non-white" Hispanics and blacks do worse has nothing to do with being "non-white" or minorities, and everything to do with something else.
"Self-hating white" is an excellent term. It identifies the traitors - and enforces a kind of group discipline. Of course getting traditional conservatives to use any kind of effective political rhetoric is impossible, since they really just want to kvetch & play the noble loser. And a lot of them are just plain dumb.
"Imagine if a group like Irish-Americans consistently voted 95% Republican"
I´m willing to bet the Irish went close to 100% for Kennedy.
Shoot, my Irish-American grandma broke down in tears when she found out he died. I can´t imagine her doing that for a non-coethnic...
Though I am still 100 % Irish-american, I am no fan of JFK, but I can´t imagine too many other Irish feeling the same way...
Of course the Irish are a small subgroup of whites, while all of blacks go in one direction.
It might be more effective to start calling such people as Ms Parker "anti-modernists" or "anti-modernity" when it's clear the advancement of mankind has been brought about by the achievements of white peoples who derive from the European continent.
Look, first and foremost, we're in the propaganda business, not the accuracy business. It may be perfectly accurate to call them "anti-modernists." But I'm interested in the EFFECT calling them that has, not the accuracy of the statement. The effect, in my judgment, would be confusion and/or disinterest. Anti-modern's not even necessarily a bad thing -- plenty of people are against the excesses of modernity (car, noise, pollution, war machines etc). I don't know how you could even begin to compare that to the effect of anti-white, which is immediately understandable, hard-hitting, arresting and provokes apologetics. The only people who are going to admit to being anti-white are those you WANT to admit it, to make their position clear, so that it's no longer invisible, so that it's out there for all to see and to judge.
Svigor,
I prefer "racist." That's what she is, and that's what'll sting the most if you say it to her face. It seems like people on our side of the fence are very reluctant to use this word, but I don't quite understand why.
'Racist' is totally lacking in novelty, so it can't compete with anti-white even if it did have the effect you claim for it. I doubt it has that effect, though, or at least I doubt that it's as strong as that of 'anti-white.' Also, anti-white is better for strangers, bystanders, onlookers, eavesdroppers and the uninitiated, whereas 'racist' used in this sense can be confusing (remember, the masses are asses).
Hey, I've finally got someone using it! :)
Hmm, I thought I'd come up with than independently.
"Self-hating white" is an excellent term. It identifies the traitors - and enforces a kind of group discipline.
It WOULD enforce a kind of group discipline if the group identification existed in the first place. That's why it works so well with Jews, because they already have the group cohesion. "Self-hating Jew" helps maintain it. But remember, Jews have anti-semite, which is their real weapon, and that's what whites need and what 'anti-white' provides.
And while I am at it, "Well, whites are people too, ya know" is the simplest justification if you ever find yourself have to explain your use of "anti-white." That's a potent one-two punch, pal. No way is "self-hating white" that good, get real. (It may yet have its uses, but no way should it be your go-to move.)
The dizzying array of pathologies that Matthew first lists could be criticized because some go hand-in-hand. That is, one could be expected to flow from another.
Here, adding tendencies that can’t as easily be blamed on poverty becomes useful. Such traits would include everything from littering to pet cruelty.
Just go away, Yan Shen.
I'm not Yan Shen and, no, I'm not going away.
Whites, particularly less educated whites, who describe themselves as "awakened" not only decide to care for their racial interests they not uncommonly go kinda berserk. Their senses become flooded by a torrent of possibilities and fears that they struggle to make sense of.
"To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness."
It might be more effective to start calling such people as Ms Parker "anti-modernists" or "anti-modernity" when it's clear the advancement of mankind has been brought about by the achievements of white peoples who derive from the European continent.
Well, then, why not say what you really mean -- which is that they are misanthropes?
Silver speaks wisely in this thread.
Mediterraneans know how to do populism.
"Look how noble and powerful I am ..I am in favor of policies that handidicap and discriminate against my own group."
Aren't you describing working-class white Republicans?
"Just go away, Yan Shen.
I'm not Yan Shen and, no, I'm not going away."
First constitutional amendment, Sport; Right to Free Association.
School vouchers are a non-starter in appealing to blacks. Too many blacks work for the government or have a relative that works for the government.
I once saw a statistic [maybe back during the Reagan administration? maybe in Commentary Magazine?] which held that, of employed blacks, some huge majority [upwards of 75%?] were employed by government in some form [local, state, federal domestic, federal military, etc].
Does anyone know what the real number is now?
Are we anywhere near the point where more than half of employed blacks are employed in the private sector?
Post a Comment