Blacks are polling 95-1 for Obama, but a black commentator at CNN.com assures us: Black vote isn’t monolithic. Which sounds about as plausible as Ian Jobling’s assertion that jews aren’t ethnocentric.
The explanation for any apparent bias can presumably be found only in the minds of hate-filled racist Whites. That’s the way Harold Meyerson sees it. Blacks flock to Obama and somehow he blames it on deracinated Republicans.
Brace yourselves. For the forseeable future any criticism of Obama will be called racism. His smallest failures will be blamed on racism. His smallest successes will be proclaimed as great triumphs over racism. What remains of the constitution will be shredded in the name of halting the scourge of racism. Racism will ruin the economy, kill our soldiers, and make our children stupid. AIDS and cancer will be found to be caused, in part, by racism.
As Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson recently said, “black people don’t vote for candidates just because they are black. If Clarence Thomas ran for president, he would get five black votes.”
This is like saying, “jewish people don’t vote for candidates just because they are jews. If Israel Shamir ran for president of israel, he would get five jewish votes.” Shamir would lose for the same reason as David Duke. Because jews are intensely aware of and motivated by their collective interests, not because they aren’t.
Likewise with blacks. Colin Powell would be a fairer comparison to McCain, both being RINOs, but it’s not hard to imagine even Clarence “Uncle” Thomas getting more black votes than any White opponent he faced. Blacks would certainly cross party lines to vote for any black Republican over any White Democrat, just as they are crossing the other way in this election. The black votes Thomas wouldn’t get would be those who don’t trust him because he thinks and acts too White. Thomas’ ratio of black votes would only differ from Obama’s in quantity, not quality.
Whites had a similar choice with Clinton vs Obama and now with McCain vs Obama. In both cases White-haters denounce us as racists because we don’t vote 95-1 against the White candidate. The double standard is so blatant that even deracinated Whites are beginning to notice. When they start asking questions some of them are going to find out that not only are they “racists”, they’re “anti-semites” too. Uh oh.
Rather than trying to deny our “insane hate” I think more Whites will, like me, recognize such ridiculous rhetoric as a reflection of our critics’ ethnocentric character, not our own. These Whites will grow a shell and their heretofore reflexive apologetic reaction to accusations of “racism” and “anti-semitism” will disappear.
(Image by INCOGMAN.)
Myerson, who thinks being white is innately un-american, and ‘disgustingly so,’ is a Jew.
This of course proves how anti-authoritarian Jews are, and how everything he says must be understood from the viewpoint that white nazi racists drove him to it, and that nothing jews ever do is their fault and jews are never, ever in the wrong across all history and time.
Rather than trying to deny our “insane hate” I think more Whites will, like me, recognize such ridiculous rhetoric as a reflection of our critics’ ethnocentric character, not our own. These Whites will grow a shell and their heretofore reflexive apologetic reaction to accusations of “racism” and “anti-semitism” will disappear.
Question: does that you’ll reflexively abide by preposterous rhetoric like the foregoing from ‘diamed’?
I don’t think that’s in your long-term interests. Over the short-term it may pay dividends, and even be instrumental in achieving separation. Liberalism has, however, established certain facts, and whatever means, in a fit of rage, you might employ to suppress or extirpate them risk backfiring on you in the distant future, just as the actions of your forefathers contribute to your plight today.
More head, less heart is usually better than the reverse, but especially when one is royally pissed, difficult though it is.
Blacks would certainly cross party lines to vote for any black Republican over any White Democrat…
They didn’t cross for Lyn Swann, however, that appears to reaffirm the belief, aparently widely held (D/L. Hughley) that Republicans are Nazis and that guys like Swann & Christy are just “Toms”.
silver,
Diamed mocks the canonical anti-anti-semitic line – which is that every conflict between jews and non-jews is the non-jews’ fault, because we’re insane.
You can find examples of this line virtually anywhere you find the use of the term “anti-semitism”. You can find it in the the thoughts of ostensibly pro-“white” anti-anti-semites such as Auster and Jobling.
What about this observations is preposterous?
It seems to me to be one of the more stark and demonstrably true observations anyone on my side can make. If you object because you are repulsed by it, or because you think others will be, and you want it silenced, as you seem to be suggesting, then this only suggests to me that you and your fellow repulsees are not on my side.
I’m curious which certain established facts of liberalism you think it unwise to challenge. Could you be more specific?
Valid point Desmond.
The stats you provide show 87-13, which corresponds roughly to their historic voting on party lines:
For more than 40 years, African-Americans have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for president, by margins of up to 9-to-1.
I’m curious what PA’s R-D breakdown of blacks is. (I looked a bit but couldn’t find it.) If it’s 90-10 then 3% did cross party lines to vote for Swan. Stats on indy blacks would also be interesting.
For some strange reason news reports that make mountains out of White breakdowns often make molehills out of (or omit entirely) the black breakdowns.
This shows countrywide there is a 10-to-1 ratio of black Ds to black Rs, with roughly 30% indy (between 2000 and 2004).
For the calculator-challenged the result in Swann’s race was only 6.7(D)-to-1(R). Unless the PA breakdown differs significantly from blacks’ roughly 10(D)-to-1(R) US average, or that ratio has changed dramatically since 2004, this means that many more than 5 PA blacks crossed political lines to vote their race – or that an overwhelming ratio of indys voted R – or both.
Blackwell apparently did better in Ohio with black voters.
It appears, according to the CNN exit poll, Dems went 90/10 for Rendell and Indies 68/32 Rendell. The urban vote (disproportionately black?) went 90/10 Rendell. Rural areas (mostly white?) went 53/47 Swann.
Yes, blacks only voted 20-77 against Blackwell, which is 3.85(D)-1(R). Ie, a whole lotta black democrats voted for the black republican.
We could crunch the numbers on every black-White matchup over the last several decades and find blacks generally crossing party lines (both ways) to vote their race.
Most people won’t even argue that point, they just claim it’s justified because it’s a reaction to….White racism.
The question every White should be asking is: why is the media constantly criticizing White voters, and only White voters, for being “racist”?
This apparently is what destroyed the Clinton campaign. She expected some crossover, to Obama, probably along the lines of the Blackwell turnout. However, the tsunami of blacks that washed up on Obama’s shore took her entirely by surprise. After all, WJC was the ‘first’ black President.
Not that it matters. All three candidates are intent on punishing White America for its sins. MacDonald reviewed American Transcendentalism, A History
by Philip F. Gura. He called it AMERICAN TRANSCENDENTALISM:
AN INDIGENOUS CULTURE OF CRITIQUE
It explains why American Wasp leadership fell so easily to the Jewish challenge in the 20th century.
The Transcendentalist belief that the mind is creative and does not merely respond to external facts is quite accurate in light of modern psychological research.
In modern terms, the Transcendentalists were essentially arguing that whatever “the animal wants of man” (to quote Emerson), humans are able to imagine an ideal world and exert effective psychological control over their ethnocentrism. They are even able to suppress desires for territory and descendants that permeate human history and formed an important part of the ideology of the Old Testament—a book that certainly had a huge influence on the original Puritan vision of the New Jerusalem.
Like the Puritans, the Transcendentalists would have doubtlessly acknowledged that some people have difficulty controlling these ten-dencies. But this is not really a problem, because these people can be forced. The New Jerusalem can become a reality if people are willing to use the state to enforce group norms of thought and behavior. In-deed, there are increasingly strong controls on thought crimes against the multicultural New Jerusalem throughout the West.
The main difference between the Puritan New Jerusalem and the present multicultural one is that the latter will lead to the demise of the very white people who are the mainstays of the current multicul-tural Zeitgeist. Unlike the Puritan New Jerusalem, the multicultural New Jerusalem will not be controlled by people like themselves, who in the long run will be a tiny, relatively powerless minority.
Possibly Lieberman will debunk it allowing Jobling once more to parade before his imaginary philo-Semitic legions having vanquished the Germanic horde.
The Multicultural ‘New Jerusalem’ sounds just like HELL. Which, of course, it is.
Therefore, any allusions to the Biblical New Jerusalem, which Christ offered his Body for- the “His People” and “Their sins” [Matt. 1:21] covered by the blood of the Cross, and which are NOT coterminous with the ‘world’ or ‘all men’ – for YHWH God is NOT a ‘universalist, but a ‘CHOOSING God’ – are so much heresy.
‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained that you…’ etc.
The sooner we realize that there is a race of the damned [Gen. 3:15, Rev. 2:8,9] and a race of the Elect,[Eph. 1:4] that is synonymous with Europe (as Belloc wrote, ‘Europe is the Faith; the Faith, Europe’) or Christendom, (for they are the same) the sooner we can get back to building the Kingdom of God, without all the detrius of the world taking us away from our divinely appointed task. – Fr. John
Your site is hilarious, funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Keep up the good work.
We don’t need your smart ass comments, “Carolyn”
I wasn’t being a smart arse I honestly think you are a funny funny man.
It’s not hard to click your profile and see that you run a liberal blog.