Decoding the Racial Political Discourse, 2016

shlomo_says_phobia

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics, by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, 27 Nov 2016:

Democratic (((pundits))) are calling on their party to court working-class and non-coastal whites in the wake of this month’s electoral rout. But the Democratic Party is now dominated by identity politics, which defines whites, particularly heterosexual males, as oppressors of every other population in the U.S. Why should the targets of such thinking embrace an ideology that scorns them?

The most absurd Democratic meme to emerge from the party’s ballot-box defeat is the claim that it is Donald Trump, rather than Democrats, who engages in “aggressive, racialized discourse,” in the words of a Los Angeles Times op-ed. By contrast, President Barack Obama sought a “post-racial, bridge-building society,” according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker. Obama’s post-racial efforts have now “given way to an angry, jeering, us-against-them nation,” writes Baker, in a front-page “news” story.

[Ta-Nehesi] Coates’s melodramatic rhetoric comes right out of (((the academy))), the inexhaustible source of Democratic identity politics. The Democratic Party is now merely an extension of (((left-wing))) campus culture; few institutions exist wherein the skew toward Democratic allegiance is more pronounced. The claims of life-destroying trauma that have convulsed (((academia))) since the election are simply a continuation of last year’s campus Black Lives Matter protests, which also claimed that “white privilege” and white oppression were making existence impossible for black students and (((other favored victim groups))).

Hillary Clinton employed classic Democratic “racialized discourse” throughout the campaign. During a Democratic presidential primary debate in January 2016, Clinton agreed that it was “reality” that police officers see black lives as “cheap.” In a February debate, she accused Wisconsin, along with other states, of “really systemic racism” in education and employment. In July she called on “white people” to put themselves in the shoes of African-American families who “need to worry” that their child will be killed by a police officer. When Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it” who belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” she was speaking the language of (((the academy))), now incorporated into (((the Democratic worldview))).

Mac Donald attempts to spin the conflict as a black war on Whites, but the Clinton campaign was speaking the anti-White language of jews.

See also: Decoding the Racial Political Discourse (2012).

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

5 thoughts on “Decoding the Racial Political Discourse, 2016”

  1. For as long as Trump is president the left and the media will be foaming at the mouth with racially charged, anti-White venom. Whatever Trump may or may not do in the way of policy, make no mistake, this is his great gift to WN. A better recruitment tool is scarcely imaginable.

  2. KMac wrote an article about her titled “Heather Mac Donald on the corruption of the new hostile elite that runs the University of California.”
    Mac Donald recognizes the war on Whites and goes into detail about how the war is waged in universities, her specialty is crimes committed by (((the academy))) but she’ll never name the jew. She reminds me of Jonah Goldberg.

  3. At least in the title of the article, H. Mac Donald doesn’t blame the Blacks, she blames the Democrats of the Clinton campaign. The problem is that she works closely with the Jews and depends on them for her writing career. So, she won’t spill the beans on them.

    She writes good articles but never gives her readers the key that explains everything. Her work would be much more useful if her readers knew that the liberals she talks about are really Jews, or White people manipulated by the Jews.


    I particularly liked this short article of hers in National Review: “From 1970s-Era Academic ‘High Theory’ to Transgender Bathrooms on Campus.
    It was written last May. She says the transgender bathrooms movement began in the 2015 summer. And in less than a year, they had won:

    “A pipeline now channels (((left-wing academic theorizing))) into the highest reaches of (((government and the media))). The products of the narcissistic academy graduate and bring their High Theory indoctrination with them into the federal and state bureaucracies and into newsrooms. Even the (((judiciary))) is affected.”

    That’s how you change a Zeitgeist! It’s an entirely Jewish operation. It sounds like Franz Boas taking control of the departments of anthropology in American colleges, except the bathroom movement happened much faster.

    In that article, she also mentions women’s-studies, the New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Martin Duberman, Jacques Derrida, Lena Dunham. All Jews!

    In the days of Boas, and during the Jewish cultural revolution of the 1960s, it took longer to change things because the Jews were not yet in full control of all institutions.

    I also like this longer article about the deliberate destruction of the schools: Why Johnny’s Teacher Can’t Teach.

    She gives a good description of what’s going on, but she doesn’t say, and maybe doesn’t realize, that it’s done intentionally to undermine the children’s education. She may not even realize that it’s a Jewish problem.


    I was surprised to see her disavow Donald Trump during the Republican primaries:

    In the NY Daily News (March 7): “Donald Trump’s disqualifying character: Even for a supporter of his strength on illegal immigration, the man’s sadistic grandiosity is too much to take”.

    And in the National Review (March 18): “Trump’s ‘Riot’ Comments Disqualify Him from the Presidency”.

Comments are closed.