Tag Archives: barack obama

Blog

Nothing to do with Race, Nope, No Way

3 Comments

A black and white version of this photo was on DrudgeReport Wednesday morning with the caption “LANDSLIDE” just below. I didn’t have time to save Drudge’s image or read the story he linked, but it did occur to me how manipulative it was to make the image black and white, deliberately modifying it in a way that left the messianic dimension intact while obscuring the racial dimension.

Later I was able to find the original full-color version. According to the source the photo was taken on 6 July 2008. Since then it has apparently bounced around the internets via secret brotha chain email. Sorta like the Obama-is-a-muslim meme and worse have been bouncing around the jewish internets.

Oddly enough I’m not in either social circle, so I didn’t see this picture until just now. After searching for it. Doesn’t the media usually monitor and report on popular phenomena like this? The full-color image sure does make a dramatic impression. It’s Pulitzer material. Why should Whites be shielded from the graphic reality this race is revealing about race? Oh, that’s right. We’re not supposed to think about race.

Until you read the next headline. And the next. And the next…

– – –

Also from Drudge Wednesday: Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black:

The “socialist” label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

. . .

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Drudge’s headline, “PAPER: ‘Socialist’ label called ‘old code word for black’…”, made the any-criticism-of-Obama-is-racism meme transparent enough. The hilarious thing about the article’s actual argument is that in the “old days”, before reality-twisting honesty-smothering political correctness came to power, nobody used code words for blacks. People spoke plainly and simply said “negro” or “colored” when they meant negro or colored. “Socialist” might be a new code word for blacks, but it isn’t an old one.

On the other hand “socialist”, or more precisely “communist”, was indeed an old code word for jews. Even as early as 1917 many Whites were afraid of the stigma attached to being called “anti-semite”. Many of these Whites, even the ones in government whose job it was to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, couldn’t bring themselves to actually say out loud what they could plainly see with their eyes. That’s because their brains knew what would happen to their wallets if they didn’t bite their tongues. Just as it works today, only the “social pricing” was not as expensive.

There were men who spoke out anyway. Henry Ford. William Dudley Pelley. Charles Lindbergh. They all paid a price.

By 1972 even presidents dared to express anti-jewish thoughts only in private. Today we’re told by our enlightened elite that Nixon was an anti-semite, because he must have been imagining the jewish influence that only an anti-semite can imagine has since become ever more pervasive and obvious. And it’s just in our wild imaginations that the country seems to be going down the drain, just as Billy Graham and Nixon feared. But that’s just more raving. Here’s what’s really important:

There’s no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can’t peer into someone’s soul, but also because there’s no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn’t hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don’t have to call that anti-Semitism if you don’t want to. But there’s no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.

Never mind that you can find in the media virtually every day – without looking hard – opinions expressed about Whites as a group (sometimes coded), as more or less racist and possessing certain other base and malign characteristics, and worthy of scorn and hatred. Never mind that Ford’s warning is almost 90 years past, not 50. In jewish minds Ford inspired Hitler to almost exterminate their race just yesterday, and today’s rising crescendo of White-bashing from on high isn’t a crime at all. It’s not even happening. La la la la la. And if it is happening, so what? It’s justice. And if you notice any jews bashing away it isn’t because they’re “deserving of the strongest reproach”. No. It’s because you’re an anti-semite throwback – like Ford, Nixon, Graham, Pelley, Lindbergh, … Knuckledragging jackbooted ignoramuses one and all.

– – –

Among the things Lindbergh mentioned in Des Moines was how smears and slurs are used to manipulate us. Here’s a contemporary example. It concerns Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who “appeared on Hardball and pounded away at Barack Obama’s associations with his long-time minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and bomber Bill Ayers, suggesting that the media should be investigating these associations with very anti-American voices”. This prompted Mike Malloy, the former CNN news writer, to say:

She represents a district in Minnesota, she’s a Republican of course, and she’s a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. She’s the type of person that I’m sure believes that the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was good and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq served a purpose. This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.

Note that Malloy implies that Whites who oppose Obama are not just guilty of being “racist”, and we’re not just guilty of genociding jews and indians. No. Now we’re also guilty of genociding the poor vietnamese and iraqis.

Imagine what Whites will be accused of after four years of Change. I bet genociding somalis and latinos will be on the list. Read that link and see how those jews and socialists “fighting for equality” really get around. Somehow racist Whites will get the blame. You can bank on it. In fact you can build a Rube Goldberg-style business based on loaning somebody else’s money to other somebodies you know will never repay while collecting a fat fee and selling the loans to other somebodies who will get screwed later. When that plays out you can get your distant relative in the government to “rescue” you with more money from some other people, so you can get out of that old used-up business and into another. Cha-ching.

If that “getting” and “making” stuff of Ford’s is starting to make sense it’s either because you’re a loser who needs a non-White scapegoat to blame, or because it makes sense.

– – –

Such is the fruit of 60+ years of pretending race doesn’t matter. Tastes a bit fecal, doesn’t it?

Blog

Obama = Hitler

ABC News’ Jake Tapper: Obama Won’t Answer Holocaust Question
By Debbie Schlussel

An Israeli journalist called out to Obama: “Can you ensure that there will be no second Holocaust?”

Obama walked into the museum’s main building without responding. . . .

Schlussel’s response:

Disgusting. The question is a no-brainer. If you don’t have an automatic, “I will assure that there won’t be a second Holocaust,” response, then you don’t deserve to occupy a square foot of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Apparently Obama didn’t get the memo. Besides visiting israel and donning a jewish cap all US candidates for president must now also turn off their brain and make an unqualified pledge to rescue jews whereever they go from whoever they consider to be their enemy. Otherwise you’re just a “yarmulke-wearing fraud”. For her readers it’s an invitation to vent their hitlerosis.

Frankly I’m envious. I’d like a reporter, any reporter, to ask either Obama or McCain: “Will you defend America from invasion?” Sure I’m like Hitler just for wanting that question asked. And I know the reporters and politicians all know the answer is no. But hearing the answer out loud might help a few more bitter gun- and bible-clinging redneck racists in fly-over country understand that upon joining the US military their utmost priority will not be to defend their families and friends, it will be to serve the interests of people who consider them bitter gun- and bible-clinging redneck racists and who couldn’t care less about the invaders flooding fly-over country. The reporters and politicians know that too. That’s why that question doesn’t get asked.

UPDATE 26 July 2008: Auster objects to Rush Limbaugh’s “unhinged characterization of Obama’s speech” in Germany, calling it “insanely overwrought, imputing all kinds of vicious thoughts to Obama that Obama never stated or implied”:

America sucks, America’s deficient, America’s guilty, but America is now willing to pay the price because we have a Messiah who understands the faults, the egregious errors made by the United States and her people. We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world. And we torture. And we, of course, are biased against people who want to get into our country illegally. We have a lot to pay for.

I find this to be a fair characterization of cultural marxist talking points. The problem with Limbaugh, as well as Republican conservative commentators Hannity and O’Reilly, is that they consistently misidentify both the cultural marxists and their target. They don’t want to be seen as racist, so they use “America” and “left” as euphemisms for White and anti-White.

It is this fear of being openly pro-White, just as much as their political partisanship, that causes their blind spots. In contrast to Auster I don’t think Limbaugh’s failure to criticize Bush, especially relative to Obama, means he is “incapable of seeing truth” or is “in a frenzied state in which they accept any negative statement about the other side, no matter how absurd, and see only goodness on their own”.

That’s ridiculous. But it certainly is a good description of Auster himself when he flips into anti-anti-semite mode. In that mode he imputes all kinds of vicious thoughts on people that they never stated or implied. And Auster doesn’t seem concerned enough about unhinged characterizations to object to this:

E. writes:

Obama was certainly in the right country for his rousing speech–the only thing missing was the shouts of “Sieg heil.”

Auster I think senses that Limbaugh’s words are perhaps too accurate a description of cultural marxism. Limbaugh’s “American” listeners might start trying to understand where it came from. Whites might start thinking about how PC and the whole hate-ideology (racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and the grandaddy of them all: anti-semitism) sprang largely from jewish minds filled with resentment towards Europeans. Whites might realize how over the past 150 years this archetypically jewish victimology has been progressively generalized and applied to minorities of every type and color – except White. The one common theme: Whites are the enemy.

Auster, as usual, wants the buck to stop with “liberalism”:

Yes. Liberalism, consistently followed, means the destruction of literally every distinct thing, because liberalism demands the end of all inequality and exclusion, and every distinct thing that exists, by the fact of existing, is unequal to and exclusive of everything that is not itself.

This is not only simplistic, it’s wrong. Neither the classical liberal values of fair-play and equality before God and law, nor the neo-liberal values of anti-racism and anti-discrimination eliminate all distinction. Not in theory and not in practice. Neo-liberalism – which dominates Western politics, media, business, and academia – is extremely divisive and makes quite clear distinctions. It is, for example, anti-White and pro-jew. That’s why the West has laws promoting “diversity” and punishing “hate”. That’s why neo-liberals invite violent, uneducated, indigent non-whites from the turd world and send “Americans” out to fight and die in the turd world protecting the interests of international corporations. That didn’t happen when America was founded and ruled by White classical liberals, and it didn’t become the norm until they lost control.

Blog

Obama: Just Say Si

27 Comments

Barack Obama: Your Children Should Learn To Speak Spanish.

Transcription via World On the Web:

I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about we need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, we want just … we want English-only.

He begins with a lie. He understands what this means. He wants Americans to accept their fate as a conquered people.

Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But … understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English—they’ll learn English—you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language

More lies. The invaders aren’t learning English. That’s the only reason Americans have to learn spanish. The emphasis on children makes it even clearer. The invaders should all know English by the time our kids learn spanish, right Obama? So why bother? Because he’s talking about us adapting to latino colonization.

Widespread multilingualism isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing. Tower of Babel bad.

Bilingualism is part of the bigger lie of “diversity”. What it really means is division. The spanish language and the latinos who carry it here bring us confusion. They bring resentment. This is a natural and predictable consequence of alien invasion.

You know, it’s embarrassing … when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

Embarassed? About what? The vast majority of people who have ever lived, who will ever live, master only one language. Why do Obama and the Pilgrim-haters who support him only pathologize stupid, lazy, bitter, racist Americans for this? What’s next, we’re inferior because we don’t speak chinese?

Why compare Americans to Europeans? Why not compare us to the latinos Obama wants to replace us with? How many latinos speak more than one language? How many of them know what irony means? Because it’s ironic that the amerinds and mestizos use the word reconquista – speaking in the tongue of the European conquerors they supposedly detest – to describe what they want to do, and are doing, to America. Hypocrites.

Does Obama know what reconquista means? How about raza, aztlan, mecha, guero, and gabacho? Those are the very first spanish words Americans should learn.

Where I come from we have a very useful expression. Fuck that shit. Pardon my French. Feel free to translate it into spanish, ebonics, and hebrew for the benefit of Obama and his supporters.

Blog

CNN’s Anti-White Election Commentary

26 Comments

From the transcript of Tuesday’s CNN primary coverage:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we have been looking at some of the exit polls from Kentucky, in particular the issue of race. Voters who said that race was important in making their decision or is the factor in making their decision.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It is more disquieting news I think for Barack Obama as he looks for the general election.

COOPER: One in five I think.

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

COOPER: And that is people that would admit it to a complete strangers taking these exit polls theoretically it would be even larger those who would not admit it.

GERGEN: And from her point of view, over a quarter of the people who voted for her today in Kentucky were people who said race was a factor in their decision. And it really means — I mean, she’s been talking about sexism in this race and she has complained about some in the last 24 hours.

You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn’t say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, I don’t want your vote. I don’t want to win that way. This has no place in this primary.

COOPER: Do you see her saying that?

GERGEN: Well, she has been a champion — she’s been a champion of civil rights for a long, long time. She and her husband both have I think well-earned reputations in the civil rights front. She’s never had redneck votes before in her life.

I see no reason why she couldn’t take the high road here in the closing days of his campaign and try to take this on and take on the Reverend Wright issue to say, “Look, I campaigned with this fellow for 15 months. I know a lot of you people don’t think he shares your values that somehow Barack thinks like Reverend Wright. Not true. I know him. I have been with him. And race should come out of this.”

I think she could do a lot by taking a high road.

COOPER: Reverend Wright also showed up in these exit polls.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in the state of Kentucky, 54 percent of the voters said Barack Obama shares the views of Reverend Wright. That’s something we saw also in West Virginia.

And does Barack Obama share your values? 53 percent of the voters in Kentucky said, “No, he doesn’t.” This is some of the repair work that he’s got to do in terms of the voters that Hillary Clinton is getting.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hillary Clinton ought to keep in mind, I think, the long view here. She’s got many more years in public life ahead of her. Taking the high road at this point, saying I don’t want racists to vote for me, saying that this is about something bigger than just strategizing the last few races. I think that would stand her in very good stead.

BORGER: Very late for that. What in Montana and South Dakota?

TOOBIN: I mean, she might as well say it, because I think it would make a difference. This race has been so polarized along the issues of race and, frankly, I think most people blame her for that than they blame Obama. And to leave, if she’s in fact leaving on the high road, would do a world of good.

GERGEN: She could do it on Reverend Wright. She could still take that on before she leaves this race.

Here’s video.

For a while now the pundits have been expressing concerns that the White vote is going 60-40 or even 70-30 for Clinton. They generally don’t think the black vote going 80-20 or 90-10 for Obama is more noteworthy, and it certainly isn’t ever something they criticize. If anything they tell us this is perfectly understandable.

As the primary wears on the Clinton camp is getting desperate. The Obama camp is getting frustrated. Both view Whites, especially “working class” Whites, with distaste.

On Tuesday all was good and right in Oregon, where the “more highty-educated” Whites voted in large numbers for Obama. There was however a problem in Kentucky. There poor, under-educated, “working class” Whites had failed to act as the pundits desired:

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin translated this into a call for Clinton to disown the “redneck” vote, to distance herself from “racists”.

Note the conclusion they’re juming to: if race is a factor for you, and you are White, and you vote for Clinton, then you are a racist.

This vicious anti-White meme has been hailed and echoed in the liberal blogosphere. See for example Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, or David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote, or Visionary moments in punditry: David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin call on Hillary Clinton to stop courting racists.

Anti-racists pride themselves on being hyper-sensitive to and hyper-critical of any whiff of demonization or hate. But in this case they seem more than willing to set those concerns aside. They seem not at all skeptical or objective or sympathetic when nasty things are said about Whites. In fact they seem absolutely gleeful and eager to add their own bile.

Pandagon, for instance, thought this was worth highlighting:

Kentucky has one of the country’s highest proportions of people who are not college graduates.

If you read the CNN transcript you can see this echoes what the “more-educated” Blitzer and King were talking about just before Gergen burbled out his hate. The assumption is that “smart” people vote for Obama. Because like, duh, anything else is just racist.

Momocrat thought this nasty slander was worth repeating:

On our chat last night, a Kentucky voter joined in during the last hour to say that in rural parts of her state, people are literally being told that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. And people believe it! And the MSM pundits wonder why Obama didn’t spend much time in West Virginia and Kentucky?

Hmmmm. Or maybe Obama didn’t do well because he didn’t spend much time there. Maybe?

Bang the Drum says stop the world:

Please blog this, tweet this, and digg this. Let’s get some legs under what really was an historic moment in TV.

Time to crap on Whites! Get some legs under this! It’s historic!

Or is it just mind-numbingly normal?

All sarcasm aside, there’s a far more substantial problem here. What the anti-racists are doing is demonstrating their own hypocritical hate. They do so not only by being willfully blind to reasonable explanations Whites have to poll and vote as they did, but also by so thoroughly misinterpreting the statistics. They are eager to see only the “racism” they want to see.

I realize I have to explain this in more detail. This is because the media, our schools, and the liberal anti-racists who run them have done a very thorough job of brainwashing everyone that White = racist, and racist = bad. Please be patient and read on. I’ll spell it out as clearly as I can, especially for the benefit of the outraged anti-racist liberals who may drop by.

– – –

My first thought on hearing so many Whites had told pollsters that race was a factor for them was, gee, that’s awfully honest. Whites don’t expect applause for speaking frankly about race. In fact, they expect exactly the opposite. The topic is a minefield. Consider for example how the recent comments of Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been greeted.

My second thought was, well of course race is a factor for White voters. There were those revelations about Obama spending 20 years associating with Reverend Wright, a man who has spouted all sorts of black-centric and anti-White rhetoric, which many blacks have said they do not find objectionable or even out of the ordinary. Then there was Obama’s “bitter, clinging” statement. That certainly made it seem as though he didn’t understand or sympathize with working class Whites. Then there was his “typical White person” characterization of his grandmother. Do you think Whites without a college degree may have heard that blacks are voting 90-10 for Obama? Perhaps they think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Last of all, probably because the media has gone to lengths to keep it buried, there is Michelle Obama’s thesis, which revolves around her blackness and her concern for the black community. In fact it’s all about race!

Can an honest person sum up all these things as having to do with race? Which of them is not a legitimate concern? Can an honest White get credit for being honest? Why are Whites the only group whose voting patterns are not only scrutinized but criticized?

Everyone in the CNN studio Tuesday night was well aware of Wright. The exit polls reflected his impact. Were the pundits not listening? Apparently not. A few months ago David Gergen defended Obama by downplaying the importance of these race-related issues. He thinks anyone who can’t set aside Wright and overlook Obama’s gaffes must be irrational and is therefore a racist.

Other pundits seem equally blind and/or biased. They find it easier to accuse Whites of being stupid and ethnocentric than to admit that Obama and the people he associates with are more overtly ethnocentric. They can’t face the possibility that Whites are justified in not liking or trusting Obama. They’d sooner slur and defame Whites than accept the possibility that Whites are right.

My third thought was, wow, 9 out of 10 voters who said race was a factor voted for Clinton. But that means the other 10% voted for Obama. So how many blacks voted? How many voted for Obama? How many of them said race was a factor?

For some strange reason the answers to these questions are not easy to find. It’s surprising because CNN, and especially the AP story cited by Pandagon, reported plenty of statistics about Whites. They could have provided the black numbers for comparison, but they didn’t. Wouldn’t it have helped illustrate how Whites differed? Wouldn’t it just be fair and informative to provide those numbers?

The AP writer says:

Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college.

No black statistics. I’d like to have the raw data CNN and AP used, but they don’t offer it, and I can’t find it.

WaPo, however, did provide some important numbers:

In Kentucky, Obama won by better than 9 to 1 among black voters, but they made up just 9 percent of the electorate.

So more than 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Wow. CNN and AP didn’t mention that.

What’s more intriguing is that 8-9% of Obama’s voters were black and 10% of the voters who said race matters voted for Obama. What was the overlap between these groups? Might it have been larger than the 19% of Clinton’s White voters who said race matters? In other words, could a deeper examination of these statistics reveal that race was just as much or more of a factor for Obama’s black voters than it was for Clinton’s White voters?

Did David Gergen or Jeffery Toobin or anyone else in the CNN studio that night think such thoughts? Why did Gergen use the epithet “redneck” in explaining the thoughts he did have? Why didn’t anyone there object to that epithet or the hateful anti-White conclusions he and Toobin were jumping to?

Gergen and Toobin and the anti-racist bloggers who consider them heroes think a large fraction of Whites saying race affects their vote is wrong, something to be concerned about, something to renounce. But it seems likely Obama’s black voters are equally human. If White voters who say race is a factor are racist, then aren’t blacks who say it racist too?

Will CNN or AP share their raw data? Will Gergen and Toobin or any other media pundit go on prime time cable to apologize to Whites? Or will they call on Obama to reject the votes of black racists? Are there any liberal anti-racist bloggers who will admit they made a mistake and renounce their own anti-White hate?

I doubt it.