[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

America has been infiltrated and occupied Netanyahu 1980

Senior Trump Official Declares War On Far-Left NGOs Sowing Chaos Nationwide

White House Plans Security Boost On Civil Terrorism Fears

Visualizing The Number Of Farms In Each US State

Let her cry

The Secret Version of the Bible You’re Never Taught - Secret History

Rocker defames Charlie Kirk threatens free speech

Paramount Has a $1.5 Billion South Park Problem

European Warmongers Angry That Trump Did Not Buy Into the ‘Drone Attack in Poland’

Grassley Unveils Declassified Documents From FBI's Alleged 'Political Hit Job' On Trump

2 In 5 Young Adults Are Taking On Debt For Social Image, To Impress Peers, Study Finds

Visualizing Global Gold Production By Region

RFK Jr. About to DROP the Tylenol–Autism BOMBSHELL & Trump tweets cryptic vaccine message

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March

Something BIG is happening (One Assassination Changed Everything)

The Truth About This Piece Of Sh*t

Breaking: 18,000 Epstein emails just dropped.

Memphis: FOUR CHILDREN shot inside a home (National Guard Inbound)

Elon Musk gives CHILLING WARNING after Charlie Kirk's DEATH...

ActBlue Lawyers Subpoenaed As House GOP Investigation Into Donor Fraud Intensifies

Cash Jordan: Gangs EMPTY Chicago Plaza... as Mayor's "LET THEM LOOT" Plan IMPLODES

Trump to send troops to Memphis

Who really commands China’s military? (Xi Jinping on his way out)

Ghee: Is It Better Than Butter?

What Is Butyric Acid? 6 Benefits (Dr Horse says eat butter, not margarine!)

Illegal Alien Released by Biden Admin Beheads Motel Manager In Dallas,

Israel Wants to Unite Itself by Breaking the World -

Leavitt Castigates Journalists To Their Faces Over Lack Of Iryna Zarutska Killing Coverage

Aussie Students Spend The Most Time In School, Polish Kids The Least

Tyler Robinson, 22, Named As Suspect In Charlie Kirk Assassination


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Is Worse Better? Some Surprising White Support For Obama
Source: Vdare
URL Source: http://vdare.com
Published: May 6, 2008
Author: Peter Bradley [no relation to Buddy]
Post Date: 2008-05-06 22:40:04 by Tauzero
Keywords: None
Views: 497
Comments: 33

Is Worse Better? Some Surprising White Support For Obama

By Peter Bradley

If you pay a visit to Barack Obama's official campaign website, you will find a host of subgroups in the "People" section boosting his candidacy. The man who will help us overcome race has separate categories for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latinos, First Americans (he is not talking about the ancestors of Kennewick Man) and, of course, African Americans. If you are white and racist enough to notice you are not part of Obama's rainbow, don't worry. You can still join groups for students, women, veterans or the LGBT crowd.

If you are just what Obama notoriously called a "typical white person" who is not part of these groups, then you are out of luck. But maybe not for much longer.

A significant number of white race activists—they often call themselves "white nationalists", analogous to black nationalists, Hispanic nationalists or Zionists and not the same thing as white supremacists—are supporting an Obama presidency as the lesser of two evils and, possibly, the catalyst for a wake up call for white America.

Newhouse News reporter Jonathan Tilove covered the 2008 American Renaissance conference in late February and quoted a number of whites who were ready to support the Senator from Illinois.

"We are facing the election of Barack Obama, or, even worse, McCain," said Sam Dickson, Atlanta attorney and longtime racial activist during his closing speech. [A View Of Obama From The Trenches Of White Nationalism, February 27, 2008) ]

Maryland attorney Howard Fezell wondered if black racial loyalty to Obama could make some whites wonder why they can't do the same. "Only white voters are expected to look beyond race," he said.

Even Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, praised Obama's campaign strategy and stated that he does not know who he will vote for in November.

Paul Gottfried, who also spoke at the event, speculated that most of the over 250 people in attendance would most likely support Obama over McCain. "Better a black who is honest about who he is than a conservative who is really delivering the liberal agenda," declared Gottfried.

There seem to be three main reasons for this unexpected support for Obama's candidacy.

The Republican nominee recently told a black audience that his vote against the MLK holiday was the greatest mistake of his political career. He equates immigration reform with "bigotry." As I write this, McCain is promising a renewed "War on Poverty" and criticizing an ad by North Carolina Republicans that draws attention to the race-baiting comments of Obama's spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Larry Auster of the mildly white-nationalist View from the Right blog writes: "at least the Democratic president, as he welcomes Al Sharpton to the White House, won't be giving us lectures on 'true conservatism.'" Auster views McCain as a virtual death sentence for conservatism in America.

If we must have race quotas and amnesties, at least a President Obama would get us out of a costly war. McCain could well get us into an even deadlier conflict with Iran.

As Jared Taylor told Jonathan Tilove, "I think many smarter, far-thinking blacks are going to be worried that any time they start talking about discrimination, certainly institutional racism, people are going to say, 'Hey, look, you've got a black president for heaven's sake.'"

TakiMag's Christopher Roach made the point that an Obama presidency could make whites more racially aware even more bluntly: "a political equivalent of the O.J. Trial for four years might be the right catalyst for this sort of 'consciousness raising.'"

The Obama record on race is eye-opening for those who will look. The racialism of his autobiography, the anti-white comments of his wife and of his spiritual mentor, his attendance at Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March, his support for the Jena Six race attackers, his insulting "race speech" and slurs about "typical whites" and "bitter" people in rural America all point to a man who has more in common with Al Sharpton than Ward Connerly.

Marcus Epstein agrees on the potential for a white backlash. "We can be sure that a president Obama will be push for the same anti-white policies of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, while posing as a post-racial unifier," he says. "The question is whether or not the public will buy that facade."

As director of Pat Buchanan's American Cause, Epstein receives quite a bit of feedback from blacks on the true meaning of an Obama presidency. One of the more printable responses came from a black man who told him: "You [presumably whites] have had 100 [sic]presidents, why can’t we have one?"

The whites who support Obama tend to be young, affluent liberals who truly believe the Obama campaign is about racial unity. But blacks are not supporting Obama so they can hold hands and sing Dave Matthews songs with rich white kids from the suburbs (I recently saw a news clip of a free Dave Matthews concert given in support of Obama and literally every face in the crowd was white).

Clearly these two main groups of Obama supporters are on a collision course.

It is not hard to predict which race is in for a rude awakening.

Personally, I plan to vote for the Constitution Party which just nominated Chuck Baldwin as its presidential candidate. Baldwin is an immigration patriot and a strong conservative on all issues. A vote for him will send a clear message to the GOP that the McCain-Bush type of Republican Party is unacceptable and unworthy of support.

But an Obama presidency at least offers the possibility of an energized right wing movement in which paleos and whites of the Jared Taylor-Sam Francis school can find a home.

Just as forced integration and busing woke up many northern white ethnics in the 1960s and 70s, a black race-driven president who uses his office to excuse black rioters and defend black gangs who attack white kids will be a real eye-opener for many a nice white liberal—to say nothing of the slumbering "conservative" masses.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

#1. To: Tauzero (#0)

A good many of these people probably either have already voted for Obama or will vote for him in November.

I wonder if our resident Obamaphobes consider even these people "white guilters".

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-06   23:27:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: aristeides (#1)

Just as forced integration and busing woke up many northern white ethnics in the 1960s and 70s, a black race-driven president who uses his office to excuse black rioters and defend black gangs who attack white kids will be a real eye-opener for many a nice white liberal—to say nothing of the slumbering "conservative" masses.

this isn't what you'd call a positive endorsement of Obama

christine  posted on  2008-05-06   23:45:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: christine (#2)

So you admit it's possible to support (and even vote for) Obama without being a "white guilter"?

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-07   10:43:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: aristeides (#7)

sure. i have never said that any white person who supports obama is a white guilter. as a matter of fact, the concept of white guilt is new to me. i had not been aware of Shelby Steele and his writings about it until now. this has been educative for me.

christine  posted on  2008-05-07   10:56:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: christine (#10) (Edited)

the concept of white guilt is new to me.

White guilt = The belief of many whites that a black person's low lot in life is due entirely to "oppression" by whites rather than lack of aptitude or effort on the part of the black person.

Blacks make up the lion's share of welfare recipients? It's because they're "oppressed," not because they don't want to work.

Blacks make up the lion's share of violent felons? It's not because they're bad people, "oppression" by whites gave them no choice.

Blacks do poorly in and tend to drop out of school? Must be because of "prejudice"!

African countries are shitholes? Why, colonial "oppression" and "exploitation" is to blame (never mind that without colonialism, none of them would have seen running water, cars, or electricity in their lifetimes). And the only way to solve this problem is to support Obama's Global Tax proposal!

And so on.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2008-05-07   11:54:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#17)

White guilt = The belief of many whites that a black person's low lot in life is due entirely to "oppression" by whites rather than lack of aptitude or effort on the part of the black person.

Blacks make up the lion's share of welfare recipients? It's because they're "oppressed," not because they don't want to work.

Blacks make up the lion's share of violent felons? It's not because they're bad people, "oppression" by whites gave them no choice.

Blacks do poorly in and tend to drop out of school? Must be because of "prejudice"!

Obama, on the other hand, does not have a low lot in life. He has never been characterized by a lack of effort or aptitude. His (white) mother may have been on welfare for a while, but he has never been, in his adult life. He is obviously quite eager to work. He is not a violent felon. Rather than dropping out of school, he excelled in it. And, while his father may have been from Kenya, and Kenya is no Nirvana, it's hard to see what that has to do with him.

So what does he have to do with white guilt?

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-07   12:01:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: aristeides (#18) (Edited)

Voting for a black person, successful or not, is a great way for white guilters to show the world how "progressive" and "tolerant" they are.

And don't kid yourself about Obama's achievements. The guy is reasonably bright, but do you really think that he'd be anything other than an obscure junior Senator if the mass media hadn't fallen in love with him a couple of years ago, and that the media would have fallen in love with him in the name of political correctness?

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2008-05-07   12:02:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#19) (Edited)

The guy is reasonably bright, but do you really think that he'd be anything other than an obscure junior Senator if the mass media hadn't fallen in love with him a couple of years ago, and that the media would have fallen in love with him in the name of political correctness?

Do you think the also reasonably bright JFK would have been anything other than an obscure junior Senator if the media hadn't fallen in love with him?

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-07   12:13:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: aristeides (#22)

Do you think the also reasonably bright JFK would have been anything other than an obscure junior Senator if the meida hadn't fallen in love with him?

Yes.

Two words.

Joe Kennedy.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-07   12:19:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Jethro Tull (#25)

The fact that Obama lacks a Joe Kennedy in his family history is supposed to make Obama worse?

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-07   12:21:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: aristeides (#27) (Edited)

The fact that Obama lacks a Joe Kennedy in his family history is supposed to make Obama worse?

No, the point is that JFK and Obama became media darlings for different reasons.

Do you really trust anybody who has so much MSM support? I don't. I knew McCain was a con when the media swooned over the "straight talk express" eight years ago, and I knew that Obama was an empty suit and somebody's tool when the media started to promote his "hope and change" gig.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2008-05-07   12:24:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 30.

#32. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#30)

JFK may have been a con, but he was a con that I would gladly settle for a repeat of.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-07 12:27:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]