By John Blake, CNN
Updated 9:33 AM ET, Fri November 27, 2015
… Consider the question of whether racial strife is now the norm.
“I don’t see that stopping when Obama is no longer president,” says Steve Sailer, who writes for Unz Review and Taki’s Magazine, both started by alumni of The American Conservative. “I can imagine a white president like Hillary [Clinton] upping the ante because she doesn’t have the benefit of being black.”
Sailer says Clinton will need to talk more about racial grievances to attract minority voters because she can’t count on the strong black support that Obama enjoyed.
Democrats, he says, have decided to build a coalition of “fringe” groups by demonizing people who “have rightful reasons for representing the core of Middle America.”
That decision, however, is sparking a white backlash, Sailer warns. More whites are starting to see the need to unite like other ethnic groups.
“It’s become more acceptable for people to insult whites, especially white men,” he says. “You’re seeing more and more whites starting to develop a certain amount of white identity.”
COMMENTS:
* What? CNN mentioned he who must not be named. What’s going on here Steve?
Of all of the concepts you’ve birthed, I really like that the writer picked up on the Democrats being the coalition of fringes. I think that this will have some legs and it will burn.
* Mr. Sailer, they didn’t even call you a racist. Are you entering the mainstream?
* It’s happening. The cracks are forming. What a glorious day!
* She’ll need to incite racial grievances not just because she isn’t black, but because in not being black the black voters will be more inclined to notice that Democrats aren’t actually doing anything for them.
There’s also maybe an element of “once you go black you can never go back.” After the eight year orgasm of Obama, Hillary is going to be a serious letdown – the lover with electile dysfunction.
The Democrats are stuck with the coalition of the fringes whether they want to be or not. The trouble is not only in all the non-fringes who get turned off by all the hate, but those who have divided loyalties. The most obvious members are white women, of course, but even white gays, Jews, and a few other groups will increasingly find themselves targeted by their supposed allies.
* From the article:
How much responsibility for increased racial tension rests with Obama? Could he have done anything at the beginning of his first term to reduce them? The answers are also varied.
There are two components to racial tension, structural and situational. Obama couldn’t do anything about the structural issues, no one can, for they exist due to the fact that racial groups are sharing the same society. The situational issues move in only one direction – they add trouble onto the structural issues but can never be handled in such a way as to diminish the structural issues, so what we’re left with is Obama only making things worse with his actions and philosophy and also adding to the structural issue by increasing immigration.
Coming at this question from a different perspective, no one can resolve the situational issues because they are the face of the who, whom issue. Make one group happy and you piss off other groups. The situational game is rigged by the structural issue. Here’s an example of a structural issue – you can’t have race hate crimes in a completely racially homogeneous society. There will be no racial tension there.
In a multiracial society, there will always be tension because all groups are not equal. This manifests as inequality of outcomes and these unequal outcomes gnaw at the pride of the losers and efforts to create a perfectly equal opportunity society will never resolve the unequal outcomes which result from perfect equality of opportunity. Race becomes the visible mechanism by which to see the inequality. A homogeneous society has winners and losers but the losers can’t find easy ways to self-group. whereas in a heterogeneous society, when some racial groups are disproportionately on the low part of the totem pole, this becomes very visible to everyone and race becomes the factor by which they group together.
Whites are most supportive of an Equal Opportunity Society and NAMS are most supportive of an Equal Outcome Society and there is no way to square this circle and make everyone happy.
Mark Naison, a professor of history and African-American studies at Fordham University, says some whites are angry because their portion of the country’s population is shrinking. As the country gets browner, they get angrier.
“They think this is their country, and they’re really special,” Naison says. “These tensions are going to get worse. We’re stumbling toward being a more multiracial society with everyone’s culture respected and everyone having a shot at leadership.”
But it IS their country. Their ancestors created a patrimony that was passed onto them, just like parents leave an estate that is to be passed onto their children and we find it ludicrous to expect that a stranger can show up at the reading of someone’s will and expect to be cut in for an equal share of the estate alongside the children. Same with new immigrants – they’re expecting to share equally the benefits of the accumulated infrastructure and laws and mores of the society alongside those whose ancestors built and added value and shaped the society which attracted the immigrants to come to America.
Ignoring this dynamic is the key to the argument that Naison makes.
Secondly, he mentions everyone having a shot at leadership. This ties back to the battle between Equal Opportunity and Equal Outcome. HOW do NAMS get a shot at leadership, by earning their way there or by getting the skids greased to insure that equal outcomes result to favor them?
“I’m never surprised at the depth of racism in America,” he says. “The depths of it are limitless. There is a well you can dig into if you are white that justifies almost any level of abuse that you can direct at a black person that challenges your comfort zone.”
This is why separate countries were invented. Naison won’t have to deal with the effects of “racism” if he lived in a 100% black society.
“That was his one chance to win over the low- and moderate-income whites that are deeply suspicious of him,” Naison says. “He could have won over whites with a New Deal jobs program rather than a health care act.”
ObamaCare is a racial wealth redistribution system in effect, a wealth redistribution system in general and is part of the equal outcomes worldview.
A jobs program, even if effective (just pretend) still leaves us with the structural issues and the opportunity:outcome battles, in other words, it doesn’t solve anything for Obama or race relations in general.
“A lot of what drives bad race relations is scarcity in the working-class populations,” he says. “We have all of these looming questions with globalization and downsizing. These are underlying structural problems.”
Then why are we importing poverty and competitors in the job market through immigration? The Center for Immigration Studies noted that since 2000, ALL new net jobs created have gone to immigrants at a time when native population growth was sufficient to fill the new jobs. So yeah, this guy is correct about part of the problem but I doubt he’s willing to suggest an immigration moratorium as a solution.
* The reason people don’t vote for the GOP has less to do with it positioning itself as a “white party” (interestingly, when the GOP unabashedly DID fashion itself in public discourse as such it actually won elections – one of Buchanan’s most recent books provides a rather fascinating treatment of this phenomenon) then it does with the fact that the GOP has no actual platform other than unconditional support for Israel and Jewish interests by way of waging aggressive wars, sustaining a parasitic/cronyist Defense Industry caste that has been obsolete since the capitulation of the Soviet Union, and incoherent objections to welfare state initiatives – i.e. railing against the implementation of a bloated, state-capitalist insurance company bailout (Obamacare) that was originally conceived by their own party hacks in the 1990s (Bob Dole first among them) on grounds that it is “socialistic”.
Nobody actually gives a fuck about the victimology propaganda narrative of “gays, women, and minorities” other than reconstructed Jewish communists, a disengaged, culturally senile minority of hyper-privileged whites (yes – ‘white privilege’ does exist – overeducated, overpaid parasitic white liberals are its beneficiaries) add ignorant and easily misled blacks and browns who can be grievance-motivated into showing up at the polls every election cycle in a manner similar to how simpletons in a pro-wrestling or carnival geek show audience can be moved to emotional delight or fury by smoke, mirrors, flash pyrotechnics, and the absurd monologues of a travelling barker.
* For years I’ve wondered why otherwise sensible whites thought an Obama presidency would “heal” racial tension but one needs to read between the lines to see what these people mean. Obama was never liked much by right-of-center whites, but there was still some hope among a number of Republican-types that he would use his power and influence to calm the typical black overreaction to dubious examples of racism whenever it sparked up. Nice, white, Bush-voters were frustrated that W got called a racist and blamed for Katrina, so maybe one benefit of having an Ivy-educated half-black president would be the reduction of instances of petty racial grievances. At least with Obama as president blacks wouldn’t have an excuse to let self-serving retarded nut-jobs like Al Sharpton stir them up so easily.
Of course not only has Obama not sought to assuage the irrational fears of his dim-witted key constituency, he has flamed them for his political benefit. Nice whites, even those who didn’t vote for Obama, feel betrayed because they know an articulate, semi-intelligent half-black like Obama knows full well what he’s doing. The same man who appealed to moderate whites as the one to get us past racial issues has ratcheted up the divide even further.
* The shunning of Steve Sailer has been an anachronism for the past few years. Remember the sudden anti-white gloating in the media after the 2012 election? That’s when they let the cat out of the bag. Prior to that, they denied that there was a racial struggle going on and shunned everybody as a racist lunatic and paranoid who even raised such issues. Then they declared permanent victory in the war against whites. The tea party, the cuckservatives and Romney were dumbfounded. They thought the election was really about disagreements concerning healthcare policy.
We have also seen the shift from “racism”, a state of mind, to the original sin of “white privilege”. To the extent that Steve Sailer is still unmentionable, it is no longer because of his baseless phantasies and obsessions about race that no one in polite society should even think about. He is now a pariah because he is on the wrong side of the central issue of race and whiteness that should be on everybody’s minds.
* FoxNews From 2012: So with rates on the downswing, does that mean Mitt Romney’s a shoo-in?
Not so fast, said author Steve Sailer.
Sailer examined the white fertility rate in the 2000 and 2004 elections — a demographic that generally is more supportive of Republicans.
“What the Republicans benefit from are white people getting married and having kids — this is the core of Republican voters,” he said. “We’ve seen a drop-off in fertility and drop-off in marriage. Basically, you’ve got a lot of younger white people living in their parent’s garage. None of that bodes well for Republicans in 2012.”
* Whites and particularly Straight White Men ARE THE FRINGE. We are. White women will generally side with non-Whites in the diversity spoils train, and even when White women marry they don’t stay married for long; divorced White women are extra helpings of anti-White, as they consider themselves honorary non-Whites and want to “get” their ex husbands who they loathe generally for being beta males. [Women initiate something like 70% of divorces, and its generally for the men just not being sexy enough.]
Functionally, White men are in the minority. Add in White non-married women, non-Whites, and that is the majority of the population. More so when illegal aliens who lets be honest do vote, early and often, are added into the mix.
Therefore as a fringe, and one freely insulted without consequence, it is time for White men to be feared. Abandon love, that is for losers. The Anonymous Collective has been reasonably effective in publicizing dirty deeds. The dirty little secret about Diversity is that most non-White men are as corrupt and as dirty as Al Sharpton if not moreso.
White male identity politics is a must, and the only way forward. The weapon should be digging up dirt on every enemy (basically everyone who is not a Straight White Male and those Straight White males allied with those outside the group).
My disagreement with Steve is that White men and women have vastly different interests. White women’s main interests are with non-Whites, its why White women love love love Oprah and White men even ones like Jimmy Kimmel, ultra-liberal, hate her [Kimmel and Carolla created the Man Show as the Anti-Oprah]. White women can well in non-White majority countries and they flock there to Eat-Pray-Love. You don’t see White men flocking to Africa the way White women do. A multi-racial society is always more attractive to women particularly those of even marginal attractiveness as they do better, far better, then White men.
White women are part of the diversity gravy train even if they are last; White men are excluded. White men find non-White women unattractive save Asian females; White women find non-White men attractive save Asian men; for the most part. White men are viewed as a threat to be eliminated by non-White men; White women are viewed as a prize to be taken by non-White men.
* Trump is polling 25% among blacks and has a big event scheduled Monday in which he will meet with around a 100 black pastors.
And this is still Republican primary season. Once we get to the general Trump can make more explicit appeals to black voters–they will hugely benefit from immigration restriction and a re-industrialization of the US through trade restrictions. Also many blacks are not happy being ethnically cleansed by Hispanics (and in some cases, liberal whites) from such places as Compton, Oakland, and Harlem.
* John Blake is at least partially black. Probably has something to do with his readiness to look for interesting commenters, rather than politically safe ones. Amidst the absurdities of The Black Autumn, it’s useful to remember that blacks are substantial cultural contributors to America, besides the obvious music and sports. Perhaps black dissidents more than the mainstream. Jared Taylor once told me that in speaking at college campuses, black students were the most genuinely interested in what he had to say.
