Previous Story Next Story View Comments Post a Comment Send This Page

A View of Obama From the Trenches of White Nationalism

AR Articles on Elections
Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002)
Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002)
It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001)
Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999)
We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000)
Search AmRen.com for Elections
More news stories on Elections

Jonathan Tilove, Newhouse News Service, February 27, 2008

HERNDON, Va.—The prospect of Barack Obama becoming America’s first black president drew scant attention and little overt alarm among the 250 white nationalists at this past weekend’s biennial American Renaissance Conference.

“I got an e-mail from a fairly prominent person, ‘You should be rooting for an Obama presidency because that would send money and support surging your way,’” said Jared Taylor, the event’s convener and the movement’s most euphonious voice.

But, Taylor said, “I really don’t think that’s true. I don’t think many white people will say, ‘This is the last straw.’”

Those who already “see the world” as he does, Taylor said, “will see this as yet another step, perhaps an inevitable one, in this direction.”

Indeed, many here regarded Obama, contrasted with Republican John McCain, as the lesser of two evils.

Taylor is the founder of American Renaissance, a newsletter and Web site, which since 1994 has sponsored conferences every two years where white men in suits and ties—and a handful of white women—listen to speakers talk about white genetic and cultural superiority and, with increasing urgency, lament the peril to the U.S. national character of mass immigration from places other than Europe.

{snip}

In his address, Taylor admonished the audience that “every one of us is an ambassador to a hostile nation.”

“We have to be better,” he said, explaining that in tone and behavior, they must be “morally unassailable.”

For the most part, Taylor’s speech fit what is now a familiar pattern. First he roused with a call to white racial consciousness “out of duty to our ancestors, out of duty to our descendants.” Then he acknowledged how deaf most whites remain to this call.

“I’ve been trying to get white people to think sensibly about race for about 20 years,” and yet, he said, the puzzle persists: “Why are white people so sound asleep and what is it going to take to wake them up?”

Obama didn’t come up until Craig Langley, a college student from Westchester, N.Y., who four years ago volunteered for Howard Dean in the primaries and voted for John Kerry against George W. Bush, asked what should be the appropriate response.

“It depends on what Barack Obama does,” Taylor replied. “I mean his blackness in and of itself would not necessarily be a handicap. I’d vote for Thomas Sowell (a conservative economist at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, who is black) over just about any white candidate likely to come up.”

Obama, he said, “is smart enough to try to have a kind of aracial presidency. . . . I think I’d almost keep a more beady eye on his wife actually.”

That drew scattered laughter. But in an interview later, Taylor said he doubted that even some of Michelle Obama’s more provocative statements, or the Obamas’ membership in an Afrocentric church in Chicago, would derail Obama’s candidacy.

“I think he will have the charisma and presence to deflect those things,” Taylor said. “I think he’s got the right touch, absolutely the right touch.”

He continued: “People are so eager to have a man who can really unite America as he promises to do that I think they will forgive him those things, and I’m not sure I wouldn’t be prepared to forgive him those things too. He’s an intelligent and serious man and he realizes that he cannot be a ‘black’ president.”

An endorsement? Hardly. “I don’t know who I will vote for.”

{snip}

And, Taylor noted, his “endorsement” of Thomas Sowell aside, he knows there were some in his audience who wouldn’t vote for a black candidate under any circumstances.

{snip}

Paul Gottfried, a professor of humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pa., said he was sure Obama would overwhelm McCain among those who ultimately cast a vote among the American Renaissance crowd.

Gottfried spoke to the conference about his new book, “Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right.” In an interview, he said that while he is not a white nationalist, he understands where they are coming from: “Better a black who is honest about who he is than a conservative who is really delivering the liberal agenda.”

As Sam Dickson, a Georgia attorney and American Renaissance fixture, put it in the conference’s closing remarks (in which he offered a “modest proposal” to create a separate “white homeland” in the United States): “We are facing the election of Barack Obama, or, even worse, McCain.”

Louis Andrews, manager of Washington Summit Publishers in Augusta, Ga., said he took an online test to see, based on his position on the issues, which candidate he should back. It told him his No. 1 choice would be Paul—whom he supported—and his No. 2 Obama.

Howard Fezell, a Frederick, Md., attorney, believes Bush invaded Iraq at the bidding of Israel and its neoconservative American supporters. “Having missed out on the 14th century, McCain is eager to participate in another Hundred Years War,” he said.

Perhaps, Fezell observed, some whites will begin to take notice that blacks are flocking to Obama out of racial loyalty and wonder why they can’t do the same. “Only white voters are expected to look beyond race,” he said.

Taylor thinks white people want to vote for the right black candidate out of generosity of spirit. They want things to go better for black people, which, he said, is also why they recoil at the IQ argument, and, time after time, recall for him how “the smartest kid in their class was black.”

“Don’t bother these people with standard deviations,” Taylor said.

He knows that if Obama becomes president, every American will be able to point to that “smartest kid” who is black. But Taylor said an Obama presidency might prove a double-edged sword.

“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.’”

He doubts whites will say as much “straight out.”

“Whites are rarely capable of making arguments as straight as that in racial terms. But I think it will be an underlying subtext.”

Original article

Email Jonathan Tilove at jonathan.tilove@newhouse.com.

(Posted on February 28, 2008)

Previous story Next Story Post a Comment Send This Page Search

Comments

The New Republic did a similar article yesterday — it mentioned the CofCC, but not AR:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=907272c4-54db-4fba-9149-e95b7293d6a0

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 6:21 PM on February 28

The fact that there are no good choices, for the presidency, who actually have a chance of winning is proof that the American system of government no longer works - assuming it ever really did. The founding fathers called for a “representative government”. Does anybody out there truly believe that those who now run this country represent them? Many, in libertarian circles, say that by participating in such elections you are giving your tacit endorsement to a system that is irreparably corrupt. Any differences between the Democratic and Republican parties are so trivial that they truly are one party. They both promote multiculturalism. They both work toward the destruction of the white race. They both believe in endless war and empire. They both believe in big government that controls virtually every aspect of our lives. It is not possible for a third party to break into the White House; the Republicrats have put safeguards in place to prevent it. There are many people who don’t vote because they’re lazy. Then there are many people who refrain as an act of rebellion. When you vote for the “lesser of two evils” your voice is invisible. Nobody takes notice and you are not making a difference. We should join those who do not participate in this charade and be very vocal about why we refrain. Refraining is both the best choice and the easiest. It’s also good for the environment. Just my two cents.

Posted by jewamongyou at 6:44 PM on February 28

Barack Obama will have an “aracial presidency” is an odd statement from Jared Tyalor. The idea that a black man would be a president in a country that as Pat Buchanan says, “was made great by a people with a superior religion and culture (English christians) is laughable. I have asked the question before: Is there a difference between a “race realist” and “White Nationalist”? The answer for me is yes. A White Nationalist desires a seperate homeland for Whites, as Sam Dickson apparently stated in his address to attendees at the AmRen conference. A “race realist” desires an admission to the differences in races from liberals and what else you ask? I’m not sure because they do not make their intentions clear. Is it possible that those on the radical far-right are making more sense about race problems in America than the buttoned down genius level IQ “race realist” crowd?

Posted by Howard in Las Vegas at 6:44 PM on February 28

I think we can look forward to an Obama camdidacy uniting whites behind ANY Republican nominee. McCain can win, but he and everyone, will know he won through white votes and in spite of non-white ones. This will make the truculent McCain more pliable to white interests. Conversely, nothing could undo the fact that an Obama presidency will rest on the loyalty of an unstable coalition of non-whites. And everyone will know that as well, and act accordingly—in their own group interests.

Posted by PBL at 6:49 PM on February 28

What is it these smart blacks have actually done? I can wait decades for the answer.

Posted by Lars at 7:10 PM on February 28

Granted that McCain is a looser—a neocon who wants us in Iraq for another 100 years. Granted that the only good candidate, Ron Paul, stands little chance of becoming president. The question then arises of whether or not to actually vote for Obama. I suggest that we do not vote for Obama for the following reasons:
1. Obama’s life has been a continual crisis of racial identity; do we want that to rule the administration’s policies?
2. Obama is a black nationalist; his “minister guru hates whites and regards blacks as superior; this is anti-white racism pure and simple; his white mother was a marxist neophyte
3. He is the recipient of Affirmative Action as is his wife and he will support more black racial preferences and turn the justice department into a civil rights enforcement agency.
4. He has no understanding of either national or international politics—he is very good with emotive sound bites, but such do not policy make
5. He was spawned in the corruption of Chicago politics and has learned the rules of corrupt politicians well
6. His one virtue, if one may call it that, is that he is a relative unknown—but the more we discover about him, the less credible he becomes(remember that it is the goal of the MSM to kill any negative stories about their “hero”.
7. On the second amendment in particular he has taken the most extreme anti-gun position of all of the candidates, even to the left of Hillary; he wants registration and confiscation and doesn’t give a damn about the 2nd amendment or any other == a vote for Obama is a vote to surrender all of your guns and your right to self defense—this by itself would be sufficient to insure that I would never vote for him (remember in the coming CWII you will need to be able to defend yourself and your family above all other concerns; this will be impossible once the 2nd amendment is schredded by Obama and a democratic congress

Obama’s wife is probably a more realistic reflection of his views on race and she is consumed with hatred for the “white establishment” and for whites in general.
Please, don’t vote for Obama. If you do, you will live to regret it. I will vote for Ron Paul, even if I have to write his name in. None of the others is worth a damn, and Obama is a menace.

Posted by at 7:27 PM on February 28

I just wantged to chime in say that I was very satisfied with Mr. Taylor’s answer to my question and hope I didn’t put him on the spot too much.

P.S. I didn’t volunteer for Dean but merely supported him because I’m so against the war.

Posted by Craig at 7:41 PM on February 28

The number one talkshow host is Oprah put there by Whites, but that hasn’t stopped Blacks from their stupid mantra about how Whites always keep them down?

Posted by factualist at 8:20 PM on February 28

Pretty fair article.

I think the media is assuming that White Nationalists couldn’t possibly see beyond the color of skin, but being a WN is far more than that.

Sam Francis defined it well in the most recent collection of his writings, “Essential Writings on Race” being distributed by AmRen.

We live in a practical world. How could one possibly not operate within those parameters? Thomas Sowell would certainly be an excellent choice in comparison to the current crop. Sowell would’ve been better than Bush as well.

As for Obama: it is easier to unite against a Democrat than a Republican. If McCain does something stupid in regard to immigration, some Republicans will support him. If Obama does the same, no Republican would support him, even if they agree with him.

Better we unite against an Obama presidency and direct the Republican Party further rightward than admit a usurper.

Posted by John Kennedy at 8:30 PM on February 28

“listen to speakers talk about white genetic and cultural superiority”

I didn’t attend the conference but I’m willing to bet that no one said anything about “white genetic and cultural superiority.” Maybe someone who went can set me straight? This does prove one thing however. That the people who write articles like these know that white people are turned off by such a statement. So, the writers invent statement’s like this in order to turn white people off to their own survival.

Posted by at 9:05 PM on February 28

Well Jared has really changed his tune from 2000 when AR did not support Pat Buchanan because Ezola Foster(a black women) was on the ticket with Pat.I can’t stand Obama and his abrasive wife.He is for open borders,affirmative action and is a prime exponent of multiculturalism.In fact he is by blood Mr.Multiculturalism.I won’t vote for president and will only vote for the good Republican candidates in my area.
I was VERY DISAPPOINTED to read the tone of Jared’s statements.We must educate our people to the danger poised by this extreme leftist.McCain is little better.

Posted by Charles at 9:05 PM on February 28

I think we have no choices. I wanted Paul but it was not to be. I really don’t care who ends up in the White House because no matter who it is, he/she won’t have my interests at heart. I am applying for dual citizenship and at retirement (15+ years) or sooner, will be heading back to the motherland. It will be safer that’s for sure.

Posted by GetBackJack at 9:05 PM on February 28

Obama isn’t black. His mother was white and he was raised by his white grandparents. He apparently hates his white heritage, because he disregards it.

Would someone please tell me why a person who is half white and half black is considered black (I think it’s probably so that they can get more free stuff)? What is the genetic foundation, if any, for this kind of thinking?

Posted by FTW at 9:17 PM on February 28

I’d vote for Thomas Sowell over every president since Woodrow Wilson. When it comes to Obama, however, I think I can go about as far back as Eisenhower.

As far as the 2008 “Election” itself goes I just hope McCain gets slaughtered.

Posted by David Bolingbroke at 9:19 PM on February 28

Otherwise, I wish I could be as insouciant about BHO as the typical participant at AR last weekend seemed to be, at least according to this article.

By himself, BHO is an empty suit and a plastic banana. However, I think and fear that the lower class of blacks in this country will feel their oats and become arrogant simply because a black man (even the “aracial” Obama) is so close to becoming President. In earnest, they are/will commit hate crimes against whites.

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 9:41 PM on February 28

FTW wrote:

What is the genetic foundation, if any, for this kind of thinking?

My bet is white racial preservation and relative purity. And the fact that black genetics are “stronger” than white genetics. I know that a person who is 31/32nd white and 1/32nd black shows black features.

Therefore, when the “one drop rule” became de rigeur of American jurisprudence, the idea was to classify all white-black hybrids as black, and that, combined with the anti-miscegenation laws of the day, was meant to protect whites.

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 10:11 PM on February 28

From 10,000 miles away, the two front running Democratic front runners hold indistinguishable politics. What difference does it make which one wins? No matter which one you claim to have voted for, feminists and blacks will still hate you for being a white man.

Posted by Lost in Paradise at 10:18 PM on February 28

“…listen to speakers talk about white genetic and cultural superiority…”

WRONG. They NEVER can get this right. If they are talking about genetic IQ advantage, all the speakers they refer to put Far East Asians at the top.

Posted by at 10:37 PM on February 28

I must say I agree with most of what this article has to say. I will write in a candidate this presidential term, but I would rather have an Obama than a McCain. If Barack is the great Messiah that most would proclaim, than so be it. If not though, and we hand this country over to the minorities and history repeats itself like it has in so many countries in the past. The resulting fallout could throw unfathomable weight in our corner!

Shaun from UCA

Posted by Shaun at 10:38 PM on February 28

“…listen to speakers talk about white genetic and cultural superiority…”

WRONG. They NEVER can get this right. If they are talking about genetic IQ advantage, all the speakers they refer to put Far East Asians at the top.

Posted by at 11:01 PM on February 28

“Would someone please tell me why a person who is half white and half black is considered black”

If said person came home to date your daughter, would you consider him white?

Posted by at 11:01 PM on February 28

Just as America voted for Reagan because, well, he was familiar, you know he looked and spoke just like a Grade B
movie hero uttering lines they had hear a thousand times
while watching Westerns in darkened cinemas so America is attracted to Barack Obama. Who in the very same way is utterly familiar ..a face and voice that looks exactly like
any number or glib, smiling TV sitcom black actors…and who is just as phony as those characters are. No one can say what Obamas campaign slogan means…”Change You Can Believe In!”..but then it doesnt matter..as long as like the sitcoms..it somehow gives off a warm fuzzy feeling and keeps America…well, you know…”happy”.

Posted by at 11:13 PM on February 28

John Kennedy:
That was my point exactly. You must have heard me delineate that argument at the conference, and it’s genius logic swayed you fully. I remember you. You should credit your sources!

Posted by Suburban Refugee at 11:13 PM on February 28

I think its frickin’ ironic that a white nationalist organization would vote for a black fella.

I mean, that’s really f’ed up and backwards.

Get it straight pin heads.

Posted by at 12:45 AM on February 29

I am applying for dual citizenship and at retirement (15+ years) or sooner, will be heading back to the motherland. It will be safer that’s for sure.

Don’t bet on it. Europe is also being flooded with non-whites, and you probably won’t be allowed to own a gun there. At least here you’ll be able to die with your boots on. If you live in one of the People’s Republics (California, Massachusets, etc.) It would be far better for you to just move to a mostly white state with permissive gun laws (like Wyoming, Montana or Idaho) than to expatriate.

Posted by qwerty at 1:29 AM on February 29

I’d vote for Thomas Sowell over every president since Woodrow Wilson.

I’d vote for Sowell over Wilson, too. He was quite possibly the worst president in American history. He gave us the federal income tax, the Federal Reserve scam, the Seventeenth Amendment and entangled us in an insanely stupid war which had nothing to do with us, killing 11,000 Americans.

Posted by qwerty at 1:35 AM on February 29

I made a typo above. Wilson actually killed 110,000 Americans, not 11,000.

Posted by qwerty at 1:41 AM on February 29

“Would someone please tell me why a person who is half white and half black is considered black (I think it’s probably so that they can get more free stuff)? What is the genetic foundation, if any, for this kind of thinking?”
Posted by FTW at 9:17 PM on February 28

If there is any genetic foundation that mulattos are black, it is based in the fact that mulattos look black, and we all identify with whomever we look like, generally.

Some of the worst white-hating blacks in history have been mullatos, like Douglas, De Bois, Malcolm X, etc., and have you seen a picture of Obama’s white-hating minister, Wright? He’s obviously a mullato.

Having this Obama as president won’t change black anti-white hatred one-iota, nor will it negate their complaints that they can’t get ahead due to white racism. They’ll continue to bitterly whine about every single shortcoming they have and blame it on whites. Just look at the privileges they have today, not available to whites, yet they still complain, because it doesn’t make a bit of difference in their abilities and they’re still failing and filling the prisons en masse.

The successful societies of the earth in the future will be the ones without blacks.

Posted by at 2:17 AM on February 29

I would never vote for a Black president (or candidate for any office), even Thomas Sowell. Why would Taylor say such a thing? All of you reading this, DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA! Worse is not better in this case. McCain would be Bush the Sequel, but he is definitely better than Obama or Hillary and he is a White man.

Posted by Economist at 2:50 AM on February 29

Obama is NOT BLACK. He is an ARAB American. I would have thought this would have gotten around Amren by now. Read about his background and look at this features.

http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html

“Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, you must be at least 1/8 of the descriptor, but for the sake of this article, I’ve converted it to a decimal fraction for easier comprehension. You must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.
Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America’s first African-American president.”

Posted by Rob Hanks at 2:55 AM on February 29

Maybe, just maybe, there would be a positive outcome to Obama’s presidency. Like every president before him, he would have to take actions that would subject him to rigorous criticism. His supporters would doubtless play the race card, but after a while, that card would lose all value.

Posted by Stanley at 3:24 AM on February 29

Wow. Just think how different America would of been if Jared’s calm, cool, and rational mind had yielded the same kind of influence over the last 50 years that the late Mr. Buckley and his limp-wristed, dizzy disaster-conservatism did.

Posted by Richard O'Sullivan at 6:28 AM on February 29

Well Jared has really changed his tune from 2000 when AR did not support Pat Buchanan because Ezola Foster(a black women) was on the ticket with Pat. I can’t stand Obama and his abrasive wife. He is for open borders,affirmative action and is a prime exponent of multiculturalism. In fact he is by blood Mr.Multiculturalism.I won’t vote for president and will only vote for the good Republican candidates in my area.
I was VERY DISAPPOINTED to read the tone of Jared’s statements. We must educate our people to the danger poised by this extreme leftist.McCain is little better.

Posted by Charles at 9:05 PM on February 28

I too was disappointed with Mr. Taylor’s refusal to endorse Mrs. Foster for VP in 2000. Had he the benefit of hindsight I am certain he would conclude that the school teacher from the projects would be the best person for the job relative to the pack we had to choose from.

But today, with McCain and Hillery being such obvious, proven, and demonstrable nut jobs… a blind dog with AIDS married to a one legged chicken with all important decisions based on pure chance could not possibly be any worse than what we have had or are likely to get.

Mr. Taylor is a real human being who is learning from his past assessments and so much unlike 98% of the population who never ever made a mistake in political judgment.

Jared Taylor - malice towards none, charity to all, and a homeland for the White Race too.

Posted by at 9:04 AM on February 29

I just have to wonder if the Obamanation loses this election will there be riots in the streets, by his brothers and sisters?
or will they just chill out?

Posted by eamon at 9:24 AM on February 29

Ralph Nader anyone?

Posted by at 9:41 AM on February 29

Why fret whether an articulate mulatto, a Marxist feminist or an uninspiring white man will be the next president? Whoever takes office will be blamed for the unstoppable economic downtown of the next few years. Maybe you ought to hope whoever you dislike to win the election thus gaining the ammunition to prove a point you wanted to make in the first place. Because the downturn will happen regardless, it costs almost nothing.

Posted by Reality Check at 10:03 AM on February 29

Posted by jewamongyou at 6:44 PM on February 28

I totally agree. I won’t vote for McCain (a true liberal frontman for the traitorous elites) or Obama (a Communist frontman). I will write in Paul’s name.

Who is behind Obama? Let’s face it, he may very well have been groomed for this election since birth. I don’t align myself with conspiracy theorists but I am starting to question my wisdom in this regard…

Posted by GetBackJack at 10:44 AM on February 29

The reason why Obama is considered “black” goes back to the “one drop rule” used in the days of slavery. It is interesting because, according to a Vdare article by Steve Sailer, it is completely opposite in Latin America; they had a reverse “one drop rule” in which those with marginal amounts of White ancestry would be considered as White. This “reverse one drop” rule in Latin America is a useful tool in controlling the mixed race masses, and keeps them from revolting against the unsullied White elites. In other words, the mongrels of Latin America are easily fooled into thinking they can somehow become part of the ruling classes. I am curious as to which rule is ultimately better for a White society.

Posted by JJ Bjornsson at 11:11 AM on February 29

My daughter has nothing to do with it. I asked for genetic foundation.

BTW, I do have a daughter and for a year now she’s been dating a 6’4” fellow of Norwegian ancestry. We’re German, Dutch & Welsh, so if they marry and have children the result, of course, will be more white people.

Doing our part!

Posted by FTW at 11:48 AM on February 29

I`m writing in “My stopped clock with dead batteries” for President. It`s right twice a day… Better than any of the other candidates.

Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 11:57 AM on February 29

I found Mr. Taylor’s comments disturbing. He owes us an explanation.

For a Race Realist his views about Obama do not sound very Realistic!

He IS right to mention what Steve Sailer and others have pointed out, or helped us see, ie; Beware of the wife!

But, what does that say about Obama. We’re paying attention to something that others have noticed and now we’re noticing it.

Does anyone think it’s escaped Obama’s notice?
Of course not. It’s part of the reason he married her in the first place!

Also, if I was the head of AR and was asked about Obama I would simply point out that, as a Realist period, not just a Race Realist, I find it odd that we are ready to elect a President who refuses to acknowledge the FACT that he is half White. And that that half just happens to be the American half.

I would also point out, as one poster here has mentioned before, that if the Family is falling apart, schools in disarray, the economy in tatters, etc, etc. exactly HOW is a President going to fix it all simply because he’s half black?
And what does it say about the mental stability of a public who holds such expectations? And, perhaps more importantly, how deep are their resentments going to be when their expectations don’t come true? Since, as the expression goes, “Expectations are Resentments waiting to happen”.

But I would have also said this…

The office of the President of the USA is no longer what it was. THAT is how it’s possible for an Obama to be President.

As a wise man once told me, brains go where they have always gone. Where there’s the greatest risk and the greatest reward.

But risk implies success. There is no - NO - chance of ANY President having ANY success in solving our problems for the simple reason that our problems are not solvable by political manipulation, any more then they are through religious manipulation. Presumably that is one of the reasons we cast off Organized Religion with such glee.

No, it is time to, as another wise man once said, “re-evaluate ALL values.” But of course that is not going to happen. The only alternative is to fight against the evil Politically Correct-Mult·Culti Police State until it swallow us all up.

Posted by Scot Landers at 12:27 PM on February 29

Although I personally won’t be voting for Obama, or McCain either for that matter, the election of Obama may profoundly affect racial relations. For once we will be able to say “what glass ceiling, what curtailment of ambition by racism, we have a black president.” A ton of liberal guilt and self hatred will be exorcised. With that said, I give little chance of Obama being a successful president. The problems are too great, and his solutions are the same old diversity liberal rubbish.

Posted by Sardonicus at 12:28 PM on February 29

The only thing that will cause white people to think sensibly about race will be personal experience. As Mr. Taylor himself has stated,”The farther you are from them, the more you love them.” The average white person is subjected to a never ending drum-beat about the joys of diversity and multiculturalism. The entire education system, the advertisments of most corporations, and all main stream media portray the heroic black man.

Only personal experience over years will bring someone to understand that the average black man is not capable of self reliant life in a modern society. Seeing for yourself is the only way to overcome the brainwashing. Unless one actually sees for himself, no one would believe that blacks are as incompetent as they really are. Things like crime rates and school test scores are ignored and drowned out by the incessant proclaiming of “Diversity is our strength” from the media.

Posted by William Hendershot at 1:12 PM on February 29

Rob Hanks, that article you cited is somewhat flawed in my opinion. First of all “Arab” is not a racial classification; it’s a linguistic classification so “African Arab” could mean almost anything racially. Secondly, even if we accept that an “Arab” is a member of one of the ethnic groups living in the Middle East regardless of language, they are highly mixed and there is a strong likelihood of Obama’s “Arab” ancestors being partly black.

Posted by jewamongyou at 1:21 PM on February 29

I don’t have the heart to vote for anyone this election. I don’t want my vote endorsing or sanctioning what either party wishes for America, and it is also impossible for a third party to win an election, so voting in one is just allowing the country to pretend a third party vote matters, when it doesn’t. In the end I don’t even feel like an American, just a white stuck in America against my will. Someday I hope to live long enough to see a secession and a white homeland I could love.

Posted by Diamed at 1:25 PM on February 29

Obama is NOT BLACK. He is an ARAB American. I would have thought this would have gotten around Amren by now. Read about his background and look at this features. Posted by Rob Hanks
- - - - - - - - - -
That article is utter nonsense, and so is your misconstrued allegation. There is, undeniably, a lot of confusion in America as to what is Arab and what is Moslem. It would be like saying that every Roman Catholic is Italian!

The simple fact is that Obama doesn’t have a drop of Arab blood in him. His father was a Luo tribesman from Kenya … a pure black African. There are plenty of Moslem converts in Africa, but they are not Arabs, any more so than becoming an Anglican would have made his grandfather into an Englishman.

Obama may be a Moslem, that’s open to some question (though he denies he is), but he is certainly not an Arab!

Posted by browser at 1:54 PM on February 29

To poster at 727 PM.:

Obama is virulently anti-Second Amendment, although he now seems to back away from from his gun-registration stance. Don’t believe it for a second. His views on the Second Amendment are reason enough, in themselves, to prevent any serious, freedom-loving voter to cast a ballot for him.

Any politician who spits on the people’s right to self-defense, is unfit to govern a free people.

Heck, I’d vote for Anthony Soprano before I’d vote for Obama. He’s probably the most oily-tongued politician since William Jennings Bryan.

Posted by Soprano Fan at 2:00 PM on February 29

After reading some of his speeches and comments, it became quite clear to me that Hussein Obama wants to be president SOLEY…..and I mean SOLELY……….for the expressed purpose of doing everything he can to try to elevate blacks to a better level, because, like most black leaders, his one and only REAL concern is doing just that. That’s his wife’s prime goal, obviously, and she’s so dense she can’t offer any cover for her motives. They’re plain to see by anyone with half a brain.

Hessein Obama doesn’t want to help the country as a whole; he doesn’t really care about anything or anyone except for his tribesmen, which is the EXACT same attitude they all have.

And, after twenty years of listening to that vile ant-white criminal who is his pastor spew racist hatred of white fault for every single black failing, it’s more than obvious this presidential contender can’t be unaffected by such a barrage of propaganda. Keep in mind if Hessein didn’tlike what he kept saying all those years he would have left. He stayed because he’s in lock-step with the hateful pastor. Anybody who wasn’t wouldn’t put up with it all.

Examples? His assertions that call for helping black men everywhere, because he feels they fail because they don’t get a fair shake in this society. That they don’t succeed everywhere doesn’t seem to register with him. Of course, it wouldn’t be comprehensible to a brainwashed mind that is saturated with a daily bombardment of racial hate by his good reverend, plus the hateful influence of his other mentor Calypso Louie Farrakhan.

He addressed a crowd in Texas urging the same things that Bill Cosby pointed out about the failure of black parents and their children and their reluctance to improve themselves and would rather blame someone else for their incompetence. He spoke of giving them a breakfast before they go to school, becoming involved in their school work, making them observe a curfew of sorts, etc., all good suggestions, but it was obvious his concerns were centered on blacks and not whites, because he was speaking to a mixed audience, but only addressing a black problem, which is further proof that his main concern is with blacks and nobody else.

But, if he’s elected pres, he’ll be disappointed to find out that he didn’t make one single improvement among blacks, except to help push unqualified ones into positions they don’t deserve and are not qualified for. The rank and file will continue to fail and huge numbers will go to jail, because the vast majority of them are not bright enough to learn, plus they don’t want to learn anyway, and they have a natural propensity for crime and violence, exhibited by them the world over. In short, he will fail. Blacks are blacks. It isn’t possible to convert Forest Gump into Werner Von Braun simply by making him want to be that way or doing it through policy or favoritism.

Make no mistake about it though, there are very few blacks who do not think that all that is necessary to improve black accomplishment is more money for the schools, more teachers, more teacher’s assistant, a head start program, getting them started learning at an earlier age, school vouchers, top notch equipment,etc., or just getting the parents to participate more in the kid’s education and upbringing. They desperately hold onto those delusions because the truth would be to admit blacks have less ability than other groups, and they’re far too arrogant to do that. Far too arrogant. So they lie and deny.

While I’ll be the first to admit these programs will certainly improve blacks as a group, they’re just not going to put them on a competitive level with the other races of the country, not just whites. Would any of the aforementioned attempts make
Forest Gump smarter?

So the black problem will continue on unabated, with other programs, policies and solutions suggested and attempted, and all the while the MSM and other far left radicals will continue to play “let’s pretend,” and in the meantime the country will degenerate further…………….unless, of course, the economy takes a nose dive, big time, and the contentious tribes are fighting it out for their share of bread.

And when all is said and done that situation could well be the answer we’re looking for. Allowing the people to decide through any means necessary what is best for them has been the only sensible solution throughout history.

Posted by Robert Kelly at 2:18 PM on February 29

Posted by qwerty at 1:29 AM on February 29

I remember the day David Dinkins won the Mayoral race in NYC. But I will get to that later.

In the meantime, for those looking to get out, another alternative is Argentina.

The good side is it’s almost entirely white and the people are sweet and the women, well, the women in that country simply can not be beat. Stunning is the word I would use for a lot of them. Physically stunning. By comparison most American women look Butch and a bit Humanoid.

If you have money and are into an adventure and don’t mind learning some spanish, then go there. Plus, tons of them speak english, and most have no problem with the States, no matter what they might say in the press.

the down side is the undeniable fact that they are immature and selfish people to an almost unbelievable degree. But even with that they are so developmentally retarded they could be easily overrun, by anybody. In short, they are pushovers.

from what I gathered last time I was there, they will probably be annexed by China within the next 20 years. They are so stupid and lazy that if China, or anyone with lots of money wanted, they could take over Argentina in a week. They don’t work well together and so are easily bought. But my goodness, the women!

But that country aside, I dont think anyone itching to get out of the States ought to feel bad. No one is obligated to stand by and wait to be killed.

And now I return to 1989 when Dinkins won as Mayor. I had to work early in the morning, really early, and as I made my way through the streets a black man in his early 30’s was pushing a shopping cart filled with whatever (obviously homeless, though admittedly the most in shape homeless guy I ever saw) and yelling menacingly, “look out you White M-F’ers, next stop the White House!”

they are SO desperate for this that they will even welcome Obama into the fold, whereas, as Obama himself knew, and me too, as I am his age and grew up in a Black and White, mostly Black, school, neighborhood, etc. he was NEVER considered Black in the 70’s, 80’s, etc. never. But they will welcome him so that they can pluck their one, out of tune, stringed violin, playing their favorite song - Revenge, Revenge, Revenge.

Posted by Scot Landers at 2:19 PM on February 29

“Would someone please tell me why a person who is half white and half black is considered black”

If said person came home to date your daughter, would you consider him white?
— — — — — — — —
Such an unfortunate creature is “neither fish nor fowl” and has no name or place. But everyone wants to belong somewhere. In the British colonial world, he would have been considered “coloured”. The British were a good deal more sophisticated about it (back then, when race was not a tabooed topic). There were the blacks, the whites, and then the mixed-breeds (coloureds) — just as they still are in South Africa today, and perhaps still the West Indies. Three castes, not two.

For some reason, continental North America adapted a more rigid system of “either or”. It has been our racial dilemma and our torment ever since.

Is Lena Horne black? Is Andy Young black? Is Farrakhan black? Was Josephine Baker black? Is Obama black? Are virtually ALL the “black” leaders and celebrities really black?

In the old British system, they would have known who they were. They would have had a name and a legitimate place; and they never would have claimed to be black. If anyone suggested it, it would have been taken as an insult.

Posted by browser at 2:20 PM on February 29

The country is so fractured, duped, confused, and bamboozled, there is no good choice. However, the lesser of the evils is McCain (whom I dislike).

At least he will have a huge politicl machine behind him that will not run the train completey off the tracks the way a racial, empty suit, socialist will.

If you don’t vote for the lesser of the evils, start getting your financial affairs in order, because slavery reparations can’t be far off. Notice that subject has never come up in any of the debates or sound bytes?

Posted by Lucas M at 2:27 PM on February 29

I’m still not 100% sure who I’ll vote for. Naturally I’d sooner vote for McCain because he’s at least more conservative than the other two. However, like the other two, he doesn’t have the common man’s interet at heart and he’s nothing more than a globalist. There are so many different pros and cons to each.

On the other hand, it would appear Hillary and Obama may sooner want the public to consistently be happy with them, thus they may be more pliable. Unlike our current President who won’t budge, and who won’t listen to his constituents.

I’ve thought about voting for Obama because it would hurt the white guilt phenomenon. And supposedly the economy will tank so why not let it be blamed on a liberal? Additionally, the idea arises that Obama will flaunt multi-culturalism and bias towards minorities thus winning us more people to our cause.

Again, on the flip side, I think that even if serious problems hit the US, the media would look the other way and point towards Bush. Always covering for Obama’s mistakes. After all, most average Joe’s don’t read and research or pay half as much attention to news like we do. So ???

At any rate, I’m strongly leaning towards McCain.

Posted by RealityCheck at 2:30 PM on February 29

If the late great Sam Francis were here he would suggest that we vote for the person most likely to destroy the republican party, not for or against someone because of other issues, including race or sex. That is job one and we must keep the goal in mind, not short time emotional satisfaction.

Posted by White Activist at 3:02 PM on February 29

Jared Taylor is correct. Blacks are going to get far more then they wished for when/if America elects a Black president. It will be a serious, maybe (I hope) a deadly blow to White guilt over Black failure. Realistically how could anyone claim that America is a rascist society if its leader is a Black man elected while America still had a White majority.

Posted by Irish_reader at 3:15 PM on February 29

Arabs are members of the Semitic branch of the Caucasian race. Obama’s “father” was a Black Kenyan who happened to be Muslim. In the Muslim “relgion” Arabic is the “Lingua Franca”. Most of North Africa was conquered by Arabs in their quest to spread Islam. Not everyone who is Muslim is an Arab even though they may be encouraged to learn Arabic in order to get the truest nterpretation of the Qu’uran.

Being an American of Italian/Irish origin I don’t consider myself English because I speak the language nor are Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Colombians Spanish because they speak the language.

Posted by at 3:40 PM on February 29

Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America’s first African-American president.”

Posted by Rob Hanks at 2:55 AM on February 29

Good point Rob. Very good point.

But how many people, white or black, will look at him in this way?

From what any of us can gather he is being actively promoted as the soon to be first black president.

And as far as that is concerned I would echo what I have heard from others….

That the office of the President of the USA just doesn’t matter as much as it used to. His victory will be important symbolically. Because the office is still important - symbolically. Fact is, even Warren Beatty got it right when he said in an interview with David Frost years ago that no one worth anything really wants the job. He was right.

Of course, they will say that such a point of view is just sour grapes. But that’s neither here nor there.

Fact is, they are “winning” because of forfeit, on the part of the overwhelming majority of Whites. And those Whites can cover up their cowardice and apathy with words like “openness”, “compassion”, or the deliciously comic, and my personal favorite in terms of all out, fall down laughing hilarity, “progress”. But that too is - besides the point.

Posted by Salty Dog at 4:19 PM on February 29

I was VERY DISAPPOINTED to read the tone of Jared’s statements. We must educate our people to the danger poised by this extreme leftist.McCain is little better.

Posted by Charles at 9:05 PM on February 28

Posted by at 9:04 AM on February 29

The “disappointment” Charles is talking about has nothing to do with Taylor not endorsing Buchanan in 2000 because his VP was black, but with his (Taylor) non-chalant response about a possible black president. It’s hard to believe that so many on this comment board admit that they would vote for Thomas Sowell to be president. How much experience does he have in politics. Please friends, say no to “White Guilt”.

Posted by Howard in Las Vegas at 4:26 PM on February 29

“Realistically how could anyone claim that America is a rascist society if its leader is a Black man elected while America still had a White majority.”

America is extremely racist, against whites. Everyone old enough, and who doesn’t get paid to say otherwise, knows this. What I find disturbing is Mr Taylor can’t lead with this or even discuss it in this attempt to make Taylor sound reasonable (and so a guiding voice for us haters) in the MSM. By the way, I kind of like the idea of Obama as president too.

Posted by at 5:15 PM on February 29

Oh the irony of it all.

Consider this:

Hillary is a terrible politician. On her own, sans Bill Clinton, I really doubt she could be elected as a small town tax collector much less a U.S. Senator.

But yet, she has been able to poll almost 50% against Barack Obama.
Amongst hard core Democrats.

Do you really think that those numbers represent the “humourless bra-burning” feminists?

Most of those Hillary votes are anti-Obama votes.

Especially amongst white blue collar and white elderly Democrats.
Both groups have experienced first hand the glories of living in close proximity to large numbers of blacks and will vote for a white liberal Republican rather than a black.

So lots of Democrats will probably pull the lever for McCain this year. Rather than put a Kenyan in the White House.

Meanwhile, white nationalists will vote Obama?
Or not at all?

Rather than electing a so-called “turncoat” into office?

The last white man to run for president that wasn’t a traitor was Pat Buchanon. Before him, George Wallace.

And before those two, you have to go back before Wilson. Better yet, before the Civil War.

Every President in the last century has been a traitor.
In one way or another.

There is NOTHING more deviant and depraved than a people who would choose to be led by an alien people who naturally despise their culture and their very existence.

I’ll vote for the Devil himself before I’ll vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by at 5:29 PM on February 29

Really how could Obama be any worse than Juan McCain, Jorge Bush, or Ms. Clinton?

How could he pander to blacks anymore than the Clintons?

How could the borders be anymore open under him than they would be under Bush or McCain?

Posted by Dennis at 5:32 PM on February 29

Why is it important to discuss whether Obama is black or not? My own opinion is he has all the classic features of blackness; skin color, big lips and nose. He has a black inflexion in his voice and listening to him I would know he was black without ever looking at his face. His wife has a chip on her shoulder because she knows she’s the product of affirmative action and felt inferior around her class peers in college. Why shouldn’t she feel that way? Listening to her speak, you’d think she was a hairdresser from Compton instead of an Ivy League graduate.

I still think Hillary will get the nomination. Nominating Obama would damage the Democratic Party in so many ways I wouldn’t think they’d risk it. I’m a Republican but if the race comes down to Clinton and McCain, I’m staying home on election day. There’s very little difference between them. As long as she doesn’t give Obama the VP, I think most conservatives will do the same thing. If Obama gets the nomination, McCain most likely will win. It’s very possible that White Democrats might lose interest in Obama and instead go for Ralph Nader.

Posted by at 5:58 PM on February 29

My 2 cents:
I still think that after the hysteria about who takes on the office of President dies down the climate of conflict between the races in this country will sharpen. The election mirrors the confusion between the “majorities”; and I use that word advisedly. Each major ethnic group, i.e., White European, African, Asian and Mestizo, is powerful within their enclaves and there is more reason than not to suspect the continuing ethnic divisions of USA to deepen rather than lessen.Why should a group move out of its comfort zone? The illusion that people want to integrate began in the forced bussing era. That time is not representative, any more so than the Cultural Revolution is in China’s history. People in this country will want to be left alone to pursue their lives and they will do so as angst-free as possible, and integration and diversity may get lip service but not any more. Further the government-in-charge, not the elected one but the one that runs things,knows the African mentality is collectivist and anti-national. It knows the political thinking of blacks cannot be trusted and cannot be improved. Thus, the Mexican-Mestizo presence.
This presence is to be used as a counterforce to the blacks. The powers that be are willing to tolerate (i.e., benignly promote) Mestizo resurgence simply because such a political movement is comprehensible. The Meztizos want their land back and they will work to get it; the blacks want….what? When you contemplate it, the black platform is hopelessly abstract and thus unfeasible. It is an imitation of a passionately - felt political movement. A thought experiment: what would be the Mestizo reaction to a request for reparations from them to blacks? Do you think they’d buckle and hand it over? Ha.
I could go on and on, but I feel when the Mestizo crunch hits the blacks will suffer the most and lose out economically more than ever.

Posted by mark at 7:20 PM on February 29

Obama’s “father” was a Black Kenyan who happened to be Muslim. In the Muslim “relgion” Arabic is the “Lingua Franca”. Most of North Africa was conquered by Arabs in their quest to spread Islam. Not everyone who is Muslim is an Arab
Posted by at 3:40 PM
— — — — — —
You make a very good point. But I might add that Kenya is nowhere near North Africa, and Moslems in Kenya don’t speak Arabic. They speak Swahili or their own native tribal tongues.

Posted by browser at 7:35 PM on February 29

I’m [I]absolutely[/I] [I]certain[/I] I can figure out something better to do with my time than waste it on trying to choose between open borders and open borders. I will neither ratify or dignify what is essentially an illegitimate political process.

Posted by at 8:19 PM on February 29

“While I’ll be the first to admit these programs will certainly improve blacks as a group”

That was the only sentence in Robert Kelly’s long and excellent post that I disagreed with. The rest is wonderful and well worth reading.

Blacks most definitely will not improve as a group as the result of more special treatment. The reason is too simple and devoid of any complexity. The reason is because special treatment itself DOES NOT WORK - with anyone.

Oh, and by the way Brothers and Sisters at AR, in my humble opinion, many of you are missing the point concerning McCain.

There’s one important reason why McCain HAS to win.

He’s a White Man!

The rest is irrelevant.

100 years of war? Well, that’s proof he’s unhinged.

and Obama? He’s not unhinged because he doesn’t say that we’ll be at war for a 100 years?

That doesn’t make him not unhinged, it makes him shrewd.

He’s unhinged in terms of his deep, intense, and unrelenting racial conflict, and how it has obviously effected his ability to negotiate his relationship with the important things in life, like, REALITY!

Besides, it’s not as if the Middle East, and what we do there, has ANYTHING to do with whoever is President of the USA.

What Obama will do will be to practice politics Latin American-style. That is, he’ll criticize the people his constinuency hates WHILE doing business with them. Or, in this case (the Middle East), while doing exactly what they tell him to do. Since they are the bosses. They are the REAL OWNERS of this country.

Presidents are window dressing.

That being the case, it’s simply a matter of what you want your window to look like.

Posted by Mal Evans at 9:56 PM on February 29

The last white man to run for president that wasn’t a traitor was Pat Buchanon. Before him, George Wallace….. before those two, you have to go back before Wilson. Better yet, before the Civil War.
Every President in the last century has been a traitor.

In one way or another. There is NOTHING more deviant and depraved than a people who would choose to be led by an alien people who despise their culture and their very existence.
Posted by at 5:29 PM
—————————————————
I hear you! Yes, I hear you. So what is the solution? Does voting do any good at all — for candidates that have been pre-selected for us by the media?

Mal Evans said, “Presidents are merely the window dressing. They do whatever their owners tell them them. It’s simply a matter of what you want your window to look like.”

I think Mal Evans has it figured exactly right. Thanks Mal.

Posted by voter at 11:04 PM on February 29

Listening to the Clintons attack Obama has made me realize that Hillary is more conservative than McCain! Let’s face it, the Clintons are racist despite their racial pandering. A person who can get up in front of a black audience and start mouthing off like Prissy from “Gone With the Wind” obviously doesn’t think they’re her equals. The only thing missing was the blackface makeup. Being racist is not a bad thing either. Everyone is racist including me! I just hate the way she uses these people to attack her enemies (conservatives).

Posted by at 11:34 PM on February 29

Obama is NOT BLACK. He is an ARAB American.

Don’t be absurd. A simple Google image search provides us with all the proof we need that Obama is indeed half BLACK.

Here’s Obama’s father:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2007/Feb/10/FPI702100346V2_b.jpg

And here’s Obama’s paternal grandmother:

http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/news/art10.jpg

Check the facts before you post blatant misinformation.

Posted by at 1:16 AM on March 1

5:58:

I think you are wrong on this one. Obama will be the nominee. He is the media candidate.

7:20:

I say that we as whites will have more to fear from Mexicans than Blacks will.

Posted by Our nation is doomed. at 2:10 AM on March 1

I haven’t researched what Obama has done or hasn’t done (and of course I should), but he feels to me like a person who doesn’t know who he is. He doesn’t feel to me like he’s rooted in anything, neither in a black identity, nor in any other kind of identity.

In spite of his articulateness, his personality feels incoherent. Contrary to his theme of unity, I believe he will bring a feeling of increased incoherence to this country that will be truly frightening.

His wife of course is not a nebulous figure at all—she sounds like most of the black women I hear, with their “chip-on-their-shoulder” voices. I was sick of that sound years ago, and now I’m going to have to listen to it from the “First Lady”?

Posted by H. Dumpty at 4:19 AM on March 1

“So lots of Democrats will probably pull the lever for McCain this year. Rather than put a Kenyan in the White House.

Meanwhile, white nationalists will vote Obama?
Or not at all?

Rather than electing a so-called “turncoat” into office?

There is NOTHING more deviant and depraved than a people who would choose to be led by an alien people who naturally despise their culture and their very existence.

I’ll vote for the Devil himself before I’ll vote for Barack Obama.”

Absolutely. I’m always amazed by some of the comments on this web site from supposed white nationalist. It does not matter than Thomas Sowell has many good ideas. He is Black and should not lead a White country based on European cultural.

Do you really think that Sowell or Walter Williams would agree with our race realist views? Of course not! They blame Black failure on a poor attitude toward work and education (the same as the White “colorblind conservatives”) which can be changed through self-reliance, not on inherent differences in the races.

McCain may be wrong on many things but at least he has some good ideas (he is still a Republican) and he is from the White founding stock of this country.

Posted by Economist at 5:21 AM on March 1

I think that Jared Taylor response to tha possibility of a black president is to dispel the idea that we are all just a bunch of Bigots.We certainly made many of our opponents look like bigots.What we can expect from an Obama presidency will be the same leftist marxist drivel which gave the republican party the House and senate in 1994.Remember what David Dinkins did to New York in the 1980s.The september 11 attacks saved us from a massive illegal alien amnesty in 2001.It did a lot for the White Nationalism.Obama will do even more for White Nationalism.Worse is Better.

Posted by Tony Soprano at 10:50 AM on March 1

I’m always amazed by some of the comments on this web site from supposed white nationalist. It does not matter than Thomas Sowell has many good ideas. He is Black and should not lead a White country based on European cultural.

Posted by Economist at 5:21 AM on March 1

I hear ya, I hear ya. But I would make a careful distinction Economist.

The distinction between White Nationalist and Race Realist.

Personally, though I understand and symptathize with the WN’s, I honestly think they are whistling in the wind.

If anything I would refer to myself as a Race Realist with the emphasis on Realist, as in Reality. It’s the one place ALL of us live in whether we want to or not. There is simply no choice.

The only thing that confuses the issue, so to speak, is our beliefs. I think Dedalus is right in this respect. Realism isn’t absolute truth, but it’s certainly preferable to the fantasies that gave us the “Politcally Correct-Multi·Culti Police State we all live in now.”

So I think Mr. Taylor’s remarks are simply the result of a realistic appraisal of the situation.

Posted by Salty Dog at 1:48 PM on March 1

Economist:

If you only had two choices. Would you rather have a radical White communist who hates America and would do everything posssible to damage Whites leading this nation or a person like Thomas Sowell who is in sync with many of our views?

I would opt for Thomas Sowell

Posted by Victor at 3:08 PM on March 1

“If you only had two choices. Would you rather have a radical White communist who hates America and would do everything posssible to damage Whites leading this nation or a person like Thomas Sowell who is in sync with many of our views?

I would opt for Thomas Sowell.”

Never. I could never bring myself to vote for a Black president. I would abstain or write-in someone (e.g., Ron Paul).

Posted by Economist at 8:00 PM on March 1

Isn’t a big reason that most whites haven’t been too upset at black “shenanigans” the fact that whites still feel secure in some basic way because, to all appearances, the country is still mostly in white hands? Whites look at whoever is president, they look at the Senate, the House, the bigshots in business, and almost uniformly they see whites, and they are viscerally reassured that black excesses are not that important in the overall scheme of things in this country.

With a black president, whites will no longer feel at a visceral level that whites are in firm control, and the criminality, bullying aggressiveness, and other actions of blacks and their sponsors that are curtailing whites’ public, private, and economic space will seem more real and threatening. Whites will not feel as emotionally insulated from black excess as formerly, since they will no longer have the visceral feeling that the country is still firmly in hands of persons like themselves.

A black man as president may finally place blackness at front and center in whites’ minds. When whites see on their television a member of the black race in the position of “the most powerful man in the world,” then, by association with his importance, whites may begin to also give more importance to black crime and other actions. The threat from blacks will no longer seem dismissible as just a minor irritant pressing up from below, but now also may be felt as a threat crushing down on them from above.

The greatly increased presence and visibility of illegal immigrants in this country finally aroused white opposition toward the cultural, racial, and economic threat of that group. Hopefully, if Obama is elected, the increased presence and visibility he will give to blackness in whites’ consciousness will help change whites’ current unthinking and unrealistic attitude toward this group also.

Posted by H. Dumpty at 9:56 PM on March 1

“If the late great Sam Francis were here he would suggest that we vote for the person most likely to destroy the republican party”

We did. Twice. He’s sitting in the White House now!

Posted by GetBackJack at 10:26 PM on March 1

The media in France are showing much interest in Obama. You frequently see his pictures on display. They are hoping that he will show the way for France (and for Europe) so that in 10 years they, too , can have a black president. They are lamenting that they presently have no black (or coloured) lleaders in situations to compare with Obama.

Naturally, the large non-white population here is very enthusiastic about him. I would assume the same is true in Britain and elsewhere — wherever they have large disaffected non-white populations who will have to be appeased with ever more concessions, especially if Obama wins the presidency in the United States. Can you imagine a Luo tribesman in the White House as the more powerful man in the world? The entire Third World (now including a good part of Europe) will be ecsatatic!
And they will demand more black politicans there too. As always, America is setting an example for the world to follow.

Posted by ghw at 12:14 AM on March 2

St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister: “However, I think and fear that the lower class of blacks in this country will feel their oats and become arrogant simply because a black man (even the “aracial” Obama) is so close to becoming President. In earnest, they are/will commit hate crimes against whites.”
I agree 100% with you and have the same fear that certain blacks will see an Obama presidency as open season on whites. I predict a rise in black-on-white violence.

Posted by at 10:14 AM on March 2

White Activist and Get Back Jack:

I knew Sam Francis personally. First off, he wasn’t that hot about George W. Bush. In fact, in November 2000, he told me that the ideal scenario was that Al Gore would beat Bush by a narrow margin, for the reason that the political class would interpret a message from it advantageous to us. The Republicans would learn that racial pandering doesn’t win, but the margin of Gore’s victory wouldn’t be so wide as to call it a defeat for the right wing.

As for Obama, I know he would never vote for him, and he would never recommend we vote for him, under any circumstance. When the Council of Conservative Citizens received our first round of media scrutiny in late 1998 and early 1999, a black talk radio host, Ken Hamblin, was one of our most enthusiastic defenders. In fact, he hosted four debates between CofCC CEO Gordon Baum and SPLC’s Mark Potok, and had Gordon on a few other times solo.

Eventually, some of us (me included) got the bright idea to bring him in as a speaker at one of our National Conferences. It stayed just an idea because of Sam, whose relatively angry interrogative to those of us who were entertaining this idea went something like this: “Why do any of you think we need permission from some non-white to advocate for white people?”

I hardly think that Sam would want Obama, Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell being the head of state of a white country.

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 10:43 AM on March 2

A seprate homeland for Native Born White Americans means handing over large tracts of American territory-the nation founded and created by White Americans to Mexico,China, Iran(over one million Iranian “Americans” and Pakistatani’s at present count in California).

I am quite quite certain that the colonizers from Mexico,China, Iran,India and Pakistans would be very sympathetic to Sam Dickson’s proposal.

A White homeland means Whites will be restricted to a much smaller space than the currerntly occupy in America. There will be far fewer resources. The amenities will be gone. Native born White Americans will be surrounded by our enemies.

Stop looking for a K Obama is not aracial in his politics. He has already promised hispanics an open borders immigration policy.

Posted by Jupiter at 10:51 AM on March 2

Re “A White homeland”:

We Have “a White homeland.” It’s the U.S.A.

The Spanish didn’t fight their Moorish occupiers in hopes of securing for themselves some part of Spain as a “homeland.” They fought the Moors to drive them completely out of Spain.

(Actually, I don’t know what different Spaniard’s intentions were during that long struggle, but we all know what the Spaniards finally accomplished.)

It’s hard to imagine that non-whites would leave us in peace on our reservation. The same as now, they will want our goodies.

And power sufficient to protect a reduced homeland would probably be power sufficient to control the entire country anyway.

In the spirit of George C. Scott’s opening address to the troops in the movie “Patton”, we should be thinking about homelands for the OTHER GUYS.

Posted by H. Dumpty at 12:43 PM on March 2

I know how awful what I am about to say would sound to the average person. What sort of racist would say what I am about to say? Obama is for de-whitening this and all other eurocentric nations in the west. He wants to see non whites flood in and mix it up with us. He wants this change to be permanant and progressive. He wants to see us morally disarmed while all the other racial groups build organizations and power bases. He is part of the international cartel that seeks to destroy western nations. This is simply fact.

Posted by at 1:47 PM on March 2

“A seprate homeland for Native Born White Americans means handing over large tracts of American territory-the nation founded and created by White Americans to Mexico,China, Iran(over one million Iranian “Americans” and Pakistatani’s at present count in California).

I am quite quite certain that the colonizers from Mexico,China, Iran,India and Pakistans would be very sympathetic to Sam Dickson’s proposal.

Judging from cities like Los Angeles, El Paso, Birmingham, Atlanta, Miami, etc. it seems we’ve already ceded these areas by default. Whites are already voluntarily restricting themselves to smaller space through the process of White flight. We have a large growing nonwhite population that is pushing itself into all areas of the nation. It seems to me that if we don’t cut off a couple of limbs to save the body, we’re done for.

Posted by at 2:49 PM on March 2

“the ideal scenario was that Al Gore would beat Bush by a narrow margin, for the reason that the political class would interpret a message from it advantageous to us.
The Republicans would learn that racial pandering doesn’t win.”
St.Louis
— — — — — — — — —
With all respects, to you and to him, I have to wonder if they would have learned anything. I wonder if they are too far-gone by now to learn anything at all. After four decades of incessant propaganda, racial pandering and the cult of diversity have advanced so far that by now it may be hoping for too much to expect people to think clearly on the subject.

I rather suspect that no matter what losses they incurred, they would never abandon their inculcated beliefs. Those are now beyond questioning. They’re dogma. It’s become their new, holy religion. It would be like expecting the Pope to renounce the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or something such. Ain’t gonna happen!

Posted by browser at 4:17 PM on March 2

Right you are. An Obama nomination will bring more people over to your cause. I have been a life long somewhat moderate Democrat, and I have worked with blacks, gone to school with blacks, and have been losing my patience with all they get and get away with — and see the media fawning and favoring them. I am fed up I’m ready to come over to your side. Granted, as a woman, I’m still for Hillary, but if she doesn’t secure the nomination, and loses because of a smooth talkin’ brother who hasn’t paid his dues and gotten the free ride by the press (very little nation-wide reports on Rezko, his wife’s thesis, etc.) very little to no experience and a smart mouthed wife, who benefitted from affirmative action, guys …I’m comin’ over to your side. I’d pull the lever for McCain in a minute — and that’s waht I’ve been hearing from other Hillary supporters. Although the liberal press (and the arrogant Obama) keep saying Hillary’s supporters will vote for Obama, but Obama’s supporters will not vote for Hillary NOT. So, YES, this will help your cause, and it IS helping your cause.

Posted by MrsUSA at 4:29 PM on March 2

H.Dumpty:

You are dreaming.

Posted by Randy at 10:32 PM on March 2

“I’m comin’ over to your side. I’d pull the lever for McCain in a minute — and that’s waht I’ve been hearing from other Hillary supporters.” MrsUSA

With all due respect, I don’t think that voting for John McCain will help our cause. He is one of the leading proponents of Shamnasty—legalizing alien lawbreakers. Raising healthy and racially conscious children would be one thing that you could do. The mother is the most important and influential person in a child’s life. Moreover, just being proud of our European culture and heritage is a step in our direction.

Posted by Sardonicus at 12:18 PM on March 3

H.Dumpty:

You are dreaming.

Posted by Randy at 10:32 PM on March 2
________________________________________________

I tell as many white people as I can that what they are personally experiencing with black people is really happening. Some of them begin to wake up from THEIR dream.

Posted by H. Dumpty at 1:09 PM on March 3

posted by 2:49 am

What I propose is a cordon-sanataire policy. Cordon of the infected areas and let them rot.However this has to be done within the next ten years. Hopefully a series of catastrophic events will occur in this time period that will scare some sense into Native Born White Americans.

Seccession will result in Native Born White Americans being surrounded by their enemies.Non-Whites will inherit a lethal military infrastructure. Keep in mind the following:in the non-White areas of the former US, the population will explode. They will make a move on resources in the White areas. In there White areas the population may increase also. If the White population dos increase in the Whitea areas, Life will become unbearable. Housing will be unafforable for millions of Whites. There will be overlapping ecosystems. So the nonwhite will be able to pollute and destroy ecosystems in the White areas. People will start wishing they were dead. Secession will=the death of White America. Seccesion is an infantile fantasy.

If the cordon-santaire policy is pursued, a policy of 0 legal and illegal must be implemented in the White Areas. Let the non-white areas rot.

We need to start discussing this stuff soon. I’m suprised that this isn’t being discussed on Vdare.com. It is getting late in the game Peter.

From here on in,worse is better.

Posted by Jupiter at 2:08 PM on March 3

“I hardly think that Sam would want Obama, Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell being the head of state of a white country.”

Yes, I’m sure Sam Francis would be fuming at the idea of a black president. He’d have plenty of words to say about it. I think you’re right.

Posted by at 2:37 PM on March 3

Like Obama sez… “we have to unite and all will be well.”

I would expect his solution for the Black and Hispanic crime problem to be equally simplistic. Explained with but one word: CENSORSHIP!

Posted by Fed Up at 2:41 PM on March 3

“I’m comin’ over to your side. I’d pull the lever for McCain in a minute — and that’s waht I’ve been hearing from other Hillary supporters.”
Posted by MrsUSA

Why pull the lever for EITHER ONE?

Posted by voter at 6:34 PM on March 3

The more I look at the candidates for the Presidential election, the more I realise that the puppet masters of Obama are using great tactics. All he does (is allowed to do?) is speak in empty rhetoric (face it, he wouldn’t be able to make a speech if he was not allowed to use the word ‘change’) while allowing the other candidates policy positions and his blackness to accumulate support.

This election cycle has really exposed how much the two-party system (Americans love to point out that they are a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY, but the truth is you have the same old familiar two-party system) is a total sham that only serves the interests of the elites. Recent polls give the number of people who do not want amnesty at 80%+, and about the same amount for those against the continuation of foreign intervention, ie war based on false pretenses involving a superpower against fourth-rate nations. The only candidate who is against both amnesty and intervention is denied air time and polls less than 5%!

One side for intervention and amnesty, and the other totally opposite side for intervention and amnesty? Whichever is picked, you will lose.

Posted by ODDL at 11:37 AM on March 4

Something is indeed happening all across America which is another way of saying “anywhere but here.” I avoid it and it avoids me. Yet it can’t be ignored.
Those who campaign vigorously for Obama, cheering wildly at the very sight of him seem to exist at another level, cut off from reality. They’re truly a lost generation. They aren’t fighting for change so much as they’re ignorant of what genuine change constitutes. They demand greater freedom while obilivous to the freedom they already wallow in. Obama isn’t even the main attraction. Sure he’s the “dream” candidate but dreams were never intended for practical purposes. The dream itself is what’s important to Obama’s followers. Yet it’s an impossible dream hammered together out of utopia blether and optimism that can only burn out. Obama rallies around no great cause as indeed there exists no great cause to rally around. He’s his own cause and the direction he provides leads nowhere but right back at those who seek it. People are searching for themselves, not a better America and are essentially sleepwalking through history.
It’s absurd to talk of the Obama candidacy “moving us beyond race.” Why does Obama get so much attention?: because he’s black. His election will “redeem” America. So clearly race is as much an issue as it ever was. And “diversity” is simply a code word for the trampling and degrading of white culture and the white race.
So no, I won’t be voting for Obama because he doesn’t represent me in the slightest. I refuse to be told what to do by a black man who hates me and I refuse to be a part of his communist “vision” for America.
The pro-white movement must go on. Remember, sometimes the darkest moment is just before dawn.

Posted by JN at 7:07 PM on March 4

“The successful societies of the earth in the future will be the ones without blacks.”

Absolutely correct, period.

Posted by Lars at 7:21 PM on March 4

In Michelle Obama’s thesis she bemoans with no basis (despite all the racial preferences she has enjoyed) that she will always be considered a “black person” and be on the “margin”. (How many whites would have LOVED to be on the “margin” like she has been, getting into Harvard and Princeton based only on racial preferences, and later enjoying a series of 6 figure salary plumb jobs, living in a two million dollar mansion!)
But it just shows how whites just can’t win with these ever ungrateful black racists: We also hear blacks complain when any whites says they DON’T think of them as being a “black person” too! (Because that “denies their blackness”.)
So if you think of a black person as a black person, you’re racist. But if you DON’T think of a black person as a black person, you’re STILL a racist!)

Posted by at 11:46 PM on March 9

Home Top Previous story Next Story Send This Page Search