Last week, Liberal America had one of its periodic conniption fits over “racism” and this inspired a series of columns in the New York Times and elsewhere, which I am only now (slowly) dredging through.
1.) For Bob Herbert (negro), the hideously white 9/12 protesters were driven by “racism,” pure and simple. They just can’t stand the fact that a black man is president. He doesn’t have much patience for anyone who suggests otherwise. Large gatherings of angry White people make him instinctively uncomfortable. This is essentially Black America’s point of view.
Every other column that Herbert writes is about race and his perspective should be taken with a grain of salt. Blacks don’t engage in meaningful “politics” like the White community. There is little in the way of internal disagreement amongst them. Instead, they vote their racial grievances at every election and see every issue through a racial prism.
2.) David Brooks sees more populism than racism in the Tea Parties. He correctly notes that Americans have been arguing for centuries over the appropriate size of the government. Populist movements are always “ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top.”
The Tea Party movement is undoubtedly populist in tone, but it is worth noting that Bush didn’t elicit the same visceral reaction that Obama has when he stumped for his own stimulus package or the Medicare prescription drug package. Whether this is due to racism, partisanship, or some combination of the two, I am not sure, but the activation of ‘implicit whiteness’ is undoubtedly a major factor in turning out these large crowds.
3.) Frank Rich (Jew) blames racism and populism and hopes that Obama can defuse the simmering populist rage and harness it to his own agenda. He believes this can be done along the same lines that FDR dealt with Huey Long. As with the rest of his recent columns, Frank Rich’s writing is colored by a fear and loathing of ordinary White people, whom he longs to see permanently checkmated in a non-White America.
4.) Charles Blow (negro) believes there are shades of racism. His view comes closest to my own account of the ‘implicit whiteness’ driving driving the Tea Party movement. These people aren’t “racist” in the sense that they believe blacks are an inferior race. Instead, they have a vague sense that they are “losing their country” (ceasing to be the ‘insiders’) a sentiment that isn’t shared by non-Whites.
5.) Privately, Barack Obama (negro) probably agrees with Bob Herbert, but he is an astute politician who is smart enough to know that charges of racism are now dynamite that just as often blow up in the hands of the accuser, as was the case in the Henry Louis Gates fiasco. He is handicapped by his schtick of presenting himself as a “post-racial candidate” in last year’s election.
The amazing aspect of black criticism of white politics is that blacks have NO positions or opinions whatsoever, none, that are not overtly racial. Nada. Their obsession with race would make a Grand Wizard feel guilty. They major in it in school, base their careers on it, extort every undeserved privilege and dollar they can from it, and use it as their sole guide to voting. They are the world’s most fanatical racists.
“Implicit whiteness” undoubtedly held back the tidal wave of loathing that built up over the killings of white American men in Bush’s Asian land wars, his trade and budget deficits, his risible apologies, and his TARP legislation. But Obama certainly is reaping the whirlwind by adding on his own excesses with Af-Pak, AIG, Goldman, GM, and assorted revealing statements of his own starting with “acting white” and “typical white person” both of which labels smother our diversity and reduce us to unidimensional caricatures, and his insult to the Cambridge PD which is what really triggered the tsunami we see sweeping over him.
I don’t think that’s racism, a term with little meaning anymore, except that Bush got the Louis XV treatment while Obama seems to be symbolically reaping the Louis XVI treatment.
I can hear Bush muttering, “Apres moi le deluge.”
I suspect the reason Obama is getting the Louis XVI treatment is because the Jews have learned something behind the scenes, from Obama’s Jewish handlers, that Obama in less friendly toward Israel than they’d like. I see no other way to account for it.
Notice the honeymoon ended abruptly after his Cairo speech, which alarmed Jews greatly.
David Brooks is definitely Jewish. The text should read David Brooks (Jew).
I second Robert Lindsay, #5. Brooks is Jewish and as hypocritical and as nauseating as they come. He’s very simply a typical Jewish Eurochristian hater.
“The text should read David Brooks (Jew).”
Robert Lindsay (Goy).
Barack Obama (negro)
LOL
Prozium, you slay me! One literally has to be from another planet in order to not know that Obama is a negro. Thank you for that.
Excellent writing and content, btw.
We’re all goys now.
I’ve been arguing with conservatives(in real life, not on the internet) who say that opposition to Obama’s health care scheme has nothing to do with race. “Implicit whiteness” is obviously a factor here, and as you note, a factor in the lack of opposition to Bush’s un-conservative policies among most white conservatives.
I often find myself taking this kind of position against “color blind” conservatives who make absurd assertions about race, for example, that a black man is NOT more likely be stopped by the police or followed around a store. The WN position is that these things do happen, and for good reason.
The modern conservative position on race seems to be that race doesn’t matter and never really has. Some of these people will minimize “racism” in American history to ridiculous degrees, such as claiming that many blacks supports the Confederacy or that blacks were happy with segregation.
If we want to fight white dispossession, we should do just that. Reducing non-white immigration is the obvious issue to focus on. Opposing Obama on health care is a distracting side issue. The implicit whiteness behind it won’t automatically translate into serious change anymore than the implicit whiteness behind the 1994 GOP congressional victory or Nixon’s first election did. I urge everyone to look at the big historical picture of how the GOP and conservatives have harnessed white racial feeling while still ultimately betraying whites before getting too excited about tea-parties, Glenn Beck and the like.
A racist is no longer a white who doesn’t like non-whites, it’s now a white who non-whites don’t like.
Any gathering of whites for whatever reason makes them uncomfortable.
A racist is a Euro-race person who questions the desirability or the morality of methodically genociding all people of Euro race on the planet. That’s been the definition for at least a decade.
I’m afraid a racist is simply any White person. All Whites are racist, until proven otherwise. For the Judeo-African-Hispanic Left, all White people are “racist” before we are anything else.
We can and should oppose both, or to cast it more positively, we can be for having borders over which we prevent invaders crossing (and ejecting those already here) to prevent them from taking our health and wealth. Healthcare is at the intersection of these concerns. The White crowds protesting the Obama/Kennedy healthcare overhaul indeed also oppose immigration, it’s the same White crowd because it hinges on the same issue: White dispossession. Recognition of this can be seen in Joe Wilson’s “YOU LIE!”, the surge of support for it, and in the freaked-out “racist” rhetoric from non-Whites (and which has been the main weapon in the immigration debate, such as there has been).
To fight White dispossession we should point out to deracinated Whites how each of these issues reflects that dispossession and our natural, irrepressible reaction to it. I think the genocidal regime that compel Whites to keep Whiteness implicit, with powerful “anti-racist” anti-Whites loudly haranguing us for pursuing our interests while they celebrate non-Whites doing the same, is an even better issue to call attention to than immigration.
If Whites are expressing such displeasure, in such numbers, even while refusing to see themselves as White, imagine what will happen as more begin to realize and accept that all the neo-liberal double-talk about race, immigration, education, crime, housing, healthcare, etc. has been nothing but genocidal hate and trickery aimed directly at Whites.
The most reasonable argument we can make to our deracinated friends and family, with so many anti-Whites outing themselves from positions of power and authority, is this: You see this? Pretending you’re not White has never fooled them. It’s about time we stopped letting it fool us.
“A racist is no longer a white who doesn’t like non-whites, it’s now a white who non-whites don’t like.”
—
You know Mark, this sentiment is very similar to something Joe Sobran said: De facto the Jews define “antisemitism” as not someone who dislikes Jews, but someone whom Jews dislike.
Which, for all intents and puropses, is pretty much EVERY non-jew who is not of some ‘use’ to them.
“The Admiral
I’m afraid a racist is simply any White person. All Whites are racist, until proven otherwise.”
Right, as it has now progressed to the point that all whites are guilty, we’re born racists, and only through constant self-abasement and psychological reprogramming can we rise above our white privilege and racism.
Good comment by the Admiral, #13.
A racist is a terrorist, for by refusing to accept their race replacement, slavery and genocide they therefore represent a threat to the Liberal Final Solution.