Colorized, Polarized America


Someone at National Review notices the reality of the situation:

Update: There are 43 Democrats in the House from the South out of 199 Democrats nationwide. Of those, 4 out of 5 in Georgia are black. 5 out of 5 in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, and South Carolina are black.

1 out of 3 in Virginia is black. 1 out of 2 in Tennessee is Jewish. 2 out of 4 in North Carolina are black. In Texas, 9 out of 12 Democrats are black or Hispanic. In Florida, 7 out of 10 Democrats are black, Hispanic, or Jewish.

“The country is more divided geographically than ever, it seems. Take the House of Representatives: Democrats gained eight House seats in this month’s elections but their House membership is now increasingly dominated by just two states — New York and California. Even though those two states make up only 18.4 percent of all House seats, nearly 30 percent of the Democratic caucus will be from those two states. Throw in gerrymandered Illinois and Massachusetts, and 40 percent of all House Democrats will hail from ZIP codes in just four deeply blue states.

The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics blog reports that over the last 50 years, the percentage of the Democratic caucus coming from just the Empire State and the Golden State has risen by more than two-thirds. The share has gone from 17.4 percent in 1962 to 29.4 percent in 2012; New York has lost 14 House seats and California has gained 15 during that period.

Republicans have their own geographical imbalance, though a milder one, resulting from their dominance in the South. The House Republican caucus has over 20 percent of its members elected from Texas, Florida, and Georgia. But those states make up almost 17 percent of the House’s overall membership. As Charles Mahtesian of Politico points out, “There’s a danger, of course, when such a high proportion of members hail from just a few states . . . it’s easy to develop a tin ear when a party is too concentrated in states where the political climate is unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.”

It seems such a long time ago when Barack Obama wowed a the television audience watching the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston with a stirring keynote speech that gave the impression he wanted to bring the country together. “There’s not a black America and a conservative America — here’s the United States of America,” he intoned. “The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states, red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. . . . We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

Wonderful sentiments, but some of them are left for now in a dustbin after this year’s highly toxic negative campaigns. Especially the one about the red states and blue states. It turns out the country is more colorized — and polarized — than ever.”

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. “A very novel reading of the Eden story.”

    As I said John, and to follow HW’s comment guidelines, let’s take this to my blog.
    However, it is not so ‘novel’ as that. The Celtic Church (ca. 600AD) held to this, long before Rome, before the REformation, and the so-called ‘heresies’ of the CI- at least on this one. But this discussion belongs elsewhere. Thanks.

  2. “Too much interethnic rivalry might not be beneficial to the cause.”

    We’ll just have to hope that as the balance of power continues to slide that the internal rivalries within the anti-white coalition come more to the surface to even it out.

  3. Driving back into Texas and seeing the “welcome to Texas” sign, it occurred to me that it would be an awesome guerrilla marketing campaign to get some sign around the proposed partition line: “you are now entering the future nation of America” or some better verbiage. Hang a new flag and take down the old flag. Mammals are territorial and we need to mark the territory.

  4. 313 Chris- read the comment discussions. Flaming, and personal infights are not allowed here at OD. And, I hereby apologize for having done so in the past. I did not know what HW’s guidelines were, as I remarked in an earlier post. That is why I told John Bull to take it somewhere else….

    I am following HW’s guidelines. [And, again, to clarify for your stupid and ignorant insistence on something I do not personally hold to] I am not ‘preaching CI,’ but I am not denying a valid claim for an analysis of the issues at hand- I noted the Celtic Orthodox, and the Jews also have references to the same Genesis event, as do the CI’s- so that does not give them ‘exclusive patent’ on the seduction of Eve hypothesis.

    Oh- and (for the record) Schlomo Sand’s new book [The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland] utterly denies a DNA genetic basis for the Jews of today, and the Biblical Israelites of David’s time, which is what Jewdel continually harps on – every single time- when he futilely tries to refute the CI paradigm (at least, when it is narrowly applied to the Elect), and Sand actually confirms the Khazarian thesis I believe is more factual, in this (and in his previous) book, which prior tome was correctly titled, “The INVENTION of the Jewish People.” And Sand ought to know- he’s an Israeli Judaic, himself. What are you and Jewdel? Absolutly nothing.

    Why don’t you then follow the same guidelines, instead of seeing your own person as a law unto itself?

Comments are closed.