0 comment Monday, October 20, 2014 | admin
Some of you will have noticed that one of my pet peeves is the favorite Republican mantra: ''liberals are the real racists.''
This meme has been in existence among Republicans for a number of years now, but it seems to have become a frequently-resorted-to phrase since the last presidential campaign, especially.
Do a search on the phrase 'liberals real racists' and you will get many, many hits. Too many to read through, as I found when I searched on that phrase.
It is pretty obvious to me that the phrase was cooked up by some Republican 'wit' who had just been called the r-word (racist, not Republican) by some liberal/multicultist. It amounts to the schoolyard retort, ''I know you are, but what am I?'' It is just about as intelligent.
The end result of this accusation being flung at lefties and diversity cultists is that now we have twice as many White folks calling each other ''racist!" back and forth, endlessly. Way to go.
It surely must amuse the diversities that Whites are now calling each other their favorite term of abuse. Now they can take some time off, and let us call each other the 'r-word' while they sit back and watch and laugh.
We are doing their job for them. They don't need to race-bait anymore; we are doing it to each other.
I decided some years ago that I won't use the word 'racist' or 'racism' except in an ironic sense. I won't write it here without scare quotes. So you won't find me joining in the counter-accusations against our lefty/multicultist foes. I can think of many other names, mostly unflattering, that fit them, but I can think of no good reason to join in the race-baiting.
First, I think it serves no useful purpose. Do the people who employ that tactic think it will shock some leftist or politically correct brainwash-ee into an epiphany? Do we think it will shame them into admitting that they harbor racist thoughts?
If a leftist were brutally honest with himself, he would admit that by claiming that Whites are congenitally bigoted against nonwhites, then he himself must be just as guilty as the Republicans whom he loathes. White privilege makes us all guilty, according to the leftists and nonwhites. So by that line of thought, liberals and 'conservatives' are equally guilty of the 'White original sin.'
But are liberals or progressives 'racists' as most people understand that word? If their definition is true, if 'racist' means anybody who 1) notices race and/or 2) believes the races differ in some intrinsic way, then what do we call the liberals who see the races as different in ways that flatter nonwhites, and who believe that all the problems of nonwhites, being caused by Whites, must be rectified by Whites?
I understand that Republicans and 'colorblind conservatives' are trying to make the case that the do-gooder Whites who are perpetually tending to nonwhites are being paternalistic. Paternalism can be interpreted as meaning that nonwhites are incapable of taking care of themselves, or even of defending themselves verbally. For example, liberals will jump to the defense of nonwhites when they sniff out any hint of 'bigotry' from a fellow White. They will argue in the name of the nonwhite as if that nonwhite cannot defend himself. I suppose this is their rather deluded idea of chivalry - which in its true form calls for defending the weak and the lame and the halt. But I think it bizarre that they haven't noticed that nonwhites can and do defend themselves loudly, vociferously, and stridently. Why White liberals imagine that they need to act as lawyers for their favorite victim groups, (mascots, as Thomas Sowell put it) is beyond me.
The liberals' client groups are certainly able to speak up for themselves; they are not weak at all in that sense. And they have the media 110 percent on their side; the media, being made up of leftists of one stripe or another, does little but defend the perceived downtrodden victim groups. It is a leftist fallacy that 'minorities' are 'underserved populations' or that their 'voices are excluded from the public discourse.' That notion is laugh-out-loud funny.
But does paternalism imply a sense of superiority, or a dominant/subservient relationship between the person helping and those being helped? I don't think so. I think that most leftists have convinced themselves that they are the possessors of something called 'White privilege' which makes them the beneficiaries of many un-earned benefits. They think these benefits are taken directly from nonwhites and given, unjustly, to us. So they think they are righting a wrong.
If they want to be self-abasing altruists who are willing to serve others at their own expense, that's their choice -- but where it goes badly wrong is when they enshrine that altruism in public policy, making it the law of the land. And where it goes really, really wrong is when they force the rest of us, essentially, to participate in this racial self-abasement and penance.
You cannot coerce people into loving their neighbor, or even liking their neighbor.
As for the allegation made by the Republicans that 'liberals keep minorities on the plantation; they keep them dependent, they don't want them to succeed', this is carried to absurd lengths. For example on Free Republic, whenever some social scientists' list of 'the ten worst cities' is posted, and the worst cities are all, ahem, 'diverse', the FReepers solemnly insist that ''all those cities have Democrat government. That's why they are crime-ridden, bankrupt, corrupt, and unlivable.'' On some blog or other, when a picture of the infamous ruins of Detroit was posted, the 'colorblind conservatives' lived up to their epithet by intoning that 'that's what happens when you elect Democrats.' Some of them even blamed the Katrina disaster on 'Democrat rule.'
According to that school of thought, if only Democrats would stop creating welfare dependency and bad schools, nonwhites would be able to prosper and become exemplary citizens everywhere. If only nonwhites could learn that 'conservatism' would cure all their ills, they would be fine. Unfortunately no one, apparently, has told them about the conservative panacea, so they remain shackled by the liberals -- who are the real racists. QED.
Mind you, I think welfare dependency and social pathologies are exacerbated by liberal policies, but to believe that they alone are the cause of the 'achievement gap' or the social gulf between the races is silly. This denies the possibility of innate differences of ability and potential as an explanation.
George W. Bush had that famous phrase about 'soft bigotry of low expectations', which was just a more florid way of saying 'liberals are the real racists.' The idea behind that phrase about the soft bigotry is that if we expect nonwhites to become top achievers, they will, eventually. It's all a matter of positive thinking and 'encouraging their potential and boosting their self-esteem.' Yes, compassionate conservatism, as it styled itself, had a great many presuppositions in common with old-fashioned liberalism.
The 'colorblind', compassionate conservatives share this presupposition with the left: that it is Whitey, ultimately, who is keeping the black folk down. They just disagree on which Whitey is doing this: is it the mean, bigoted, hateful Republican r-words, or is it, rather, the paternalistic Democrat r-words?
Notice the agreement with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al that is implicit here? Whites calling each other racists simply cements the belief that all Whites are, in fact, racists, whether they admit it, or especially, if they deny it.
Now we have the Tea Partiers, in many cases, jumping through hoops to prove just how really, really NOT racist they are, all the while pointing the finger at the left, who are again accusing the right. This has all become the theatre of the absurd.
When we descend to this tactic of name-calling, of tu quoque, of "he did it first!", when we descend to using the increasingly meaningless word 'racist', we are further debasing the language, not to mention further degrading what passes for political dialogue in this country.
And above all, this tactic does not work; it is going nowhere.
This constant use of the word 'racist' does nothing but keep the racial kettle on the boil; it puts nonwhites at the center of everything -- which in a sense they are. But it puts them in the coveted position of having their favor and approval courted by both sides.
Moreover, in the eagerness to prove who is the 'real racist' Republicans are digging themselves deeper into the PC hole. They will probably follow up on all the talk by pandering even more, as if appointing Steele was not pandering enough. Next, in the ''who's the real racist'' contest, it will be necessary to offer an affirmative action presidential candidate. That is in the cards, unless the Republicans get off this merry-go-round.
This meme has been in existence among Republicans for a number of years now, but it seems to have become a frequently-resorted-to phrase since the last presidential campaign, especially.
Do a search on the phrase 'liberals real racists' and you will get many, many hits. Too many to read through, as I found when I searched on that phrase.
It is pretty obvious to me that the phrase was cooked up by some Republican 'wit' who had just been called the r-word (racist, not Republican) by some liberal/multicultist. It amounts to the schoolyard retort, ''I know you are, but what am I?'' It is just about as intelligent.
The end result of this accusation being flung at lefties and diversity cultists is that now we have twice as many White folks calling each other ''racist!" back and forth, endlessly. Way to go.
It surely must amuse the diversities that Whites are now calling each other their favorite term of abuse. Now they can take some time off, and let us call each other the 'r-word' while they sit back and watch and laugh.
We are doing their job for them. They don't need to race-bait anymore; we are doing it to each other.
I decided some years ago that I won't use the word 'racist' or 'racism' except in an ironic sense. I won't write it here without scare quotes. So you won't find me joining in the counter-accusations against our lefty/multicultist foes. I can think of many other names, mostly unflattering, that fit them, but I can think of no good reason to join in the race-baiting.
First, I think it serves no useful purpose. Do the people who employ that tactic think it will shock some leftist or politically correct brainwash-ee into an epiphany? Do we think it will shame them into admitting that they harbor racist thoughts?
If a leftist were brutally honest with himself, he would admit that by claiming that Whites are congenitally bigoted against nonwhites, then he himself must be just as guilty as the Republicans whom he loathes. White privilege makes us all guilty, according to the leftists and nonwhites. So by that line of thought, liberals and 'conservatives' are equally guilty of the 'White original sin.'
But are liberals or progressives 'racists' as most people understand that word? If their definition is true, if 'racist' means anybody who 1) notices race and/or 2) believes the races differ in some intrinsic way, then what do we call the liberals who see the races as different in ways that flatter nonwhites, and who believe that all the problems of nonwhites, being caused by Whites, must be rectified by Whites?
I understand that Republicans and 'colorblind conservatives' are trying to make the case that the do-gooder Whites who are perpetually tending to nonwhites are being paternalistic. Paternalism can be interpreted as meaning that nonwhites are incapable of taking care of themselves, or even of defending themselves verbally. For example, liberals will jump to the defense of nonwhites when they sniff out any hint of 'bigotry' from a fellow White. They will argue in the name of the nonwhite as if that nonwhite cannot defend himself. I suppose this is their rather deluded idea of chivalry - which in its true form calls for defending the weak and the lame and the halt. But I think it bizarre that they haven't noticed that nonwhites can and do defend themselves loudly, vociferously, and stridently. Why White liberals imagine that they need to act as lawyers for their favorite victim groups, (mascots, as Thomas Sowell put it) is beyond me.
The liberals' client groups are certainly able to speak up for themselves; they are not weak at all in that sense. And they have the media 110 percent on their side; the media, being made up of leftists of one stripe or another, does little but defend the perceived downtrodden victim groups. It is a leftist fallacy that 'minorities' are 'underserved populations' or that their 'voices are excluded from the public discourse.' That notion is laugh-out-loud funny.
But does paternalism imply a sense of superiority, or a dominant/subservient relationship between the person helping and those being helped? I don't think so. I think that most leftists have convinced themselves that they are the possessors of something called 'White privilege' which makes them the beneficiaries of many un-earned benefits. They think these benefits are taken directly from nonwhites and given, unjustly, to us. So they think they are righting a wrong.
If they want to be self-abasing altruists who are willing to serve others at their own expense, that's their choice -- but where it goes badly wrong is when they enshrine that altruism in public policy, making it the law of the land. And where it goes really, really wrong is when they force the rest of us, essentially, to participate in this racial self-abasement and penance.
You cannot coerce people into loving their neighbor, or even liking their neighbor.
As for the allegation made by the Republicans that 'liberals keep minorities on the plantation; they keep them dependent, they don't want them to succeed', this is carried to absurd lengths. For example on Free Republic, whenever some social scientists' list of 'the ten worst cities' is posted, and the worst cities are all, ahem, 'diverse', the FReepers solemnly insist that ''all those cities have Democrat government. That's why they are crime-ridden, bankrupt, corrupt, and unlivable.'' On some blog or other, when a picture of the infamous ruins of Detroit was posted, the 'colorblind conservatives' lived up to their epithet by intoning that 'that's what happens when you elect Democrats.' Some of them even blamed the Katrina disaster on 'Democrat rule.'
According to that school of thought, if only Democrats would stop creating welfare dependency and bad schools, nonwhites would be able to prosper and become exemplary citizens everywhere. If only nonwhites could learn that 'conservatism' would cure all their ills, they would be fine. Unfortunately no one, apparently, has told them about the conservative panacea, so they remain shackled by the liberals -- who are the real racists. QED.
Mind you, I think welfare dependency and social pathologies are exacerbated by liberal policies, but to believe that they alone are the cause of the 'achievement gap' or the social gulf between the races is silly. This denies the possibility of innate differences of ability and potential as an explanation.
George W. Bush had that famous phrase about 'soft bigotry of low expectations', which was just a more florid way of saying 'liberals are the real racists.' The idea behind that phrase about the soft bigotry is that if we expect nonwhites to become top achievers, they will, eventually. It's all a matter of positive thinking and 'encouraging their potential and boosting their self-esteem.' Yes, compassionate conservatism, as it styled itself, had a great many presuppositions in common with old-fashioned liberalism.
The 'colorblind', compassionate conservatives share this presupposition with the left: that it is Whitey, ultimately, who is keeping the black folk down. They just disagree on which Whitey is doing this: is it the mean, bigoted, hateful Republican r-words, or is it, rather, the paternalistic Democrat r-words?
Notice the agreement with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al that is implicit here? Whites calling each other racists simply cements the belief that all Whites are, in fact, racists, whether they admit it, or especially, if they deny it.
Now we have the Tea Partiers, in many cases, jumping through hoops to prove just how really, really NOT racist they are, all the while pointing the finger at the left, who are again accusing the right. This has all become the theatre of the absurd.
When we descend to this tactic of name-calling, of tu quoque, of "he did it first!", when we descend to using the increasingly meaningless word 'racist', we are further debasing the language, not to mention further degrading what passes for political dialogue in this country.
And above all, this tactic does not work; it is going nowhere.
This constant use of the word 'racist' does nothing but keep the racial kettle on the boil; it puts nonwhites at the center of everything -- which in a sense they are. But it puts them in the coveted position of having their favor and approval courted by both sides.
Moreover, in the eagerness to prove who is the 'real racist' Republicans are digging themselves deeper into the PC hole. They will probably follow up on all the talk by pandering even more, as if appointing Steele was not pandering enough. Next, in the ''who's the real racist'' contest, it will be necessary to offer an affirmative action presidential candidate. That is in the cards, unless the Republicans get off this merry-go-round.
Labels: Anti-White, Liberalism, Party Politics, Political Correctness, Racial Division
0 comment Monday, October 6, 2014 | admin
Recently, this article from The Guardian appeared, announcing that the non-White populatioln of Britain had reached 9.1 million. Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch UK, says starkly that
''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."
Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.
On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:
''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair�s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:
'It didn�t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration� to make the UK truly multicultural�the policy was intended to rub the Right�s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date� this shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants�
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour�s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation � or, in other words, the majority of the English.''
Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.
I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.
There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.
I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.
This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.
''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."
Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.
On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:
''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair�s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:
'It didn�t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration� to make the UK truly multicultural�the policy was intended to rub the Right�s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date� this shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants�
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour�s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation � or, in other words, the majority of the English.''
Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.
I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.
There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.
I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.
This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.
Labels: Anti-White, Ethnic Cleansing, Globalism, Leftism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Treason
0 comment Tuesday, July 15, 2014 | admin
Recently Howard Dean said that older Whites, typified by the Tea Party participants, are the group that has the biggest 'problem with diversity'. He said that this was more or less the 'last gasp' of what I term the old America.
Now, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, he of the 'leg tingle', echoes Dean's remarks.
MATTHEWS: It means�it�s significant. I think older Americans, older white people still have a problem with this guy. [Obama - VA]
{snip}
MATTHEWS: And I think that�s a generalization and I�ll stick with it. I think younger people do not see race as an obstacle. I don�t think�I think, they�re much more non-judgmental. In fact, about ethnicity, they just say that�s not relevant�In fact, they say it�s irrelevant and don�t even notice it, whereas older people notice it all the time.''
So is it true, that older White people are 'more racist'?
According to Pew Research, if we look at the voting patterns by age we see that
In the last three general elections - 2004, 2006, and 2008 -- young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party's most supportive age group. This year, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.
[...] Among voters ages 18-29, a 19-point gap now separates Democratic party affiliation (45%) and Republican affiliation (26%). In 2000, party affiliation was split nearly evenly among the young.
Young voters are more diverse racially and ethnically than older voters and more secular in their religious orientation. These characteristics, as well as the climate in which they have come of age politically, incline them not only toward Democratic Party affiliation but also toward greater support of activist government, greater opposition to the war in Iraq, less social conservatism, and a greater willingness to describe themselves as liberal politically.''
From another source:
''But the election of 2008 was historic for another reason � students who cast a vote in Tuesday�s presidential election (or mailed in an absentee ballot) were part of the largest ever group in their age bracket to support a single candidate, and the second largest youth voter movement in American history.
Between 22 and 24 million young Americans ages 18�29 voted, resulting in an estimated youth voter turnout (the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a vote) of between 49.3 and 54.5 percent, according to an exit poll analysis released Nov. 4 by CIRCLE, a nonpartisan research center at Tufts University. This is an increase of 1 to 6 percentage points over the estimated youth turnout in 2004, and an increase of between 8 and 13 percentage points over the turnout in the 2000 election. The all-time highest youth turnout was 55.4 percent in 1972, the first year that 18-year-olds could vote in a presidential election.
Sixty-six percent of young voters cast their ballot for Barack Obama, the largest-ever showing for a presidential candidate in this age group.''
Here, you can see the election results by age group in a visual representation
Looking at another measure of racial attitudes, the attitudes toward racial intermarriage differ. This might be the most telling question.
From my own experience I would say these polls and the voting patterns indicate that Dean and Matthews are right; though what they would call 'racism' or 'bigotry' is simply the remnant of the former majority attitude on racial distinctions. The fact that the succeeding generations have all become steadily more liberal in these matters shows the success of the generations of indoctrination via the media and the educational machine, and all institutions of society, including much of what is left of the Christian church.
There are some who stubbornly claim that it's the oldsters who are liberal old hippies while the younger people are realists. Sorry, but the sources I link here, plus my own eyes and perceptions say just the opposite.
For some people it's handy to blame our elders for all that they find wrong with the world, but there is just no evidence that the older generation is guilty of being the liberal monolith that some say they are.
Of course, there are younger people who are exceptions, and who have old-fashioned politically incorrect attitudes, but they are just that: exceptions, just as are the extremely liberal older people everybody claims to know. In my neighborhood and town, the geezers are the most conservative in all areas of life, and the least conformed to the politically correct doctrines.
That's why many of the cultural Marxists will be dancing on the graves of the last of the 'geezer' generation.
Now, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, he of the 'leg tingle', echoes Dean's remarks.
MATTHEWS: It means�it�s significant. I think older Americans, older white people still have a problem with this guy. [Obama - VA]
{snip}
MATTHEWS: And I think that�s a generalization and I�ll stick with it. I think younger people do not see race as an obstacle. I don�t think�I think, they�re much more non-judgmental. In fact, about ethnicity, they just say that�s not relevant�In fact, they say it�s irrelevant and don�t even notice it, whereas older people notice it all the time.''
So is it true, that older White people are 'more racist'?
According to Pew Research, if we look at the voting patterns by age we see that
In the last three general elections - 2004, 2006, and 2008 -- young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party's most supportive age group. This year, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.
[...] Among voters ages 18-29, a 19-point gap now separates Democratic party affiliation (45%) and Republican affiliation (26%). In 2000, party affiliation was split nearly evenly among the young.
Young voters are more diverse racially and ethnically than older voters and more secular in their religious orientation. These characteristics, as well as the climate in which they have come of age politically, incline them not only toward Democratic Party affiliation but also toward greater support of activist government, greater opposition to the war in Iraq, less social conservatism, and a greater willingness to describe themselves as liberal politically.''
From another source:
''But the election of 2008 was historic for another reason � students who cast a vote in Tuesday�s presidential election (or mailed in an absentee ballot) were part of the largest ever group in their age bracket to support a single candidate, and the second largest youth voter movement in American history.
Between 22 and 24 million young Americans ages 18�29 voted, resulting in an estimated youth voter turnout (the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a vote) of between 49.3 and 54.5 percent, according to an exit poll analysis released Nov. 4 by CIRCLE, a nonpartisan research center at Tufts University. This is an increase of 1 to 6 percentage points over the estimated youth turnout in 2004, and an increase of between 8 and 13 percentage points over the turnout in the 2000 election. The all-time highest youth turnout was 55.4 percent in 1972, the first year that 18-year-olds could vote in a presidential election.
Sixty-six percent of young voters cast their ballot for Barack Obama, the largest-ever showing for a presidential candidate in this age group.''
Here, you can see the election results by age group in a visual representation
Looking at another measure of racial attitudes, the attitudes toward racial intermarriage differ. This might be the most telling question.
From my own experience I would say these polls and the voting patterns indicate that Dean and Matthews are right; though what they would call 'racism' or 'bigotry' is simply the remnant of the former majority attitude on racial distinctions. The fact that the succeeding generations have all become steadily more liberal in these matters shows the success of the generations of indoctrination via the media and the educational machine, and all institutions of society, including much of what is left of the Christian church.
There are some who stubbornly claim that it's the oldsters who are liberal old hippies while the younger people are realists. Sorry, but the sources I link here, plus my own eyes and perceptions say just the opposite.
For some people it's handy to blame our elders for all that they find wrong with the world, but there is just no evidence that the older generation is guilty of being the liberal monolith that some say they are.
Of course, there are younger people who are exceptions, and who have old-fashioned politically incorrect attitudes, but they are just that: exceptions, just as are the extremely liberal older people everybody claims to know. In my neighborhood and town, the geezers are the most conservative in all areas of life, and the least conformed to the politically correct doctrines.
That's why many of the cultural Marxists will be dancing on the graves of the last of the 'geezer' generation.
Labels: Anti-White, Demographic Change, Generation Gap, Media Bias, Political Correctness
0 comment Monday, July 14, 2014 | admin
There is an interesting piece from Occidental Observer, titled 'British Genetics, 101.' Now, I'm aware that not everyone here is very interested in the genetics of Britain, but in the comments 'ethnonationalist' states that the effort to replace the British population with an amalgamation from many countries is not directed at 'the White race' per se.
He says
What is going on in Britain is genocide against the native English population.
If it were a "White genocide", than Poles, Bulgarians, Irish, Lithuanians, etc. would not be permitted to immigrate to England.''
I've wondered about the rationale behind the importation of many White immigrants to not only the UK but also Ireland. If it is indeed all about an anti-White agenda, then why would this policy be pursued? On the face of it, it does seem as though the effort is to introduce many disparate genetic strains into the UK, and it does seem as though the immigrants are mostly from the Third World. But where do the Eastern Europeans fit into this agenda?
I know that the official story is that they are 'guest workers' who will go home once they earn some money. And apparently quite a few do return home but a great many stay. And regardless of whether they are of the same race as the natives of the British Isles, they are a different people with a different religion and culture. English (or Irish or Scots or Welsh) are not interchangeable with Poles or Lithuanians.
it does seem that ethnonationalist is right on this score. And it does seem that the English, the ethnic English, are the target because the other groups in the UK are encouraged in their nationalistic aspirations, while the English are not even treated as a legitimate ethnic group. One can be 'British' because it is an inclusive identity; immigrants can get a British passport or citizenship and call themselves 'British' while being Pakistani or African or Caribbean. But no one can be English except by blood, so it is a 'discriminatory' identity, too exclusive for the multicultists. In a way it's analogous to the way the label 'American' can be promiscuously applied to people from everywhere, and is therefore rendered meaningless.
And as to the main subject of the article by Dodgson, it does provide some interesting information about the genetic makeup of Britain, and it somewhat questions the prevailing myths about Celtic vs. Germanic origins.
In any case, the race-replacers efforts to gaslight people into believing 'Britain has always been multiracial' are based on lies, obviously.
He says
What is going on in Britain is genocide against the native English population.
If it were a "White genocide", than Poles, Bulgarians, Irish, Lithuanians, etc. would not be permitted to immigrate to England.''
I've wondered about the rationale behind the importation of many White immigrants to not only the UK but also Ireland. If it is indeed all about an anti-White agenda, then why would this policy be pursued? On the face of it, it does seem as though the effort is to introduce many disparate genetic strains into the UK, and it does seem as though the immigrants are mostly from the Third World. But where do the Eastern Europeans fit into this agenda?
I know that the official story is that they are 'guest workers' who will go home once they earn some money. And apparently quite a few do return home but a great many stay. And regardless of whether they are of the same race as the natives of the British Isles, they are a different people with a different religion and culture. English (or Irish or Scots or Welsh) are not interchangeable with Poles or Lithuanians.
it does seem that ethnonationalist is right on this score. And it does seem that the English, the ethnic English, are the target because the other groups in the UK are encouraged in their nationalistic aspirations, while the English are not even treated as a legitimate ethnic group. One can be 'British' because it is an inclusive identity; immigrants can get a British passport or citizenship and call themselves 'British' while being Pakistani or African or Caribbean. But no one can be English except by blood, so it is a 'discriminatory' identity, too exclusive for the multicultists. In a way it's analogous to the way the label 'American' can be promiscuously applied to people from everywhere, and is therefore rendered meaningless.
And as to the main subject of the article by Dodgson, it does provide some interesting information about the genetic makeup of Britain, and it somewhat questions the prevailing myths about Celtic vs. Germanic origins.
In any case, the race-replacers efforts to gaslight people into believing 'Britain has always been multiracial' are based on lies, obviously.
Labels: Anti-White, Britain, English, Race Replacement