Implicit Whiteness

Further Evidence for the Racial Polarization of American Politics

/24 Comments/in , , , , /by

Recent election trends clearly indicate an increasing White disenchantment with the Democrats, especially among the working class. The enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts, tea parties, and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class.  Ronald Brownstein points out that their incomes have been stagnating or declining for years, even during periods of economic expansion of the Bush years. Bush did nothing for the White working class, but still only 40% voted for Obama.

The Democratic vote among Whites in 2010 will probably be quite a bit lower than in the next election. In Massachusetts there was a huge shift from 2008 to 2010: In the 2008 presidential election, working class Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama: 75% for incomes between $30-50K; 65% for incomes between $50-75K. But Brownstein notes that 60% voted for Scott Brown.  Moreover,

Much of the Democrats’ distress among blue-collar whites results from long-term changes that have re-sorted the electorate more along the lines of cultural values than of economic interests. These working-class voters, mostly conservative on cultural and foreign-policy issues, have moved toward the GOP …. But the disaffection from Democrats among blue-collar whites is especially severe now. That is probably because their financial pain has intensified. (The unemployment rate among this group, at 10.4 percent, is well over twice the level for college-educated whites.) Polls suggest that these voters have focused their discontent more at government than at business.

One can’t help thinking that “cultural values” is a code word for implicit Whiteness. No matter what they say to the pollsters, it’s hard to believe that concerns about foreign policy or gay marriage really trump economic issues in a group that has been the most negatively affected by all the economic shifts of recent decades, including mass immigration. Indeed, the shift is apparent in all White groups: “In opinion polls, college-educated white men, always a tough group for the party, are hardening in opposition; college-educated white women, Democrats’ best constituency among whites, are softening in support.”

It’s often said of Jews that they earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans. Now, as ethnic interests become central even for Whites, economic interests are an increasingly poor predictor for everyone. Working class Whites vote Republican just like the Episcopalians— their cultural values are to vote along with people like themselves. Similarly, non-Whites vote Democrat whether they are successful Asians and Jews or Blacks and Latinos at the bottom of the economic ladder. Their cultural values are to vote against the Republicans at least because they see the Republicans as the party of Whites.  These trends have been apparent for some time, but there seems to be increasing polarization now.

Quite a few people anticipated that an Obama presidency would produce an upsurge of White identity — that an Obama Administration would be a clear harbinger of the non-White future of America. They were right. Many Whites got caught up in the emotion of the election — the feeling of moral righteousness of putting America’s racial past behind us. But the party is over and the Obama administration is in shambles. I can’t imagine that anything like amnesty for illegal immigrants would be possible now.

If, as seems likely, the Republicans get 70% or more of the White vote in the 2010 elections, the media is going to have to confront the racial polarization of American politics. It’s definitely not the multicultural future envisioned by the activists on the multicultural left and the mainstream media for the last 40 years. If there is a racially lopsided vote, we’ll hear a lot of talk about racist Whites. But at some point, thoughtful people will realize that it is entirely legitimate for Whites to want to retain control of their country, and explicit expressions of White identity and interests will begin to be heard whether the media wants to hear them or not. And that’s all to the good.

Bookmark and Share

Implicit Whiteness in Scott Brown’s campaign

/12 Comments/in , , , , /by

The day before the election I happened to catch Keith Olbmermann at his smirking best — looking intensely into the camera and declaring that Scott Brown and all the people voting for him are racists. What’s the evidence for this? You see, Brown used a pick-up truck in his commercials. (Gasp!!) You know, pick-up trucks are pretty much the same as men in pointy hoods burning crosses. Next thing you know, candidates will seek endorsements from country music singers and NASCAR drivers.

What’s going on here, of course, is implicit Whiteness — implicit whiteness of a certain sort, that basically says “I, Scott Brown, am the candidate of the White working class.”

As I noted previously, the enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class. These people are less able to avoid the costs of multiculturalism: They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-White private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.They are very angry — but they can’t discuss the real reason they are angry: mass immigration and the dispossession of people like themselves and their culture.

Unfortunately, there were no exit polls for this election. It would be fascinating to see the racial breakdown. In the 2008 presidential election, 80% of the electorate in Massachusetts was White. Working class Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama: 75% for incomes between $30-50K; 65% for incomes betwen $50-75K.

Obviously, that did not happen this time around. Although it’s still a long shot, we can hope that eventually candidates will be able to explicitly assert the legitimacy of White identity and White interests.

Bookmark and Share

Stephen Pollard on the English Defense League

/29 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The TOO article on right-wing culturism reminds us once again that race and ethnicity are the true bogeymen of political discourse in the West. Stephen Pollard’s statement is particularly striking: “Mainstream Islam …  is no more of a threat to Western society than the Quakers.”

This is nothing more than a gratuitous wave-of-the-hand gesture aimed at preempting all debate. No need to discuss whether a predominately Muslim England would compromise the interests of native Brits, whether it would lead to a society hopelessly fractured along ethnic and cultural lines, increased social alienation, chronic friction and jockeying for position by the different groups, etc.

According to Pollard, who is the editor of The Jewish Chronicle, England’s leading Jewish publication, anti-Muslim groups like the English Defense League “are racists who would expunge all who do not fit their supposedly native White Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of English society.”

“Supposedly native”? No one has a problem identifying indigenous peoples in any other culture in the world. No one would talk about the “supposedly native” Koreans or the “supposedly native” Native Americans. What is it about White people that they can’t be indigenous–even in Europe where they have existed for thousands of years? The mindset that questions whether Whites can be indigenous is the same mindset that questions the reality of race and ethnicity as biological realities — while nevertheless behaving as an ethnic activist within his ethnic group.

What animates someone like Pollard is a fear of any expression of White solidarity. The EDL is clearly doing its best to fit into the politically correct zeitgeist. It admits Blacks and it has shown no hostility toward Jews or Hindus. It’s pro-Israel stance is clearly an attempt to ingratiate itself with the powers that be — to no avail. The politically correct posturings of the EDL are not enough for Jewish activists like Pollard. The ideology of Western suicide is that Whites — and no one else, least of all Jews among whom the idea of Israel as a Jewish state is sacrosanct — must give up any attempt to defend themselves or their culture.

Pollard’s article is another example of how the organized Jewish community is attempting to manage White rage at their dispossession. As I noted previously in a comment on the American context, Jewish interests may suffer with the influx of masses of Muslims and other groups who are hostile to Israel or do not have any history of philo-Semitism. Nevertheless, Jews overwhelmingly continue to favor mass immigration because they “may well have a reasonable fear that any movement to restrict immigration is bound to bring White racial consciousness to the fore.”

Similarly, the image of all those White people in the EDL protesting against Islam (even with a sprinkling of Blacks and waving Israeli flags) is troubling for Jews because such White people are not far from adopting an explicitly White racialist viewpoint.  And when they do, they may well see that  historically the organized Jewish community has indeed been a major force acting against White people and their interests.  Based on its historical experience in Europe, what Jews fear most is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous White society with a confident sense of its identity and its interests.

The strategy is to continue to suppress and demonize any expression of  White solidarity and opposition to White dispossession — even by organizations like the EDL who do everthing they can to ingratiate themselves with Jews.

So far it’s working. But the game is far from over.

Bookmark and Share