I wrote the article below immediately after Obama’s election to the Presidency in 2008. His win showed both the massive importance of the Lehman crash in September, less than two months before the election, and the unreal atmosphere created by the stupendous political correctness which Obama’s candidature released. The vote also showed the disturbing level of racial and ethnic division Obama brought to the White House. Obama took only 45% of the white vote and was elected only because of his dominance of the ethnic minority votes, especially that of black voters , 95% of whom gave him their votes.
It cannot be healthy for any society to have leaders elected by coalitions of minorities. Voting on racial or ethnic lines inevitably reduces representative politics to a bun fight with each minority seeking its own advantage rather than the national advantage. Not only that, but in present day USA the only group which does not campaign on ethnic or racial lines is the group which still forms the numerical majority in the country, namely, whites, and most especially whites identified with the founding of the USA, those of Anglo-Saxon lineage. For “does not campaign” read in practice cannot campaign because the white American elite as a group has bought into political correctness. This means that there is no mainstream political party or major media organization which will encourage white Americans to vote and take other political action on the basis of race or ethnicity. Not only that but any part of the white population who tries to speak up for the needs and desires of white Americans is labeled a fruitcake at best and racist at worst by mainstream politicians and media.
Obama by any objective standards has been a miserable president, neither keeping his promises to those who voted for him or meeting their general expectations of him nor simply being competent in difficult economic times. Yet he may well win a second term simply because there will be no challenger who will be able to embrace policies which might displace Obama. That is because of the refusal of any plausible rival to him to escape the embrace of political correctness, an embrace which drives Republican politicians to play ethnic minority game by seeking their votes with ploys deliberately targeted at their various racial and ethnic interests whilst making no such overtures to white voters. Romney has already given a good example of this behavior by failing to say whether he will or will not honour Obama’s recent pledge to allow 800,000 odd Hispanic immigrants who came illegally to the USA as children to stay provided they had shown themselves to be good citizens.
Why McCain lost (Written November 2008)
In late September  I predicted that John McCain would win by a landslide. I based that judgement on the fact that since February Obama had been steadily losing ground in both the polls and the primary elections to the extent that by the end of September McCain had a two point lead. That lead was more substantial than it seemed because pollsters historically have tended to substantially underestimate the Republican vote and the Bradley Effect (a significant minority of white voters telling pollsters they would vote for a black man and then voting for a white candidate). Two days after my prediction it was undone by “Events, dear boy, events“ (copyright H Macmillan) when the American economic roof fell in.
The economic troubles by their mere existence undoubtedly hurt McCain because he was associated with both the administration who were in charge and is a committed free marketeer, but the man made matters worse by his embarrassing ignorance of economics and, despite his ignorance, his blind belief in laissez faire. .
His initial reaction to the autumn crisis was to claim that the fundamentals of the American economy were sound, rapidly followed by an embarrassing thrashing around when it became clear that disaster stared the USA financial system in the face, culminating in the mistake of asking that the first presidential debate be delayed while he helped decide how to clear up the economic mess., a risible nonsense in view of his pitiful performance to that date on the financial crisis.
The argument advanced on his behalf that he did not need to understand economics because others would understand it for him if he were president, was rightly seen as weak, because a man who does not understand something can easily have the wool pulled over his eyes. McCain as president would have been in a similar position to all those bank CEOs who did not understand the financial instruments their banks were creating and using and blindly led there institutions to disaster
The economic collapse and McCain’s inept response to it may have frightened and angered people enough to swing the vote sufficiently for Obama to win a narrow victory (on the popular vote), but it does not tell the whole or even the main part of the story by a long chalk. What the voting showed were disturbing racial and ethnic divisions which were of far more consequence than the economic woe. It is the existence of these divisions and the large proportion of the US population which now falls into the category of ethnic minorities allied to the political correctness with its subset multiculturalism which I believe were the main drivers of McCain’s defeat.
Obama drew his support disproportionately from ethnic minorities and the young, viz:
White Americans voted 55% for McCain and 43% for Obama
Black Americans voted 4% for McCain and 95% for Obama
Hispanics voted 31% for McCain and 66% for Obama
Asians voted 35% for McCain and 62% for Obama
Jews voted 22% for McCain and 77% for Obama
First time voters voted 30% for McCain and 69% for Obama
Men voted 48% for McCain and 49% for Obama
Women voted 43% fro McCain and 56% for Obama
Voters aged 18-29 voted 31% for McCain and 66% for Obama
Voters aged 30-44 voted 46% for McCain and 53% for Obama
Voters aged 45-59 voted 49% for McCain and 49% for Obama
Voters aged 60+ voted 52% for McCain and 46% for Obama
The figures are taken from Daily Telegraph article of 6 November 2008 – “Power of the white voter is fading” -Gordon Rayner (The figures do not add up to 100% because of votes for other candidates.)
The massive and ongoing non-white immigration to the USA since the mid-sixties and the consequent expansion of old ethnic and racial minorities and the creation of new minorities who are disproportionately willing to vote, at least in part, on the grounds of race (and for blacks it is reasonable to conclude that it was entirely about race in the case of Obama) and who show a strong preference for the Democrats regardless of candidate), places any white Republican candidate at a considerable disadvantage before campaigning begins.
The turn out was approximately 20 million higher than in 2004. Millions of those were newly registered voters who voted heavily for Obama, In view of the large advantage Obama enjoyed amongst non-whites, it is reasonable to assume that they will have been disproportionately non-white.
The preference of women may simply reflect the difference between the differencing sexual attractions of a middle-aged man and an old man. However, differences in age distribution of white and non-white voters – the non-white having more women of a younger age than whites – could be a further factor with young women giving more weight to sexual attraction than older women. There is also the possibility that women are more susceptible to the rock-star style persona projected onto Obama than men – witness the hysteria which girls and women display at pop events and the groupie culture which attaches to the rock world.
The tendency of younger voters to vote Obama may be ascribable to two things: (1) the fact that the young are inexperienced, and hence more impressionable and susceptible to the excitement of public spectacle and (2) their lives have been lived entirely under the influence of political correctness and its subset multiculturalism. For many of the young it may seem natural to vote for a black man rather than a white man because they have known nothing other than a diet of public propaganda telling them that black is good and white is bad.
Obama’s views on race and associations with black racists
The kindest view of Obama’s racial opinions is that he is seriously infected with the victimhood mentality. The unkindest is that he a black racist with separatist leanings. A comprehensive dissection of his publicly stated views on race and how they have conveniently changed over his political life has been made by Steve Sailor and can be found at http://www.vdare.com/half-blood_prince/half-blood_prince.pdf . I will give a couple of samples from the book, one which deals with Obama’s thoughts on race while the other concerns the best known of his associations with black racists.:
“Desperate times called for desperate measures…On p. 200 of Dreams, Obama concedes the morality of the black nationalist case … in theory: If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of Self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well1 meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence. [p. 200]
“Fortunately for Obama and his career as a black leader, black separatism turns out to be a non-starter, economically and politically: If nationalism could deliver. As it turned out, questions of effectiveness, and not sentiment, caused most of my quarrels with Rafiq. [p. 200] Obama dispassionately rejects Black Nationalism as impractical. “p158
“…the Jeremiah Wright we all came to know in 2008 is a character straight out of Dreams (in fact, much of pages 274 , 208;295 are devoted to Wright‘s influence on Obama). Obama’s worldview in
Dreams, “where white folks’ greed runs a world in need” to quote Wright‘s The Audacity to Hope sermon, is a less bumptious version of Wright‘s “black internationalism.” In contrast, while Obama borrowed the title of Audacity from Wright, his minister’s black liberation ideology was put on the back shelf in his 2006 campaign tome. Has Wright‘s intellectual influence on Obama lessened permanently or just temporarily? That’s a rather important question about a Presidential candidate, but it hasn’t been widely discussed. Why hasn’t there been more research into the differences between the two books? Partly because the Obama campaign doesn’t tolerate curiosity, punishing reporters who ask intelligent questions, as Gabriel 106 Sherman’s article “End of the Affair“ in The New Republic noted. The Obama staffers browbeat reporters into covering up what they’ve discovered about Obama and race. Vanessa Grigoriadis illustrates this in her fine New York essay “Black & Blacker: The Racial Politics of the Obama Marriage:” As I began to finish the reporting for this article, I mentioned to an Obama aide that I was interested in the different ways that Obama presents himself to black and white audiences. The aide hit the roof over this comment, which he claimed was racially divisive, and soon I received a call from Obama’s “African & American outreach coordinator,” who apparently clarifies race issues for reporters when they are perceived to have strayed. “I appreciate what you’re saying,” said Corey Ealons, “but I think it’s dangerous, quite frankly.” * pp106/7
Even if we did not have the direct evidence of Obama’s own words, his association with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and the members of the Nation of Islam speak volumes. Who could sit listening to the views of the likes of Wright for 20 years without being in sympathy? Why would an a self declared inclusive politician want to belong to a black church rather than an integrated one? Imagine a white politician who attended for twenty years an all white church with a pastor saying equivalent things about blacks. He would have be condemned automatically as a racist.
One might also ask why someone who has a white mother, was brought up by whites and attended schools which were overwhelmingly white, would wish to immerse himself so deeply in black society unless he is either an out and out racist or someone who has developed a sense of black victimhood through his experience of white society.
Political Correctness and Multiculturalism
To judge the part political correctness played in the election it is necessary to understand exactly what it is. It meets the criteria for a totalitarian ideology . Its adherents insist that the politically correct view is the only permissible view and , because of the anti-discrimination fetish at the heart of it, it can be introduced into any aspect of life. (The anti-discrimination fetish is both hypocritical, because it only covers forms of discrimination which are fall within the pc remit, and absurd because no organism, least of all a highly self-conscious being such as homo sapiens, can avoid discriminating continuously because choices have to be made.).
If political correctness was merely an ideology which was supported by those without power it would be neither here nor there. However, placed in the hands of those with power and influence it becomes a sinister threat . That is now the case in America. Over a period of fifty years the American elite, (and the elites in much of the rest of the Western world including perhaps most notably Britain.) has gradually created circumstances which both place whites in a difficult place when dealing with non-whites and developed a mentality amongst whites that they have to behave within unnatural parameters when dealing with racial matters or in their relations with non-whites (Hands up anyone who has ever seen a white liberal behaving normally to a black. In my experience, they invariably adopt an overtly cringing but in reality deeply patronising pseudo-subordinate manner, so keen are they to prove their right-on-ness).
Whites today in places such as the USA and Britain know that if they say anything which can be interpreted as racist, they run , at best, a grave risk of losing their employment, especially if that employment is in the public service , and , at worst, demonisation by the media with the possibility of legal action, both civil and criminal , being taken against them. Moreover, the definition of racism used by the politically correct is now so wide that includes any statement by whites which is deemed “non-inclusive”, that is, it refers only to white society and culture. For example, the politically correct deem it “racist” for the indigenous population in England to portray their history as being what it was, essentially, a record of white endeavour., even though such a portrayal is achieved simply by recounting what happened and who was involved and not by any deliberate ethnic triumphalism. In the USA, the use of the word niggardly – a word with no racial connotation – was, incredibly, enough to cause a resignation because it sounded a little like nigger.
To this is added the difficulty for whites of dealing with disagreements with non-whites. Any white knows that if they get into a dispute with a non-white they are onto a hiding to nothing. No matter where the rights or wrongs of a dispute lie, the white understands that they are in danger of being called a racist by person they are in dispute with and that if that happens , those in authority over them such as his employer – and if it gets that far, the mainstream media and politicians – will tend to uncritically accept the claim of racism as true Such a claim will also probably cause many of their social contacts to be wary of associating with them.
The white person is also aware that the criminal law is increasingly used to investigate such claims where they involve a non-white accusing a white. Conversely, the white knows that if they make a claim of racism against a non-white is unlikely to be taken seriously by those with power and public influence. (I have tested the attitude of the Metropolitan Police (the London Force) unit dealing with racial incitement – the Racial and Violent Crimes Squad – by making complaints of racial incitement against whites. The complaints were all based on public statements., one of which described the English as a virus. Not only did the police refuse to investigate, they would not even record the complaints. Let me hastily add that I did this simply to prove the bias of the police for I do not approve of laws criminalizing the spoken and written word , unless the incitement to a crime is such that it could be considered to form a conspiracy to commit the crime, for example, an Imam urging his flock to undertake suicide bombings ).
If all of this is not enough to intimidate most people, there is the further worry for whites that they will fall foul of the institutionalisation of political correctness within not only all public bodies but also private companies, especially large ones. Every public and private corporation is obliged to not only obey laws outlawing discrimination, they have to positively prove that they are actively rooting out discrimination. The result is the creation of a breed of employees who are in fact if not name political commissars.
Finally, the ideological circus is kept going at the micro level by those amongst the mass of ordinary people who delight in aping the ideology of the elite. They play the role of unofficial political commissars and constantly intervene in social situations both by leading conversation in a politically correct direction Some act as informers to the police and people such as employers. .
The upshot of such developments together with the massive and incessant public promotion of political correctness and its subset multiculturalism, has produced a mentality amongst whites that is normally found in police states. The propaganda and action against transgressors has not produced a general belief in the ideology, but it is has created the state of mind whereby people instinctively avoid behaviour which conflicts with the ideology because it signals danger. The extent of the apprehension engendered amongst whites is evidenced by the almost obligatory and pathetic “I‘m not prejudiced,” or “I’m not racist” which is attached to any statement which might conceivably be thought to be outside the permitted limits of political correctness.
This ideological climate meant that McCain was at a triple disadvantage. First., it constrained his own behaviour,. For example, it prevented him from concentrating on Obama’s association with the whitey hating likes of Jeremiah Wright and his past writings on race which show Obama to be full of the black victimhood mentality , the source of his funding and the question of his birth place (which could have disqualified him from running as president) . More generally, McCain was constrained in his general behaviour towards Obama , displaying the difficulty in behaving honestly which whites commonly show when dealing with non-whites.
Second, the McCain camp could not overtly appeal to white voters to vote for their ethnic interest or even make any appeal which would appeal by its nature to whites only. Instead he was forced to play the pc game and push a message which either treated the population as a single whole – which is a covert message to minorities because it creates a false equivalence amongst the various populations which make up the US population – or a message which directly pandered to minorities.
Third, most of the electorate displayed the common mindset created by the enforcement of political correctness Even those who said they would not vote for Obama in most cases were punctilious is saying what a fine fellow he was generally . Whites who were honest about not wishing to vote for a black man were permitted to appear in the media only as quasi-Satanic examples of the non-pc evils which had to be extirpated. Those who believe he is a closet Muslim or who expressed doubts about his birth qualification for the Presidency were depicted as dim-witted hicks who knew no better.
The pro-Obama bias of the mainstream media meant that the questions McCain should have raised but did not because of political correctness, remained unasked or at least were not asked and followed through in a meaningful fashion (It is easy to emasculate a potentially dangerous issue for a candidate by asking the question once, then allowing an anodyne dismissive reply without challenge followed by the dropping of the subject. This allows the media to claim they have addressed the subject). . The mainstream media effectively became part of the Obama campaign and projected him to the public at his own estimation.
While McCain and his supporters who had a public voice were prevented from mentioning race , Obama’s camp and the mainstream media were free to mention it as often as they wanted. Obama led the way by playing the race card against Bill Clinton and by giving a much publicised speech devoted to the subject.
There was also evidence that the authorities were anything but even-handed. For example, take this story from polling day: “Police in Philadelphia were called to a polling booth where two members of the Black Panthers guarded the door, one of them armed with a truncheon, intimidating voters. One of the men was told to leave. [Note he was told to leave not made to leave].
“Rick Leventahl, the voter who called the police, said that one of the men told him: “A black man is going to win the election. We’re tired of white supremacy.” (Daily Telegraph 5 11 2008 Tim Shipman and Tom Leonard “Turnout hits record as fraud claims dog polling day”.
Can anyone imagine members of the Klu Klux Klan being allowed to man a polling booth door let alone behaving in an equivalent way? Can anyone imagine a white of any political group or none making an equivalent statement about blacks and not being at least arrested and subjected to a media hate blitz? In the present climate, the probability is that the person would lose their job and might well face a criminal charge.
Obama outspent McCain by two to one. (Obama $650m McCain $360 million), This meant that the in-built media bias in his favour was amplified by his ability to purchase TV and radio time far beyond anything Mcain could afford.
Political correctness also prevented anyone in the mainstream satirising or ridiculing Obama. Comedians shunned the subject from fear of being thought racist . There was no impressionist mocking him, not least because no black impressionist would have dared or even wanted to while no white could have impersonated him successfully without doing the unthinkable and blacking up.
The Palin factor
Palin’s selection was another consequence of political correctness., the cynical calculation being that a women would balance a black man.
Had McCain not looked depressingly old as well as being old (and thus suggested to voters that he might well not last the course of single presidency let alone two terms), and if the mainstream media had been reasonably sympathetic to the Republican Party (or even if the media had been impartial), the selection of Palin would probably not have made a great source of critical comment. As McCain did look very old and the media was wildly partisan on the Obama side it did .
At best, Palin preached only to the Republican faithful and consequently brought few new voters to McCain,; at worst she allowed the McCain campaign to be undermined to a degree by a mixture of ridicule and plausible fears about her ability to step into the president’s shoes if McCain turned his toes up.
Unsatisfactory as her selection proved to be, her detrimental effect, if it existed was at best marginal for . McCain did not lose greatly in the polls after her selection until the economic crisis occurred.
A deeply divided nation
The most startling thing about the result is its closeness, not in the electoral college votes but the popular vote. Despite being able to outspend McCain by two to one, despite receiving overwhelming mainstream media support, despite receiving political endorsements from important political figures across the political spectrum , despite the rock-concert style rallies, despite the ongoing tragedy of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the economic mess developed on Bush’s watch, despite a massive surge in electoral registrations (the large majority of which voted for Obama), despite blacks voting en bloc for him (and other ethnic minorities voting in large part for him), despite McCain belonging to the party of a widely disliked and derided president, the bald fact is that Obama only took around 52% of the vote. A majority of white Americans has got a president they did not want.
This election was probably the shape of things to come.. The white majority will become increasingly marginalized as politicians compete ever more exclusively for the ethnic minority vote. No one in the mainstream spoke for white interests at this election and unless the politically correct, multicultural grip is broken , no one will for the foreseeable future. The worst case scenario for whites is that they eventually become an ethnic minority themselves competing with the rest. Most at peril are the group which defines the nation historically and provides its ballast even now , the non-hyphenated white Americans .
Is there hope of an integrationist solution? Almost certainly not. All the evidence is that ethnic conflict increases where populations are mixed. A recent study by Scientists from The New England Complex Systems Institute, near Boston, Mass, published a study in the journal Science which purported to use a mathematical technique to predict ethnic tension in India and the former Yugoslavia. The study concluded that
“Well-defined borders help prevent ethnic tension. “Violence takes place when an ethnic group is large enough to impose cultural norms on public spaces, but not large enough to prevent those norms from being broken,” said Dr May Lim, a coauthor currently at the University of the Philippines. “Usually this occurs in places where boundaries between groups are unclear.” daily Telegraph Maths ‘could be used to stop ethnic violence’ By Roger Highfield, Science Editor 13/09/2007