American Renaissance

Obama Victory Will Prolong US Racial Divide, Says British Equality Chief

AR Articles on Elections
Nationalist Politics in America (Part I) (Sep. 2002)
Nationalist Politics in America (Part II) (Oct. 2002)
It’s Race, Stupid (Jan. 2001)
Republican or Third Party? (Dec. 1999)
We Should Not Support Patrick Buchanan (Feb 2000)
Search AmRen.com for Elections
More news stories on Elections
Hannah Strange, London Times, February 28, 2008

One of Britain’s most influential black figures today accused Barack Obama of cynically exploiting America’s racial divide and gave warning that he could prolong, rather than heal the rift.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claimed that the Democratic front-runner would ultimately disappoint the African-American community and dismissed the notion that he would be “the harbinger of a post-racial America” if he becomes the country’s first black President.

Writing in Prospect, the monthly current affairs magazine, Mr Phillips suggested that guilt over transatlantic slavery was behind Mr Obama’s support from middle class whites.

“If Obama can succeed, then maybe they can imagine that [Martin Luther] King’s post-racial nirvana has arrived. A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism. So long as they don’t have to live next door to him; Obama has yet to win convincingly in white districts adjacent to black communities,” he wrote.

Mr Phillips compared Mr Obama to Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey, prominent black “bargainers” — those who strike a deal with white America not to make an issue of historical racism if their own race is not used against them.

But, in a warning to the Democratic candidate, he added that Cosby now cut a “sad and lonely figure” because he had abandoned the moral weapon used by figures such as Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and Jesse Jackson in insisting that “in the end, salvation for blacks won’t depend on the actions of whites.”

“In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial America and I think he knows it,” Mr Phillips wrote. “If he wins, the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party. In the end he is a politician and a very good one: his job is to win elections.”

He added: “If he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks — and vice versa.”

Mr Phillips said that there was no “British Obama” in part because the black British community was much smaller and therefore less likely to produce such high-achievers, and because “Black Britons can’t bring centuries of white guilt to bear with the devastating impact that African-Americans have done for two generations”.

The equality chief, a former Labour politician and broadcaster said he did not expect Mr Obama ultimately to win the Democratic nomination, although he conceded it was possible. However, if he did come to power, Mr Obama would not emulate JFK, he predicted, but Bill Clinton, with all the “charm, skill and ruthless cynicism” that entailed.

Mr Phillips is no stranger to controversy, having drawn criticism for past comments on multiculturalism in British society. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, once said he was a prime candidate for the far right British National Party and his appointment to the CEHR was bitterly opposed by a number of black organisations.

Original article

(Posted on February 28, 2008)


Healing Postponed

Trevor Phillips, Prospect, March 2008

Let me confess to a pinprick of irritation at the emergence of Barack Obama as the first truly credible non-white candidate for president of the US. To begin with, there’s the problem of wearily having to answer my white friends’ plaintive question each time a significant black figure shoots across the American firmament: “Why can’t we have a British Obama (or Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Oprah Winfrey)?” The implied challenge to black Britons in public life is: why can’t you be more like him/her?

The answer is simple. At a personal level, few people are as charismatic, capable and ruthless as this mixed-race political phenomenon. And anyone can do the maths: the black British population is proportionately one sixth the size of the black US population, so it’s hardly surprising that black Britons don’t produce the same range of talents.

But there’s history too. British whites don’t carry the stain of transatlantic slavery in the personal way that US whites do, and as a result race — specifically anti-black racism — does not play the same part in our story. Black Britons can’t bring centuries of white guilt to bear with the devastating impact that African-Americans have done for two generations. For the most part, we have been here for less than 60 years. British whites distanced themselves from the historic crime that still torments America long before we arrived. Few Britons ever owned slaves here; the blood remained on hands thousands of miles away. Britain’s black population is probably better compared to some of the less successful Latino communities of the US southwest.

There’s also a part of me that feels indignant on behalf of my Caribbean slave ancestors. Many of the big figures in African-American political history had Caribbean roots — Marcus Garvey (Jamaica), Malcolm X (Trinidad), Sidney Poitier (Bahamas). Yet a man whose African ancestors never endured transatlantic slavery has become the standard-bearer for the black presence in the US. Unlike most of us, Obama is able to trace his black ancestors back to Kenya through his father, and his white forebears through his mother to Ireland. But as the black conservative writer Shelby Steele suggests in his new book on Obama, A Bound Man, that is just what makes him so successful. Steele’s subtitle — Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win — may appear to have been negated by Obama’s run in the primaries. The junior senator from Illinois, it seems, stands every chance of taking out the Clintons and then going on to beat John McCain.

But Steele isn’t talking about the elections. He is addressing the question of whether Obama represents a fundamental change in America. Many are desperate to believe. For whites, Obama as president would be the living proof that America truly has left the past behind. For blacks, on the other hand, Obama is simply another prophet offering true emancipation — another Garvey, King or Jesse Jackson. Yet Steele’s contention is that Obama is a kind of Greek tragedy in the making. The very thing that makes him the first person of his kind has “bound” him to failure: if he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks — and vice versa.

Steele’s analysis is smart. If we discount the usual cod psychology — Obama’s “search” for his wayward and faithless Kenyan academic father — the thesis is simple. There are, Steele says, two kinds of influential black figures in US public life. The “challengers” — Garvey, Malcolm X, Jackson — wield power by making whites feel guilty about the old crime and only allowing the guilt to be relieved in return for concessions of one kind or another: a project here, a political sinecure there. Challengers point to the success of the much-touted, but somewhat overestimated, black middle class, many of whom benefited from affirmative action programmes (as Obama did) that gave them places at top universities (Columbia and Harvard in his case) and prestigious law firms.

The problem for the challengers is that their ambitions are necessarily limited to piecemeal concessions. They can only wield power as long as they remain victims — downtrodden and excluded. The moment they succeed, they lose the power of moral suasion.

Steele identifies another, more successful group, which he calls “bargainers.” These are black leadership figures who strike quite a different deal by saying to white America: “I will not use America’s horrible history of white racism against you, if you will promise not to use my race against me.” That way, everybody wins; whites feel flattered and win back what Steele calls their “racial innocence.” Blacks acquire freedom from the cage of their colour. Starting with Louis Armstrong, a series of black icons have sustained a brilliant crossover bargain: Poitier, King, Bill Cosby and, quintessentially, Oprah Winfrey. Both they and America have prospered from it.

Obama is a natural bargainer. Steele recounts the story of how he dealt with the arrest of a high school buddy for drugs. Obama’s (white) mother marched into his room demanding details. According to Obama’s own account, he gave her “a reassuring smile, and patted her hand and told her not to worry.” This, he wrote, was “usually an effective tactic” because people “were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves… such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.”

From Europe, all this is puzzling. It is almost impossible unless you’ve experienced it to grasp how profoundly race shapes everyday encounters in the US. To take one example, when African-Americans watch television in the evenings, they are watching a different America to whites. For the past 20 years the ratings have shown that the top 20 shows in white, black and Hispanic households rarely have more than two or three titles in common.

For white America, this separation makes the guilt associated with slavery an everyday reality. But if Obama can succeed, then maybe they can imagine that King’s post-racial nirvana has arrived. A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism. (So long as they don’t have to live next door to him; Obama has yet to win convincingly in white districts adjacent to black communities. While winning in still-segregated South Carolina, he lost in states where blacks and whites are more likely to share offices and public transport — New York, California.)

For the black underclass and beyond Obama may be the latest messiah, but there is anecdotal evidence that where blacks have prospered to the extent that they are grimly competing for jobs and property with whites, they don’t buy “Obamania.” I would guess that this is because the people who actually experience just how far America remains from post-racial harmony are those blacks who work with whites.

Steele’s argument is that in the end Obama cannot win, because the gap between his promise of an America free of the racial divide and the reality of a nation still riven by colour-coded inequality remains too great. I think that he is partly right. Where his essay fails is in the narrowness of its analysis. He repeats the idea that black failure is principally down to the absence of black responsibility — a cultural failure — and downplays the impact of globalisation on poor communities.

And he has missed the biggest shift of all, which may work to Obama’s political advantage without having any impact on racial inequality. It is in fact another tall, charismatic, non-white who looks likely to dislodge the black/white divide from its dominant position in US public life. On 9/11, Osama bin Laden created a new “other.” In the face of this threat, America may just decide that it is time to heal the age-old fracture. In a sense, what victory for Obama may establish is that blacks just aren’t what they used to be — and that placating them isn’t that important any more. What the tens of millions who hope that his ascent will lift them out of the ghetto will make of that once they realise it, one can only imagine.

The true scale of the problem for black leadership in the US is demonstrated by the fate of the most significant, and tragic, figure in Steele’s book. Bill Cosby was once so big that he could force US television networks to do his bidding. Cosby, as Steele says, was a classic bargainer; The Cosby Show was the television show of the 1980s; he and his oh-so-cute black family offered America racial innocence. In recent years, Cosby has toured the country emphasising the theme of black responsibility, insisting that black children speak proper English, attacking the bling-bling rappers and entreating black men not to abandon their kids. All good stuff; yet today he cuts a sad and lonely figure, because he abandoned the moral weapon wielded by both bargainers and the challengers by insisting that in the end, salvation for blacks won’t depend on the actions of whites.

No one wants to know that; Obama least of all. And herein lies the problem. Both challengers and bargainers offer a strategy that needs the racial divide to stay at the centre of US life. In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial America, and I think he knows it. If he wins, the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party. In the end he is a politician and a very good one; his job is to win elections. He may even beat Hillary to the nomination (though I’d be surprised). But the harbinger of a post-racial America? I don’t think so. Obama’s boosters compare him with JFK (see below). But I think he has a more recent role model, whose charm, skill and ruthless cynicism he may come to emulate. I’m talking, of course, of William Jefferson Clinton.

Original article

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment      Search

Comments

What this means is that Trevor Phillips and Steve Sailer agree on something — that white liberals and neo-libs have a lot invested in Barack Hussein* Obama, and for them, he serves as their imaginary black friend that, in their own minds, prove they’re not racist.

— — —

* - Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name is a copyrighted trademark of the Republican National Committee and John Sidney McCain III. Any use without written consent is hereby prohibited.

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 6:24 PM on February 28


“Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission”

That says it all. His job is to make sure their is a racial divide and thereby perpetuating his cushy job.

His analysis is way off. Obama’s popularity is partly due to the American media. The media propped him up from obscurity. White voters liked him better than Hillary or McCain. Many black voters liked him because he is black (actually half black).

To Obama’s credit, he seems reasonable. He does not seem to be a rehash of the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson show. He seems like a reasonable person. I might vote for him over McCain and I would definitely vote for him over Hillary.

Posted by at 6:28 PM on February 28


Well put, St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister. The media may be handling Obama with kid gloves, but those Republican spin butchers will (figuratively) gut him like a hog.

Posted by Robert Binion at 7:07 PM on February 28


“Writing in Prospect, the monthly current affairs magazine, Mr Phillips suggested that guilt over transatlantic slavery was behind Mr Obama’s support from middle class whites.”

I think the support is primarily due to empty media hype. Those who support him out of white guilt over slavery are too obtuse to know that Kenya is in east Africa and American slaves came from west Africa. So if you see any of the articles about a ‘descendant of slaves’ becoming president that white leftists are itching to write, they will be outright fabrications. It’s like saying Poles came to America because of the potato famine.

Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 7:24 PM on February 28


I am too lazy to carry around any kind of guilt, besides it has a devastating affect on those afflicted. I consider it sport to antagonize “guilters” and their worked up emotions. I like to say tiger woods not only wins because of white guilt, he has some latent talent. Golfers love this!

Posted by Lars at 7:24 PM on February 28


Odds are that an Obama presidency will be good for race-realists; blacks in charge usually are.

Posted by Svigor at 7:50 PM on February 28


White Britons don’t bear the stain of transatlantic slavery? Um, they were the ones who BROUGHT THEM HERE. In fact, the United States of America only shipped slaves for 21 years — between the ratifying of the Constitution in 1787 and 1808, when the slave trade was outlawed. That means that it was Britons who shipped the vast majority of slaves to this country.

Posted by at 8:08 PM on February 28


trevor phillips thinks there are basically two kinds of blacks:

“bargainers” who strike a deal with white America not to make an issue of historical racism if their own race is not used against them.

and…

“challengers” who wield power by making whites feel guilty about the old crime and only allowing the guilt to be relieved in return for concessions.

i was just wondering which kind he is?

Posted by fred at 8:21 PM on February 28


“But there’s history too. British whites don’t carry the stain of transatlantic slavery in the personal way that US whites do, and as a result race — specifically anti-black racism — does not play the same part in our story. Black Britons can’t bring centuries of white guilt to bear with the devastating impact that African-Americans have done for two generations”

Well I’m afraid that this is not true. Britain was heavily involved in the transatlantic slave trade and the american colonies inherited this from their colonial masters. The only mistake america made when it got it’s independence was that it continued slavery when it should have abolished it and returned the slaves to africa. Furthermore, american whites today have nothing to do with the slave trade and most american white ancestors didn’t either, mine didn’t.

“While winning in still-segregated South Carolina, he lost in states where blacks and whites are more likely to share offices and public transport — New York, California.)”

South Carolina is not “segregated”. People of different races choose to self-segregate and it’s no different in europe or anywhere else. Whites don’t want to live around blacks anywhere because the crime rate is too great.


“From Europe, all this is puzzling. It is almost impossible unless you’ve experienced it to grasp how profoundly race shapes everyday encounters in the US.”

Ridiculous. Americans don’t go around thinking about race, it’s the american media that constantly brings up the race card and is OBSESSED with it. Anyways, europe has few blacks so no understanding but plenty of racial and ethnic problems of its’ own with muslims and others. The blacks europe does have have the same problems as their american counterparts. Anyways, what does Trevor Phillips know? He knows nothing. He is not an American and he doesn’t live here so he is in no position .

Posted by kc at 8:58 PM on February 28


The Brit got it right this time. He knows that whites resident in the USA are tired of having to say “well, some of my best friends are black” to prevent being persecuted as racists. This time next year, you all can say “well, I voted for Barack”.

Over here in SE Asia, we don’t have to defend ourselves to anyone. We just say what we want and associate with whom we please. Too bad the USA doesn’t allow this type of freedom.

Posted by Lost in Paradise at 9:41 PM on February 28


Obama’s a rock star. The blacks in this country will not get from him what they expect. Obama cannot relate to their ‘struggle’.

McCain will defend this country. No doubt. That is what we need. He and Obama run pretty close when considering their liberal agendas. Obama might not be worse than McCain as President, if he will defend this country militarily. But, I would never vote for a Democrat.

Posted by at 10:31 PM on February 28


Despite what many, like Mr. Phillips erroneously contend, almost no Whites I have ever met in my nearly forty years of life, actually harbor anything that could accurately be called “White guilt” whatsoever. Most Whites follow along with this greater racial flim-flam of the past five decades or so, simply because most Whites follow the herd…period (I am sorry to say). Still, I don’t believe I have even actually encountered more than perhaps two of these genuine “White guilt” types and they were unkempt, college leftists to whom this nonsense as religion! It may be a mixture of general foolishness, wishfull thinking, overdeveloped religiosity and the like…but real guilt? Not that I’ve seen.



Posted by HH at 11:18 PM on February 28


Quite true, Trevor. Neither race will get what it wants.
Blacks will not get reparations. And Whites will not get the free
dom to not be attacked by Blacks. We have a long way to go. As
John C Calhoun said, the purpose of abolition is to make Blacks
master and Whites their slaves.

Posted by Freyr at 11:35 PM on February 28


“We have only been here for sixty years”,,,,

They shouldn’t be in Britain at all.

Posted by at 12:52 AM on February 29


Obama’s a rock star. The blacks in this country will not get from him what they expect. Obama cannot relate to their ‘struggle’.

Exactly. Obama being elected isn’t going to convince blacks that this isn’t a racist country. They’ll simply claim that Obama isn’t authentically black, like they do with Clarence Thomas.

Posted by qwerty at 12:56 AM on February 29


I find the word “guilt” or its derivative used six times in those two articles. The writers have that much right. America’s entire social policy since the dawn of the civil rights era as been one based on white “guilt.”

I don’t know of anyone with any sense who would suggest that wallowing in a sense of guilt is good for one’s mental health, and yet as a nation, we are told that wallowing in guilt is good for us. What’s true of an individual is certainly true of groups of individuals; constantly wallowing in guilt will only lead to neurosis. We have become a neurotic society and nothing we do — not electing Obama, not reparations — nothing — will cure it. The only way to break out of this cycle is to throw off this unfounded sense of guilt.

Posted by Tim in Indiana at 3:54 AM on February 29


TP’s thesis that an Obama’s presidency would postpone the eventuality of a “post racial America” is a highly confused one — especially in terms of the definition of what is meant by a “post racial America”.

Unless one is blind there is no way that individuals will ever be able to observe other individuals and not discern phenotypical characteristics such as “gross phenotypical configuration”, “gender”, “approximate age”, “body corpulence”, etc.

The point about the possibility of Obama’s is one which the vast majority of individuals fail to grasp, which is that it is only very psychologically immature and persons who would assume that a single man/woman who assumes the CEO position of some large, heavily populated, modern industrial nation could ever have much impact on his/her life.

What the CEOs of large industrial states are actually empowered to do by their shareholders(the voters and other citizens) is to invest the shares bought by the public(taxes)wisely and in areas that will bring short term and long term benefits.

A wise national CEO is one who would establish fiscal policies that would be “safe”, risk-averse and would yield stable returns in both the short and long run. Hence the importance of rational investments in human capital(adequate education for all citizens so that the individual become an independent and autonomous self-supporting agent), rational investments in areas of health care for contingencies of whatever predictability, and other generic investments that benefit the public generally.

The point is: which mature and rational individual would care whether the CEO of a large indistrial state were a well-programmed computer or an ordinary, fallible, flesh and blood human.

The idea that the president or CEO of some large industrial state should be some sort of king/queen all puffed up with silly, even comical ceremonial duties is something that belongs to the immature and childhood age of humanity.

The only reason that humans — as immature beings — expect their presidents and so-called leaders to be the incarnation of so many things and qualities is because there is this deep psychological need among humans as immature beings for a father — whom they still hanker after even when at the stage of physical adulthood.

Posted by OCCAM at 4:04 AM on February 29


Ahh our Witchfinder General comes out with his accurate observations again. The odd thing is most white people will agree and sympathise rather than be outraged even though he rather blatantly states blacks desire to pilfer the humble anglo-saxon.
Can all non British people leave North America. If you aren’t prepared to take responsibility for playing a role in the slave trade then how dare you enjoy our superior civilisation. As Senator William N Vale said in the 1920s people only came to America because it was an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth.

Posted by at 5:59 AM on February 29


Look. The Marxist neocon GOP party of Lincoln has finally gotten its wish and Bush and his GOP screwups have created this Hussein Obama situation without any help from the Democrats.
Blowback in full force. What goes around comes around. Neocons have made their bed and dug their own graves.
Rodham or the McCain chump wont save them.
We know from ancient history that the neocons always screw up and this time it only took them since 1948 although they were involved diabolically in every thing in Europe including Rome for 2k years sitting back waiting for their chance but now they have blown it in short order.

Posted by at 8:09 AM on February 29


Trevor Phillips is a total joke, he never has any comment to make on the amount of crime blacks commit here in Britain. In his eyes blacks are always the victims.

Posted by Briton at 8:16 AM on February 29


kc is right.
You can still see the metal rings attached to the dock walls in Liverpool where they shackled the Africans prior to shipment. Also those Carribean plantations were British colonies. Thankfully we whites engaged in slavery for a comparativly brief period and brought about it’s end, so I’m sure we’re pretty proud of our record.
Europeans have a completely distorted view of the US. I’ve mentioned before how they think blacks are still living in shacks, shuffling about on dusty tracks,gnawing corn. Their view of the US that resembles the 1950\60s with compulsory segregated White v. Black neighbourhoods, they’ve little inkling of the Hispanic or Asian neighbourhoods, they think that the cops are all white brutes. Those old black and white images of truckloads of white men with rifles seeking revenge for some purported crime is seared into the brains of millions of people worldwide. Thats how Hollywood and the media likes to portray America, and that is how the world ‘knows’ America.
Britain has huge problems with its black population; gangs,drugs,rape,underachieving scholastically, unemployment,no-go areas, very similar to the US but on a smaller scale.

The idea of Obama as president of the United States makes me feel very uneasy. A Black Socialist with Islamic connections is probably the worst of all worlds.
Arc.

Posted by Arcadian at 8:46 AM on February 29


Any White man (or woman) claiming to feel personal guilt over slavery has to be a self-flagellating masochist or a FOOL! Because there IS NO VALID REASON TO FEEL GUILTY!

Slavery ended nearly a century and a half ago. No White person today can claim to have benefitted in any way from that institution. Let the Blacks wallow in that ludicrous misery if they choose. It is crystal clear Blacks wallow in the slavery issue because it provides for them, the perfect cover for their own personal failures and shortcomings. No more, no less!

EVERY human culture, ethnic or racial group has either served in slavery or held slaves at certain times in its history. With the exception of Blacks, EVERY RACE overcame any traumatic feelings of slavery! Only Blacks use the slavery issue as an excuse for their predisposition to a life of sociopathy, criminal mentality and general failure as a human being.

To anyone doubting this statement — all I can say is look at the historic record. Compare the mentality of Afro-Americans and that of their African kin. Same race, same story — except the Africans blame colonialism for their collective failure. Anyone recall those fine promises — “give us independence and we will …” To which all I can say is, we readily see how Africans degenerated in the last half-century.

Posted by Fed Up at 8:59 AM on February 29


I’m white, I have not an ounce of guilt, I don’t know any guilt-ridden whites, and I will not vote for anyone other than Ron Paul in 2008.

I know sympathetic whites. I know whites who want to feel good about themselves. I know racially dismissive whites. But, no, I don’t know any guilt-ridden whites!

Maybe Pat Buchanan will try again in 2012?

Posted by GetBackJack at 10:56 AM on February 29


“Odds are that an Obama presidency will be good for race-realists; blacks in charge usually are.” Svigor

You are right Svigor. Obama’s shop-worn liberal solutions are bound to fail, unless he has more political flexibility than I give him. While undoubtedly intelligent, he is blinded by overriding ambition and false assumptions. He will have a rocky, trouble-plagued term of office.

Posted by Sardonicus at 12:41 PM on February 29


I’ve recently started hoping Obama wins. I think Americans having to see him, and his ugly, affirmative action benefiting, seething with racial resentment wife would be the best thing that could happen to white nationalism.

Read Steve Sailer on this. https://vdare.com/sailer/080225_michelle_obama.htm

This woman can not keep her mouth shut and fullfills every stereotype we have about incompetent blacks with a chip on their shoulder getting ahead. And her, um, lack of physical attractiveness can’t hurt either.

Posted by Samuel at 3:35 PM on February 29


Don’t fool yourself. The same media that is making Obama look like Christ are the same media that will white-wash (pun really intended) his administration.

When he pulls out of Iraq, there will be media silence about Iraq, just as there is about Rhodesia to Zimbabwe and South Africa to Matabele Land.

When he raises taxes, the media will hail this as tax “fairness”, closing the loop-holes, “making the rich pay their fair share”, etc.

Crime statistics involving race will be nowhere to be found.

Section 8 housing vouchers will go through the roof and the media will not mention this subsidy, but rather talk about how wonderful the white suburbs are being integrated with the Obama administration. Look, Aunt Jemima, no more segregation.

The NEA will get everything they want and all of a sudden he “achievement gap” will disappear from the media.

Look how there are no more homeless.

Get my drift? The media will only speak of the wonders of the great Black hope.

Meanwhile white home invasions will increase. The rape of white women will increase. Drugs will increas. Drive by shootings will increase. Affirmative Action will increase and fewer whites males will be admitted into college, be accepted as police officers or fire fighters and fewer white women will get hired as public school teachers.

There will be a massive influx of Africans FROM Africa but the media will keep this quiet. Any organization (Lutherans and Catholics) that brings in Africans will get all kinds of Federal Money.

The only people who will see the truth will be the Mexicans. They have not worked this hard to take back the southwest from the stupid whites only to lose this to some goofy purple black. The Mexicans will not stand for this, even though the white man and women will lay down to be “raped”.

Posted by LOGIC at 4:14 PM on February 29


The truth is neither Brits or Americans TODAY are responsible in any way for slavery and black Americans TODAY are much better off that their ancestors were slaves. If not, they’d still be back in Africa far worse off instead of a favored minority here in the USA.

Posted by at 8:38 PM on February 29


Those old black and white images of truckloads of white men with rifles seeking revenge for some purported crime is seared into the brains of millions of people worldwide.

Posted by Arcadian at 8:46 AM on February 29

I wish I had seen those days. What is seared into my brain is the image of law enforcement on standby while black mobs burned down LA and rioters stomped on Reginald Denny’s head.

Posted by Jill at 8:58 PM on February 29


Trevor Phillips must be Britain’s version of our Al and Je$$e J. Black leaders who make 6 figure salaries finding racism behind every tree and bush.

Posted by Jo at 9:00 PM on February 29


“But there’s history too. British whites don’t carry the stain of transatlantic slavery in the personal way that US whites do”

The BIG LIE that Black Racists use to keep gullible ignorant whites psychologically enslaved and in chains, and thus subservient.
First off, this statement implies collective guilt, across generations no less. The epitome of racism. No white alive today has anything to do with slavery. Most US whites’ ancestors immigrated post-Civil War. At the time of the Civil War most of the white population lived in the North, where most whites went though their lives not even seeing a black person. And even in the South at the time of slavery, 95% of the whites did not own slaves: Only the wealthiest few. And hundreds of thousands of white Northerners gave their lives and many more horrifically mutilated in a war that was caused by white Abolitionist intolerance for slavery, a war those white Northerners did not need to fight.
And the ones MOST responsible for the African slave trade were the BLACK AFRICANS who enslaved other Africans (capturing and force marching them to the coast killing many in the process) and traded them to whomever they could.
e.g.: From “Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism” by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus, 2007)
https://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=97CCC078-DF30-4A61-9BB4-D017510779CC
“Black Africa was a full and active partner in the slave trade, produced black captives and was solely responsible for organizing and controlling their sales. African powers remained in control of the sale of the slaves as long as the slave trade lasted.”

Posted by at 11:46 PM on February 29


White Britons don’t bear the stain of transatlantic slavery? Um, they were the ones who BROUGHT THEM HERE. In fact, the United States of America only shipped slaves for 21 years — between the ratifying of the Constitution in 1787 and 1808, when the slave trade was outlawed. That means that it was Britons who shipped the vast majority of slaves to this country.

Posted by at 8:08 PM on February 28

LoL…tell them…America did not invent the slave trade.
The Brittons shipped and the Dutch had the monopoly over the ships….so it all came from Europe and today they are still friends with their African cohorts. They can keep talking their America is racist jive but it is the only country on the face of the planet that took a firm stand to defend human dignity. White nationalists may have their beef with black American’s but as an outsider looking in…you have more in common than what seperates you!

Posted by Lisette at 9:01 AM on March 1


What I find amusing if not pitiful are those who will vote for Obama because he is preceived as black. Well, it certainly wasn’t black thought processes that have gotten him thus far. Make no mistake, he has capitalized on his ethnic appearance but he is lily white otherwise. In knowing these facts, I would have to say that the blacks have shot their foot off once again.

Posted by at 9:55 AM on March 1


“”Why can’t we have a British Obama (….)?”

I feel much the same way. Why can’t we have an American Nick Griffin?

“A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism. So long as they don’t have to live next door to him; Obama has yet to win convincingly in white districts adjacent to black communities,” he wrote.”

Notice how Trevor Phillips speaks. It’s a white “district”, but a black “community”. Blacks, you see, always live in “communities”. Not cities, not neighborhoods, and certainly not ghettos or slums. If the streets are clean, the lawns trimmed, the houses in good repair, and the air is not filled with the sound of bullets flying and gangster rap, well, that’s a “district”. But if the streets are dotted with dilapidated cars and burned out shells of houses, if the gutters are choked with empty 40’s and used needles, if the yards are over-grown, and the air is noisome with the loud, threatening sounds of “vibrancy”, then you are in a “community”. Detroit, Philadelphia, Memphis……all “communities”.

Mr. Phillips chides those white Americans who actually live near blacks, for not voting for Mr. Obama. Apparently, we will not usher in the millenium of post-racial America, until we think nothing about living near what one might refer to by shorthand as the 3B’s (BBB - blacks behaving badly). It is our duty to accept the unacceptable and to tolerate the intolerable.

If that is post-racial America, then no thanks, I want none of it. And those whites who vote for Obama thinking that it will finally at least make blacks put-up or shut-up will be disappointed. They will do neither. Their list of grievances will only grow longer. And those sincere guilty-whites who will vote for Obama out of their overwhelming sense of guilt for things they did not do, may find that no amount of penance will mollify blacks. But I wouldn’t count on it.

Posted by CSinAL at 1:03 PM on March 1


”* - Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name is a copyrighted trademark of the Republican National Committee and John Sidney McCain III. Any use without written consent is hereby prohibited.

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 6:24 PM on February 28 “

The Neo-comms don’t want Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name used in public, because of a curious fluke of history: In America, only successful assassins have three names.

John Wilkes Booth. Lee Harvey Oswald. Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. John Hinckley doesn’t have a middle name because Reagan lived.

Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 2:25 PM on March 1


“TP’s thesis that an Obama’s presidency would postpone the eventuality of a “post racial America” is a highly confused one — especially in terms of the definition of what is meant by a “post racial America”.”

Post racial America is when all the Whites are dead.

Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 12:17 PM on March 2


“White Britons don’t bear the stain of transatlantic slavery? Um, they were the ones who BROUGHT THEM HERE. In fact, the United States of America only shipped slaves for 21 years”

Here is a quote made by someone on this thread. I am not sure if there is any truth to this statement and for all practical purposes whether or not there is makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.

I will respond by saying that there are NO past actions of any members of my European race of people that would cause me to support the types of policies designed to destroy the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of my European people. Meditate on that. It is that simple.

Posted by at 2:00 PM on March 2



”Why can’t we have a British Obama ?”
………………………………………
I knew it! I already guessed it! It was bound to happen.
In France they are already asking much the same question: Why can’t there be a French Obama?

Soon, there will be.

Obama, as he’s being promoted so heavily, will become, win or lose, the new champion of the Third World — especially of their angry, disaffected minorities in the white countries of the West.

As always, America is setting the example — a bad one — that all the other countries of the West will rush to get in line and emulate. Expect in the next decade to see duplicate Obamas materialize everywhere from Norway to Australia.

Posted by ghw at 4:30 PM on March 2



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)