Posted under Election 2008
 - Cheer up one and all, because if there’s anything that Obama has proven, it’s that a black man (or half-black I should say) can become President and when that happens a lot of nonsense about “institutional racism” “legacy of slavery” and a lot of other P.C. terms now all wash away, along with, hopefully, any vestiges of white guilt bareing the alleged sins of our ancestors and immense benefits of being white that somehow seem to escape all those black lung coal miners in Appalachia or cotton choppers on the Plains. Finally we removed the Mark of Cain.
Obama can do himself a world of good by putting Hilary Clinton on the Supreme Court as soon as John Paul Stevens retires (which will be early next year) and finishing any hope of a Clinton restoration. For that we can give Obama a great deal of credit for.
- Many see Obama as a radical given his background and while all that’s true he’s also shown himself to be a fairly convention politician (and very good one at that. How can his inaugaral address top what he said last night?). I remember all the apocalyptic rhetoric said about Clinton (it turns out the Bush II Administration was worse) so I don’t think it will be so much Obama the man himself, rather than Obama the symbol that will show how radical things will turn out.
- All that money and attention and Bob Barr’s vote totals were barely better than Harry Browne’s and still he finished behind Ralph Nader. I don’t think it really matters now which faction controls the national LP at this point although I suspect most of Barr’s supporters will drift back to the GOP.
- When all the votes are counted I think it’s safe to say Baldwin will be the CP’s highest vote getter ever for President and he beat out the Greens Cynthia McKinney Not bad for only being on the ballot in 37 states and losing CP ballot lines in Montana and California. When I was writing my book on third parties, one of the persons I interviewed said that while a run for President doesn’t get many votes, it is a good way to introduce you party to a bigger audience and sign up more party members. But it’s not much more than that. Once again this election proves non-major parties need to concentrate on the state and local and perhaps an occasional congressional or Senate race if conditions warrant where the party’s candidate could make a difference. Ron Paul was right to run in the GOP primaries and there was much benefit to that run.
- B.J. Lawson got swept aside in the Obama tide in North Carolina but 37% vs. a 20-term incumbent isn’t bad for a first time run for Congress. He has a chance to do better next time now that he’s got some name ID in the district. Bob Conley did well too with 42% despite not having so much as dime to run against Lindsay Graham. If the Campaign for Liberty is going to amount to anything it’s got to help candidates like Conley instead being restricted by the whims on Ron Paul’s House seat. Although nearly all “Ron Paul Republicans” lost their Congressional races (main running in strongly Democratic districts) their the only organization the party has in urban areas of the country. Remember, the GOP allocates convention delegates by Congressional Districts. Anyone dominating these districts will have a say in who the party’s nominees are for president and in shaping the party as a whole.
-  The Republicans were beaten badly (or at least McCain was) but this wasn’t a wipe out election. There will be no filibuster proof majority in the Senate and the GOP brand is still solid in the interior South and the Plains and upper Mountain West. They will recover which is why this article about the CP picking up the pieces for a shattered Republican Party in the ultra-leftist Mother Jones magazine I don’t think will come to fruition.
- On the secession front- Obama’s Presidency could be a boon for the League of the South and the Alaska Independence Party. It will be interesting to see how the more leftist Second Vermont Republic fares in an Obama Administration. On the white nationalist front, once again I tell you to find a forgotten spot in the Plains, the upper mountain West or the interior South and make a community there, because it’s the only way you survive and succeed.
- The Palin paradox – Her presence on the GOPÂ ticket probably saved the nation from a Obama tidal wave (and certainly helped Alaska’s corrupt Congressional Delegation) but unless she magically transformed herself back into a paleo, she’ll never carry the nation. Identity politics may work on your people but in more diverse places its simply a no-go. You need a broader message than “I’m one of you.”
- Had independents and Republicans been able to vote in the Democratic primaries of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama probably could have won both states and would have wrapped up the nomination much earlier than he did. He certainly did well in both states last night. The McCainiacs were fooled by the primary.
So much for voter outrage against the financial bailout. If anything it proves we are a two-party nation its the fact that when both parties collude on matters such handing billions of dollars to Wall Street fat cats, it’s hard to draw outrage unless there’s a serious, MAR kind of non-major party candidate like Ross Perot (Jesse Ventura?) to draw in that anger like 1992. Had McCain came out against t the bailout, just think how the situation would have changed…
And one last thought, one unlike the aforementioned we can all agree on: Thank God it’s over with.
ERIC on 05 Nov 2008 at 8:43 pm #
The election was a rejection of wall street republicans and neoconservatives.
It’s time Pat Buchanan, Chuck Baldwin, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul take over the republican party and it’s also time that conservative democrats like Heath Shuler switch over to the republican party.
Not my negro president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Patroon on 05 Nov 2008 at 10:58 pm #
I have the power to edit out your last line Eric and pretend you never wrote it. But as a believer in free speech I will not do so nor would it be fair to you. You have the right to write what you want. But I have the responsibility as an editor of this site to state that we do not condone such language (Could you have said “Not my half-breed President since Obama is only half black?) nor will we enage the author in any kind of reasonable discussion if he continues to use it. We will ignore you, which is a lot worse than just being deleted.
You have my opinion on what white nationalists can do in the Age of Obama, which is separatism and decentralization. Your nationalism has failed and you need to accept it and move on, otherwise you’ll spend the rest of your life dropping N-bombs, moshing up with skinheads and eventually winding up in prison, where you’ll get acquainted with the brothers and the homeys on a one-on-one basis.
You have been warned. It’s up to you.
Weaver on 06 Nov 2008 at 12:31 am #
I edited Eric’s post slightly – no need for that particular word.
Weaver on 06 Nov 2008 at 12:49 am #
This is a very good analysis.
McCain should have voted against the bailout as you say, and we should focus locally.
Your comment regarding identity politics not working to unite disparate groups is good too: it shows even with Baldwin’s lack of success relative to Paul’s I think. However, I’m one of those who’s going to be fleeing to the hills haha; I’m not wanting to become an ideologue.
Identity politics could work if a candidate were able to unite enough disparate groups though.
Argh, I can’t believe Conley lost…
RonL on 06 Nov 2008 at 2:28 am #
Where is the mention of Virgil Goode, who is in a dead heat with a “moderate” Democrat?
Goode should be one of your favorite congressmen.
I wonder how many bittercons sold Goode out by playing principled and staying at home.
Hey, Eric. You must have missed the last meeting. The head of the American Nazi party endorsed Obama.
Patroon on 06 Nov 2008 at 3:20 am #
Thanks for the kind words Weaver. I know a there are Carolinians upset that Conley lost to Graham of all people but he fought a good fight despite his lack of resources. They should be proud of him and hope he stays politically active no matter what party he chooses.
Bede on 06 Nov 2008 at 3:36 am #
Good post, Patroon.
Virgil Goode is one of the better congressmen. He’s put forward much promising legislation on immigration and trade.
I was more upset over Conley’s loss than any other loss in the election.
I don’t buy the whole thing about Obama being half black. He’s black. When a black and white procreate, 99% of the time the child will look black and identify as black. As Jesse Jackson said, “blacks have dominate genes.” For example, the odds of a blue eyed white and black producing a child with blue eyes are less than 1 in a 1,000. Likewise, the child will have black textured hair, nose, etc. For all practical purposes, Obama is black.
Weaver on 06 Nov 2008 at 5:37 am #
RonL,
wouldn’t you vote for Obama were you a Nazi?
They don’t like Baldwin’s Christianity I imagine and would view him as a potential safety valve for a harder right, and Obama promises to provoke a racial reaction that the Nazis will certainly benefit from.
We here of the less extreme far right were pleased with Baldwin, but what surprises me is only that the CofCC and some (not all) similar orgs backed McCain.
RonL on 06 Nov 2008 at 5:51 am #
My Nazi comment was an attempt to make fun of Eric’s use of the N word.
As the Nazis, they are a race-based revolutionary group. The Germans ones were in no way conservative and the American ones are a collection of under medicated alienated folk. Most who I have spoken to are too dense to realize that as Celts and Slavs they were untermenchen.
Of course, as far as the insane, I have to deal with the voting pattern of my own kin. I need another drink. ;-{
Patroon on 06 Nov 2008 at 6:38 am #
Obama may very well be black in most person’s eyes but in the black community on the South Side of Chicago, the fact that he had a white parent and the fact he wasn’t descended from slaves (who came almost exclusivley from West Africa while Obama is East African) or didn’t move to Chicago from Mississippi made him suspect, made him seem less “pure” or so it seemed when he first ran for Congress in 2000 and was one of the reasons why he lost. His search for a true identity has been the biggest struggle of his life and defines who he is. In politics, as in sports or entertainment, creating multiple identities, as Tiger Woods and Obama have shown, is quite advantageous.
Weaver on 06 Nov 2008 at 8:57 am #
Haha, I’ve met a Slav (in college) who acted out the Nazi stereotype – he also had a poster of Einstein on his wall
You can’t blame them though: it’s natural to love one’s own, and they’re told that Nazis are the alternative to capitalism and socialism. In my political science classes (I didn’t major in it), Nazi ideology was studied while nothing else “reactionary” was even mentioned. Pre-capitalist ideas never existed (presumably they were surpassed by increasingly more progressive ideas). So, what is a reactionary to do who knows of nothing but Nazism? And to add insult to injury, the media portrays Nazis as maniacs which makes Nazi-wannabes believe they should act like maniacs… These Nazis are created largely by the education system and mass media. It is not natural – how else can you explain why a German historical movement has followers among young (sometimes not German or at least not fully German) whites in America? And at the same time, many leftists have no comprehension of the right as being anything but Nazi or Nazi-leaning (or else capitalist and capitalist-leaning, which isn’t much better imo).
Meh, it’s just sentiment. Universal democracy, or at least our type of democracy-republic, gives the worst of society too much power among any group.
The only way to correct this within the current political system would be for Jews to develop good leaders that they’re as loyal to as are the blacks to their preachers. You cannot allow the average man to choose for himself because he will usually fall into poor judgment (due to temptation, lack of information, lack of relevant education, muddled thinking).
The trouble Americans in general have is the mass media, which incidentally is very much influenced by liberal Jews, guides them. This is why I do not have cable, do not subscribe to the paper, nor do I listen to the radio. I’m oblivious to the propagandists, though I do take news from sources (websites and periodicals) I deem more honest and compatible with my own interests; and I encourage others to do the same.
roho on 06 Nov 2008 at 1:23 pm #
A very good evaluation Patroon…………………………….And I do believe that the GOP has earned the right to LOSE.
McCain…..”Get used to the fact that these jobs are not comming back!”
McCain…..”There will be war for a hundred years!”
McCain…..”I support the Wallstreet Bailout”.
Obama….. “I’m for helping the middleclass”.(The world waits to find out what he calls the middleclass?)
AMERICANS ALWAYS VOTE THEIR CHECKBOOK, and try to justify it with ideology that they know nothing about…….Always.
It is mathmaticaly impossible for the 12-14% black population to win this election of Obama, were it not for “self-hating” whites. Therefore, this election proves that “White on Black” racism is extremely exagerated. Did anyone note how well NADER did, inspite of his open attacks against AIPAC and the LOBBY? Someone must have liked the message?…………….I have never seen such an “Allmost Perfect” platform as the platform of Chuck Baldwin yet few ever read it.
Not likely, but if the Obama Administration, combined with the reminants of the GOP actually PURGE the neocons from Washington, it would be a victory!…………….But Biden will not let that happen, becoming the NEW IMPROVED DICK CHENEY.
fellist on 06 Nov 2008 at 2:11 pm #
I don’t think this testifies so much to any particular tendency of the American people, rather it points to the power of the mainstream media in influencing and distracting them and to the efficacy of the state school system in dumbing them down. Also, of course, it shows us how useful ‘democracy’ is to the controlling interests – they allow the population this futile expression of “their will” every few years precisely to avoid the justified consequences of revolutionary outrage. Like Clinton’s mentor Carroll Quigley wrote: “The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.â€
The popular vote may have been, but Wall Street and the neocons are not so foolish as to tie themselves to any one party – that’s just for the boobs.
For all that it matters, Wall Street funded Obama more heavily than McCain and the neocons – who originated in the Democratic party anyway – have plenty of pals in the Obama camp who share their outlook including Obama’s chief Middle East policy adviser Dennis Ross (and the Middle East is all that neoconservatism is concerned with).
David Allyn on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:28 pm #
Obaaaama (mimicking the sound of sheep) is not a negro either – he is a mongrel.
We should expect this executive branch and congress to move quickly with new legislation, especially in the areas of abortion “rights”, gun confiscation, retirement plan/IRA confiscation, escalating taxes and…… new wars.
Fasten youn seat belts, hold onto your wallets and guns !
vanessa on 06 Nov 2008 at 11:30 pm #
Some of your comments on this are quite unChrist like and offensive.
The problem with some Conservatives is they lack grace, and spew hatred.
And there are many times in the Bible where ungodly leaders were used to chasten the disobedient followers of God. We had a candidate, but the Conservatives chose to back McCain instead. Don’t be angry, we got just what we deserve. Remember all authority is ordained by God. So, deal with it. Maybe if we pray more and truly humble ourselves and seek God’s will and not ours God will heal our land. The Puritans did it and it worked.
They relied more on God than a political figure.
Oh, and Obama is created in God’s image and God loves him. if I remember the scripture correctly, God takes no pleasure in the destruction
of the wicked, but rather they would come to repentance. So, stop all the hate, and start praying. calling names like mongrel, and negro is offensive and even worse shows your heart. Out of the heart the mouth speaks.
John Garrett on 07 Nov 2008 at 12:06 am #
I’m certain the racial divide will broaden, the economy will worsen, our liberties will parish and demon-crats will continue to blame Bush for our misery. Think how the French must have felt when they saw Germans marching in to Paris. Obama’s rule in occupied America will be difficult for many and intolerable for some. America’s future is in doubt thanks to the “boobs” who didn’t want to tie themselves to one party.
roho on 07 Nov 2008 at 1:25 am #
fellist…………………You make a good point……….We now have 2 parties. We have the CBS,NBC,CNN, and ABC party and we have the FOX neocon party.
Paleos only have a few websites.
David B Allyn on 07 Nov 2008 at 7:18 am #
VANESSA before you start judging people, perhaps you should consult a reliable dictionary and there you will learn that ‘mongrel’ and ‘negro’ are perfectly normal words and should anyone think otherwise, then it is their ignorance that has hampered them.
Vanessa on 07 Nov 2008 at 3:43 pm #
Funny thing people always resort to the “you are judging ” when you call them out. Mongrel is a term used for animals. So, if one believes we evolved from animals I guess your remarks are apropos.
So, that there is no room for misunderstanding just how denigrating the use of the word mongrel is in referring to another human being. Here is it’s definition.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share This
monâ‹…grel
   /ˈmʌŋgrəl, ˈmɒŋ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muhng-gruhl, mong-] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a dog of mixed or indeterminate breed.
2. any animal or plant resulting from the crossing of different breeds or varieties.
3. any cross between different things, esp. if inharmonious or indiscriminate.
–adjective
4. of mixed breed, nature, or origin; of or like a mongrel.
As for my entire comment I stand by it, and I was discerning the spirit of your post and some of the other posts on this website.
Patroon on 07 Nov 2008 at 5:25 pm #
If we’re going to spend the next four years (and probably eight) obbessing over race then we might as well close up shop right now. There’s going to be plenty about Obama on a policy to oppose from foreign policy to social policy and economic policy.
We can either opposed the administration constructively with new policies that are attractive for our fellow citizens to support or we can drive ourselves mad obessing about Obama like Captain Ahab. The choice is yours.
Andrew T. on 07 Nov 2008 at 8:29 pm #
David must be one naive, stubborn son of a gun. Words like “mongrel” and “negro” sound awful to virtually anyone in today’s society and have no place in intelligent discussion. Seriously, test out those words with anyone you know (better yet, don’t know) and tell me if you get good results, Dave. Get over yourself, please.
fellist on 07 Nov 2008 at 11:36 pm #
There are advantages to tailoring ones language to an audience, Andrew T., and, of course, it’s good to be polite, but sometimes there are good reasons to stick defiantly with the language of earlier years and resist these small changes in culture which taken together add up to so much.
After all, it is not a question of the words alone – these shifts in what is acceptable, and the doubt, fear, and division they engender are designed to change attitudes and behaviours too. Professor Frank Ellis, late of Leeds University and an expert in Soviet propaganda and political correctness has written about this, among many others. Neatly for his thesis, Ellis was later forced out of his job for ‘hate-speech’ which sixty years earlier would have seemed quite normal.
– Incidentally, the English and the British are routinely labelled a ‘mongrel race’ by our mainstream media, politicians, intellectuals, and the peoples displacing us; and if black behaviour didn’t attract such a poor reputation perhaps they wouldn’t need such frequent rebrands?
Weaver on 08 Nov 2008 at 8:54 am #
I’m not getting into this debate, but in the abstract language is very important.
Richard Weaver wrote about this, that people today lack the words to represent and express their ideas. Thus, they have more difficulty than they ought in thinking some thoughts.
Slanders like mongrel, however, would serve a different purpose: a societal purpose to prevent amalgamation. I guess that’s obvious though…
Andrew T. on 08 Nov 2008 at 2:55 pm #
I’ve never seen the media, or ANYONE for that matter, call the British “mongrels”.
No, there’s no benefit in using the word “mongrel” to refer to human beings. The word even sounds awful.
David B Allyn on 08 Nov 2008 at 7:12 pm #
Well of course words have meaning and manipulation of vocabulary is a key strategy for molding people for the New World Order. Ever read Orwell’s 1984 ? Ever notice the abuse of the word “democracy” ? I seriously doubt Vanessa and Andy T would notice.
I saw just yesterday that Obaaama referred to himself as a “mixed breed”. If he had a better vocabulary, he would have said “mongrel”
David B Allyn on 08 Nov 2008 at 9:06 pm #
Correction – Obaaama referred to himself as a “mutt” – here is the link
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mutts_like_me/2008/11/08/149144.html
fellist on 09 Nov 2008 at 2:49 am #
Andrew, alongside ‘nation of immigrants’ which our elites adopted after noticing its effectiveness on your side of the pond, the phrase is probably the most commonly used in discussions of our ‘national identity’: discussions designed, naturally, to transform our national identity into a multi-national identity.
I just searched the Hansard records and was reminded of the popular origins of the phrase ‘mongrel race’ in regard to the English. In a House of Commons debate about the enlargement of the European Union, Scots-Irish/Polish MP Denis Macshane says:
“… we should never lose sight of the fact that our nation has always been at its best when it has opened its doors and been generous to our fellow Europeans and immigrants from all over the world. It was Daniel Defoe’s great poem, “The True-Born Englishman”, written some 300 years ago, that referred to the English people as “this mongrel race”.â€
Macshane has better reason than most to know the effectiveness of this tactic, during the debates on the Polish Resettlement Act of 1947, one MP said â€it is a good thing for this race, which is a mongrel race, to be able to absorb into itself this great body of menâ€.
Another anti-English politician is Liberal Democrat leader of Newcastle City Council Peter Arnold who wrote to a national newspaper “There is no need for an English parliament because there is no England.” He said that while Scotland, Wales and Ireland are “fairly homogenous”, England is “the genuine mongrel nation, and I welcome that”. And he continued:
“I regard myself first and foremost as a Northumbrian, then as British, and finally as European. Here in the North-East we only began to be part of the nation after 1603. Before that, the independent kingdoms of England and Scotland played havoc with the area, and used it (and abused us) for their own dynastic ends. I have no loyalty to England.”
You can also find plenty of media examples, Deborah Orr wrote an article about the English people in the Independent titled “A mongrel race in search of an identityâ€; Dr Andrew Lilico at the semi-official Conservativehome blog (home to many Conservative MPs) wrote that “The British have always been a mongrel race, and though I understand it gives us bad teeth, that aside our racial mix has not been any particular problem since early Norman times. There is no British culture.â€; the Lonely Planet guide to England says “Despite the claims of racial supremacists… the English are a mongrel race†and they same the same about the British in their guide to Britain; conservative and patriotic writer Peter Ackroyd has called the English a ‘mongrel race’; Benjamin Zephaniah (a sort of poet best known for his dreadlocks and his refusing an O.B.E. has called the British a ‘mongrel race’… I could go on and on.
—
Weaver wrote: Richard Weaver wrote about this, that people today lack the words to represent and express their ideas.
That’s also a feature of Orwell’s 1984.
—
David, Obama has just licensed your use of “mutt” to describe him and his kind. Of course, should anyone dare do so, they’ll be called a racist by people who are silent on Obama’s use of the word, making them the real racists.
Auster on the broader double standard
—
Vanessa, if you’re White you’re being played, if you’re Black, you should start to oppose the double standards whi favour your community – and stop telling White people what they can say.
fellist on 09 Nov 2008 at 2:51 am #
Sorry, “which favour”
fellist on 09 Nov 2008 at 3:08 am #
On the subject of “discourse is war” Soren Renner gave an interesting speech here: Now is the next time
Which prompted this reply from James Bowery: Life’s Universal Warriors
This may well be true – the nations of the West might never find the resolve to fight to defend only themselves. If we will survive at all as peoples, races, ethnies, cultures, states, we may first need to know that we are fighting for more even than our lives as peoples.