Anti-White Racism

Will Racism Derail Obama? Charles Henry, a California professor who was among the first to research the Bradley effect, says Mr Obama would need a double-digit lead to feel confident of victory.

Any seasoned political junkie watching the BBC coverage of the run-up to the American presidential elections must surely be feeling somewhat embarrassed at the way in which John McCain has been portrayed.

Over and over again the BBC has sneakily drawn attention to any mishaps or misjudgments occurring in the McCain camp while carefully selecting only the best moments from the Obama camp. This was particularly noticeable in the BBC's programmes of the highlights of the various presidential debates.

But it was sneaky! 

It was very subtle, but it was cleverly done - and it was relentless.

Even more galling has been the continuing attempt to portray white Americans as being heavily racist. 

Over and over again, the BBC has tried to suggest that Obama was suffering from anti-black sentiment - anti-black sentiment that was 'hidden'.

In other words, the BBC is playing the same old game much loved by the abuse industry and the feminists.

Abuse! Discrimination! You can't see it. We can't find evidence for it. But it's there! 

Well, I do not know enough about Americans to pontificate very much about the likely effects of race when it comes to the presidential elections, but I do know enough about the old game of accusing people of 'racism' simply in order to benefit from this in some way.

And I also know what I, myself, can see!

most of the racism that I have seen coming from America - and, indeed, from the BBC - is anti-white racism

And most of the racism that I have seen coming from America - and, indeed, from the BBC - is anti-white racism, not anti-black racism.

Indeed, the evidence that I have seen suggests very strongly that more people will be voting for Obama 'because he is black' than will not be voting for him 'because he is black'.

That's racism!

And, furthermore, the evidence that I have seen suggests very strongly that more people will be voting for Obama 'because he is black' than will be voting for John McCain 'because he is white'.

That's racism!

But, of course, the BBC never mentions this aspect of 'racism'.

In addition, it is also being continually suggested that when Americans are polled with regard to their voting intentions, many will simply pretend to be voting for Obama because they want to hide their racism; i.e. they are racists. But, surely, much more likely these days is that people might pretend to be voting for Obama because, otherwise, they will be accused of being racist - much as people are whenever, for example, they express concern about something like immigration.

Indeed, why would anyone lie to a humble pollster unless they were fearful of being accused of something? And so if many people are, indeed, only pretending that they are going to vote for Obama, then this must surely be because they are living in an atmosphere wherein even the act of not voting for a black man is indicative of 'racism'.

"You must vote for a black man!"

In other words, these people are living in an atmosphere that is both intimidating and anti-white - not anti-black.

The complete opposite of all the nonsense being espoused by the empty-headed Left.

After all, if you are actually fearful of saying, "I am not going to vote for Obama," then you must be in an environment that is largely anti-white, not anti-black.

So anti-white, in fact, that even voting for a white man is considered to be racist!

the vast majority of the people on this planet are not 'white'

Finally, let us remember that the vast majority of the people on this planet are not 'white'. 'White' people only make up some 10% of the world's human population. And so when the BBC and their left-wing cronies in government seek to profit themselves by persistently suggesting to the world that whites are inherently racist - which they are not - what they are doing is actually stirring up hatred - and, hence, violence - towards their very own people right across the world!

And you cannot sink much lower than that!

These people are traitors through and through. Worse than traitors - especially when you realise that they are actually turning so much of the world against their very own children, their own brothers and sisters, their own kin, their own neighbours.

These people really are the pits.

END NOTE: Well, as we all know, Obama was eventually elected - and there was no evidence whatsoever from all the voting to suggest that people had been lying to the pollsters in order to hide their anti-black racism. On the contrary, if anything, the opposite was the case.

In other words, all the anti-white racist hoohah and the hatred towards whites generated by the BBC and their politically-corrected friends turned out - as per my piece above - to be nothing more than the usual stirring up of hatred towards whites for no goddamn reason.

And this did not even stop when Obama was elected.

"A miracle. An unbelievable result.

"A miracle. An unbelievable result. A huge turning point in the history of the world."

On and on it went. Why? - because a black man made it to the top.

Wow! Big deal.

Anyone who had their eyes even half open would have known that American society was not, fundamentally, racist, and has not been so for many years.

But the politically-corrected left had to push out the view that Obama's election was a 'miracle' in order to save face; i.e. in order to cover up the fact that they had been talking utter nonsense during the months prior to the election. 

I was going to refrain from making any comments about Obama's victory in the American elections, but, in the end, I just could not resist the temptation.

Basically, I had a choice. Either I pontificate unrestrainedly about Obama's victory to let all the agony pour out of my nervous system, or I murder the missus.

It was a close call!

And so I wrote this huge piece about the likely future course of racism now that Obama is going to be the president, but, in the end, I decided that I probably had no idea what I was talking about.

In other words, I felt just like the politically-corrected left and the feminists must forever feel.

And so I decided to cut, chop and delete portions from my piece until I was left with something that might actually be of interest to my readers.

And the following is all that remained ...

Obama's victory will eventually lead to more anti-black racism,

There is always a danger that Obama's victory will eventually lead to more anti-black racism, and it is partly for this reason that I strongly suspect that Obama's presidency will not turn out to be good for 'men'.

Here is my reasoning.

Firstly, it is not going to be easy for Obama to continue to privilege black people (e.g. through affirmative action procedures) without risking the accusation that he is simply serving his own kind.

"Hey, you're just privileging your own kind of people. That's not fair. That's racist!"

In other words, it is actually easier for a white president to hand out special privileges to black people than it is for a black president.

And so my guess is that ordinary black people are not going to benefit very much by having a black president.

To compensate for this, and to keep his left-wing credentials intact, Obama will therefore probably heap far more favours in the direction of the feminists. Indeed, I can already envisage him creating a new law whereby women are paid $20 an hour just for breathing!

[Well, I was almost right. Instead of giving all women $20 an hour just for breathing, Obama eventually made man-hating Hillary Clinton Secretary of State.]

And so my guess is that black men are going to be particularly disappointed by his presidency because they will be facing a double whammy.

Obama's victory is likely to be bad for 'men' is because he is a left-wing statist.

The second reason that Obama's victory is likely to be bad for 'men' is because he is a left-wing statist. As such, he believes that 'people' should be disempowered and that those who work for government should call most of the shots.

But, perhaps, there is also some good news for 'men' to be found here.

The black racial activists will have had much of the wind taken out of their sails by Obama's victory for the following reasons.

They will have less to moan about - after all, a black person clearly can make it to the very top in America. The president is black - which means that they cannot play the race card so easily. Obama's victory somewhat kyboshes the illusion that white America is strongly racist - which makes it less easy for black activists to claim that it is.

The upshot will be that black men will likely spend more time considering their gender and less time considering their colour when it comes to understanding why they might be getting second-class treatment.

And the Men's Movement can only benefit from this.

Indeed, racial arguments have divided 'men' throughout the whole of history; and they have certainly made it much more difficult for the MM to grow. Obama's victory might, therefore, help the MM to attract a greater following.

All in all, therefore, I suspect that Obama's victory is not going to turn out to be good for 'men', but that it will turn out to be good for the MM.

It must also be said that Obama's victory is very good for America's standing in the world. Apart from the fact that Obama is black - which, like it or not, means a great deal to many people - he also seems to be a very decent, likeable, intelligent man who is likely to command a great deal of respect hither and thither.

And so I think that America - as a whole - will be much stronger vis-a-vis the rest of the world as a result of Obama's victory. Indeed, in the international arena, Obama seems likely to outshine every other national leader on the planet for some considerable time to come.

if it had not been for the internet and for the likes of Google, I suspect that McCain would have won

Interestingly, if it had not been for the internet and for the likes of Google, I suspect that McCain would have won; because, quite simply, we would now all believe that Saddam Hussein really did have WMDs that were deliverable to the west in 45 minutes, that Jessica Lynch really was a national heroine who had fought her way out of some Iraqi stronghold, that the prison at Guantanamo really was a holiday camp, and that Iraqi prisoner abuse was really some kind of left-inspired fiction.

Bush would therefore have now been seen as a hero and a saver of the world!

Make no mistake; without the internet, the mainstream media would never have given us the truth about Iraq - particularly with powerful media men like Rupert Murdoch always desperate to ingratiate themselves to any current powers-that-happen-to-be.

Indeed, even with the internet, it took some two years before the American mainstream media caught up with the European media when it came to exposing what was really going on in Iraq.

...

And that, my Dear Reader, is all that was left of my most fabulous piece!