George L. writes:

If you think the media is unbearable now, just wait until Obama is in the White House.

Can you imagine four years of the media focusing like a laser beam on this scrawny airhead, Obama, every second, of every single minute, for every single day? For four ungodly years, the MSM will make it seem as if entire planets orbit around Obama’s every empty thought and platitude. Everything he says and does, and everything said about him, will be viewed through the prism of his personality cult. Every news report about him will focus on race, persecution, race, Obama’s virgin birth, race, his creepy followers, race, etc.

There will be no time for analysis of mere “policy,” except as a way to glorify our chosen Messiah. Obama will not be a president of the United States, he will instead consume all the energies of the United States as the Pharaohs did in Egypt or as Napoleon did in Imperial France.

And, of course, for four years, the MSM will act as a super 1984 style thought-crime police, crushing any dissent or criticism against the Cult of the Great Leader.

Personally, I think it will be great for the country. The cult of Obama will test the endurance of everyone who is not a dyed in the wool liberal. So yes, I am in favor of an Obama presidency because the only way to collapse liberalism may be to hit the accelerator hard and test liberalism to destruction. If an Obama presidency does not pull off that feat then I cannot imagine what would.

LA replies:

George is saying something that I and others have also been saying for some time, but I don’t think it’s ever been said so well. I dread an Obama presidency as I dread the gates of hell, but I still say it would be better for the country in the long run than a McCain presidency, for the reasons George gives. If there is to be any chance of a serious opposition to liberalism arising, we have to turn up the volume and let liberalism reveal itself as never before.

I add the qualification that if I thought an Obama presidency would pose an existential threat to the country or bring about a foreign policy disaster of almost equal magnitude, I would vote for his opponent. Short of that, I say, Bring it on.

- end of initial entry -

Jack S. writes:

Lenin’s “the worse the better” argument that George L makes regarding a Hussein presidency has some emotional appeal. Sort of like a child taking his ball and going home in the midst of a losing a game. “If I can’t have my way, I’ll try to spoil it for everyone.” Knowing how bad McCain is, I am still ambivalent about this argument. I understand the impulse to cut off the nose to spite the face. Despite this, the seemingly minor aspect of judicial appointments is enough to tip the scale in McCain’s favor. It is an inherent fault of our system that federal judges have lifetime appointments. Once elevated to the bench they effectively cannot be dislodged, no matter how incompetent, corrupt or personally despicable. Thirty years on Carter appointees are still damaging this country. It was a black Carter appointee that started the process that destroyed Judge Roy Moore’s career over his desire to display the Ten Commandments. In saner days a man like Moore would be President of this country. The freaks that Hussein and the gang behind him would elevate to the bench are too frightening to contemplate.

I don’t even entirely buy the argument about educating the ignorant masses about the evil of Liberalism and so forging a more conservative electorate. The people that Hussein appeals to would cheer the actions that horrify Conservatives; his new government programs and handouts would only lead to further demands and more. people who think of government handouts as the answer to every problem. That is another inherent flaw of our system, the drug addled welfare recipient has the same vote a taxpaying property-owning family men. Today we think of JFK as a conservative Democrat but in his day Ronald Reagan said of him:”…under the tousled boyish haircut is still old Karl Marx.” In another forty years, if this country still exists in its current form, Hussein may likewise be regarded as a conservative Democrat.

LA replies:

As I have done many times before, I repudiate the idea that my position is similar to the Leninist, “the worse the better” position. The Leninist position has the objective of destroying the existing society. Leninism wants conditions in the society to get worse, so that the people will rise up and destroy the society completely. That’s not what my argument is about at all. My argument is about opposing the continuation in power of anti-American liberal Republicans such as Bush and McCain, who by being president kill and suppress conservative resistance to the left because conservatives will not oppose leftism when it comes from a Republican. My argument is about saying that conservatism, and therefore America, will be in BETTER shape with an open leftist Democrat in the White House because the conservatives will then OPPOSE the left instead of bowing down to it.

Now, to bring about the possibility of such a circumstance means allowing a leftist Democrat to become president and doing many bad things. But those bad things are not our objective. Our objective is to create genuine conservative opposition to the left and to the bad things it seeks to do, and thus help save America.

This doesn’t mean that I’m sure my position is correct. For all I know, things will get even worse under Obama and America will turn into a Socialist Multicultural Regime. I am in sympathy with the concerns of people who say that we must vote for McCain to stop Obama. But my view is different, and this is a debate that will continue.

Ben W. writes:

LA wrote: “I add the qualification that if I thought an Obama presidency would pose an existential threat to the country or bring about a foreign policy disaster of almost equal magnitude, I would vote for his opponent. Short of that, I say, Bring it on.”

The expectation is that an Obama presidency will throw liberalism into sharp relief and expose its essence to the American population. However a different scenario can emerge. An Obama administration, rather than becoming a polarizing phenomenon, becomes a milquetoast Jimmy Carter type presidency. In which case nothing is decided in any ultimate fashion except that a black man (a historical first) served in the office of the presidency in an undistinguished way.

George L. writes:

Thanks for posting my comment.

As for the debate over whether worse is better or worse is worse, I still have yet to hear the “Vote for McCain anyway” traditional conservatives and race realists explain to me how voting for McCain would be a positive move in and of itself.

It would appear to me that under McCain we would be drifting left as opposed to being pushed radically left by Obama. Either way we are going to move left, so why not have the Democrats be positioned to take the blame and try and have a fight with the left before our country’s demographic profile gets even worse than it already is?

A McCain presidency is a Bush third term, and, if I recall correctly, the GOP and conservatism were in much better shape in 2000 before Bush became president and started pulling the country left of where it was under Bill Clinton. There appears to be not much of a positive reason to vote for McCain, only the negative “Obama is worse” theory.

Furthermore, even the “Obama will appoint bad SCOTUS justices” falls flat. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution allows for Congress to revoke federal court jurisdiction over many subjects where the courts have intervened in favor of the left over recent years, subjects such as school prayer and other social controversies.

If the SCOTUS moves left under Obama, much of the damage can be reversed by a future Republican Congress that revokes Supreme Court jurisdiction over certain cultural issues (Remember that the SCOTUS is supreme only over other federal courts, and not supreme over the President or the Congress).

All we need to roll back the left is the will to fight the left. A McCain presidency simply confuses where the battle lines actually are actually drawn, whereas Obama will at least permit everyone to know who is standing where on the political spectrum, and quite plausibly lead to a backlash.

Buddy in Atlanta writes:

Jack S. writes:

That is another inherent flaw of our system, the drug addled welfare recipient has the same vote a taxpaying property-owning family men.

In my fantasy world, I imagine that the Republicans push back against every proposed expansion of the welfare state with their own proposal to limit the franchise. I suspect you could make the voting public significantly more conservative by restricting the vote to property owners or excluding those who receive some form of welfare or qualify for the earned income tax credit. With such an electorate, maybe we’d finally see an end to the growth of government.

The liberals realize that time is on their side, when it comes to the electorate drifting leftward. The guttersnipe Amanda Marcotte, who was thrown off the Edwards campaign last year because of her foul language, noted as much in a recent blog post on trying to win back Reagan Democrats:

I’m not sure how we win back the “Reagan Democrats”—white people, men especially, who would rather vote to screw those less privileged than themselves than to lift themselves up…. [I]f we want to learn something from Republicans, it’s not “Get that resentful percentage of white working class men”, but “See opportunities and grab them.” The opportunities at hand are a younger generation that isn’t nearly as badly saddled with racist, sexist, and homophobic resentments and that has the numbers. The other opportunity at hand is the browning of America—a handful of states have already become minority majority states, and more will come.

Mark P. writes:

Buddy quotes Amanda Marcotte:

“I’m not sure how we win back the ‘Reagan Democrats’—white people, men especially, who would rather vote to screw those less privileged than themselves than to lift themselves up…. The opportunities at hand are a younger generation that isn’t nearly as badly saddled with racist, sexist, and homophobic resentments and that has the numbers. The other opportunity at hand is the browning of America—a handful of states have already become minority majority states, and more will come.”

This is a common fantasy among the Left. The browning of America will somehow give the Democrats all of this enormous power. The reality is that the browning of America will drive white liberals out of power in the Democratic Party. Their future is exactly what Hillary is experiencing now: a fight for her political life as the various Democrat “identity groups” vote in favor of their own ethnic leaders.

LA replies:

So Hillary represents “the last gasp of white America”—in the Democratic party, that is. Wouldn’t that be ironic? Before the white leftists get to enjoy the final consummation of taking over America, they get replaced and shoved aside by the nonwhite leftists whom they’ve admitted into the country and empowered. And if these future dispossessed white leftists are as clueless as Hillary (who thought misogyny defeated her), they’ll think they’re being undone by conservatives.

It’s right out of Dante, where the souls in Hell keep blindly committing the very sins they’re in Hell for.

Mark P. replies:

And to add to your post, once the white liberals are pushed aside, the Democratic Party will fall apart. White liberals are good facilitators, handily brokering power between various ethnic groups. Without them, the essential level of trust that keeps blacks, Hispanics, Asians and others together will disappear. This is the irony of mass Hispanic immigration. Allow one ethnic group to seize power from whites, resulting in the other ethnic groups becoming increasingly distrustful of the dominant group.

This guarantees that the downfall of white America will play out within the Democratic Party first.

LA replies:

This is amazing. Has anyone said this before?

Mark P. replies

I don’t know…

It’s what I come up with in my darker moments.

LA replies:

So then this is the first time this scenario has been suggested, as far as you know.

Mark P. replies:

I think so … unless Steve Sailer has come up with it. Maybe we should ask him.

I did not think it was such a remarkable scenario. I thought it was implicit when you take in the totality of various arguments from Brussels Journal, Vdare, you, Sailer, etc.

LA replies:

What strikes me as new about it is this. The ordinary doomsday scenario is that the white left and the nonwhites band together to take power. But if your scenario takes place, the white left loses its leadership position over the nonwhites, the left coaliton fragments and loses its power—leading to what? A resurgence by non-leftist whites? I don’t know.

By contrast, consider my European nightmare scenario, in which the white left willingly surrenders to a Muslim caliphate in Europe. In that instance, there is one dominant minority group for the left to surrender to, and so the anti-Western forces maintain their unity. But in the American scenario we’re discussing, there would not be such a dominant minority group for the white left to surrender to (unless the Hispanics play that role, which doesn’t seem likely for various reasons). So the anti-Western forces would fragment. The white left would lost its power over the leftist/nonwhite coalition, but no other group would take its place.

Mark P. replies:

What the white left will do is migrate away from the Democratic Party to other parties, like the Green Party. Basically, the Democratic Party will fragment into dozens of little parties. In the absence of a parliamentary system, they will be unable to carve together coalitions or field candidates that all could agree on and that could win. The advantage will then shift to non-leftist whites.

LA replies:

And, just to indulge this fantasy for another minute, wouldn’t it be something if the very success of the white left in browning America in order to take over America leads to the destruction of the left and the recovery of power in this country by non-leftist whites?

George L. writes:

I believe Sailer either intentionally or unintentionally glanced at what Mark is hinting at in an article Sailer wrote for The American Conservative. The article was called “What’s Wrong with the Democrats.”

Sailer wrote that the reason the Democrats have done so poorly in recent presidential elections is that the GOP is racially homogenous and is therefore better at fighting as a team, whereas the Democrats are splintered so badly it can be hard for them to assemble a winning coalition. Sailer compared the GOP to the uniform and organized “phalanxes of Alexander” and the Democrats to the heterogenous Persian Empire.

I view Mark’s theory as still further reason to elect Obama. Obama will exacerbate ethnic tensions in the Democratic party because for the first time in its history the Democrats will be run by a black man who has a long history of favoring blacks over other ethnic groups.

Obama will have to do favors for white liberals, blacks, Hispanics and Asians in order to keep the Democratic electoral coalition in fighting shape. At the same time, he will have to be careful not to alienate too many politically independent whites and moderate white Democrats lest they flee to the GOP—a difficult task even for the most experienced DC insider.

LA replies:

Both Sailer’s point and George’s are fascinating.

Michael A. writes (May 30):

In response to an American Renaissance article on May 9, “Hill Drops a Racial Bomb”. I posted the following:

Actually, what we’re witnessing is the beginning of the end of liberal white control & direction of the Democrat party.

Once a majority of Democrat voters are non-white, expect the dispossession of whites to accelerate with ever-more explicit anti-white laws and policies.

The Democrat party will be torn between Black and Hispanic factions, each blatantly racialist (racist) and out for blood at the expense of whites and each other.

I suspect that white leftists will migrate out of the Democratic party, and go to the Greens or a similar party, once they understand that whites are no longer welcome.

Conservative Democrats (there are some, believe it or not) will leave as well, to the Republican party if the Republicans are able to purge the party of leftists like Bush (1 & 2), McCain, and such.

If not, expect the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs or the Federalists, and to be supplanted like these parties were.

Stupid white liberals expected that they would be able to maintain control of the Democrat party, and the country, even with a rapidly-increasing minority population.

Ask Hillary Clinton what she thinks of that expectation now.

It just seems intuitive to imagine that once the non-whites in the Democrat party no longer need their “great white fathers” to guide and direct them, and when they can grab all the spoils that accrue to the victors on their own, they will swiftly abandon white Democrats to their political fates.

I would say that the proportion of non-whites in this country has reached critical mass, and over the next 10 years or so we will see in all areas of our national political and economic life the rapid retreat of whites as the defining majority of our society.

Generally speaking, only whites seem to think that one must be fair and respectful to those minority racial, ethnic, religious, and political groups that exist on the margins. Worldwide, the norm seems to be that if my group is on top, we take it all, and to hell with those not of our group (think of La Raza’s motto).

Once the blacks, the Hispanics, and even the Asians have the ability to assert their demands and gain their ends, they will do so.

Probably the Republicans will not be able to reassert themselves as the party of the (rapidly declining) American traditionalist majority, so strong is the pull of liberalism in Western society. My guess is that whites will divide their votes between the Libertarians and a conservative party, and white Dems will go toward a Green-type leftist party. I predict that blacks, Hispanics, and many Asians will stay with the Democratic party, now explicitly non-white, but ultimately the numbers of Hispanics will grow so large that a Hispanic racialist party will be feasible.

In other words, the stable political system that has existed since the Civil War will vanish. Political stability will vanish as all the various minority groups compete for power, mistrustful of all others. And all groups will be minority, with none large enough to force compromise and peace between competing groups.

And “E pluribus unum” will be a relic of the distant past.

LA writes:

More on the racial divide in the Democratic party. An impassioned open letter from a Hillary supporter says she and other Hillary supporters will never vote for Obama, that his whole campaign has been racist against whites and brutal to Hillary and her supporters. The language is very strong, and I wonder if the letter is genuine. I’m not aware of systematic anti-white racism and insults of Hillary voters by the Obama campaign.

I haven’t been following this closely enough to have a sense of why there would be this degree of animosity between the camps.

However, looking at blogs at the Hillary campaign site, I’m picking up on angle on this which is obvious when you think about it. The insanely unfair, belittling, and demonizing treatment she has been getting from media and liberals, which I’ve expressed amazement at, has deeply angered her supporters. The people who say they’ll vote for McCain over Obama are passionate about it. I still don’t fully understand their complete opposition to Obama, but it is real.

LA continues:

Then there’s the business of the counting of Michigan and Florida. I thought the DNC was pretty consistent and justified in this but obviously some Hillary supporters feel otherwise:

Wow! You have it exactly right! I also will no longer support the democratic party if they do not count all the votes in whole. I agree with you, whole heartedly, about the timing. Had the right thing been done in the beginning and all of those states’ votes were counted, Hillary would have been in the lead and she would have the momentum. This is a disgrace. I can’t believe our own pary turned its back on us. Come November, let’s make our voices heard. It can not be acceptable in the United States to ignore votes. I will not vote for Obama and contrary to what the pundits are saying, I will not change my mind. The DNC needs to hear our voices. Let’s make them loud and clear!!! Thank you so much for standing up for us, Hillary!

by Anne1 at 5/29/2008 7:00:55 PM

I recommend that people browse the Hillary blogs; you get a whole different sense of what’s going on.

Now here’s something amusing:

I stopped watching MSM some time ago. Please do not watch because it will only depress, anger, sadden, confuse, annoy, irritate….all things negative! Let’s emulate Hillary: Ignore the pundits and the media!!!

by alabamian18 at 5/29/2008 1:01:15 PM

Can you imagine, a Hillary Clinton liberal saying he’s stopped watching the “MSM,” just as though he were a conservative? WHAT is going on here?

Also, I don’t get the outrage over Michigan. Michigan broke the rules and was deprived of its delegates. Hillary ran there, Obama didn’t. She won the state but under the rules was not given delegates. Everyone knew the score. How can this be reasonably seen as unjust? How can people expect her to receive delegates in a state that did not count?

All the bloggers I’ve read without exception say they want Hillary to do everything she can, to pursue every angle at the convention. And all the bloggers I’ve read without exception say they will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee, and they say it with burning passion. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 29, 2008 02:43 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):