You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
White guilt? Done; over; history
2008-11-11
There go my fellow conservatives, glumly shuffling along, depressed by the election aftermath. Not me. I'm virtually euphoric. Don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled with America's flirtation with neosocialism. But there's a massive silver lining in the magical clouds that lofted Barack Obama to the presidency. For today, without a shred of intellectually legitimate opposition, I can loudly proclaim to America:

The Era of White Guilt is over.

This seemingly impossible event occurred because the vast majority of white Americans didn't give a fluff about skin color and enthusiastically pulled the voting lever for a black man. Not just any black man. A very liberal black man who spent his early career race-hustling banks, praying in a racist church for 20 years, and actively working with America-hating domestic terrorists. Yet white Americans made Barack Obama their leader. Therefore, as of Nov. 4, 2008, white guilt is dead.

So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. For more than a century, the millstone of white guilt hung around our necks, retribution for slave-owning predecessors. In the 1960s, American liberals began yanking that millstone while sticking a fork in the eye of black Americans, exacerbating the racial divide to extort a socialist solution to the country's problems. But if a black man can become president, exactly what significant barrier is left? The election of Barack Obama destroys the validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.

So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is exactly ZERO. No more Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "God Damn America," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization, or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornel West? You're a fraud. All those "black studies" programs must now teach kids to thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.

Congressional Black Caucus? Irrelevant. U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.)? Shut up. ACORN? Outlawed. Black Panthers? Go home and pet your kitty. Black separatists? Find another nation that offers better dreams. To those Eurosnots who forged careers hating America? I'm still waiting for the first black French president.

No more quotas. No more handouts. No more complaining that "the man" is keeping you down. "The man" is now black.

It's time to toss that massive, obsolete race-hustle machine upon the heap of the other stupid '60s ideas. Drag it over there, right between free love and cop-killing. Careful, don't trip on streaking. Just dump it. And then wash your hands. It's filthy.

Obama's ascension also creates another gargantuan irony. How can liberals sell American racism, class envy and unfairness when our new black president and his wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and are now moving to the White House? How unfair is that? Now, like a delicious O. Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by its own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism.

So ... Wham!!!

That's the sound of my foot kicking the door shut on the era of white guilt. The rites have been muttered, the carcass lowered, dirt shoveled, and tombstone erected. Dead and buried.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#27  "Bobby Jindal, but he'd be a disaster in other respects: he's so anti-female for example as to believe that abortion should never be allowed not even to save the life of the mother."

A plapable lie.
Posted by: Lagom   2008-11-11 14:26  

#26  joseph conrad...The State of Alaska rejected a donk whom the national party supported with millions of dollars. Unlike the idiots of Minnesota who apparently elected a lying, foul-mouthed, hate-filled lunatic, the State of Alaska re-elected a man who they felt received an unfair trial in a partisan environment.
Posted by: anymouse   2008-11-11 13:55  

#25  anonymous5089 - California is already a Majority-Minority state. European whites make up just 42% of the population and Hispanics have grown to 37%.(Not counting Illegals) Between 1980 and 2004 the Hispanic population in California grew by over 8 million. In 2004 the white European population was slightly larger than 1980 but actually decreased from the 1990 census.

In 1980 California had a 58% white European population. Reagan carried the state by 1.5 million votes. He won all but three of 58 counties, SF, Alameda and Yolo (Scratomato). In 1984 he again won by 1.5 million votes but lost two additional counties, Marin (Limousine Liberal Heaven) and Santa Cruz (Home of UC Angela Davis).

Now being a Majority-Minority State in 2004 Kerry carried California by 1.2 million votes and in 2008 Obama carried the state by 2.5 million votes.

Obama carried 33 of 58 counties which included every large county except Orange County where McCain squeaked out a 36,000 vote majority. Reagan won Orange County by a 3-1 margin.

Dick Morris had a theory early this year that Hillary would win 2008, screw up and the last Republican President, ever, would be elected in 2012. His theory was that demographics do not favor Republicans.

Morris picked the wrong Donk but his theory is sound. For the 2012 last shot for Republicans, Obama will have to worse than former California Donk Governor Gray Davis, and he was really bad.

Conservatives have to come to terms with the reality that they are swimming against a demographic riptide. Count on the Donks giving the illegals amnesty. The riptide will become a demographic Tsunami.

Texas Newest Majority-Minority state.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-11-11 13:36  

#24  "Blak Supremacy" is happening now

Heil no! I mean...Hell no!
Posted by: Fester Creanter3194   2008-11-11 13:32  

#23  "Blak Supremacy" is happening now, A friend rports a black woman cut in front of her at line in Wal Mart, when she complained the cashier (Also black female) said "We're in charge NOW.

Read yesterdays report of a black female slapping a white cop as he sat in his patrol car, and saying "You can't arrest me, we're in charge now". (She's in jail)
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-11-11 11:40  

#22  From what I gather, it was both to prevent a Democrat from taking the seat and give the governor the pick of Stevens' replacement.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-11-11 11:25  

#21  Jolutch Mussolini7800
the people of Alaska just re elected their Convicted White Senator again....
Posted by: joseph conrad   2008-11-11 10:24  

#20  I'm really not getting that vibe from Besoeker.
I think you need to take a couple midol or something.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-11-11 10:22  

#19  Another RBee more Patriot than thou, excellent. You got an extra vote for that did 'ya?

Or just a writ to bitch and moan and remember the good 'ole days in the 'SAR? Hummm.....? Damn near every comment you make on this board carries the stench of Afrikans Fuck-Up. Did you inherit it or did you copy it?

And thanks for being a huge hero, etc.

Posted by: .5mt   2008-11-11 09:52  

#18  Yes, .5 I 'gave' at the office until a few years back. I started giving when I hadn't yet reached my 19th birtday and made a whopping
$ 91.00 per month. Nothing special, my decision with a little encourage from the local draft board. I 'gave' like a lot of others so that our children and neighbors could live in freedom. I didn't 'give' for a handout, special treatment, affirmative action, VIP loans, Fannie/Freddie, gay rights, abortion, or so that a communist and cocain user could be appointed president by rich, New York and Chicago temple money handlers.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-11-11 08:48  

#17  I personally never had any white guilt. No reason to. I am, however developing a slight case of white anger...
Posted by: Hellfish   2008-11-11 08:40  

#16  Yeah .5, but I gotta hunch that we're talkin about people that don't have much interest in 'intrinsic' rewards. They said 'show me the money', and Hussein did.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-11-11 08:29  

#15  Now 'zerker there's many a thing that can be made that can't be sold on the open market. I expect this might be a strange concept to you but in fact it's possible.

I sense you've been working for the government for some time. So the concept might be somewhat alien to you.
Posted by: .5MT   2008-11-11 08:23  

#14  Hang in there Slim
Posted by: .5MT   2008-11-11 08:18  

#13  So the question becomes: Do you want black people and Hispanics supporting the Republicans, or don't you? And if so, what are you prepared to give them that the Democratic party doesn't? Posted by Slim6443

Give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me. Therein lies the problem. And, the "social conservative" claim. How can anyone in all honesty say something as rediculous as that?
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-11-11 08:10  

#12  You know, Slim, you're coming at this all wrong. I don't want the government to give me a damned thing except honest administration and a reasonble justification for spending my tax dollars. That is all ANYONE, of any color, SHOULD want from government. It's not your father or Santa Claus, and anything it gives to one person it has to take from another. As George Washington said, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

You just saw the Dems in NOLA renominate "Cold Cash" Jefferson despite the fact that he's guilty as Hell of accepting bribes. Same for Alcee Hastings. We could go with Marion "Crack Pipe" Barry, or Kwame Kilpatrick, or Ray Nagin, or The One, or any number of other crooked black politicians as examples that would tend to disprove your contention that all the black folks out there want honest government. The reality is that if they did they wouldn't vote for these crooks, as they do in overwhelming numbers. If white Republican pols did the stuff in white areas that black Dem pols routinely do in black areas, they wouldn't have a hope of being elected. Can you imagine a white mayor of any city in America saying he wanted a "vanilla city?" Right.

If pandering is what it takes to get elected, then I've no use for any party that does it. What the Republicans are on the record as providing is more honest government than the Dems. Bush wasn't caught with his hand in the till or screwing interns; Cheney didn't have $95,000 in his freezer. I don't recall any Bush cabinet members convicted of stealing documents from the National Archives like Sandy Burglar. Do you want to discuss ACORN, or the fundraising for the Bama campaign? I'd be real interested in having you explain how those were just honest attempts to sway the electorate.

The Dems love their criminals and hug them close. So does the black community. When they decide to stop doing that, they'll appreciate Republican government. Until then, they won't. If they never do, it won't surprise me.

There is a HUGE difference between the standards of the two sides, and that difference is that the Republicans won't tolerate what the Dems take for granted. If the Republicans have to become the Dems to beat the Dems, then they've lost before they started--and so has everyone else who believes in and hopes for honest government.

If the blacks are really social conservatives, they wouldn't vote for the crooks they vote for. Therefore, your question about what the Republicans can offer them is answered by saying that if it is honest government, it's something their voting patterns show they apparently don't want. You can argue that point if you like but the facts won't support your contention.
Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800   2008-11-11 08:08  

#11   Slim,
1)Hussein IS his goddamned middle name.

2)Condi Rice refused to participate.

3)The current rhetoric about how "the blacks" want to dominate white people is far end nuttery.

4)Jindal/Palin is WAY to hardline conservative to win enven in Saudi Arabia.

5)Do you want black people and Hispanics supporting the Republicans? Yes, if they believe that conservative values make a better framework to govern the country by- Otherwise they can piss off.

6)What are you prepared to give them that the Democratic party doesn't? What has the democratic party given them in the last 40 years?
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-11-11 08:04  

#10  Do you want black people and Hispanics supporting the Republicans, or don't you? And if so, what are you prepared to give them that the Democratic party doesn't?

You assume these people support Republicans. If McCain hadn't pick Palin I suspect a good number of the posters here would have sat out the Presidential vote. If 'appealing' to any group means giving up fundamental principles, then you might was well join the other party since they stand for attaining POWER in any way necessary. The Donks give minorities inferior education systems that forfeit the future of their children and confine them to recipients rather than productive citizens. That's because the various Teachers Union have far more power within that party than the minorities you cite. Its right there for everyone to see, but the minorities blindly pull the level for the Donks. That's their free will choice in face of demonstrating that the only viable reform possible is to remove the power of the school system from the 'professionals' and back into the hands of the parents. If they're willing to forfeit their children's future what do you thing the Trunks have to offer that doesn't just make the Trunks Donklite?

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Fraser Tytler
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-11-11 07:47  

#9  One of my biggest problems with Obama was his "post-racial" posturing while not saying one word about ending Affirmative Action (which is nothing but institutionalized racism against White people, and to a lesser degree Asians). What's the timetable? The need for Affirmative Action is obviously over, so when do the entitlements end?? I need to know the date! Preferential treatment is inherently unfair, and a Black President (if he is not a racist) should address the issue.

But during a 2 year presidential campaign Barak Hussein Obama never did.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2008-11-11 07:47  

#8  A bit OT : regarding the "gay rights" groups being anti-Christian, see
Radical Michigan Gay Group Attacks Christian Church Service
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-11-11 07:47  

#7  Slim Ima kinda like that, well thought out, but standby for incoming.
Posted by: .5MT   2008-11-11 06:58  

#6  People speak about the 95% of black people for Obama -- but of course black people had in the past gone at percentages of 94% for a white Democrat too: Lyndon Johnson.

Black and Hispanic communities are largely socially conservatives. They'd be obvious recruitment targets for the Republican party, if the party took active steps to disabuse them of the notion that it is meant for white people only.

The repetitions of "Hussein" and bashing Obama for attending the biggest black church at his neck of the woods didn't help convince black people of your lack of racism, neither did the anti-immigrant rhetoric convince Hispanics they're welcome.

And McCain really ought have picked Condi Rice for his VP. (And if Bush had picked Powell in 2004, Powell would be in a good position to be the first black president in 2008 btw)

And I'm guessing the current rhetoric about how "the blacks" want to dominate white people, isn't really working to take black people to your side either.

The party could attempt to partly rectify these blunders in 2012 with Bobby Jindal, but he'd be a disaster in other respects: he's so anti-female for example as to believe that abortion should never be allowed not even to save the life of the mother. Good luck with that - see atleast 70% of women of all races voting Democrat if the Republican Party picks him.

So the question becomes: Do you want black people and Hispanics supporting the Republicans, or don't you? And if so, what are you prepared to give them that the Democratic party doesn't?
Posted by: Slim6443   2008-11-11 06:44  

#5  IIUC, "Feminism" or "gay rights" are leftist ideologies with roots in marxist subversion (no, don't laugh), exactly as similar "rights" orgs in the 60's were motivated by revolutionary marxism, and admittedly so.
And, again, anti-white racism is a big issue for them, well, at least for "feminism" (not sure for "gay rights", though in France, such orgs definitvely are anti-Christian, for example), which identifies the ennemy as the White Man, that's absolutely obvious.
Anyway, in a larger scope, all of leftism, with all of its "pseudopods" aimed at redefinign society, defines The White Man as the ennemy... just think of mike moore being delighted telling in an interview that whites soon will be a minority in the USA, or blaming *white fear* of blacks (and before that injuns) for the supposedly inherent violent nature of the US Bully in "guns for columbine" (and totally whitewashing minorities of any kind of gun violence).
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-11-11 06:19  

#4  JM, you got it right about superiority. an attitude of equality would look a lot different than what we're seeing.

This attitude amongst blacks was preceded by some years among women regarding feminism. Feminism may have initially been about equality but it VERY rapidly became about women being superior to men.

Don't believe me?

Ask a feminist the following question.

"Do you believe that a woman can do anything as well as man can do it, but there are certain things that women can do better than men?"

Based upon their rhetoric, the feminist, if honest, will be obliged to answer yes. A similarly structured question can be asked of race baiters.

It logically follows that if there are things at which women/blacks are better than men/whites, but not vice versa, then women/blacks are superior to men/whites. Such is the perception of vast swaths of this country, many of whom hold bully pulpit positions in education, entertainment, and the MSM.

This attitude is gaining ground fairly rapidly amonst those who have bought into the radical gay agenda, as well.

Make no mistake, folks. This "civil rights" business and empty talk about equality is a smokescreen for an attitude of superiority.
Posted by: no mo uro   2008-11-11 05:54  

#3  Anyway, the Zero win boils down to two items :
- it's perfectly ok or a black (or supposed so) to be an anti-white racism... do you think Palin would have gotten away with attending for 20 years a white-supremacist church, which by the way happens to the the largest one in her neck of the woods?
- the Enlightened Elites covered and protected and shielded The Zero in large part because he was black (or supposedly so); had he been white, he wouldn't have gotten such a cult-like following, both from blacks and anti-white racism/white guilt-intoxicated whites (his zombie followers, from the crowd to the press).
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-11-11 05:49  

#2  I'd rather say that white guilt was instrumental in obama getting so far.

Plus, one of the heads of the leftist hydra that dominates the cultural norm is "anti-racism"... that is, the notion that whites are inherently racist, imperialist, chauvinistical, violent, repressive,... so, guilt has to be shoved down their collective throat, so they can accept, in no particular order):
- having institutionalized anti-white racism (aka affirmative action);
- being blackmailed by minorities race-baiters;
- agreeing to pretend not to notice the anti-white agenda from public education, entertainment, msm, corporations;
- agreeing to pretend not to notice unpleasant stuff like the "color of crime";

Plus probably other items that I can't think of right now. So, no, IMHO, it's not the end of white guilt, as white guilt is an essential pillar of leftist ideology, and leftist ideology has entrenched itself in academai, entertainment, msm,... what could happen if the Zero actually worsen race relations through his term (just like he did during his candidacy, and with his election, just see yesterday article about his supporters celebrating, this is the tip of the iceberg), is a backlash from the white population, who would disenfranchise itself from that "other" America dominated by that racism - lack of trust in the msm would be a start, for example.

Anyway, race is going to be a very big issue for you, or for europeans in the near future, as mass immigration from the third world is even as I type (with two hands, why do you ask?) changing the ethnic compostion of once homogenous or almost (USA) homogenous countries. When California will relatively soon have european whites as the largest minority after latinos, do you think that once Republican State will ever again vote for a non-Democrat?
Posted by: anonymous5089   2008-11-11 05:38  

#1  Equality is something that blacks passed like a speed bump. They're looking for superiority. If you don't think so, look at the unveiled threat of riots in most major cities if Bama didn't win. People who are afraid don't do stuff like that. Bullies do.
Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800   2008-11-11 03:38  

00:00