Britannia Radio

Why McCain lost xxxxxxxxxxxxxx rh In late September I predicted that John McCain would win by a landslide. I based that judgement on the fact that since February  Obama had been steadily losing ground in both the polls and the primary elections to the extent that by the end of September McCain had a two point lead. That lead was more substantial  than it seemed because pollsters historically have tended to substantially  underestimate the Republican vote and  the Bradley Effect (a significant minority  of white voters telling pollsters they would vote for  a black man and then voting for a white candidate). Two days after  my prediction  it was undone by "Events, dear boy, events" (copyright H Macmillan) when the American economic roof fell in. The economic troubles by their mere existence  undoubtedly hurt McCain because he was associated with both the administration  who were in charge  and is a committed free marketeer, but the man made matters worse by his  embarrassing ignorance of economics  and, despite his ignorance,   his blind belief in  laissez faire. .   His initial reaction to the autumn  crisis  was to claim that the fundamentals of the  American economy were sound, rapidly followed by an embarrassing  thrashing around  when it became clear that disaster stared the USA financial system in the face, culminating in the  mistake of asking that the first presidential debate  be  delayed while he helped decide how to clear up the economic mess., a risible nonsense in view of his pitiful performance to that date on  the financial crisis. The argument  advanced on his behalf that  he did not need to understand economics  because others would understand it for him if he were president,  was rightly seen as weak,  because a man who does not understand something can easily have the wool pulled over his eyes. McCain  as president would have been in  a similar position to all those bank  CEOs  who did not understand the financial instruments their banks were creating and using and blindly led there  institutions to disaster The economic collapse  and McCain’s inept response to it  may have frightened and angered people enough to swing the vote sufficiently  for Obama  to win  a narrow victory (on the  popular vote), but it does not tell the whole  or even the main part of the story by a long chalk.  What the voting showed were  disturbing racial and ethnic divisions  which were of far more consequence than the economic woe.  It  is the existence of these divisions and the  large proportion of  the US population which now falls into the category of  ethnic minorities allied to the political correctness  with its  subset multiculturalism which  I believe were the main drivers of  McCain’s defeat. The Demographics Obama drew his  support  disproportionately from ethnic minorities and the young, viz: White Americans voted  55% for McCain and 43% for Obama Black Americans voted    4% for McCain and  95% for Obama            Hispanics voted    31% for McCain and 66% for Obama                 Asians voted    35% for McCain and 62% for Obama                    Jews voted    22% for McCain and 77% for Obama First time voters  voted   30% for McCain and 69% for Obama                       Men voted  48% for McCain and 49% for Obama                 Women  voted  43% fro McCain and 56% for Obama Voters aged 18-29 voted  31% for McCain and 66% for Obama Voters aged 30-44 voted  46% for McCain and 53% for Obama Voters aged 45-59 voted  49% for McCain and  49% for Obama     Voters aged 60+ voted  52% for McCain and  46% for Obama The figures are taken from Daily Telegraph  article of 6 November 2008 - "Power of the white voter is fading" -Gordon Rayner  (The figures do not add up to 100% because of votes for other candidates.) The massive and ongoing non-white immigration to the USA since the mid-sixties  and the  consequent expansion of old ethnic and racial minorities and the creation of new minorities  who are disproportionately willing  to vote, at least in part,  on the grounds of race (and for  blacks it is reasonable to conclude that it was entirely about race in the case of Obama)  and who show a strong preference  for the Democrats regardless of candidate),   places any white Republican candidate at a  considerable disadvantage before campaigning begins. The turn out was  approximately 20 million higher than in 2004. Millions of those were newly registered  voters  who voted heavily for  Obama, In view of the  large advantage Obama enjoyed amongst non-whites, it is reasonable to assume that  they will have been disproportionately non-white. The preference of women may simply reflect the difference between  the differencing sexual attractions of a middle-aged man and an old man. However,  differences in age distribution  of  white and non-white voters  - the non-white having more women of  a younger age than whites -  could be a further factor  with young women giving more weight to sexual attraction  than older women. There is also the possibility that women are more susceptible to  the rock-star style persona  projected onto  Obama than men - witness the  hysteria  which  girls and women display at  pop events and the groupie culture which attaches to  the rock world. The tendency of younger voters to vote Obama  may be ascribable to two things: (1)  the fact that the young are inexperienced,  and hence more impressionable and susceptible to the excitement of public spectacle and (2)  their lives  have been lived entirely  under the influence of political correctness and its subset multiculturalism.   For many of the young  it may seem natural to vote for a black man rather than a white man because they have known nothing other than  a diet of  public propaganda   telling them that black is good and white is bad. Obama’s views on race  and associations with black racists The kindest view of Obama’s racial opinions is that he is seriously infected with the victimhood mentality.  The unkindest is that he  a black racist with separatist leanings.  A comprehensive dissection  of his  publicly stated views on race  and how they have conveniently changed  over his political life   has been  made by Steve Sailor and can be found at http://www.vdare.com/half-blood_prince/half-blood_prince.pdf . I will give a couple of samples from the book, one which deals with Obama’s thoughts on race while the other  concerns the best known of his associations with black racists.: "Desperate times called for desperate measures…On p. 200 of Dreams, Obama concedes the morality of the black nationalist case … in theory: If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of  Self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well1 meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence. [p. 200] "Fortunately for Obama and his career as a black leader, black separatism turns out to be a non-starter, economically and politically: If nationalism could deliver. As it turned out, questions of effectiveness, and not sentiment, caused most of my quarrels with Rafiq. [p. 200] Obama dispassionately rejects Black Nationalism as impractical. "p158 And: "…the Jeremiah Wright we all came to know in 2008 is a character straight out of Dreams (in fact, much of pages 274 , 208;295 are devoted to Wright‘s influence on Obama). Obama’s worldview in Dreams, "where white folks’ greed runs a world in need" to quote Wright‘s The Audacity to Hope sermon, is a less bumptious version of Wright‘s "black internationalism." In contrast, while Obama borrowed the title of Audacity from Wright, his minister’s black liberation ideology was put on the back shelf in his 2006 campaign tome. Has Wright‘s intellectual influence on Obama lessened permanently or just temporarily? That’s a rather important question about a Presidential candidate, but it hasn’t been widely discussed. Why hasn’t there been more research into the differences between the two books? Partly because the Obama campaign doesn’t tolerate curiosity, punishing reporters who ask intelligent questions, as Gabriel 106 Sherman’s article "End of the Affair" in The New Republic noted. The  Obama staffers browbeat reporters into covering up what they’ve  discovered about Obama and race. Vanessa Grigoriadis illustrates this in  her fine New York essay "Black & Blacker: The Racial Politics of the  Obama Marriage:" As I began to finish the reporting for this article, I  mentioned to an Obama aide that I was interested in the different ways that Obama presents himself to black and white audiences. The aide hit  the roof over this comment, which he claimed was racially divisive, and  soon I received a call from Obama’s "African & American outreach  coordinator," who apparently clarifies race issues for reporters when  they are perceived to have strayed. "I appreciate what you’re saying,"  said Corey Ealons, "but I think it’s dangerous, quite frankly." * pp106/7 Even if we did  not have the direct evidence  of Obama’s own words, his association with the likes of  Jeremiah Wright and the  members of the Nation of Islam  speak volumes.  Who could sit listening to the views of the likes of Wright for  20 years  without being in sympathy? Why would an  a self declared inclusive politician want to belong to a black church rather than an integrated one? Imagine a white politician who attended  for twenty years an all white church with a pastor saying equivalent things about blacks. He would have be condemned automatically as a racist. One might also ask why someone who  has a white mother, was brought up by whites  and attended schools which were overwhelmingly  white,  would wish to immerse himself  so deeply in black society  unless he is either an out and out racist or  someone who has developed a sense of black victimhood through his experience of white society. Political Correctness  and Multiculturalism To judge the part political correctness played in the election it is necessary to understand exactly what it is. It meets the criteria for a totalitarian ideology .  Its adherents  insist that  the politically correct view is the only permissible view  and , because of the anti-discrimination  fetish at the heart of it,  it can be introduced into any aspect of life.  (The anti-discrimination  fetish is both hypocritical, because it  only covers forms of discrimination which are fall within the pc remit, and absurd because no organism, least of all a highly self-conscious being such as homo sapiens,  can avoid discriminating continuously because choices have to be made.).   If political correctness was  merely an ideology which was supported by those without power it would be neither here nor there. However,  placed in the hands of  those with power and influence it becomes a sinister threat .  That is now the case in America. Over a period of  fifty years the American elite,  (and the elites in  much of the  rest of the Western world including perhaps  most  notably Britain.) has gradually created  circumstances which both place whites in a difficult  place when dealing with non-whites  and  developed  a mentality amongst whites that  they have to behave  within unnatural  parameters when dealing with racial matters or in their relations with non-whites  (Hands up anyone who has ever seen a white liberal behaving normally to a black. In my experience,  they  invariably adopt an overtly  cringing  but in reality deeply patronising pseudo-subordinate manner, so keen are they to prove their  right-on-ness). Whites  today in places such as the USA and Britain know that  if they say anything which can be interpreted as  racist,  they run , at best, a grave risk of losing their employment, especially if  that employment is in the  public service ,  and , at worst, demonisation by the media with the possibility  of   legal action, both civil and criminal , being taken against them. Moreover,  the definition of racism used by  the politically correct is  now  so wide that  includes any statement by whites  which is deemed "non-inclusive", that is, it  refers only to white society and culture. For example,  the politically correct deem it "racist" for the indigenous population  in England to  portray  their history as being  what it was,  essentially, a record of white endeavour., even though such  a portrayal is achieved simply by recounting what happened and who was involved and not by any  deliberate ethnic triumphalism.  In the USA, the use of the word niggardly - a word with no racial connotation - was,   incredibly,  enough to cause a resignation because  it sounded a little like  nigger. To this is added the difficulty for whites of dealing with disagreements with non-whites. Any white knows that if  they get   into a dispute with a non-white they are  onto a hiding to nothing. No matter where the rights or wrongs  of a dispute  lie,  the white understands that they are in  danger  of being called a racist  by  person they are in dispute with and that if that happens ,  those in authority  over them  such as his employer - and if it gets that far,  the  mainstream media and politicians - will  tend to uncritically accept the claim of racism as true  Such a claim will also probably cause many of their social contacts to be wary of associating with them. The white person  is also aware that  the criminal  law is increasingly used  to investigate  such claims  where they involve a non-white accusing a white. Conversely, the white  knows  that if they  make a claim of racism against a non-white  is  unlikely to be taken  seriously by those with power and public influence.  (I have tested the attitude of the Metropolitan Police  (the London Force)  unit dealing with racial incitement - the Racial and Violent Crimes Squad  - by making complaints of racial incitement  against whites.  The complaints were all based on public statements., one of which described the English as a virus. Not only did the police refuse to investigate, they  would not  even record the complaints.  Let me  hastily add that  I did this simply to prove the bias of the police for  I do not  approve of laws criminalizing  the spoken and written word ,  unless the incitement to a crime is such that it could be considered to form a conspiracy to commit the crime, for example, an Imam urging his  flock to undertake suicide bombings ). If all of this is not enough to intimidate most people, there is the further  worry  for whites that  they will fall foul of the institutionalisation of political correctness within not only all public bodies but also  private companies, especially  large ones. Every public and private corporation is obliged to not only obey laws outlawing discrimination, they have to positively prove that they are actively rooting out discrimination. The result is the creation of a breed of employees who are in fact if not name political commissars. Finally, the  ideological  circus is kept going at the micro level by those amongst the mass of ordinary  people who delight in aping  the ideology of the elite. They  play the role of unofficial political commissars   and constantly  intervene in social situations both by leading conversation in a politically correct direction  Some act as informers to the police and people such as employers. . The upshot of such  developments together with  the massive and incessant  public promotion of  political correctness and its subset multiculturalism, has produced  a mentality amongst whites that  is normally found in police states.  The propaganda  and action against transgressors has not produced  a general belief in the ideology, but it is has created  the state of mind whereby  people instinctively avoid behaviour which conflicts with the ideology because it  signals danger. The extent of the apprehension engendered amongst whites is evidenced by the almost obligatory  and pathetic  "I‘m not prejudiced," or "I’m not racist" which is attached to any statement  which might conceivably be thought to be outside  the permitted limits of political correctness. This ideological climate meant that  McCain was at   a triple disadvantage. First., it constrained his own behaviour,. For example, it prevented him  from concentrating on  Obama’s association with the whitey hating likes of  Jeremiah Wright  and his past  writings on race which show Obama to be full of the black victimhood mentality , the source of his funding  and  the question of his birth place (which could have disqualified him from running as president) . More generally, McCain was  constrained in his general behaviour towards Obama , displaying the  difficulty in behaving honestly which whites  commonly show when dealing with  non-whites. Second,  the McCain camp could not overtly appeal to  white voters to vote for  their ethnic interest  or even make any appeal  which would appeal by its nature to whites only. .  Instead  he was forced to play the pc game and   push a message which either treated the population as a single whole - which is a covert message to minorities  because it creates a false equivalence amongst the various populations which make up the US population - or  a message  which directly pandered to minorities. Third, most  of the electorate displayed the common mindset created by the enforcement of political correctness   Even those  who  said they would not vote for Obama in most cases were punctilious is saying what a fine fellow he was generally . Whites  who were  honest about  not wishing to vote for a black man were permitted to appear in the media only  as  quasi-Satanic examples of  the non-pc evils which had to be extirpated.  Those who believe  he is a closet  Muslim or who expressed doubts about his birth qualification for  the Presidency  were depicted as dim-witted hicks who knew no better. The pro-Obama bias of the  mainstream media meant that  the  questions McCain should have raised  but did not because of political correctness, remained unasked or at least  were not asked  and  followed through in a meaningful fashion (It is easy to emasculate a potentially dangerous issue for a candidate by asking the question once, then allowing an anodyne dismissive reply without challenge followed by the dropping of the subject.  This allows the media to claim they have addressed the subject). . The mainstream media effectively became part of the Obama campaign and  projected him to the public at  his own estimation. The imbalance While McCain  and his supporters who had a public voice were prevented from mentioning   race , Obama’s camp and the  mainstream media  were free to mention it as often as they wanted.  Obama led the way  by playing the race card against  Bill Clinton  and  by giving a much publicised  speech devoted  to the subject. There was also evidence that the authorities  were anything but even-handed.   For example, take this  story from polling day: "Police in Philadelphia were called to a polling booth where two members of the Black Panthers guarded the door, one of them armed with a truncheon, intimidating voters. One of the men was told to leave. [Note he was told to leave not  made to leave]. "Rick Leventahl, the voter who called the police, said that one of the men told him: "A black man is going to win the election. We’re tired of white supremacy." (Daily Telegraph 5 11 2008 Tim Shipman and Tom Leonard "Turnout hits  record as fraud claims dog polling day". Can anyone imagine members of the Klu Klux Klan being allowed to man  a polling booth door let alone  behaving  in an equivalent way? Can anyone imagine a  white of any  political group or none making an equivalent statement about blacks  and not being at least arrested and  subjected to a media hate blitz?  In the present climate, the probability  is that the person would lose their  job and might well face a  criminal charge. Obama outspent McCain  by two to one. (Obama $650m McCain $360 million), This  meant that the in-built media bias in his favour was amplified by his ability to purchase TV and radio time far beyond   anything  Mcain could afford. Political  correctness also prevented anyone in the mainstream satirising   or ridiculing  Obama. Comedians shunned  the subject from fear of being  thought racist . There was no impressionist  mocking him, not least because  no black impressionist would have dared  or even wanted to while no white could have impersonated him successfully without doing the unthinkable and blacking up. The Palin factor Palin’s  selection was another consequence of political correctness., the cynical calculation being that a women would balance a black  man. Had  McCain not looked  depressingly old as well as being old (and thus suggested to voters that he might well not last the course of single presidency let alone two terms), and if the  mainstream media had been reasonably  sympathetic to the  Republican Party  (or even  if the media had been impartial), the selection of Palin  would probably not have made a great source of  critical comment.  As McCain  did look very old and  the media was wildly partisan  on the Obama side it did . At best, Palin   preached  only to the Republican faithful  and consequently brought few new voters to McCain,; at worst she  allowed the McCain campaign to be undermined to a degree by  a mixture of ridicule and   plausible fears about her ability to step into the president’s shoes if McCain turned his toes up. Unsatisfactory  as her  selection proved to be,  her detrimental effect, if it existed was at best marginal for . McCain  did not lose  greatly in the polls  after her selection until the economic crisis occurred. A deeply divided nation The most startling thing about the result is its closeness, not in the electoral college votes but  the popular vote. Despite being able to outspend  McCain by two to one, despite receiving overwhelming mainstream media support, despite receiving  political endorsements from important political figures across the political spectrum , despite the rock-concert style rallies,  despite the ongoing tragedy of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the  economic mess  developed on Bush’s watch, despite a massive  surge in electoral registrations  (the large majority of which  voted  for  Obama), despite blacks voting en bloc for him (and other ethnic minorities voting in large part for him), despite McCain belonging to the party of a widely disliked and derided  president, the bald fact is that  Obama only took around 52% of the vote.  A majority of white Americans  has got a president they did not want. This election was probably the shape of things to come..  The  white majority will  become increasingly marginalized  as politicians compete ever more exclusively  for the ethnic minority vote. No one in the mainstream spoke for white interests at  this election and  unless  the politically  correct, multicultural grip is broken , no one will for the foreseeable future. The worst case scenario  for whites is that they eventually become  an ethnic minority themselves  competing  with the rest. Most at peril  are the group which   defines the nation historically and provides its ballast even now , the non-hyphenated white Americans . Is there  hope of an integrationist  solution?  Almost certainly not. All the evidence is that  ethnic conflict increases  where populations are mixed.  A recent study by  Scientists from The New England Complex Systems Institute, near Boston, Mass,  published  a study  in the journal Science  which purported to use a mathematical technique to predict  ethnic  tension  in India  and the former Yugoslavia. The study concluded  that "Well-defined borders help prevent ethnic tension.   "Violence takes place when an ethnic group is large enough to impose cultural norms on public spaces, but not large enough to prevent those  norms from being broken," said Dr May Lim, a coauthor currently at the  University of the Philippines. "Usually this occurs in places where boundaries between groups are unclear." daily Telegraph    Maths 'could be used to stop ethnic violence' By Roger Highfield, Science Editor  13/09/2007