Sunday, November 07, 2010


In Chicago over the last three days, substantially all "Black Leaders" have been meeting to come up with a "consensus black candidate".  The obvious strategy here:  Pick one black person and let the white people cut each other up.  Fair enough, I guess, but let's play a little, imaginary game......

Suppose that all the "White Leaders" (Irish, Italian, Polish, Lithuanian, You Name it) met to establish a "consensus white candidate."  You think anybody would find that offensive?  You think there might be some outrage at the overt racial play and the desire to head off black candidates?

It's been 45 years since the Great Society Civil Rights enactments happened.  In some sectors, we didn't achieve equal justice under law.  We just flipped norms onto their heads, where it's OK for black people to do something that would repugnant, if done by whites.

And the Chicago newsies just cover it like it's a perfectly normal political event.


At 9:47 AM, November 07, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good thing you're not a Tea party type, or you'd be called "racist" for even pointing out this obvious and odious race based contrivance.

"Equal opportunity" long ago turned to minority preferred hiring. Despite the average minority being less qualified, they are "overrepresented" in hiring because of a race based law.

I also wonder (well, not really) why most churches are excoriated for political promotion, but black churches seem tied at the hip to racial identity politics. (eg. The very reverend Wright, Sharpton, Jackson)

With Obama's race card usage being so trendy, it is little surprise Chicago "Black Leaders" want to privately stack the deck for their trumped up player.


At 12:32 PM, November 07, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I didn't mean to go to the whole "angry white men" thing. I kept waiting for some commentator, somewhere to say "This is both odd and unacceptable' and nobody did. So I did.

I'm not gonna damn aff. act. but nobody should get a free pass on purely racial politics and it appears these Chicago types were getting exactly that.


At 2:50 PM, November 07, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There have been plenty of free passes, and Obama has stirred the pot.

Subtle submission to the preferred races (not white) and religions (not Christian) seems to be the zeitgeist of this administration of change. "Diversity" is a tenant of the Hopey Changey religion.

But you're a brave Democrat to speak up.


At 7:07 PM, November 07, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Now, Bill, just wait a minute! Isn't the "consensus black candidate" effort that I am describing the exact opposite of "diversity?"


At 9:15 AM, November 08, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Opposite yes, but this is the Orwellian era.


The ministry of propaganda is "The Ministry of Truth". "Diversity" is just a means to an ends, along with "equal opportunity", which is doublespeak for "entitlement jobs" for blacks (and Hispanics).

The quota system itself results in blacks being overrepresented by 200-500% in most Fed departments. Which of course means unequal opportunity for white males. I'm not angry, but I want competence and fairness, not lifetime entitlement jobs clogging the system.

There have been special race based rules for a long time, and Obama has said reparations would not be enough. "Post racial" to Obama looks like full reversal of 100 years of white colonialist "ill gotten gains".

I'm reading "The Roots of Obama's Rage", so that may have colored my thinking. But Obama's dreams from his father seem very much like Rev. Wright's dreams. And that is very much at the core of the Chicago black leaders' politics.


At 12:05 PM, November 08, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Tell me you didn't just say "colored my thinking" you wascal.


At 7:49 PM, November 08, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL ... well, I'm averse to the thought police controlling my vocabulary ... and that term was freely used with absence of malice (usually) not that long ago (NAACP). Later we were taught that blacks are first African, then American, regardless of heritage.

Obama might be more "anti-colonialist" than he is racist, and Chicago's "black liberation theology" seems rooted more in perceived historical oppression than race. But the simplicity of color has made for a very convenient and profitable demarcation.

At 7:19 AM, November 09, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate those anti-colonialists. Friggin Thomas Jefferson always wanting the right to self-determination.

At 9:03 AM, November 09, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Yeah, GeeWash (That's his rapper name) was bad that way too.

At 10:37 AM, November 09, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, I agree, it was the fraggin brits that were still fighting in Fauklands war not long ago... but the book I mentioned shows the US is the new imperialist force, since the Brits are subdued.

The idea is that though we don't take over countries, we (or our evil corporations) take control of their economies. I'd argue that we have brought more good via democracies and trade and development, but many see us as pure evil capitalist invaders.

Certainly powerful IMF banker types have destroyed some currencies, but Obama is in bed with those guys (like Robert Rubin).

Maybe it is just politics as usual. Keep taking money from the middle class, use race, oppression, unions, mobs or religion ... any means necessary to gain power. There are no rules. Play nice and you get squashed.


At 1:32 PM, November 09, 2010, Blogger UMRBlog said...

For those of you scoring at home, there are now three people circulating petitions as the "consensus black candidate". I guess when you have three coalitions meeting to find the CBC, you run into that.

Arguably racist, Undeniably ineffective. Sounds like a campaign slogan to me.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home