Red Statists, especially in places like Kansas want politicians to tell them they are the “real” Americans. They are the tough, independent, take nothing from no man, salt of the earth pioneers that made America great. People who despise big government and want the fed off their back. This ignores the subsidies from the East that enabled the western movement in the first place.

Having been reassured by the Republicans the politicians redoubled the welfare state spending, big farm bills, workfare military bases, workfare Government arms jobs and Corps of Engineers boondoggles, because they are welfare cases. They talk big about getting rid of big government but are just grateful to get the Democrat do-gooders off their back. They have enslaved themselves and over-compensate by wearing American flags and singing country western songs that tell them its patriotic to be a slave… er. “free.”

I think they know they are frauds and hypocrites and are reassured that Mr Man is looking out for them. Republican take from the poor and give to the rich. Democrats take from the rich and give to the poor. Take seems to be the operative word with the politicians and government getting their percentage. On the other hand Wall Street works the same way.

There seems to this thought in American culture that says materialism [wealth] is success in life, yet the bible tells us we cannot serve two masters.

Dooh Nibor ecnomics, as with empires, are doomed to failure.

Barack Obama is a chocolate impostor. I can’t stand his cheap, sugary, store-bought civil rights era rhetoric. It makes me want to throw up.

But this kind of racist anti-white, anti-working class drivel is 1000x worse. You should ashamed of yourself. I can’t believe Taki would even allow such nonsense to be posted on this site. This has to be the dumbest article ever written by a “conservative.” And that’s saying a heck of a lot.

Mr. Stegal says, “And this spirit [self-respecting, self-sufficiency] still largely exists as a latent virtue in the lumpenleisure classes.”

Seems he is rather sypathetic to the folks, Mr. Poquelin.

Unless I am mistaken, this is your first lengthy post, Mr. Stegal. Very nuanced and insightful. I look forward to many more.

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama and the liberal political class always patronize middle class and working class whites. This time, he (and they) has been called out on it.

Mr. Stegall, you have nailed it.  We are no longer our fathers’ children.  John Taylor of Caroline would disown us in a skinny minute.

Caleb,
Great post, but it will take more for to forgive you for closing The New Pantagruel, the most entertaining and engaging site ever to rise up against Liberalism.

Kindly let me explain why US Senator Obama’s Pennsylvania remarks created the buzz they did.

Although Obama and the media focused on the use of “bitter,” there was no evidence adduced outside of a few interviews, here and there, that there was a factual basis for such a claim among rural or small town dwellers. And in fact, the buzz was not about bitterness, it was about something that the diverse white American peoples have not experienced on such a lordly scale before. To be honest with you, it is something that diverse white Americans have handed out over and over again, but this time we got a dose of it and it didn’t feel good. (This does not excuse Obama because it just shows what a tin ear he has when it comes to delicate feelings about people. He’d already shown that with “acting white” and “typical white person,” so he didn’t need to do it again.)

To make this clear, remember how an NAACP convention hissed and booed presidential candidate Perot when he went at their invitation to speak and he used the term, “you people”? Most of us didn’t understand what would be so distasteful about such a label, but it is on the same spectrum that Obama played with when he so casually named and described the diverse white American peoples the way he did. I know that’s not going to go down well, but in fact the number one property we own is our name and the right to describe the cultural, social, and political groups to which we belong.

When anyone starts to name or describe anyone in a group of which he or she is not a member, that creates feelings of discomfort and dismay. It’s not what is said, it’s the claim to have the right to name and describe the other which is always based on a claim to supremacy, and it’s very unsettling to get the treatment. So that’s the secret to understanding why Obama’s remarks naming and describing what is to him, the other, have the power to jar one’s worldview. It didn’t help that he more-or-less called small town dwellers racists and isolations in the same sentence, but it was his claim to have the right to name and describe the other that mattered. There’s a lot more of this coming so get ready.

A very insightful comment, which really describes the fundamental difference between the America of the founders and the one we have today. 200 years ago we were a country of self-sufficient individuals, farmers, self-employed craftsmen and businesspeople, who were used to making their own decisions and live with the consequences. And they were the ones the founders restricted voting rights to.
In today’s society the vast majority of people are dependent in their employment, or on government largesse, feeding on the public trough. I do not expect a single mother on welfare in South Central L.A., who has made peace with her lifestyle, nor the welfare worker whose income depends upon the existence of that mother, to use their voting rights to abolish their access to another man’s work and income, because for them it is a survival matter and they have been conditioned to think of it as their right. After all, we are now one big family, with almost half of the “family income” now being re-distributed by and to those, who did not earn it, with the “re-distributors” (our public servants) taking an increasingly bigger share for themselves. These people are happy, when the game is rigged in their favor with subsidies for them, and become “bitter”, when the “re-distributors” rig the game in favor of another parasitic group.
But I am wondering, if you are the breadwinner in the family, how much say over the distribution of your paycheck do you give to your kids and the drug-addicted crazy uncle, whom you have taken in out of the goodness of your heart?
We have become an easily manipulated society, akin to domesticated animals. The only way to fix this mess, is to go back to the way of the founding fathers and restrict voting rights to those, who do not depend on their neighbor’s income to sustain themselves.

Werner Hoermann’s destination is desirable.  The path from here to there is likely filled with great personal sacrifice, danger, and uncertainty.  Which make its traverse unlikely when the sacrifices, dangers, and uncertainties are at least somewhat tolerable.  A bitter paradox!

Why aren’t the blacks in Obama’s church “bitter people” who express “antipathy for people unlike themselves?”

This description seems to fit Michelle Obama more than anyone.

This comment that “What he said is true, and you/we/they know it” has to be as stupid as stupid gets because what he said is NOT true if you assume their bitterness is due to immigrants or trade deals or any other of the reasons he gave.

You’re damn right they’re bitter. They grew up, paid taxes, and fought for this country only to see that they have no say in how it is run. These trade deals were forced down their throats because Wall Street and CEOs wanted them. Massive immigration was forced down their throats because that same crowd and white hating groups wanted them. This “democracy” has been exposed as a fraud and if you don’t like it you might find yourself a “terrorist” in our nascent police state.

Calling them “bitter” was Obama’s way of dimissing and discounting non-urban people, who are orthodox Christians, who support the US Constitution - especially the 2nd Amendment, and who have finally realized that “free-trade” and illegal immigration are the ways big business controls the supply side of the law of supply and demand as it applies to labor.

Jean-Baptiste Poquelin hit the nail on the head with his comments.  That was the last straw for me with Obama being some kind of a hope for true conservatives.  My assumption is that Obama presumes that whitey doesn’t have the intelligence to decide that we’re being screwed by the global corporations.  He won’t get my vote and neither will McCain.  Screw them all.

Obama and the Liberal/neo-Marxist Left has been blaming Republican electoral success on what they call “wedge issues”…the “God, Guns and Gays” issues, and frustrated for years that working class whites have been “voting against their economic interests”---according to them, since Nixon and Reagan.

What Obama is doing is dismissing white working class resentment as mere “wedge issues” instead of understanding that the Left/Democrat Party/Liberals have been pushing things like racial preferences and unrestrained immigration, and the whole Alan Greenspan/Corporate Outsourcing/Globalization/Wall Street economic agenda--which white working class folks know by experience is also “against their economic interests”.

But anyone with any objectivity must agree that the Republicans/Conservatives have been pandering to these resentments just as much as the Democrats/Liberals have been pandering to Black racial resentments to get votes.

So neither the Republicans/Conservatives or the Democrats/liberals/neo-Marxists are really innocent on this score. Both pursue electoral success without offering any substantial differences on populist economic concerns

Truth is sometimes bitter. Obama’s comments may be factual but politically incorrect. However, the fact of the matter is that, as a result of globalization of production, US labor now has to face competition from hungry labor in China and India. Guns and religion are not the answer. Competitive skills are!

The one time Obama (or any of them) doesn’t pander
and you commenters nail him for it! That’ll teach
him!