Wednesday, September 07, 2016

One-third of blacks amenable to Trump's message on immigration

John Derbyshire provided some prudent advice to the Trump campaign a couple of weeks ago--don't talk about race. Just don't do it.

Nationalism is implicit white nationalism. Propositionalism is fantasy. The propositions are propped up by WEIRDOs of northwestern European descent. Without them, the requisite propositions will always fail because it's not in NAM nature to honor them.

With regards to talking about race as far as electoral consequences go, it's all drawback for the god-emperor. As president Trump, sure, give us the honest conversation Eric Holder said he wanted but most certainly did not actually want.

Let Diamond and Silk do their thing. Let Darrell Scott do his, too. Frame everything in terms of America First for Trump, America Last for Hillary. Bring Jamiel Shaw Sr. out at rallies and speeches. While blacks are less hostile towards immigration than whites are, there's still a sizable minority who are skeptical. A Reuters-Ipsos poll found that, among likely general election voters, 1-in-3 blacks (compared to 1-in-2 whites) say immigrants weaken society by being a "threat to beliefs and customs":

That's a much larger share of blacks than will vote for Trump. It indicates that Trump's masterful Arizona speech has at least the theoretical potential to peel some slaves off the Democrat plantation.


Andrew said...

They probably hear ''immigrants'' and associate it with ''Diversity''. If they straight out said Mexicans instead it should be higher than a third.
I know we dream of Trump or other future Trumpist candidates peeling off a fifth or so of the black vote with nationalist policies and thus rendering the Democrats all but unelectable (at least until the Hispanics start hitting 18 and registering in greater numbers) but could it be a worthwhile and maybe more realistic endeavour to look for Barbara Jordan type Democrats in black congressional districts? People who would be conventionally left wing on everything but immigration, they could even spout BLM style nonsense - as long as they supported every item of Trump's immigration policy it'd be a game changer both in the arithmetic in the House and in PR terms to have prominent blacks opposing their people's rapid relegation from second tier citizens to third. A lot of cucks on both sides of the aisle could suddenly find the courage to oppose open borders if they had that kind of cover.

The Z Blog said...

I live around a lot of black people. I know loads of black people. One thing whites never seem to understand is that blacks know whites better than whites know whites. To be black in America is to navigate a white culture that is often unintentionally hostile. Whites are not mean to blacks because they are racist or hate-filled. White people are just being white, doing the things that white people like to do, which is often at odds with what blacks like to do.

As a result, blacks are really good at figuring out if a white person is OK with black people. They can spot a faker a mile away. With Trump, they see a guy who is more than comfortable around blacks. Trump’s big man personality plays well in the black community. Trump is like Don King, a guy who is shrewd and fully woke, but driven by success and willing to partner with anyone that can help him win. Black people probably respect that more than whites.

Will that get Trump more votes? Well, not many more black votes. The math does not change that much even if he gets ten times the share of the typical Republican. What it does though is tamp down the enthusiasm from blacks and that greatly limits the power of the racism charge. That helps immensely with white voters. A lot of whites voted for Obama because they thought they were doing a good turn for the blacks. That’s not going to be the case with Clinton.

Audacious Epigone said...


One question is whether to do it implicitly or explicitly. In favor of your suggestion, blacks are monolithic in part because they listen to black "leaders" (at the local level that could be a congressman, like Emmanuel Cleaver here in the KC area) or whatever the hip hop station is saying.

Another is how to sell it. The me against my cousin, my cousin and me against the world is probably the best way to siphon off some black votes/depress black support for Hillary. We, as Americans, are cousins. Non-Americans are the world.


Exactly, unintentionally hostile primarily by way of being foreign, much in the same way that a white guy at a black BBQ would feel the loud, overexaggerated, raucously laughing way blacks people--men and women--in a non-threatening all-black environment act towards one another. To call it a minstrel show is not that far off.

Anonymous said...

I can think of one proposition nation that is only about 2.5% white. It's run by coloreds, and in many respects it is a better run nation than most white nations.

Audacious Epigone said...


Unless you're being tricky with your definition of "coloreds" to include non-white Ice People, I'm stumped, let's hear.

Anonymous said...

My definition of colored is anyone who isn't 100% white European in ancestry. No tricks involved. There are whites, and there are non-whites. It's pretty easy to understand.

Please explain to me your definition of "non-white ice people".