Obama vs Romney

Peter Frost has posted on why Obama’s win wasn’t better for whites – but he’s thinking in the short term. In the long term, ‘worse’ is definitely better, or at least brings a more realistic hope of better. Because anything that leads to whites awakening and separating has to be good, everything else therefore has to be harmful because it holds back the desirable.

He also touches upon the problem of ‘implicit whiteness’, when he points out that the Republicans followed policies against (immediate) white interests, such as increasing legal immigration.

But whilst its gullible for anyone to believe the Republicans care about white people (or about anything else except money and Israel), is this really so bad for us over the long term? What else but increased ethnic tension will bring more whites to ethnic consciousness before we are killed softly?

And if voting is irrational anyway. Does it really matter who wins when both sides are controlled opposition?

Obama: White America’s bogeyman?
Link

“Political choices aren’t always clear-cut. Yes, Romney is light-skinned, but that’s no guarantee that he cares about the future of White Americans. His interests coincide more with those of the corporate donors who keep the Republican Party afloat. Yes, Obama is dark-skinned, but he may still be a better choice for White folks worried about their future. To be sure, the Democratic Party is likewise influenced by corporate donors both directly and indirectly (via NPOs that are nonetheless corporate-funded), but it also has internal factions, like the union movement, that oppose the globalist project of outsourcing to low-wage countries and insourcing low-wage labor. Other factions, notably the environmentalists, are critical of unlimited growth. Finally, the different ethnic factions within the party don’t form a monolithic bloc; infighting will happen, and one faction or another will make appeals for support from White Americans.”