Tim Scott, National Leader in the Multicultacracy

TIM SCOTT, National Leader, 2013-?

NPR: “The choice is full of firsts — Scott will be the only African-American in the Senate, the first black Republican in the Senate in decades, and only the second since Reconstruction. The one-term congressman immediately becomes a national figure”.

David Woodward [a Clemson University Professor]: “I think he [Tim Scott] represents an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind somebody who could be a national leader.”

A national leader!

An obscure, one-term Congressman. A graduate of a third-rate university (his alma-mater, Charleston Southern, ranks 15th of the 20 colleges in South Carolina in terms of enrolled-student SAT scores — the average attendee did not even manage 500 per section on the SAT).

NIKKI HALEY [Nee Nimrata Kaur Randhawa], Champion of Minority Advancement

Why did Governor Haley appoint this man?

Nikki Haley [Governor of SC]:
It is very important to me, as a minority female, that Congressman Scott earned this seat. He earned this seat, for the person that he is.”

There you have it. She very nearly said it explicitly there, didn’t she, that she appointed him because he is Black and for essentially no other reason. It’s the way the winds of the Grand Old Party are blowing.

Incidentally, this U.S. Senate seat was recently contested by Alvin Greene in 2010.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Tim Scott, National Leader in the Multicultacracy

  1. Hail says:


    Does Tim Scott’s NumbersUSA ‘A’ Ranking Mean Anything?
    By Patrick Cleburne

    The Anti-White fashion sweeps on: South Carolina governor names Rep. Scott to succeed DeMint in Senate FoxNews.com December 17, 2012

    In the first instance, of course, naming this profoundly underqualified one-term Black Congressman to be Senator is an exploitation of yearning for the “Magical Negro” phenomenon – the product of the endless Hollywood/MSM evocation of brilliant Black Heroes/Geniuses/Mentors who simply do not exist in real life.

    The GOP Establishment – and some of the electorate – appears very susceptible to this ridiculous infatuation – as seen the Michael Steele fiasco, the Colin Powell humiliation and the Herman Cain crush. Also, in of course, the protracted campaign to exclude white men from the RNC Chairmanship – until needed to cover up. […]

    “Tim is closer to leadership than we are because he is at the table,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan, another freshman Republican from South Carolina. “He has more of an opportunity than we’ve had because of his role.

    “His role” of course is to be a Professional Black.

  2. Iowa Jim says:

    A graduate of a third-rate university (his alma-mater, Charleston Southern, ranks 15th of the 20 colleges in South Carolina in terms of enrolled-student SAT scores — the average attendee did not even manage 500 per section on the SAT).

    All true, but I’d still rather have him in the Senate than Dianne Feinstein (Stanford ’56),
    Chuck Schumer (Harvard undergraduate, Harvard Law ’74), John Kerry (Yale ’66), or the despicable Patrick Leahy (Georgetown Law ’64), inter alia,

  3. fnn says:

    Especially in the context of the fix we’re in today, this 1995 drivel from Billy Kristol is enough to make a cat laugh:

    …The political “right” also stood up and took notice of Buchanan’s apparent shift. On November 27, 1995 the “conservative” Weekly Standard — financed by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, and edited by one William Kristol, leader of the self-styled clique of “neo-conservatives” enamored with nothing less than advancing a Zionist-dominated American imperialism — raised its own concerns about Buchanan’s nationalist broadsides against the power elite. The Standard asserted:

    . . .In an increasingly conservative America, one political figure defiantly resists the historical tide. This man still denounces big banks and multinational corporations. Still unabashedly puts the interests of the American factory worker ahead of those of the so-called international trading
    system. Still refuses even to contemplate any cuts in the generosity of big middle-class spending programs like Medicare and Social Security. This man is Patrick J. Buchanan, America’s last leftist . . .

    . . .Noting that Buchanan retained his traditional stance on social issues, The Standard then pointed out that:

    . . .His campaign speeches stress arresting new themes: the imminent menace of world government, the greed of international banks, the power of tariffs to stop the deterioration in blue-collar wages, the urgency of preserving Medicare in something close to its present form.
    . . .This isn’t anything remotely like the conservative Republicanism of the Reagan era. What it sounds very much like instead is the militant, resentful rhetoric roared by populist Democrats from William Jennings Bryan onward. The revulsion contemporary Democrats feel for Buchanan only exposes how far that party has drifted from its own past…

    Especially hilarious when you recall that the ·”Reagan Revolution” did nothing to reduce the size of government.

  4. rjp says:

    Do you think any Professional Blacks” have figured out that all they have to do is put on the Tea Party hat and they will have a good shot at being a one term member of the Congressional Black Caucus yet?

    Does anyone actually think he will not join the CBC?

  5. Anonymous says:

    What did you expect? The GOP is now DEAD! They had a chance to survive, but decided to instead be the soon to be extinct RINO party. I for one will not miss the Jew Neo-Con Trotskyites and their drunken Bush Goyim!
    The Next Majority Party will be Fascist by the way, to oppose the darkie commie terrorist!

  6. Of course this happened; it did not have to be an ideological decision, it’s a political one. You ride the white horse until the horse can’t win the race. That’s how you keep power.

    Right now, we’re in a period of transition. The Republican Party is doing what it can to remain viable in the coming future when Whites will not matter because, as a voting block, they will matter less and less with each coming year.

    • Hail says:

      it did not have to be an ideological decision, it’s a political one

      You’re right, of course. Still, Governor Haley’s racial comments imply that this was an ‘ideological’ [racial] decision, too.

      But, then, ideology creates politics. I think this is your point. Politics never creates ideology. Ideology creates politics. This is what a lot of people failed to grasp about the Tea Party political insurgency of 2010. It did not change things, fundamentally. They expected it would, but the Tea Party was a largely political change, changing a few hundred(?) faces in politics, without budging the ideological window.

      What do I mean by ‘politics’ vs. ‘ideology’? I think I mean the same as you do, WB. Politics works within the narrow confines of the animating Weltanschauung (i.e., the general beliefs about the world held by society, based on their socialization as children and subsequent reinforcement by propaganda from social institutions [today the biggest ‘institution’ being Hollywood] as adolescents and then adults). That is why no Christian theocrat, e.g., will be elected anywhere in the White West today. That kind of ‘politics’ had widespread support centuries ago, and was even dominant in the Middle Ages. It has no chance today, no matter the ‘skill’, or ‘organization’, or whatever, of the politicians involved. The ideology has changed.

      Mitt Romney was right: Passively or actively, implicitly or explicitly, an anti-White ideology is held by something like “47%” of USA-residents. The Anti-White Coalition includrs at least 4-in-5 Nonwhites and many Marginal-Whites (Gays, Jews, certain anti-‘WASP’ grievance-holding Ellis-Island nostalgists, ethnomasochist White-Marxists…), who will always vote against White-racialist interests.

      • West in a Box says:

        I agree with most of this, but i think politics DO influence ideology, particularly in a command economy; the success or failure of economic decisions at the top influence economic ideology at the bottom. The success or failure of Obama’s economic policies will likely have an effect on the ideology, I would say.

        But this same trickle down effect also true of a government that controls society and thus controls the sociology, as the National Socialists or the Soviets did.

        I think the thing to pay attention to here, though, is HOW ideology changes and could change.

    • Hail says:

      The Anti-White Coalition [of] at least 4-in-5 Nonwhites and many Marginal-Whites

      See here:
      Racial and Religious Breakdown of the 2012 Vote in the South

      Racial and Religious Breakdown of the 2012 Vote in the Northeast

      Romney walked to a pretty easy victory among the USA’s ethnic core, even in the Northeast.

  7. The writing was on the wall even before Obama. Look at the track record: NAFTA proceedings, lenient positions on southern border security, the lack of regulation to prevent outsourcing, the promotion of discriminatory Affirmative Action, where non-whites get prized educational and employment opportunities simply because of their skin color. Are these the traits of a party representative of the European-descended majority core? Of course not. So why should we be surprised when, years later, the party begins to campaign in Spanish, as it did on the John McCain ticket, and invest in the new demographic? The Republican Party is interested it ITS survival, NOT ours.

  8. Vito says:

    If Scott supports a nude negro law, he be alright.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s