Saturday, December 29, 2007

Connecting Some Dots Suggesting Motives Which Are Usually Covered Under Maudlin Feeling And Smear Offensives

Extracted from an interview entitled:"With Bhutto Gone. . .
By Jamie | Friday, December 28, 2007

Quoting Steve Schippert:"It should be noted that instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency campaign,..." Taking the above as a premiss, what does this suggest of the motives of those who ask us to value openness to diversity, which includes that of Islamic refugees, and that of the current Islamic terror offensives? Next some reports on Islamic refugee resettlement copied from Refugee Resettlement Watch postings on Shelbyville, TN of Dec. '07 :"The Center’s first encounters with the newcomers did not go so well, with the Somalis being described as “demanding, aggressive and argumentative” and very different than anyone they had ever dealt with._______

“They are very demanding and I don’t know if that is because their culture in general,” Weaver explained, but she has also been told that Somalis are being taken to Minneapolis after they arrive in America and given classes on “what they should demand, and what are their rights.” [from:here, here, and here. ]
JB comments:There's a reason why refugees just in from Africa are said to have rights here, but citizens apparently are to be told that they only have duties to pay for this.
This is how the power-greedy operate now: they find a way to bring in ill-behaved, highly objectionable people, enemies even, then try to worsen the misbehavior, and when they succeed in provoking a response, they smear the opposition as racism, fascism, xenophobia, discrimination, etc.
With opponents on the defensive, no one remembers to say that the use of smearing and other fallacies indicates that there is no rational argument for giving more power to the power-greedy.
This way the power-greedy control the issues; they bring in the people who cause public outrage, and the issues are already set up for officials and others to respond with their accustomed replies (which are mainly smears). They are prepared, but those who value freedom-from-aggression appear to be always caught off balance.
Set all this in the historical context of the long, left-dominated struggle for greater power at the expense of liberty; for 100 years shrill government scholars cried for the class war, then it was the race war for forty or more years, which would be the 'liberation'. Now the War of Religion, that of Islam itself, appears to have become the hope of the leftist professoriate and power-greedy officialdom, as an addition to the preceding.
In this context, an official valorization of enhancing diversity, of disunity and instability, and of the potential for insurgency, all fit together, when otherwise they wouldn't. In the first quotation, it is stated that:
"instability and disunity are a requirement of any successful insurgency".
Now we have two closely inter-related motives. The power-greedy can win if they provoke smearable opposition to the aggrandizement of their power, and they can win the dictatorship itself, if they can get full-scale insurgency going.
The same methods can be used in complementary manner for both objectives. These two methods have the valuing of objectionable diversity in common; they fit together rhetorically as well as pragmatically.
Now does it make sense why, the worse trouble we can expect from a foreigner, the more those who wish for more power, would prefer for that foreigner to be brought here, and close to your relatives?


Anonymous said...

Mr. Bolton,

In plain English then, your view is that college professors who are really avowed Marxists, attempted to make the working proletariat rise in the 30's-late 50's, then they found race and attempted to use it from the 60's-90's, and since the effects of the Immigration Act of 65' became obvious in the early 90's, have moved on to attempting to have a wholesale invasion of foreigners since the other two earlier approaches of breaking down the civil behavior of the U.S. failed?

I know, and have personally seen, a few professors who I'd readily admit worked against the United States civil structure with just about every fiber of their being (one sociology professor, one philosophy professor, and one history professor) using their tenure as a shield and constantly organizing various *aggressive* "non-violent" acts against whatever level of government or businesses.

I honestly think the left just "train-hopped" a super-bad piece of legislation and our business-class' remarkable greed and stupidity, and they always do........attempting to make it worse to prove that America is really a failed experiment and we need Socialism (read Communism). Overwhelming us with foreign people is the most feasible way to do this at the moment, but there will be other tactics in the future if this doesn't work out for any reason. I'd be happy to list them:

Environmental treaties that would handicap our economy.

Arms treaties that would leave the nation vunerable to many other nations.

Economic policies that will see us ship out all production of any kind while we have a service-economy of low income people, giving the people reason to be upset and strike out at society in their increasing poverty and unemployment (probably something they would have loved in the 30's-50's, but there were too many jobs here then and no China factor).

The undermining through permissive culture of our native birthrate (they are still winning this one, slowly but surely).

You and I certainly agree on this one thing (because I can tell youve seen some of these types of professors at work), they will always be inclined against America. If we were invaded, taken over and put into gulags by a Marxist regime, they'd honestly be happy about it. To them, the USA is the worst entity in the history of humankind. They'll go to their graves believing that, and I'll never figure out why they pose such in light of all evidence to the contrary. Its Rashomon-like amazing to see how an indulgent country could give rise to perpetually offended juvenile thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Yes, more or less, there was a class division agitation, spearheaded by professors influenced by Marx, from at least the 1930's to the 1960's. Then came the New Left, Marcuse and the Frankfurt School, who broke the strict class analysis and scientific socialism, adding race, ethnicity, environmentalism, spirituality. These had previously been forbidden to them as leftists.
The point about these scholars, officials and others who needn't be hardcore left, now making common cause with the Islamic immigrant, is not just that they are foreigners and disruptive in a general way, but that they are moslem in particular. This is something new, that a backward, violently theocratic religion, would be taken under the wing of the left and moderate left, in this way, when the same leftists were calling themselves the bearers of scientific progressive politics 40+ years ago. This unfolding of their dialectic, from class war and science, on to race and ecology, and then to a macchiavellian, thorughly unprincipled alliance of the left and the Islamic theocratic war of religion, is so surprising, that only an undercurrent of power-greed can explain and reconcile so many cross-purposes.
You're right that there are other ways of getting power, such as pushing the global warming issue. But when a leading element such as the professoriate as a class, shows a tendency to favor one approach, others follow. Why the academnic elites should have this hatred, would be because of incentives built into the governemnt schools as such. There's a positive feedback mechanism operating through the use of power to get money for more and better-equipped colleges, and the rise of more leftist-type intellectuals through that system. Essentially, the more public money you throw at them, the further left they go. There's an element of time and starting points; some countries started their colleges already in a radical left position. JSBolton

Anonymous said...

Thats precisely "it". I lack the verbiage to describe the situation so well as you have, but in my dialect Mr. Bolton, you "hit the nail on the head".

Anonymous said...

Well thanks, and some of what you imply, that some of these people are intent just on doing damage, is true, although I didn't say so. The emphasis on politics means power as a motive; they could be preachers but they're not. JSB

Anonymous said...

Great post and comments. The analysis by Anon at 1:29pm is very good. Do you post over at Vanishing American?

Re: Its Rashomon-like amazing to see how an indulgent country could give rise to perpetually offended juvenile thoughts.

So true. Leftists are juvenile and the academic world in particular, seems to encourage a prolonged adolescence.