Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Why A Black Presidency Would Be Demonstrably Divisive In A Highly Damaging Way

Insofar as the American government is characterized by anti-Caucasianism, having this be imposed by someone who isn't white, is enormously more divisive and nourishing of inter-group conflict and hatred, than the status quo. To prove the premise of official anti-Caucasianism, the Voting Rights Act, with its newer interpretation, which simply assumes that the majority racially conspires to exclude disadvantaged minorities' possible candidates, should be quite enough. The burden of proof on those who fail to recruit at racial quota levels, as imposed by the federal courts' disparate impact doctrine, is a pervasive political feature, demonstrating official policy going against the majority and in a racial way. If a black president runs such programs, it is no longer a case of the majority doing this to its own, so to speak, but one in which the majority will be made to feel oppressed by a hostile racial political order, which comes from outside. Such a situation fuels great increase of division and hatred, and that is a clue as to why major media and government academia would be enthused over the prospect. The increase of power is facilitated by the increase of inter-group conflict, that's their incentive. The mainstream right of course, can only quake in cowardice at the prospect of mentioning this racial effect, where a black presidential candidate is undesirable for that reason, and they're scared of the smear offensives which would have them try to prove they're not racist. It never occurs to them that they then would have opportunities to point out that there is no reasonable argument for a lurch to the left, so that only attempted smearing can substitute.
Added 8-3-08 from: Thursday, July 31, 2008

Congress Of Special Pleaders Tries To Stoke Racial Feeling Against The Majority
As found here: « The proposed apology for slavery... on VFR, the burden of proof gets illegitimately shifted away from those who find it convenient politically, to officially claim that black inequality of results was imposed by certain policies back in history.There are no blacks who can prove that they would have inherited anything additional, if it were not for some state laws regarding segregation, much less slavery 150 years ago. None of them used segregated government schools and other unnecessarily public facilities except by privilege, but never as a right. There are millions of others, though, who can document that they had to pay taxes far beyond what they could take from the public programs. It is the net taxpayers who have a demonstrable grievance. Special pleading is motivated not by a sense of justice, but by the power that comes from representing a group of those who cannot press a valid claim individually. This all goes with the push to rally round the weakest, where deceitful posturing tries to place culpability on the able, making excuses for failure as merely a case of not being shared with.
With a black almost nominated for a major party's presidential candidacy, the majority can easily conclude by now, that the rise of Obama means more, not less, racial special pleading. The more you acknowledge and respect the special pleaders, the more they ask for, with absolutely no principles or morals to limit their demands in the least degree. The congressmen who pushed for, and many who voted for, the current resolution would know this perfectly well, but they think you don't. They are depraved. Too depressing to dwell on just now? Well then: Go Ahead, Laugh at Obama
Sample quote from Gerard Baker: "It came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow. When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: ³Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 8-16-08 from: Tuesday, August 12, 2008

The Effrontery Of Anti-Merit Hopes And Dreams
from runaway fathers. America must not respect anything like that. If the revolution of rising expectations, for higher prestige for the disreputable, is well underway, violent stirrings easily may soon boil over into riots.
Added 8-13-08 from: Monday, August 11, 2008 Why Barack Obama Will Not WinThis is a sober and sound analysis, although Warshawsky's use of the exit polls' estimate on Hispanic voting is off in the usual way. 8% was really 6%, and Bush didn't get 44% but well under 40% of their votes.From the linked article:"....named the Most Liberal Senator for 2007 by the National Journal . This distinction does not augur well for Obama. John Kerry was named the Most Liberal Senator for 2003 -- the year before he lost the 2004 presidential contest to Bush. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted along Democratic Party lines 97 percent of the time, almost 10 percentage points higher than the average for Senate Democrats." Even though the major regulated media are nakedly doing advocacy for Obama, many of the truths mentioned in the article will become widely known among the electorate.
Added 8-26-08 from: Sunday, August 24, 2008

Prove That You're Not Moved By Racial Hatred, Or How To Shift The Responsibility
of making a case, on to your opponent. Found through this link Jacob Weisberg/Slate: only racism prevents Barack Obama from being elected :"Jacob Weisberg of Slate offers 'If Obama Loses/Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him' (link). I hopefully don't need to excerpt any of it to point out that it's not only wrong, it's also a roadmap for how the Democratic Party will operate for the next four years (or in perpetuity). Note that Weisburg isn't just some nobody; he's the 'editor-in-chief of the Slate Group'."
Black-privilege Obama doesn't have to show that he's good enough to be President, the voters have to prove that they have some reasons other than racial hatred to not support him. The left has no rational argument why they should have more power, which is why only this smearing, slippery-slope, racialized method has to be used. When they say that 'only racism' is involved, that shows the slippery-slope insinuations are being applied, since there are actually many intermediate points between zero racism and 'only racism', as if everyone who was wary of blacks wanted to kill them all. This also shows that the electorate does have a perfectly convincing racial reason to be worried about supporting Obama; such a privilege of not having to make a case, but just leaving it to others to try and prove that their motives are not racial, will be exploited again and again. Further, if this attempted smearing of the voters doesn't work this time, it is less likely to be used the next time, and that's worth something, too.

2 comments:

nick said...

Are the left generally less inclined to support needless and expensive and divisive wars?

John S. Bolton said...

Historically yes, presently most likely not. Interventions, to solve humanitarian crises, are another story. Imagine conscription to save Darfur.