A society which reorganizes around valuing openness and anti-discrimination is self-contradictory and self-liquidating. The more it pursues non-discrimination and openness, the sooner it is replaced by a new leading element which closes the door behind it, having entered courtesy of anti-discrimination. Without more discrimination, even of the kind militated against by officialdom and professoriate as prejudice, Islam would enter en masse, and close off the openness behind it, and re-establish discrimination with extreme prejudice. It is not enough to look only at a large and strong country relative to such infiltrations, as America undoubtedly is; but to a range of nations with varying vulnerabilities. If it is observed that Hellenic Cyprus, Israel, Croatia, and even larger countries, would soon become Islamic zones of silence and death relative to cultural achievement, if they literally valued openness and anti-discrimination more and more, it is also predictable that a larger stronger country would go the same way, only over a longer period. That is, if such values were followed out to their threshold of ruin, with no turning back before the takeover is effected. Therefore, it is known that such values have wrongful aspects either in theory or application or both, but not neither.
From an earlier post: Bad ideas, even insofar as they are damaging, need people to be open and undiscriminating rather than the reverse. Thus, a kind of selection-value, resembling natural selection, arises in favor of bad ideas that promote social and intellectual openness; which is the exact opening that they need. Is this a coincidence? If a sexually transmitted virus caused people to become more promiscuous, it would be obvious why this trait was selected-for. A cultural infectious agent, which carries only the information needed to get itself transmitted (e.g. openness-as-an-ideal) looks like the stripped down remainder of a larger message which has degenerated, like the organs of a parasite. The telltale degeneration of otherwise necessary parts, of a vicious parasite, is a warning sign. In general, what would do us more damage needs us to be more open. Any means that the transmissible agent can commandeer, to get you to make others be more open to it; to value openness in this way, it will tend to use. If we see people doing what is contrary to their interest, specifically regarding behavior which appears to value openness, and such as a damaging transmissible agent could exploit for its transmission, the possibility of parasite manipulation ought to come to mind. What is known as liberal thought, but of the kind emphasizing anti-discrimination and the valuing of openness, and simplified to the extreme point of having no further doctrines, would be that parasite if any intellectual program so qualifies. It just has to get you to be open-minded to its program and not discriminate in a way which would block its entry and takeover. It needs you to proselytize for its minimal program. It will applaud any way of commanding others to be open and undiscriminating, no matter how unprincipled. Any further features are superfluous. On natural selection theory, it would be predicted that the superfluous further doctrines would vary chaotically, degenerate rapidly, and tend to disappear altogether, like the long list of principles which are abandoned when the left makes common cause with Islam. 'Principles' That Today's Left Repudiates In Making Common Cause With Islam
Added 6-28-08: The Nihilistic Outsider Would Have Others Value Openness
...even above anti-discrimination, brotherhood, equality, tolerance and certainly above freedom of political publication. This is demonstrated in the reaction to large and hostile Islamic immigration cohorts, with openness to them, getting rated above the erstwhile liberal principles as illustrated above. Insofar as one wants power and freedom-for-aggression, one must be the nihilistic outsider relative to human beings. The left starts with materialism and disbelief in human volition. Power-greed and longing for the worst kinds of freedom of action without responsibility, also make a subhuman outsider, who needs others to be open to aggression. Longing for freedom for aggression, could explain the decision in Boumedienne, which allows foreign hostiles access to the protection of our government as if they were here by some special right belonging to aggressors. It might explain the release of Abu Qatada, as described here:« BRITS RELEASE BIN LADENS RIGHT HAND " at "centre of al Qaeda's activities in the UK" also from Atlas: "Another horrific attack by North African “yutes” [...] on their Jewish prey in Paris, reminds one not only of Ilan Halimi, but a more recent attack earlier this year on a Jew in the same town where Ilan was tortured/ murdered, and the burgeoning, disproportionate (i.e., 25X the rate of the not terribly philosemitic non-Muslim denizens of Europe) rate of Muslim on Jewish depredations across Europe."
JB again: The enthusiasm of the powerful for bringing in this sort of aggression, and their obvious hatred of anyone's freedom from aggression, has to come from a profound and driven depravity. Whether the motivations work as in my simplified account, or otherwise, it should be clear that we're seeing an affliction of the powerful rushing to aid the outright subhuman, and that the affinity between the two must be strong. It sounds as if depravity on high, in the Supreme Court, and in the palaces of civilization, were bellowing: We're getting away with it!They won't be getting away with it long-term, though, if they cause the people to turn against the government schools.The more deviant and alienated someone is and feels, the more he will want others to value openness, since he will feel more excluded, the more he is that way.
added 7-16-08 from: Saturday, July 12, 2008
Liberal Disloyalism Zeroes In On Community Of Values, Relentlessly Annihilating
them. Punishing the loyal more, the more loyal they are, for any destructive length of time, sets up a disconnect, of lack of community of values, between rulers and the ruled. One extreme case of this, is when and where liberal regimes differentially bring down the fertility of their most obedient liberal elements, insofar as they are liberal. When liberal power becomes a Goya monster, programmed to auto-destruction, it targets community of values very specifically, and insofar as it is actually a disloyalism. It has to become one, though, since loyalty of fellow nationals to each other relative to the foreigner, is what 'the equality and brotherhood of all mankind', must try to destroy. The liberal disloyalist regime becomes, more and more, an insatiable enemy of community of values within its realm, not least because it insists that there can be no enduring enemies.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Each American OWNS His Citizenship But Assisted Immigration Degrades The Value Of It
and that of his own share of the government, in the same way. When foreigners enter in a way which increases the level of aggression here, that takes away from the value of the citizen's share of freedom-from-aggression, such as subsists here. It takes away from the value of the citizen's loyalty to the net taxpayer of our nation, which is worth a lot, as he is our true bounden ally against foreign aggression, and the one with the means to provide for the defense of our freedom.
Craig Biddle however, insists that "No one owns America" and that "Since there is no principle governing the use of 'public' property, there can be no principled argument for excluding immigrants from using such property." Isn't there a contradiction-in-terms there, though, for it to be property and yet somehow no one owns it, at the same time and in the same respect? If the unreason of that claim is not apparent, Biddle also says we should "Exclude immigrants from receiving welfare and from using government schools—", but doesn't that contradict his claim that "there can be no principled argument for excluding immigrants from using such property"? Is the public revenue after having been collected, not public property, which shouldn't be regarded as something like seawater on the open ocean, that any foreigner might take at his convenience? Isn't this a contradiction-in-terms as well, or reducible to one, to claim as Biddle does that America's border "...is properly a boundary designating the area in which the U.S. government must protect rights." That is, if it also true that "Individuals possess rights not by virtue of their geographic location ...". The contradiction being that the prospective immigrant is said to have a right enforceable on our government, to move here, while there is also claimed a limitation on the geographic domain in which it "must protect rights". Another contradiction is here: if American "society is inimical to human life" because it uses force to restrict immigration, and has been this way since the federal government took over this responsibility in the mid-19th century, how is it that the prospective immigrant is losing by not getting an immigration visa, to a society which then would have to be considered "inimical to human life", unlike perhaps some stateless zone in Somalia? More arguments are to be found here: The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant
Also related, a pragmatic consideration of contemporary politics, from an earlier post:
Mass Immigration Of Undesirables Brings Censorship Of Political Publication...
with high probability in behind it. This tends to occur because the right-wing or patriotic political organizations can split off the lower-income of the incumbent population from their usual home in the leftward, and internationalistic, factions. Those defections from the left are easily induced by drawing attention to the outrages of net public subsidy and special tolerance for the immigration cohorts. Proposing to reduce those subsidies and unaccountabilities, threatens the left in such a dire way, that they move quite often to impose censorship on political publication. This is what is happening to Brigitte Bardot, at the hands of bestial dhimmis in the French government. Multiply examples: the inductive generalization will be seen to hold up rather well.
Craig Biddle however, insists that "No one owns America" and that "Since there is no principle governing the use of 'public' property, there can be no principled argument for excluding immigrants from using such property." Isn't there a contradiction-in-terms there, though, for it to be property and yet somehow no one owns it, at the same time and in the same respect? If the unreason of that claim is not apparent, Biddle also says we should "Exclude immigrants from receiving welfare and from using government schools—", but doesn't that contradict his claim that "there can be no principled argument for excluding immigrants from using such property"? Is the public revenue after having been collected, not public property, which shouldn't be regarded as something like seawater on the open ocean, that any foreigner might take at his convenience? Isn't this a contradiction-in-terms as well, or reducible to one, to claim as Biddle does that America's border "...is properly a boundary designating the area in which the U.S. government must protect rights." That is, if it also true that "Individuals possess rights not by virtue of their geographic location ...". The contradiction being that the prospective immigrant is said to have a right enforceable on our government, to move here, while there is also claimed a limitation on the geographic domain in which it "must protect rights". Another contradiction is here: if American "society is inimical to human life" because it uses force to restrict immigration, and has been this way since the federal government took over this responsibility in the mid-19th century, how is it that the prospective immigrant is losing by not getting an immigration visa, to a society which then would have to be considered "inimical to human life", unlike perhaps some stateless zone in Somalia? More arguments are to be found here: The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant
Also related, a pragmatic consideration of contemporary politics, from an earlier post:
Mass Immigration Of Undesirables Brings Censorship Of Political Publication...
with high probability in behind it. This tends to occur because the right-wing or patriotic political organizations can split off the lower-income of the incumbent population from their usual home in the leftward, and internationalistic, factions. Those defections from the left are easily induced by drawing attention to the outrages of net public subsidy and special tolerance for the immigration cohorts. Proposing to reduce those subsidies and unaccountabilities, threatens the left in such a dire way, that they move quite often to impose censorship on political publication. This is what is happening to Brigitte Bardot, at the hands of bestial dhimmis in the French government. Multiply examples: the inductive generalization will be seen to hold up rather well.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Loyalty To Humanity In General Is Not Known To Possess ANY Attributes Of Sovereignty
Loyalty to fellow citizens over against the foreigner, in at least that case, in which a foreigner increases the level of aggression within the borders, by entering; does have attributes of sovereignty. A nation which is claimed to be an idea, but in which citizens somehow do not owe loyalty to each other over against the foreigner entering with aggression, would not then be known still to possess attributes of sovereignty. When it is said that there is "injustice" in not giving the same protections and privileges to incoming foreigners as to citizens, that is not known to be a valid use of the term justice. It may be a 'justice is equality' misconception, as in Plato's Republic, but 'to each his own' would apply, yielding differential treatment as the just kind. The citizen owns his claim on the loyalty of fellow nationals to be on his side, when the foreigner enters in a way that builds up the level of aggression, but the foreigner is a supplicant when he asks that the government be extended out to him. On such assumptions as the openness-valorizing one, border defense becomes apartheid fencing, as if all had claims on foreign governments from their species character alone. Craig Biddle challenges us to disprove his statement that: "Arguments against open immigration abound, but all of them are invalid. None of them names a principle (i.e., a general truth) by reference to which limiting immigration is a requirement of human life—and each of them calls for actions that violate individual rights." We don't violate the undemonstrated right of foreigners to have our government extended to them, by not doing so. The prevention of an open-ended increase of aggression within a sovereign territory is a necessary condition for good human life, since aggression can increase from lack of border control relative to foreigners whose entry would occasion that increase, and to the point that mass deaths would follow within the area of responsibility of our nation and its officials. It is, on a long-term consideration, a life-requirement that officials and citizenry not increase the level of aggression WITHIN the jurisdiction FOR WHICH the decision is to be made. We don't decide for the world, and it goes against life-requirements to try to globalize our responsibilities. What would become of human life here if social security, or our federal police agencies, were globalized? Equality of rights between citizen and foreigner would yield that result, if it didn't matter where the foreigner lives. Further, the continuity of the advancement of civilization requires that we not go backwards in terms of standards, as of productivity and others which are threatened by mass immigration of low quality. If too much supply of menial labor at the same or lower wage, is not known to be compatible with the increase of productivity long-term, life is threatened even throughout the world, as the failure to move onward to higher levels is not known to allow for warding off the onset of a new dark age condition, where technique goes backwards. This has already happened with transport technology, from the 9-11 immigrants' bringing down of the twin towers, resulting in the cessation of supersonic civilian scheduled transport. Applying openness-valuing claims to America is easily quite misleading; since, if one substituted Israel, Hellenic Cyprus, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand for America in those claims, the existential threat of open immigration would be seen more clearly. The existential threat from Islamic demographic expansion, through valuing openness to mass immigration into civilized nations, should be manifest, to those who would propose the invasion of several such countries, and in a certain order. Similarly, national sovereignty is not known to be reasonably regarded as disposable, where the claims of prospective immigrants were given precedence over the need to maintain minimal conditions for the furtherance of good life within a national territory. This brings us back to the initial consideration of whether humanity in general may have attributes of sovereignty, and thought of the several countries mentioned above, should convince that the loyal nation is what can protect life, but the species in general includes too broad a range for the minimum requirements of survival in advanced societies. Loyalty to and through the nation, allows for individual rights to be protected and to exist in the first instance, for that matter; but this loyalty must be exclusionary and organized around the need to defend against even quite small, increments of aggression from the incoming foreigner.
If the nation possess attributes of sovereignty sufficient to refuse entry to foreigners on grounds such as disease, terrorist associations and more; the prospective immigrant applies for privilege and not for recognition of his right from species-membership alone.
Additional criticisms of Biddle's arguments are to be found on Saturday's post, entitled:
The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant
If the nation possess attributes of sovereignty sufficient to refuse entry to foreigners on grounds such as disease, terrorist associations and more; the prospective immigrant applies for privilege and not for recognition of his right from species-membership alone.
Additional criticisms of Biddle's arguments are to be found on Saturday's post, entitled:
The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The Obamanable Snowjobber: Marcusian Social Psychologist For President- & The Higher Learning By Associations
When there are no rational arguments for one's position, one may still learn from the Marcusian left, to DIAGNOSE the opposition. Diagnose small-town America as clinging pathologically to beliefs, when they could achieve enlightenment as to the cause of their alienation: the greed of the fat selfish bourgeois capitalists, who will not share. Never mind that those especially alienated from their society and its means of production do not volunteer for the armed forces at MANY times the national rate, do not volunteer for church and charity, nor maintain volunteer fire departments, at several times the rate of what is not small-town America. One may just diagnose them, and this is highly convenient for those who do not want to have to answer arguments from the other side. According to this George Packer post ,"He equated guns and religion with racism, xenophobia, and crude economic populism as the refuge of the hard-pressed—the false consciousness of the white working class who need to channel their financial frustrations somewhere. " Then why would immigration restrictionism appear at the top of an eight or more year expansion? Why would concern for gun rights be found in prosperous small towns, suburbs and exurbs, while zeal for gun control is especially to be found in inner-city poverty zones? Here's the Obama quote: "And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations". Apparently they can't have religious frustrations, or disatisfaction with police protection as a frustration, or displeasure with unwanted new diversity as a frustration, or frustration over the importation of stolen goods, or any frustration but an economic one that calls for more power for officials to intervene, and scholars to plan, a materialist, stress-free utopia (for the power-greedy).
Instead of being analyzed or psychobabbled by Obama, who is himself the applicant for the high security clearance, while it is the electorate who must decide on his fitness; let's look at his associations and learn.
Should he "value similar qualities in those with whom he associates, qualities such as:
honesty and following the law—and valuing that quality in others by not associating with someone who spent 10 years as a fugitive for bombing government buildings
patriotism—and valuing that quality in others by not attending the church of a man who condemns America ("God D*** America," the "U.S. of KKK A") and promotes terrorists such as Hamas in the church bulletin
not espousing anti-semitism— and valuing that quality in others by not serving on the board of a group that "mourns the establishment of Israel"
honesty and following the law—and valuing that quality in others by not having a 17-year friendship with a noted influence peddler and allowing him to fundraise for his campaign and work out questionable real-estate deals"? [ found here: 04/21 10:08 AM from Gregory S. McNeal ]
Daniel Larison on Wednesday, April 16th in politics said:"It is, of course, inconceivable that a major presidential candidate on the right could get away with having any political associations with domestic terrorists, regardless of how long ago those terrorists were active."
From an earlier post: To get the citizenry to accept minority rule, is the indispensable preliminary for despotic rule. This is why it is the worst elements at the high and low ends of social hierarchies, the ones who dream of breaking down resistance to total power for officials, who are enthused over Obama and the prospects for minority rule in general.
Added 6-12-08: The Minority Politics Of the Special Pleaders Is Unprincipled
and necessarily so. Because it is unprincipled and political, it has to be operating from base power motives, at least instrumentally. In high contrast, the majority interest is righteous in holding to democratic procedures which block minority power-greed. Today, in world-historical disgrace, the apotheosis of the special pleader is seen, in the institutional plumping for Obama. Of our institutions of any great size, only the military and some corporations, and uncommonly conservative organizations, appear likely to avoid this rush.
Added 6-28-08 from: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Obama Nomination Should Greatly Offend One's Sense Of Justice & Fairness
At AmSpec, Jennifer Rubin, in Reject and Denounce, says:"If John McCain went to a David Duke rally, belonged to a church which, through its magazine, gave Duke an award and had close colleagues who celebrated Duke's achievements would McCain still be a presidential candidate?"
JB interjects: That is Obama's relation to Farrakhan. Rubin continues, referring to Farrakhan's hyper-racialized, anti-caucasian march on DC:
"In a Chicago Reader profile on Obama, Hank De Zutter writes that Obama "took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October's Million Man March in Washington, D.C.
His experiences there only reinforced his reasons for jumping into politics." In fact, Obama told De Zutter: "What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African- American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place...'
'JB comments: Ferraro was right that Obama would not be in his present position, if he wasn't black. If he was white, he'd have zero chance, having used such racial solidarities and expressions. A negligible percentage of American journalists, politicians and academics, are even capable of a sense of justice and fairness, that could notice or take offense at this free ride Obama is getting. What disgrace is on the journalistic community in particular, who could be down so low, licking the boots of a Farrakhan rally communer...possible remedy: boycott of nationally advertised brands to punish the media
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added from : Wednesday, September 24, 2008
There's No Good Reason For A Leftward Move, That's Why You Get This...
"... growing chorus -- already nearing unanimity -- of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism [...].Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic:'White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win.'Jack Cafferty of CNN: 'The polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.'Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: 'The reason Obama isn't ahead right now is … the color of his skin. … If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth.'Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: 'Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.'Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: 'Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children's futures because he's black?' "Quoted from this article by Dennis Prager, whose observations, especially that 'liberal commentators' are 'nearing unanimity' that only 'racism' can cause Obama to be voted against, are signs of what needs to be noted. If strong arguments were available as to why we need to take a hard left turn, greatly enhancing the power of officials here, there would be no tendency to coalesce around such a party line, to the effect that, only racial hatred can explain a vote against Obama.
Instead of being analyzed or psychobabbled by Obama, who is himself the applicant for the high security clearance, while it is the electorate who must decide on his fitness; let's look at his associations and learn.
Should he "value similar qualities in those with whom he associates, qualities such as:
honesty and following the law—and valuing that quality in others by not associating with someone who spent 10 years as a fugitive for bombing government buildings
patriotism—and valuing that quality in others by not attending the church of a man who condemns America ("God D*** America," the "U.S. of KKK A") and promotes terrorists such as Hamas in the church bulletin
not espousing anti-semitism— and valuing that quality in others by not serving on the board of a group that "mourns the establishment of Israel"
honesty and following the law—and valuing that quality in others by not having a 17-year friendship with a noted influence peddler and allowing him to fundraise for his campaign and work out questionable real-estate deals"? [ found here: 04/21 10:08 AM from Gregory S. McNeal ]
Daniel Larison on Wednesday, April 16th in politics said:"It is, of course, inconceivable that a major presidential candidate on the right could get away with having any political associations with domestic terrorists, regardless of how long ago those terrorists were active."
From an earlier post: To get the citizenry to accept minority rule, is the indispensable preliminary for despotic rule. This is why it is the worst elements at the high and low ends of social hierarchies, the ones who dream of breaking down resistance to total power for officials, who are enthused over Obama and the prospects for minority rule in general.
Added 6-12-08: The Minority Politics Of the Special Pleaders Is Unprincipled
and necessarily so. Because it is unprincipled and political, it has to be operating from base power motives, at least instrumentally. In high contrast, the majority interest is righteous in holding to democratic procedures which block minority power-greed. Today, in world-historical disgrace, the apotheosis of the special pleader is seen, in the institutional plumping for Obama. Of our institutions of any great size, only the military and some corporations, and uncommonly conservative organizations, appear likely to avoid this rush.
Added 6-28-08 from: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Obama Nomination Should Greatly Offend One's Sense Of Justice & Fairness
At AmSpec, Jennifer Rubin, in Reject and Denounce, says:"If John McCain went to a David Duke rally, belonged to a church which, through its magazine, gave Duke an award and had close colleagues who celebrated Duke's achievements would McCain still be a presidential candidate?"
JB interjects: That is Obama's relation to Farrakhan. Rubin continues, referring to Farrakhan's hyper-racialized, anti-caucasian march on DC:
"In a Chicago Reader profile on Obama, Hank De Zutter writes that Obama "took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October's Million Man March in Washington, D.C.
His experiences there only reinforced his reasons for jumping into politics." In fact, Obama told De Zutter: "What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African- American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place...'
'JB comments: Ferraro was right that Obama would not be in his present position, if he wasn't black. If he was white, he'd have zero chance, having used such racial solidarities and expressions. A negligible percentage of American journalists, politicians and academics, are even capable of a sense of justice and fairness, that could notice or take offense at this free ride Obama is getting. What disgrace is on the journalistic community in particular, who could be down so low, licking the boots of a Farrakhan rally communer...possible remedy: boycott of nationally advertised brands to punish the media
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added from : Wednesday, September 24, 2008
There's No Good Reason For A Leftward Move, That's Why You Get This...
"... growing chorus -- already nearing unanimity -- of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism [...].Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic:'White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win.'Jack Cafferty of CNN: 'The polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.'Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: 'The reason Obama isn't ahead right now is … the color of his skin. … If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth.'Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: 'Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.'Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: 'Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children's futures because he's black?' "Quoted from this article by Dennis Prager, whose observations, especially that 'liberal commentators' are 'nearing unanimity' that only 'racism' can cause Obama to be voted against, are signs of what needs to be noted. If strong arguments were available as to why we need to take a hard left turn, greatly enhancing the power of officials here, there would be no tendency to coalesce around such a party line, to the effect that, only racial hatred can explain a vote against Obama.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Citizenry Is Not Known To Be A Juridical Person Of Penal Responsibility Relative To The Prospective Immigrant
Craig Biddle implies otherwise, though, as here: "Punishing an individual for someone else’s wrongdoing is patently immoral—[JB replies: Not always, failing to act against the receiving of stolen goods is obviously immoral though, and why punish the citizenry for 'someone else's wrongdoing' in the past? It is also not known to be a punishment, to deny a prospective immigrant what is not known to be his by right: a clearance to immigrate on net public subsidy from those here, whose rights we are obliged to protect, unlike the foreigner] and the wrongdoing here is not just that of the relatively few [?] immigrants who seek [or just get?] welfare handouts.[ it's not just outright welfare, going on to net public subsidy is all but inevitable for immigrants not selected for uncommonly high quality] The greater wrongdoing is that of the American intellectuals, citizens, and politicians who established and who maintain the welfare state. [ JB: that someone else may show 'the greater wrongdoing', does not take away from the wrong which is done to the net taxpayer, which is itself a proof of the immigrant's enmity or hostility] For America to bar would-be immigrants from entry to America because of immoral “welfare” policies instituted by Americans is the height of injustice."
How is that to be known? Does it ignore the injustice of Stalin toward the Kulaks, and that of Pol Pot towards the town-dwellers, and of Mao towards the landowners and other victims of communization?
The height of injustice; what an evaluative indulgence. It is not known to be an injustice at all, to deny protection of our government and its system of justice to prospective immigrants, even if they are not obvious terrorists or disease-spreaders. Why would it be the moral responsibility of the citizenry to somehow hugely reduce the net public subsidy on a national scale, while allowing NO moral responsibility to fall on the prospective immigrant, to not increase even slightly, that same problem of net public subsidy? Why must the citizenry pay reparations, as they might be called, to the incoming immigrant, for not having succeeded in abolishing all net public subsidy? Is the citizenry a juridical person when one wants to steal something for the aggrandizement of the prospective immigrant; but billions of foreigners are individual holders of rights that they may enforceably summon OUR government to protect? That is not known to be true. How do such and so many foreigners have a claim on our net taxpayers, to extend our government to them? Loyalty to fellow citizens comes first, not least because that loyalty possesses attributes of sovereignty through the nation, unlike any others. The wish to make America the justiciary of all the world does not hold any sovereign attributes. Sovereignty is not found in the wish to take care of foreigners, equalizing and pretending to universal brotherhood with all of them, including the wildest hostiles.
Similarly, if we are said to have obligation to extend protection and additional resources insofar as foreigners' rights are inadequately protected where they are, but they have no obligation not to immediately increase the level of aggression on citizens, such as the net taxpayers, here; how is there any justice or respect for rights shown by treating their rights or privileges as worth more than our rights in that way? Rights being not self-enforcing, the advocate of such mass immigration is pretending that we have a duty to extend our government and its expenditures out to all these foreigners as if they had rights to our government, but the citizens somehow have only duties to accept increase of government aggression on the net taxpayer, to protect some unenforceable 'rights' of foreigners, to take a share of our government. There is however, a responsibility to protect the rights of the net taxpayers of our citizenry from the increase of aggression occasioned by incoming foreigners, such as any who start in using even small net public subsidy. If it could be proven that the citizens of whichever countries have more rights-respecting governments, are obliged to allow the increase of aggression upon fellow citizens, in order to give some extra protection to the foreigner who is relatively lacking in it, why are attempted smears used instead ( e.g. racism, xenophobia, fascism, objectionable nationalism, etc.)? A citizen reaching the age of majority is not really equivalent to an immigrant arriving in a way which increases the level of aggression to the same extent with each, since the citizen becomes an adult as a result of the rights of the parents to be free of the aggression which would disallow them having children and maintaining them to adulthood. They do so quite often on the perfectly reasonable expectation that their children will be allowed to inherit their citizenship, and there would be obvious increase of aggression on the citizenry if we dispossessed them in the same way as foreigners may be deported. The protection of our government is not to be had for free, but is a charge on the net taxpayers here. The net taxpayer here OWNS his claim to allegiance relative to the incoming foreigner who raises the level of aggression here. Therefore, if the immigrant as such is to be held blameless, it is an inconsistency highly subversive of propriety and of loyalty to fellow nationals, to imply that the net taxpayer as such, and of our citizenry, is obliged to extend our government in this way to the immigrant as such. What could it be in the nature here of the net taxpayer as such, that could oblige him to pay for government services to be extended to foreigners.
Is the distinction between citizen and prospective immigrant really not morally important? If they're all the same regarding important moral distinctions, then reparations owed by an aggressor country and its citizens, should be levied throughout the world, and paid to all countries? To say we owe justice to foreigners is not known to be true, not if it means that foreigners such as the prospective immigrant are said to have the right to be treated the same as our citizens, regarding a claim on the protection afforded by OUR government. There is no obligation to extend the protection of our government, owned as it is by the citizenry, and not the people by it, out to foreigners. Why would one foreigner have more such claim than another, and if a hostile one made that claim, by reference to whose rights and whose ownership of which government, would the claims of the incoming hostile be rejected? The nation means the people who are loyal to each other over against the foreigner, who enters with aggression. It means at least that much. The nation is an allegiance to certain people in a definite territory, against the foreigner. This is also why one-world loyalties are contradictory and nonsensical; if there are no foreigners, war would be with the non-foreign foreigner? If the foreigner takes net public subsidy here that is a hostile act by a foreigner within the borders, and the officials who supply it are traitors as defined in the US constitution, and those immigrants are accessory to treason, a capital offense. A citizen doing the same is in a quite different moral category. How can it be that foreigners living overseas, are not chargeable with treason against America, if they have rights here and are morally not essentially in a different category than citizens?
There are those who say that there is no significant difference in moral status between citizen and foreigner, even in regard to the increase of aggression. An additional foreigner here is not like an additional citizen born or reaching an age of majority, in relation to the increase of aggression caused by him. One of the reasons for this, is that citizens have older relatives here who have paid taxes, being sometimes net taxpayers, and especially so at the times in their lives when the next generation is starting out as adults. Others have older relatives who have never been net taxpayers, but the next generation then only replaces these, resulting in no increase in the level of aggression against the net taxpayers. Still others have older relatives who are not net taxpayers, while their replacements happen to be more numerous, and these increase the level of aggression in much the same way as immigrants coming in on to net public subsidy, with no relatives to compensate for them beforehand or during. Immigration on to net public subsidy resembles, and is in other ways even worse for us than, the expansion of an exclusively parasitical lineage of our citizenry. How can this be good, and how is it really such a matter of indifference, as if there were no moral differences in the status of citizens over against foreigners here? We have millions here who not only parasitize in an expanding circle of aggression, but who cannot even be expected to be loyal, which is another significant difference.Added later:Between Foreigners And Citizens, There Exists Another Great Moral And Political Difference Relative To Penalties...The foreigner has usable foreign connections in terms of deportability, while the citizen only rarely does. The possibilities for sentencing a foreigner here thus include deportation: for life, for a term of years, with dependents or without, with assistance for resettlement or without, and more. If citizens have usable foreign connections then perhaps, universal or isonomic rules could apply to all residents regardless of citizenship, relative to deportability for having increased the aggression here. In any case, the above demonstrates a large and significant moral and political difference between [A] foreigners and [B] citizens without usable foreign connections, relative to a penalty of deportation. As to the objection that citizens don't get deported so why should foreigners; actually citizens do sometimes get deported, as when they have been shown to have used fraud to obtain citizenship and are otherwise criminals subject to deportation, and much more along these lines may be done.And this:The concept of rights is deceptive if it does not mean that we each have a right to freedom from aggression, and that it not be increased on us. If an incoming foreigner increases the aggression within the borders, this takes away from our freedom from aggression and that cannot be his right to do, intentionally, negligently or otherwise. If his claim to be allowed to do so, is that he does not have a government which will protect his rights to the same extent as here; that is not known to be our obligation to remedy. If it could be proven that the citizens of whichever countries have more rights-respecting governments, are obliged to allow the increase of aggression upon fellow citizens, in order to give some extra protection to the foreigner who is relatively lacking in it, why wouldn't this demonstration be attempted? The ordinary answer is that we tolerate the immigrant who increases the aggression here, because we can, and his suffering on return, would be worse than the evil which he does here, even though public personalities will rarely admit that an immigrant can do significant evil here. This raises the question of the posting's title: 'Should The Suffering Of All The World Be Spread More Equally Just Because We Can Alleviate Some That Way?' It is not known to be our responsibility to do this. Citizens, including officials, have a responsibility to fellow nationals, not to increase the aggression on these, to whom loyalty is owed, in order to alleviate the suffering of foreigners. There is no degree of suffering of the foreigner, which could be lessened by increasing the aggression on citizens such as the net taxpayers here, which could balance out the damage done by allowing increase of aggression here, to take care of the foreigner here or there.
& U.S. view on international law & a map on Wikipedia & further "Any State Party hereto may denounce this Protocol at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations." as quoted here No. 97-1754: INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Appendix (Merits)Protocol Relating to the Status of RefugeesFrom an earlier post regarding assisted immigration of Islamic polygamists , an illustration.That governments are trying to get away with something as traitorous and destructive as this, means that failing to question their motives in the harshest possible terms, is itself a betrayal.
How is that to be known? Does it ignore the injustice of Stalin toward the Kulaks, and that of Pol Pot towards the town-dwellers, and of Mao towards the landowners and other victims of communization?
The height of injustice; what an evaluative indulgence. It is not known to be an injustice at all, to deny protection of our government and its system of justice to prospective immigrants, even if they are not obvious terrorists or disease-spreaders. Why would it be the moral responsibility of the citizenry to somehow hugely reduce the net public subsidy on a national scale, while allowing NO moral responsibility to fall on the prospective immigrant, to not increase even slightly, that same problem of net public subsidy? Why must the citizenry pay reparations, as they might be called, to the incoming immigrant, for not having succeeded in abolishing all net public subsidy? Is the citizenry a juridical person when one wants to steal something for the aggrandizement of the prospective immigrant; but billions of foreigners are individual holders of rights that they may enforceably summon OUR government to protect? That is not known to be true. How do such and so many foreigners have a claim on our net taxpayers, to extend our government to them? Loyalty to fellow citizens comes first, not least because that loyalty possesses attributes of sovereignty through the nation, unlike any others. The wish to make America the justiciary of all the world does not hold any sovereign attributes. Sovereignty is not found in the wish to take care of foreigners, equalizing and pretending to universal brotherhood with all of them, including the wildest hostiles.
Similarly, if we are said to have obligation to extend protection and additional resources insofar as foreigners' rights are inadequately protected where they are, but they have no obligation not to immediately increase the level of aggression on citizens, such as the net taxpayers, here; how is there any justice or respect for rights shown by treating their rights or privileges as worth more than our rights in that way? Rights being not self-enforcing, the advocate of such mass immigration is pretending that we have a duty to extend our government and its expenditures out to all these foreigners as if they had rights to our government, but the citizens somehow have only duties to accept increase of government aggression on the net taxpayer, to protect some unenforceable 'rights' of foreigners, to take a share of our government. There is however, a responsibility to protect the rights of the net taxpayers of our citizenry from the increase of aggression occasioned by incoming foreigners, such as any who start in using even small net public subsidy. If it could be proven that the citizens of whichever countries have more rights-respecting governments, are obliged to allow the increase of aggression upon fellow citizens, in order to give some extra protection to the foreigner who is relatively lacking in it, why are attempted smears used instead ( e.g. racism, xenophobia, fascism, objectionable nationalism, etc.)? A citizen reaching the age of majority is not really equivalent to an immigrant arriving in a way which increases the level of aggression to the same extent with each, since the citizen becomes an adult as a result of the rights of the parents to be free of the aggression which would disallow them having children and maintaining them to adulthood. They do so quite often on the perfectly reasonable expectation that their children will be allowed to inherit their citizenship, and there would be obvious increase of aggression on the citizenry if we dispossessed them in the same way as foreigners may be deported. The protection of our government is not to be had for free, but is a charge on the net taxpayers here. The net taxpayer here OWNS his claim to allegiance relative to the incoming foreigner who raises the level of aggression here. Therefore, if the immigrant as such is to be held blameless, it is an inconsistency highly subversive of propriety and of loyalty to fellow nationals, to imply that the net taxpayer as such, and of our citizenry, is obliged to extend our government in this way to the immigrant as such. What could it be in the nature here of the net taxpayer as such, that could oblige him to pay for government services to be extended to foreigners.
Is the distinction between citizen and prospective immigrant really not morally important? If they're all the same regarding important moral distinctions, then reparations owed by an aggressor country and its citizens, should be levied throughout the world, and paid to all countries? To say we owe justice to foreigners is not known to be true, not if it means that foreigners such as the prospective immigrant are said to have the right to be treated the same as our citizens, regarding a claim on the protection afforded by OUR government. There is no obligation to extend the protection of our government, owned as it is by the citizenry, and not the people by it, out to foreigners. Why would one foreigner have more such claim than another, and if a hostile one made that claim, by reference to whose rights and whose ownership of which government, would the claims of the incoming hostile be rejected? The nation means the people who are loyal to each other over against the foreigner, who enters with aggression. It means at least that much. The nation is an allegiance to certain people in a definite territory, against the foreigner. This is also why one-world loyalties are contradictory and nonsensical; if there are no foreigners, war would be with the non-foreign foreigner? If the foreigner takes net public subsidy here that is a hostile act by a foreigner within the borders, and the officials who supply it are traitors as defined in the US constitution, and those immigrants are accessory to treason, a capital offense. A citizen doing the same is in a quite different moral category. How can it be that foreigners living overseas, are not chargeable with treason against America, if they have rights here and are morally not essentially in a different category than citizens?
There are those who say that there is no significant difference in moral status between citizen and foreigner, even in regard to the increase of aggression. An additional foreigner here is not like an additional citizen born or reaching an age of majority, in relation to the increase of aggression caused by him. One of the reasons for this, is that citizens have older relatives here who have paid taxes, being sometimes net taxpayers, and especially so at the times in their lives when the next generation is starting out as adults. Others have older relatives who have never been net taxpayers, but the next generation then only replaces these, resulting in no increase in the level of aggression against the net taxpayers. Still others have older relatives who are not net taxpayers, while their replacements happen to be more numerous, and these increase the level of aggression in much the same way as immigrants coming in on to net public subsidy, with no relatives to compensate for them beforehand or during. Immigration on to net public subsidy resembles, and is in other ways even worse for us than, the expansion of an exclusively parasitical lineage of our citizenry. How can this be good, and how is it really such a matter of indifference, as if there were no moral differences in the status of citizens over against foreigners here? We have millions here who not only parasitize in an expanding circle of aggression, but who cannot even be expected to be loyal, which is another significant difference.Added later:Between Foreigners And Citizens, There Exists Another Great Moral And Political Difference Relative To Penalties...The foreigner has usable foreign connections in terms of deportability, while the citizen only rarely does. The possibilities for sentencing a foreigner here thus include deportation: for life, for a term of years, with dependents or without, with assistance for resettlement or without, and more. If citizens have usable foreign connections then perhaps, universal or isonomic rules could apply to all residents regardless of citizenship, relative to deportability for having increased the aggression here. In any case, the above demonstrates a large and significant moral and political difference between [A] foreigners and [B] citizens without usable foreign connections, relative to a penalty of deportation. As to the objection that citizens don't get deported so why should foreigners; actually citizens do sometimes get deported, as when they have been shown to have used fraud to obtain citizenship and are otherwise criminals subject to deportation, and much more along these lines may be done.And this:The concept of rights is deceptive if it does not mean that we each have a right to freedom from aggression, and that it not be increased on us. If an incoming foreigner increases the aggression within the borders, this takes away from our freedom from aggression and that cannot be his right to do, intentionally, negligently or otherwise. If his claim to be allowed to do so, is that he does not have a government which will protect his rights to the same extent as here; that is not known to be our obligation to remedy. If it could be proven that the citizens of whichever countries have more rights-respecting governments, are obliged to allow the increase of aggression upon fellow citizens, in order to give some extra protection to the foreigner who is relatively lacking in it, why wouldn't this demonstration be attempted? The ordinary answer is that we tolerate the immigrant who increases the aggression here, because we can, and his suffering on return, would be worse than the evil which he does here, even though public personalities will rarely admit that an immigrant can do significant evil here. This raises the question of the posting's title: 'Should The Suffering Of All The World Be Spread More Equally Just Because We Can Alleviate Some That Way?' It is not known to be our responsibility to do this. Citizens, including officials, have a responsibility to fellow nationals, not to increase the aggression on these, to whom loyalty is owed, in order to alleviate the suffering of foreigners. There is no degree of suffering of the foreigner, which could be lessened by increasing the aggression on citizens such as the net taxpayers here, which could balance out the damage done by allowing increase of aggression here, to take care of the foreigner here or there.
& U.S. view on international law & a map on Wikipedia & further "Any State Party hereto may denounce this Protocol at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations." as quoted here No. 97-1754: INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre - Appendix (Merits)Protocol Relating to the Status of RefugeesFrom an earlier post regarding assisted immigration of Islamic polygamists , an illustration.That governments are trying to get away with something as traitorous and destructive as this, means that failing to question their motives in the harshest possible terms, is itself a betrayal.
If Further & Further Degrees Of Outbreeding Are Valuable In Themselves Why Has Obama Needed Affirmative Action...
...and special tolerance or omerta, from the major media, to cover up his being one of the furthest left in the senate, and his extremely unsavory connections? Association with terrorists, corrupt fixers and professional race-demagogues would sink any non-minority candidacy; therefore he is still getting a kind of affirmative action, though not a legally mandatory one.
If Obama himself is a sort of hybrid vigor specimen, or symbolic of it, why the ever-so-delicate hothouse treatment of special protection, from the cold blasts of public criticism, that all politicians are supposed to be hardy enough to survive?
From earlier posts: Obama Is Implicated In Directing Contributions To Terrorist Support Networks
"Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer. Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization"from OBAMA WATCH of April 11th, and the Source more details from ANDREW C. MCCARTHY: “The Company He Keeps” Addition from an earlier post:
Part Of The Explanation Of The Rise Of Obama From Leftist Obscurity?
W. D. Hamilton wrote that the "majority of people are dissatisfied, wishing they were higher up, a thought which provides a basic reason why democracies (and especially, within democracies, such institutions as their state school systems) have to be unstable. We see a wobbly pyramid, and particularly within that pyramid we see certain side stairs all human examples have by which demagogues skip up a level or two so as to shout down to the restless base that the whole structure is somehow ‘wrong’. Under a different system, the demagogue shouts, ‘You could be higher too’". The following link provides a summary and access to the complete text: isteve.blogspot.com/2005/09/from-beyond-grave.html Of course this leaves out of account the consideration of whether 'certain side stairs' have got 'black only' or other such restriction enforced on them, but that's another question.
Only Toothless Yahoos Suffering Economic Marginalization Would Reject Obama
... and be stuck in bitterness, clinging to religion and guns, opposing free trade in stolen goods from the Chinese despotism, and even defying the view that the immigration cohorts can never be blamed for anything? Imagine how un-cosmopolitan small-town America must really be, if they don't like people who are different from themselves, such as terrorists or polygamous immigrants? How could they be so backward as to treat marriage as serious, are they racist or something? Why don't they see that power-seekers really want to help them, and could, if only they could get past their bigotry? All right, I know that Obama didn't actually say the above, but it's much the same as if he did, the attitude and context make it obvious enough.The left swoons over Obama insofar as he represents the hope for change toward MINORITY RULE, which is indispensable if one wants to get the majority out of the way of one's power-greed. To see them as obstacles, will also cause one to develop a negative attitude towards them, as in the above characterization of a leftist, liberal or Obamanable view of the 'yahoos'.
Additionally, from several days ago, some further Obamanables:A pledged delegate of Obama's has been pushed to resign and has been effectively DISOWNED, for trying to talk her neighbor's children out of a dangerous tree-climbing position, in which she compared their activity to that of monkeys. The ex-muslim Jeremiah Wright, of Obama's church of anti-caucasianism, from the black liberation theology of the exterminationist Cone, can't be disowned, though. From What is the opposite of a mensch, By L. Auster of View From the Right,"He excuses the three decade-long vile hate career of Farrakhan pal Jeremiah Wright as mere 'snippets' unfairly picked out by a hostile media, after saying a year ago that Don Imus should be fired for one insulting comment. And now he fires one of his pledged delegates for something far less serious than Imus’s remark—something, indeed, that probably was not even intended as an insult."An article in the New Republic reports that Obama "taught Alinsky's concepts and methods", and that Wright came from Islam, before becoming a minister. See Lizza's "Agitator"[continued in comments section]
If Obama himself is a sort of hybrid vigor specimen, or symbolic of it, why the ever-so-delicate hothouse treatment of special protection, from the cold blasts of public criticism, that all politicians are supposed to be hardy enough to survive?
From earlier posts: Obama Is Implicated In Directing Contributions To Terrorist Support Networks
"Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer. Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization"from OBAMA WATCH of April 11th, and the Source more details from ANDREW C. MCCARTHY: “The Company He Keeps” Addition from an earlier post:
Part Of The Explanation Of The Rise Of Obama From Leftist Obscurity?
W. D. Hamilton wrote that the "majority of people are dissatisfied, wishing they were higher up, a thought which provides a basic reason why democracies (and especially, within democracies, such institutions as their state school systems) have to be unstable. We see a wobbly pyramid, and particularly within that pyramid we see certain side stairs all human examples have by which demagogues skip up a level or two so as to shout down to the restless base that the whole structure is somehow ‘wrong’. Under a different system, the demagogue shouts, ‘You could be higher too’". The following link provides a summary and access to the complete text: isteve.blogspot.com/2005/09/from-beyond-grave.html Of course this leaves out of account the consideration of whether 'certain side stairs' have got 'black only' or other such restriction enforced on them, but that's another question.
Only Toothless Yahoos Suffering Economic Marginalization Would Reject Obama
... and be stuck in bitterness, clinging to religion and guns, opposing free trade in stolen goods from the Chinese despotism, and even defying the view that the immigration cohorts can never be blamed for anything? Imagine how un-cosmopolitan small-town America must really be, if they don't like people who are different from themselves, such as terrorists or polygamous immigrants? How could they be so backward as to treat marriage as serious, are they racist or something? Why don't they see that power-seekers really want to help them, and could, if only they could get past their bigotry? All right, I know that Obama didn't actually say the above, but it's much the same as if he did, the attitude and context make it obvious enough.The left swoons over Obama insofar as he represents the hope for change toward MINORITY RULE, which is indispensable if one wants to get the majority out of the way of one's power-greed. To see them as obstacles, will also cause one to develop a negative attitude towards them, as in the above characterization of a leftist, liberal or Obamanable view of the 'yahoos'.
Additionally, from several days ago, some further Obamanables:A pledged delegate of Obama's has been pushed to resign and has been effectively DISOWNED, for trying to talk her neighbor's children out of a dangerous tree-climbing position, in which she compared their activity to that of monkeys. The ex-muslim Jeremiah Wright, of Obama's church of anti-caucasianism, from the black liberation theology of the exterminationist Cone, can't be disowned, though. From What is the opposite of a mensch, By L. Auster of View From the Right,"He excuses the three decade-long vile hate career of Farrakhan pal Jeremiah Wright as mere 'snippets' unfairly picked out by a hostile media, after saying a year ago that Don Imus should be fired for one insulting comment. And now he fires one of his pledged delegates for something far less serious than Imus’s remark—something, indeed, that probably was not even intended as an insult."An article in the New Republic reports that Obama "taught Alinsky's concepts and methods", and that Wright came from Islam, before becoming a minister. See Lizza's "Agitator"[continued in comments section]
Monday, April 14, 2008
First Public Showing Of Quota Admissions Inducing A Hugely Elevated Drop-Out Rate In Elite Higher Education Among Disadvantaged Minorities
UCLA Law Professor Richard Sander: "...had submitted his preliminary findings to the court, including the revelation that minority students at the UM Law School failed the bar at more than eight times the rate of white students..." [from this article by Terry Pell as found on Discriminations ] "Undergraduate blacks at the UM who were admitted without a preference had a graduation rate of 93% [...] In stark contrast, UM undergraduate blacks who received a preference had a graduation rate of 47%."[ JB interjects: 7% to 53% is almost an EIGHT-FOLD RISE in the drop-out rate from one group to the other, Obama is in the underqualified group relative to such policies] "It was thus possible for Sander to compare, for the first time, the academic records of UM undergraduate minorities who did not receive a racial preference with those who undoubtedly did."
Officials and their professoriate use this churning, failure and enhanced resentment to build up conflict on a population-genetic basis, since the more conflict can be got going, the greater the chances for dictatorship and planning a theoretically elegant anthill society, to gratify power-greed, malice, and the liking for freedom-for-aggression.
Added 7-12-08 from: Thursday, July 10, 2008
Hearing Some Big Bad Dogs That Didn't Bark
According to those who ask us to value openness to Diversity, the majority was suppressing minority creativity and native genius. This was done by exclusion supposedly, and ignore for now, the contradictions in implying that more access to majority culture, was the one needful ingredient for minority genius to flower. First, compare to this quote:"Socialism will bring in an efflorescence of morality, civilization, and science such as has never been seen in the history of the world.”from Ferdinand Lassalle. [as found here] It would be hard to find any such bold statements on the pro-diversity side, predicting such a flowering to come from quota recruitment or mass immigration from the tropics. There was an expectation that bringing one-half of mankind, meaning women, out of 'exclusion' from lack of quotas would yield an egalitarian doubling.Several decades later, no such 'efflorescence' has appeared, but rather an absence of great breakthroughs characterizes the New Era of Diversity Quotas. Not only is there no burst of momentous breakthroughs in this period, but Clive Crook reports that:"Broadly speaking, educational quality has topped out - and on at least one measure, it is actually deteriorating. In 2006, Americans aged 55-59 collectively possessed more masters degrees, professional degrees and doctorates than Americans aged 30-34. This impending loss of educational capital is entirely outside the country's experience."Our greatest of vetted watchdogs, though, remain as silent on this non-flowering of Diversity, as they had, for generations, been on the non-'efflorescence' of Socialism.'Terminate experiment. Sacrifice'...the pro-diversity that is forced on us. It is not too early to judge the experiment to have failed.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Officials and their professoriate use this churning, failure and enhanced resentment to build up conflict on a population-genetic basis, since the more conflict can be got going, the greater the chances for dictatorship and planning a theoretically elegant anthill society, to gratify power-greed, malice, and the liking for freedom-for-aggression.
Added 7-12-08 from: Thursday, July 10, 2008
Hearing Some Big Bad Dogs That Didn't Bark
According to those who ask us to value openness to Diversity, the majority was suppressing minority creativity and native genius. This was done by exclusion supposedly, and ignore for now, the contradictions in implying that more access to majority culture, was the one needful ingredient for minority genius to flower. First, compare to this quote:"Socialism will bring in an efflorescence of morality, civilization, and science such as has never been seen in the history of the world.”from Ferdinand Lassalle. [as found here] It would be hard to find any such bold statements on the pro-diversity side, predicting such a flowering to come from quota recruitment or mass immigration from the tropics. There was an expectation that bringing one-half of mankind, meaning women, out of 'exclusion' from lack of quotas would yield an egalitarian doubling.Several decades later, no such 'efflorescence' has appeared, but rather an absence of great breakthroughs characterizes the New Era of Diversity Quotas. Not only is there no burst of momentous breakthroughs in this period, but Clive Crook reports that:"Broadly speaking, educational quality has topped out - and on at least one measure, it is actually deteriorating. In 2006, Americans aged 55-59 collectively possessed more masters degrees, professional degrees and doctorates than Americans aged 30-34. This impending loss of educational capital is entirely outside the country's experience."Our greatest of vetted watchdogs, though, remain as silent on this non-flowering of Diversity, as they had, for generations, been on the non-'efflorescence' of Socialism.'Terminate experiment. Sacrifice'...the pro-diversity that is forced on us. It is not too early to judge the experiment to have failed.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Edwin Rubinstein Finds $100 Billion Lost In Taxes From Income Reductions Caused By Immigration Cohorts
As the Washington Times reports it here : '$100 billion in federal taxes lost “from the reduction of native incomes caused by immigrant workers.”' This is something new which I don't recall being spoken of before. A class of citizens has lower incomes on account of recent mass immigration of low quality, and this reduces the level of taxes that they pay. There is no way the immigration cohorts cannot be responsible for this.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Bold Ann Coulter Breaks The Obama Omerta With Killer Quotes
From "Obama's Dimestore 'Mein Kampf'" as found on OBAMA WATCH, [Source]
1st- Coulter quotes Obama's conclusions on having to live with the "white man's rules" as follows:
"Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."
[p.85 of Obama's Dreams...] This implies that the black man should have a special freedom-for-aggression and exemption from rationality on a racial basis. It implies also that lack of black supremacy is a defeat and a caged life.
2nd- "As Obama says: 'Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.' Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?"
JB comments further: No, I don't think the major media would fail to find and make the most of such statements in that case; which demonstrates a sort of code of silence is in effect, a racial omerta, broken only by the far right and some rare bold ones elsewhere.
Let us note especially that almost the entire leadership of our society, professoriate, officialdom and others, whose solemn responsibility it is to know and warn of disguised special pleaders on this level, are maintaining depraved, complicit silence on the above.
FrontPage also has the above piece Friday, March 4th.
Some handy background on racial resentment and its sources: "Autumn 2007 issue of the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (page 68) published the fact that in 2007, the average SAT score of Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 a year (the lowest category) is 32 points higher than the average SAT score of Blacks from families with incomes above $100,000 a year (the highest category). " found at affirmativeactionhoax.com's Corrections and Additions
1st- Coulter quotes Obama's conclusions on having to live with the "white man's rules" as follows:
"Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."
[p.85 of Obama's Dreams...] This implies that the black man should have a special freedom-for-aggression and exemption from rationality on a racial basis. It implies also that lack of black supremacy is a defeat and a caged life.
2nd- "As Obama says: 'Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.' Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?"
JB comments further: No, I don't think the major media would fail to find and make the most of such statements in that case; which demonstrates a sort of code of silence is in effect, a racial omerta, broken only by the far right and some rare bold ones elsewhere.
Let us note especially that almost the entire leadership of our society, professoriate, officialdom and others, whose solemn responsibility it is to know and warn of disguised special pleaders on this level, are maintaining depraved, complicit silence on the above.
FrontPage also has the above piece Friday, March 4th.
Some handy background on racial resentment and its sources: "Autumn 2007 issue of the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (page 68) published the fact that in 2007, the average SAT score of Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 a year (the lowest category) is 32 points higher than the average SAT score of Blacks from families with incomes above $100,000 a year (the highest category). " found at affirmativeactionhoax.com's Corrections and Additions
Friday, April 4, 2008
What Is State-Sponsored Pro-Diversity For?
The greater the discordance that can be pushed into a grouping, the more pro-diversity that will be. To value additional increments of diversity on account of their diversity or discordance alone, is also to value increase of discord. This cannot be done without contradiction, though, as the pro-diversity doctrine itself is exempt from being required to value discordance from its own value-statement. Likewise, and with obvious self-contradiction, the pro-diversity regime, as a pragmatic affair, can only value increase of diversity and discord, up to a point. That point is reached NO LATER THAN the moment when conflict is florid enough to allow for the imposition of dictatorship. Inductively, recall if there is not a very strong pattern, in which pro-diversity is urged on those polities insofar as they have been resistant to despotism, over recent decades, or even across centuries.
Turn it the other way as well: insofar as a country has been inured to despotism long-term, that country is the less likely to have pro-diversity urged on it. Reflection on this should largely answer the question: What is state-sponsored pro-diversity for?
Added 7-11-08 from: Monday, July 7, 2008
The Powerful Are Pro-Diversity Not In Spite Of, But Because Of, Civil War Potentials Like This...
Innocents caught in crossfire in cities from coast to coast The race war aspects are to the power-greedy, not bugs, but features. Government aggressors, cheered on by scholars and media, have long tried to juxtapose incompatible groups, as much as can be got away with. If war is the health of the state, civil war is the flourishing State. The more pervasive and worse the conflict, the more power is to be had from overseeing it. The more that diversity can be maximized, and distance between ever more irreconcilable groups, can be forcibly minimized; the more conflict and power is to be won. Few rise to the top of power hierarchies without knowing all of this. The limit is only on what can be got away with here and now, which is often a question of whether the smartest are on their side with conflict-enhancement or not. Therefore, to chasten officialdom for such malpractices, we need smart and educated people to speak up, and in a knowing and accusing way. Like this: Officials, we know your enthusiasm for mass immigration of hostiles is about power-greed, to be gratified via war and dictatorship.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 8-9-08 from: Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Unleashing The Savage On The Unsuspecting Civilized: What Motivates The Passion To Do It?
(1)There exists malice without even the least hope of personal gain. With that, there is no trail of Benjamins or even pennies, to follow, as for explaining motivations.
(2)There is the taste for freedom-FOR-aggression, one which maliciously delights not only in its own possibilities for aggression, but broadly takes cheer in almost anyone's freedom for aggression, with only one exception. That exception is the kind of latitude for aggression, that allows for acts of literal aggression, which yet have the effect of limiting or opposing someone else's aggression. Vigilantes, pre-emptive strikes against known aggressors, official malfeasances against obvious criminals; all these are howled against by those whose sympathy is deeply committed to freedom-for-aggression in general. This is the echt-liberal attitude. It is diagnostic or definitive of it, since the particular political positions change with the times. The racial progressive of today is very different from one of 100 years ago.
(3)Most of all, there is power-greed, especially of officials. This is the largest and most important motivation explaining the question posed at the outset, because it is situated so as to gain mightily from a feedback mechanism between the growth of government power and government schools' employment, pay scales and prestige at the upper levels. When you have more power to unleash savages on the innocent or better people, you have more power. Power means getting others to do or suffer, what they do NOT want to do. If you get them to do what they want, what you have is not power. What is not wanted, is to be made to suffer damage. Accordingly, the mark of power is to be able to cause others to suffer damage.
Added Tuesday from: Saturday, August 2, 2008
Why Following The Money Trail & The Electoral Stratagems' Trails Leads Into A Cul-De-Sac
As found on Dissecting Leftism from here "According to the IRS data[...] The top 25% of Americans earned 68% of the nation's income, but paid 86% of the nation's taxes. And astonishingly, the top 50% of American earners brought in 88% of income dollars, but paid 97% of all income taxes in this country." From http://lonewacko.com/blog/:
Pew Hispanic: interest in immigration lags behind education, cost of living, jobs, healthcare, and crime
where this quote is to be found, regarding Hispanic views on "which candidate is better for immigrants: BHO leads 50% to 12%. The outliers from that 12% are those making more than $75,000 per year (40% for BHO vs 27% for McCain) and Republicans (28% for BHO, 35% for McCain)"Are McCain or the national republican party about to change, in light of the above information? Of course not, they'd rather lose elections than be too much in the way of someone's power-greed. Consider the "follow the money" trail, as an insight into politics; how can it explain the figures on taxes given above? The distribution is far from what would be expected then, impossibly far from it. If the rich could often turn money into power, taxpaying shares, and expenditures' levels, would be exceedingly different. Electoral considerations are also not relevant, to the extent that the majority is an obstacle in the way of officials' power-greed , its preferences are disregarded. Examples to prove this are racial quotas for the disadvantaged minorities, and the mass immigration of those eligible for it, forced integration, and segregation of those slated for 'bilingual education', privilege for Islam, disadvantageous international agreements, and whatever else shows high elite divergence from popular views. Neither money nor democracy can explain these divergences of policy preferences, between the rulers and the ruled, but power-greed of officials easily can.
Added 8-06-08 from an earlier comment: ...This makes for a bond between them and any sort of violent criminals, as the street level ones soften the people up to accept more power, to be won by the power-greedy elites of today. It's the elites of power, and not the money ones. Punishing the rich doesn't get at the problem, since that would be only another way of handing too easily to the power-greedy what they're trying to get by other means.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 9-16-08 from : Monday, September 15, 2008
The Diversity Also Means Those With The Lowest Standards
regarding the conditions for having children. The diversity is the disadvantaged minorities, for the most part. The disadvantaged minorities, as for being the Diversity which is to be valued, are downside-divergent especially for their very low standards in terms of the minimum conditions in which they will have children. This is the diversity we're supposed to celebrate and value openness to. Malice and power-greed can explain such a nihilistic impulse, but there is no way to square it with loyalty to civilization. Such a pseudo-value works for the destruction of the more civilized insofar as they have higher standards, and it aims at their biological destruction or absorption into what is much lower. The diversity is population-genetically distinct, since class diversity is excluded.
Turn it the other way as well: insofar as a country has been inured to despotism long-term, that country is the less likely to have pro-diversity urged on it. Reflection on this should largely answer the question: What is state-sponsored pro-diversity for?
Added 7-11-08 from: Monday, July 7, 2008
The Powerful Are Pro-Diversity Not In Spite Of, But Because Of, Civil War Potentials Like This...
Innocents caught in crossfire in cities from coast to coast The race war aspects are to the power-greedy, not bugs, but features. Government aggressors, cheered on by scholars and media, have long tried to juxtapose incompatible groups, as much as can be got away with. If war is the health of the state, civil war is the flourishing State. The more pervasive and worse the conflict, the more power is to be had from overseeing it. The more that diversity can be maximized, and distance between ever more irreconcilable groups, can be forcibly minimized; the more conflict and power is to be won. Few rise to the top of power hierarchies without knowing all of this. The limit is only on what can be got away with here and now, which is often a question of whether the smartest are on their side with conflict-enhancement or not. Therefore, to chasten officialdom for such malpractices, we need smart and educated people to speak up, and in a knowing and accusing way. Like this: Officials, we know your enthusiasm for mass immigration of hostiles is about power-greed, to be gratified via war and dictatorship.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 8-9-08 from: Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Unleashing The Savage On The Unsuspecting Civilized: What Motivates The Passion To Do It?
(1)There exists malice without even the least hope of personal gain. With that, there is no trail of Benjamins or even pennies, to follow, as for explaining motivations.
(2)There is the taste for freedom-FOR-aggression, one which maliciously delights not only in its own possibilities for aggression, but broadly takes cheer in almost anyone's freedom for aggression, with only one exception. That exception is the kind of latitude for aggression, that allows for acts of literal aggression, which yet have the effect of limiting or opposing someone else's aggression. Vigilantes, pre-emptive strikes against known aggressors, official malfeasances against obvious criminals; all these are howled against by those whose sympathy is deeply committed to freedom-for-aggression in general. This is the echt-liberal attitude. It is diagnostic or definitive of it, since the particular political positions change with the times. The racial progressive of today is very different from one of 100 years ago.
(3)Most of all, there is power-greed, especially of officials. This is the largest and most important motivation explaining the question posed at the outset, because it is situated so as to gain mightily from a feedback mechanism between the growth of government power and government schools' employment, pay scales and prestige at the upper levels. When you have more power to unleash savages on the innocent or better people, you have more power. Power means getting others to do or suffer, what they do NOT want to do. If you get them to do what they want, what you have is not power. What is not wanted, is to be made to suffer damage. Accordingly, the mark of power is to be able to cause others to suffer damage.
Added Tuesday from: Saturday, August 2, 2008
Why Following The Money Trail & The Electoral Stratagems' Trails Leads Into A Cul-De-Sac
As found on Dissecting Leftism from here "According to the IRS data[...] The top 25% of Americans earned 68% of the nation's income, but paid 86% of the nation's taxes. And astonishingly, the top 50% of American earners brought in 88% of income dollars, but paid 97% of all income taxes in this country." From http://lonewacko.com/blog/:
Pew Hispanic: interest in immigration lags behind education, cost of living, jobs, healthcare, and crime
where this quote is to be found, regarding Hispanic views on "which candidate is better for immigrants: BHO leads 50% to 12%. The outliers from that 12% are those making more than $75,000 per year (40% for BHO vs 27% for McCain) and Republicans (28% for BHO, 35% for McCain)"Are McCain or the national republican party about to change, in light of the above information? Of course not, they'd rather lose elections than be too much in the way of someone's power-greed. Consider the "follow the money" trail, as an insight into politics; how can it explain the figures on taxes given above? The distribution is far from what would be expected then, impossibly far from it. If the rich could often turn money into power, taxpaying shares, and expenditures' levels, would be exceedingly different. Electoral considerations are also not relevant, to the extent that the majority is an obstacle in the way of officials' power-greed , its preferences are disregarded. Examples to prove this are racial quotas for the disadvantaged minorities, and the mass immigration of those eligible for it, forced integration, and segregation of those slated for 'bilingual education', privilege for Islam, disadvantageous international agreements, and whatever else shows high elite divergence from popular views. Neither money nor democracy can explain these divergences of policy preferences, between the rulers and the ruled, but power-greed of officials easily can.
Added 8-06-08 from an earlier comment: ...This makes for a bond between them and any sort of violent criminals, as the street level ones soften the people up to accept more power, to be won by the power-greedy elites of today. It's the elites of power, and not the money ones. Punishing the rich doesn't get at the problem, since that would be only another way of handing too easily to the power-greedy what they're trying to get by other means.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 9-16-08 from : Monday, September 15, 2008
The Diversity Also Means Those With The Lowest Standards
regarding the conditions for having children. The diversity is the disadvantaged minorities, for the most part. The disadvantaged minorities, as for being the Diversity which is to be valued, are downside-divergent especially for their very low standards in terms of the minimum conditions in which they will have children. This is the diversity we're supposed to celebrate and value openness to. Malice and power-greed can explain such a nihilistic impulse, but there is no way to square it with loyalty to civilization. Such a pseudo-value works for the destruction of the more civilized insofar as they have higher standards, and it aims at their biological destruction or absorption into what is much lower. The diversity is population-genetically distinct, since class diversity is excluded.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Anti-Caucasianism As Un-Newsworthy, Unobjectionable & Even Worshippable For A Major Party Presidential Candidate
Added from a post from: Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Anti-Jurisprudence Of Anti-Caucasianism
One only has to identify it one or two times, and its predictable character will stand out every time. As with the first few anti-artists of a given formerly fine art, the potential for large originality in the 'jurisprudence' of anti-caucasianism drops rapidly away to zero. There are no redeeming features in anti-caucasianism. It liberates nothing but freedom-for-aggression. The major media figures, in refusing to snitch on Obama, may be largely signalling their cool anti-caucasianism to each other, and to officialdom and professoriate.
Combined 6-16-08 from: Saturday, June 7, 2008The United States Of Anti-Caucasianism, To The Extent That It Is So.. .feels that it subsists in captivity (to the man), and looks for redemption, to the Obamanable. Redeeming its 'nobly' anti-caucasian non-identity from such captivity, would be racial and complete redemption in and of itself, simply because the Obamanable is not white. Bootlicking Europeans are thronging on bridges, to express their message that Obama is a natural 'bridge'. If mixed-race background is what being a natural bridge consists in, race would be everything, though. Likewise, if the Obamanable's non-white status, makes him a redeemer in and of itself; race would be everything. Liberal thought thus descends conspicuously into the subhuman realm, where ideas don't exist even enough to distinguish one person from another; only race does. The captivity that is especially hoped to be 'redeemed'-from, is that which prevents the state power from equalizing the prestige, of the multi-generationally unequal.
Posted by John S. Bolton at 8:36 PM 2 comments:Audacious Epigone said...Obsessed with something that doesn't exist. Believing they have elevated IQs but that IQ doesn't actually exist as a measurable quantity. And on and on. The contradictions in leftist thinking are legion.June 12, 2008 9:05 AM John S. Bolton said...Few are as obvious as that anti-caucasianism is the true anti-racism. Unless it were the one that implies that the truly superior are those who maintain that no one is better than anyone else.
Posted by John S. Bolton at 2:31 AM
Why the omerta on how extreme the racial hatred is, that Obama has found to be sacralizable for decades, attending as communicant and worshipper, and even now, refusing to disown?
Does this mean that our major media are as corrupt as participants in the omerta which conceals a vicious, subhuman organized crime operation? How can they be trusted if they will not publicize Obama's association with unreason so extreme, it calls for racial mass murder, and to empower a minority?
From Auster's VFR:
"« Obama's church is explicitly founded on exterminationist anti-white theology
I saw this in the Washington Times:
Trinity United Church of Christ's Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book "Black Theology and Black Power."
Cone's book states that:
What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.... black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
I did a google search for <<>>
and found this on the Talking Points page at the Trinity United Church website:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.
Previously we had learned that Jeremiah Wright based his teachings on Cone's writings, but it wasn't established that Wright actually mentioned Cone by name in his sermons, so Obama might not have known about Cone. Now we find out that the church officially states that its teachings are based on Cone's. "
JB comments: The majority interest is a major roadblock before schemes of power-greed.
Has any professor in the pay of the government raised an alarm over the Cone-Obama connection? If not, that tells one how corrupted the government schools must be, and indicates how to explain the above.
The Anti-Jurisprudence Of Anti-Caucasianism
One only has to identify it one or two times, and its predictable character will stand out every time. As with the first few anti-artists of a given formerly fine art, the potential for large originality in the 'jurisprudence' of anti-caucasianism drops rapidly away to zero. There are no redeeming features in anti-caucasianism. It liberates nothing but freedom-for-aggression. The major media figures, in refusing to snitch on Obama, may be largely signalling their cool anti-caucasianism to each other, and to officialdom and professoriate.
Combined 6-16-08 from: Saturday, June 7, 2008The United States Of Anti-Caucasianism, To The Extent That It Is So.. .feels that it subsists in captivity (to the man), and looks for redemption, to the Obamanable. Redeeming its 'nobly' anti-caucasian non-identity from such captivity, would be racial and complete redemption in and of itself, simply because the Obamanable is not white. Bootlicking Europeans are thronging on bridges, to express their message that Obama is a natural 'bridge'. If mixed-race background is what being a natural bridge consists in, race would be everything, though. Likewise, if the Obamanable's non-white status, makes him a redeemer in and of itself; race would be everything. Liberal thought thus descends conspicuously into the subhuman realm, where ideas don't exist even enough to distinguish one person from another; only race does. The captivity that is especially hoped to be 'redeemed'-from, is that which prevents the state power from equalizing the prestige, of the multi-generationally unequal.
Posted by John S. Bolton at 8:36 PM 2 comments:Audacious Epigone said...Obsessed with something that doesn't exist. Believing they have elevated IQs but that IQ doesn't actually exist as a measurable quantity. And on and on. The contradictions in leftist thinking are legion.June 12, 2008 9:05 AM John S. Bolton said...Few are as obvious as that anti-caucasianism is the true anti-racism. Unless it were the one that implies that the truly superior are those who maintain that no one is better than anyone else.
Posted by John S. Bolton at 2:31 AM
Why the omerta on how extreme the racial hatred is, that Obama has found to be sacralizable for decades, attending as communicant and worshipper, and even now, refusing to disown?
Does this mean that our major media are as corrupt as participants in the omerta which conceals a vicious, subhuman organized crime operation? How can they be trusted if they will not publicize Obama's association with unreason so extreme, it calls for racial mass murder, and to empower a minority?
From Auster's VFR:
"« Obama's church is explicitly founded on exterminationist anti-white theology
I saw this in the Washington Times:
Trinity United Church of Christ's Web site says its teachings are based on the black liberation theology of James H. Cone and his 1969 book "Black Theology and Black Power."
Cone's book states that:
What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.... black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
I did a google search for <<>>
and found this on the Talking Points page at the Trinity United Church website:
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology.
Previously we had learned that Jeremiah Wright based his teachings on Cone's writings, but it wasn't established that Wright actually mentioned Cone by name in his sermons, so Obama might not have known about Cone. Now we find out that the church officially states that its teachings are based on Cone's. "
JB comments: The majority interest is a major roadblock before schemes of power-greed.
Has any professor in the pay of the government raised an alarm over the Cone-Obama connection? If not, that tells one how corrupted the government schools must be, and indicates how to explain the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
