An Astonishingly Warlike Political Statement Of Openness-Valorization

Here are some quotes from a current debate between myself and a Live Journal user called Rational Passion: [JB]'If your position's wrong, civilization is overrun, if sovereignty and discrimination are wrong, [a great many] foreigners don't get immigration visas. '
[RP] "...a civilization that can only muster the will to defend itself on the basis of racism and xenophobia is a society that deserves to be overrun and will be overrun ..."
[RP again] "What I hold is that the self-interest of the USA is best advanced by a world system of free trade and open immigration, with the constant threat of annihilation made by the USA to any nation that interferes with said system."
[JB] 'If Americans are violating the claimed rights of prospective immigrants, by debarring hundreds of millions of them, wouldn't that make us the largest violator of rights in the world, and morally ineligible to wield "constant threat of annihilation", or is everything relative on the rights landscape? Is "self-interest of the USA" a collectivist, holistic one, or merely the sum of the interests of the existing citizens? Don't actual Americans need to have the level of aggression not be increased here, as by foreigners entering in a way which does increase that level? Why the "only... racism and xenophobia" description, [which is] so much like New Left smearing. The left has no rational argument for being given more power, what does it make others look like if they duplicate the left in that way? Is the above use of 'xenophobia' a diagnosis, faux-diagnosis or a smear? Stout defense does not embolden adversaries...' Link
Added 5-30-08: If No Conflict Of Interest May Be Thought To Exist...
...where the true interest of everyone is thought to be of the highest, and the most considerate of future consequences; is it still in the interest of the prospective immigrant to move here in a way that would entrain the increase of aggression on the net taxpayers of our citizenry? That is, when interest is defined as above, and the prospective immigrant then, cannot see doing any damage to a more civilized country as good for his interest, in that sense. Either there are really no conflicts of interest, as suggested above, or there really are insoluble ones. In either case, the prospective immigrant may be excluded when he would damage interests here. Civilization is in danger now because of the small extent allowed to it, and the very large numbers who would gladly move in and destroy what is left. This is why no significant increase in the level of aggression can be safely tolerated here and now, nor for generations to come.

Combined 6-16-08 from: Friday, May 30, 2008

Major Media News Blackout On Terroristic Tactics By Mass Immigrationists
Why has this been covered almost exclusively in rarefied precincts of the internet: Assassination threats against Tom Tancredo Those who take the side of immigrants can't be terrorists? What if Islamic immigration itself is a terror offensive against civilization?

Obama Has Disowned The Black Community?

...or has he actually not disowned that racial arsonist Jeremiah Wright? It can't be both, since he said in his supposedly historical Philadelphia speech that he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community. If the media do not hold Obama to account for this contradiction, and make him choose one or the other, this demonstrates both dishonesty and a subjective commitment to that candidacy, which is most unseemly and alien to our nation. Combining yesterday's post: Obama Needs An Anti-Snitch Rule To Be Strictly Observed
...especially by the major media. His connections to terrorists like Ayers, and professional race-baiters, like the black-liberationists, and so much more, have to be kept quiet. This is also the meaning of the oft-cited public 'revulsion' against negative campaigning, even when it is more than justified. A large part of the public has the anti-snitch hatred, often to the exclusion of moral values of significance. Recall that, the worse someone is, the more he gets out of a refusal to bring up negatives. It's hard to think of a more anti-moral proceeding, than one which rewards the bad in proportion as they are bad, and power-greedy.
Combined 6-16-08 from: Monday, June 2, 2008

Wild Leftists Were Obama's Springboard & He Remains Beholden
to them, but not to those who are so easily tricked that they will obviously accept any excuse for non-performance. He will remain beholden, not only to the hyper-racialized New Left nihilists, but especially, to the racial patronage quota system that propelled him to proximity to the top. His chump change followers will get to keep hope alive. Rick Moran says:"Obama's relationships with radicals should be setting off alarm bells in every newsroom in America. The question of how the press can continue to portray Obama as a 'bridge' between the races when his closest spiritual advisors are out and out bigots is amazing - and frightening. If the press is that much in the bag for Obama, what else would they be capable of hiding for the candidate? It isn't just Obama's radical associations. It is the fact that on several occassions in his political career he has made actual political alliances with radical groups. I detail his involvement with a Marxist 'New Party' as well as the anti-capitalist group ACORN here. " Source via OBAMA WATCH
Combining this of mine from: Saturday, May 31, 2008
Obama Applies For The Highest Security Clearance With These Marxist Political Associations
Obama Sought Endorsement of Marxist Third Party in 1996 No major media outlets are going to report this without extreme obfuscation; therefore one must conclude that they put covering-up for leftists above our national security. There needs to be a national boycott of advertised brands, as far as is practical, until the major media are driven down.
Combining from: Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Natural Bridge Of Hybrid Vigor Opposes Referenda Against Quotas...for the disadvantaged in their population-genetic groupings. If the natural bridge is so valuable, and the hybrid vigor so strong, surely someone will be surprised by this development?
From Discriminations:« Obama [...] Supports Preferences-"Obama answered that he opposes efforts to pass constitutional amendments this year in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska to ban affirmative action in state contracting and college admissions."Using state power to force places to act as if they value openness to diversity, is somehow a source and sign of strength, not weakness?
Posted by John S. Bolton at 11:37 PM

2 comments:
Audacious Epigone said...
If the mainstream right-leaning media outlets (WSJ, Fox News, Newsmax, etc) weren't so reflexively disdainful of Hillary Clinton, they could point out how stunningly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton major left-leaning media sources have been in covering the Democratic Presidential campaign. I know it's tabloid-ey of me, but I daydream of being able to talk to Hillary Clinton candidly for 15 minutes or so, to prod her on her reaction to it. I'm hoping, quixotically, that the ascension of Obama will remove the wool from many white Democratic eyes and reveal that the party really is going to become one for non-whites, by non-whites, and that there's no place for them at the table.
June 4, 2008 12:44 PM
John S. Bolton said...
Geraldine Ferraro has in a way, already given that interview. What amazes me is the way these media people seem to act as if they believed that they control what is observable, when they don't. There is an independent array of accessible facts, which is not open to liberal make-believe. In 1972, these same sort of media elements were believing their own propaganda that the majority is on their side. But black supremacy, and anyone who says that's no good is a racist as redefined for the convenience of the moment? The cowardice of the moderate right before nothing more fearsome than liberal smearing, that will happen regardless, is very weak looking. They'll need to get over it soon.
Added 6-26-08 from: Sunday, June 22, 2008

Obama's Nomination As World-Historical Disgrace
This would be our first presidential contest to be all about race. Perhaps the polity might be renamed the racial states of Un-America; this represents such a watershed, to have a racial election for the presidency. I'm not the only one to find fault with this appearance of racial politics at the level of the highest security clearance.
[Lt. Col. Allen] West Answers Obama: "...the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a 'uniter' and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism.
"If the valuing of openness to diversity had good arguments in its favor, why would there be continual and pervasive recourse to smearing all opposition, as driven by racial hatred against the 'diversity'? Those with strong arguments generally don't use such methods, as they don't need to.
I posted this on: Friday, June 20, 2008The Left Picks Issues So As To Smear Opponents As Motivated By Racial Or Population-Genetic Hatred
The power-greedy in general do this, with the left in the forefront always, because there is no sensible argument for a move to the left, nor for any such move, which would greatly increase the power of officials domestically. This is how Obama got favored, and the meaning of it:
Choose an issue so as to smear opponents (as in the title). The issue chosen is whether there should be a black president, yes or no, and no other issues allowed (through major media), and prove you're not racist, and no evasions unless you're running scared. See how this works, and how viciously helpless and incompetent the right is before this approach? Will even one of them, before a large public, say:
You (or they) HAVE to smear opponents (of e.g.-Obama) as driven by racial hatred, BECAUSE there is no argument for more power to be granted (to officials domestically)? No other answer will work though, or none, which is not a variant of the above. Defensiveness and acting wounded looks weak, evasion will be pursued, and so on. Added 21st of 6-08: Now it seems that congressional candidate Col. West may have a reasonably good answer, that will work, though probably not to the extent of stopping the left from using such rhetorical approaches.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 9-27-08 from Thursday, September 25, 2008

Look At Some Pictures Of Young Americans In Uniform, There's No Way You Could Want Terrorist-Friendly Obama...
as their commander-in-chief. Stanley Kurtz (Author Archive) has been showing how deeply intertwined the self-admitted terrorist Ayers and Obama have been, and it looks as though the convicted terrorist Dohrn, working at Obama's lawfirm employer with him, was the go-between. Terrorist-friendliness and being commander-in-chief of the armed forces are not compatible, and the people will not vote for that combination. The major media news blackout on Obama's terrorist-friendly rise from obscurity, is the reason that there isn't already a landslide defeat showing up for him in the polls.
Quoting from Roger Clegg:"For starters, it really cannot be seriously contended that Obama would have been nominated in the first place had he been white. A key part of his attraction, which is his charisma, is his race. Does anyone really believe that he would have attracted the same passionate support had he not been African American, or that any comparably qualified white state legislator would find himself the presidential nominee less than four years later? You don’t have to be Geraldine Ferraro, you don’t have to call this affirmative action, and at this point you don’t even have to oppose Senator Obama, to admit that this happens to be true.Second, and for similar reasons, while there are those who will not vote for Obama in the general election because he is black, there are many who will be voting for him precisely for that reason...." [found on Discriminations]

Political Motivations For Mass Immigration Of Undesirables

Quoting from this article by an insider to the upper levels of this kind of politics:
"Mexican President Luis Echeverría (1970-76), who began the cycle of political violence and economic crisis from which the country has yet to recover, pursued a policy of moving hundreds of thousands of impoverished people from the country’s south to the more prosperous and dynamic northern states, where they remain to this day, mostly in shantytowns. His goal was to neutralize those states’ more active civic culture that threatened his power—as these states were at the time the main source of opposition to his dictatorial ambitions. These pauperized and dependent migrants and their offspring would provide a ready source of votes for the ruling party along with a mobilizeable mass to counter (politically as well as physically) the more civic-oriented middle classes of those northern states and 'crack' their will to challenge his corporatist regime. Along with other extra-constitutional tools (he almost succeeded in canceling the constitution to remain indefinitely as president), migration from undeveloped areas was used by Echeverría as 'politics by other means.' Echeverría, in other words, was the ultimate knave.
Do the U.S. legislators have an overt and well thought-out 'plan,' as Echeverría did? That is unlikely."
There is much to learn from this article, and it especially shines in showing the intermediate measures connecting pragmatically to the ultimate goal driving them on: total power.

Openness To Individuals Without Discrimination Is Not Known To Be A Proper Criterion Of Value

Added 6-16-08
Openness To Individuals Without Discrimination Is Not Known To Be A Proper Criterion Of Value
There is such a large range of circumstances in which such openness would endanger one. Generally, the less you know of someone, the more you might use discrimination based on group averages. With strangers, you know only what they look like, their age, gender, race and not much else. To claim that it is immoral to use that information to save your freedom-FROM-aggression, is not known to be true, but such a claim does serve the cause of freedom-FOR-aggression. One may observe that those who want freedom-for-aggression, because they or their relatives are street criminals, or because they want power (e.g. leftists), are the ones who try to impose anti-discrimination. There is negligible hesitation in using state aggression for the anti-discrimination programs, which invariably favor mainly groups which have higher crime rates, and especially of stranger violence.The more damaging an idea is, the more it must depend on openness and trust, to get spread around. It is this way to such extent, that one does well to suspect, that the more a suggested belief would command openness, trust and anti-discrimination, and specifically regarding strangers; the more damaging that belief will be.
Quoting Daniel Larison on Globalisation :"I am inherently suspicious of people who talk about 'openness,' because this is the sort of rhetorical bludgeon that is used to push policies that do not, in fact, serve the national interest. To be against 'openness' sounds bad, because it suggests that you must want to live in solitary confinement in a dungeon with no doors. Why, you just might be against 'the open society,' which is certainly very bad, even though few societies more effectively condition and police the thinking of their members than the 'open' ones. Part of that conditioning is the deployment of this rhetoric that valorises 'openness.'”
JB comments: One should indeed be suspicious of that which first tells you to value openness, as this is a platform that any sort of false and damaging idea can use to piggyback on, and then close off behind it. Intimidation or browbeating, false dilemma for purposes of smearing, all of these are at least suggested in the above quote, as part of "this rhetoric that valorises 'openness'."
As I said in 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 plausibly 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. [From: The Self-Liquidating Society Which Values Openness & Anti-Discrimination To The End ]
If there's even a slightly suspicious note, as of inconsistency or special pleading, in what you're told, but with urgency on it, your question may well be:
How does this serve the power-greed of officialdom or its professoriate?
Added 6-16-08:
Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Sabotage Of Morals Which Arises From Valuing Openness
Since being open to the worst, is harder than being open to what is not the worst; there are higher openness value-units to be won, by being open to worse and worse things. It is contrary to all nature, to have such an openness-valuing practice; this is why it is only urged on others. Suspiciously, it might be noted, that a mental infectious agent need specify NO MORE THAN: command openness (on others), to spread and parasitize indefinitely far. If a biological infectious agent were able to highly influence a concept or idea so as to get itself transmitted, it would have to be a very simple idea, if possible at all. The extreme simplicity of the imperative mood, with its one-word commands often meaning some physical action, would have to be the prime candidate, since the genetic complexity of viruses and bacteria is very low.
This is why I nominate the command of 'open!' as it could hardly be simpler, it resembles physical action, and it with utmost efficiency, serves the minimum needs of an infectious agent. As for the agent itself, if biological, I would nominate the KSHV/ HHV8 herpesvirus.
Added 7-28-08 from: Saturday, July 26, 2008

Obama The Openness-Valuer Threatens Civilization
Quoted from this source: Obama "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down." Especially disturbing is not only the implication that Israel should be overrun, but that the "walls between the countries with the most and those with the least" should be brought low. This would guarantee the destruction of civilization, as essentially all our investments in higher productivity presuppose that there not be endless additional labor at continually lower rates, to displace that capital and those technologies. When you go backward on technology for many years running and throughout the world, a vortex down into a dark age ensues. This would be Obama's goal, since he also wishes to mobilize hostile Islam against civilization, against Israel, Hellenic Cyprus, and any place else that must wall out the backward and viciously low. Civilization has walls because there are people like Obama's relatives out there; Americans will be too proud to elect that which would have us value openness to the savage. The savage can indeed offer nothing in the way of values, but to try to get the more civilized to be more open to savagery and its migrations.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 7-28-08 from: Sunday, July 27, 2008

Very Vulgar Openness-Idealization From Flat-World Friedman
As found here: The Strategy of Openness, Revisited. The title of this site does allude to the Open Society and its Enemies, but definitely not because Popper had the same idea as Friedman, Blair, Soros and others, rhetorically valuing openness itself and above the minimal standards of civilization. Popper meant by Open Society an open-ENDED one, which had not closed off its options with a rigid theory like Marxist historical determinism. Friedman means just openness as a value which can't be questioned, and which may be forced on other nations as well as on the loyal citizenry here. Valuing openness to aggression and the spread of evils, and flattening resistance would be his implicit ideal. Openness to the bad is not good, no amount of manipulation of fakey ideals like openness can change that. Such an openness-valuing conscience then must be open to every evil, and flattened as flat can be. Since no one can practice that, and live long, it must be case of urging on others what one regards as bad for oneself and one's family. The problem here is not so much hypocrisy, it is that no one can live by openness as an ideal to be applied radically, yet this doesn't get pointed out, but hypocrisy does; which reinforces the fake ideal.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 8-26-08 from: Saturday, August 9, 2008

An Evil Which Proceeds From Basing Political Discourse On The Concept Of Rights
Inevitably one gets deceitfully selective championing of victims of rights violations. When one looks at the individual case too much by itself, or that of some minority group which is said to be hard done by, one loses the context of the overall level of aggression in the society. Political discourse should start from the premise that citizens owe loyalty to each other, in at least that case where the foreigner enters, increasing the overall aggression inside the borders. Next there is the loyalty owed, of citizens to one another, to remain allied against those who would take way from freedom-FROM-aggression, yet who are presumptive citizens until they are killed or imprisoned. In terms of the language of rights, there is a right to freedom from aggression, but only if the alliance of loyalty of citizens to one another, against the foreigner or domestic aggressor who takes way from that right, or would do so, has got established first. Without those sovereign loyalties, rights have yet to obtain in that territory.

Major Media News Blackout On Oklahoma's Demonstration Of Unemployment Reduction Through Discouragement Of Illegal Residence

Why would one have to go to far corners of the internet to find out the following information?
From this Source: "Unemployment in Oklahoma plummets after crackdown on illegals"
"Unemployment rates are rising across the United States, except Oklahoma. That state is experiencing the most dramatic reduction in unemployment since 2007, an improvement many in Oklahoma attribute to the passage last year by the state legislature of a strong employment-focused immigration reform law. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday reported unemployment in Oklahoma had fallen to 3.1 percent in March, down from 4 percent in March last year, while unemployment nationwide was 5.1 percent, up from 4.4 percent in March last year." [ found on IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL ] See also Texas - An end to Illegalities?, which has replies to race and class aspects that some complainers about the legislation tried to use.
When an American is displaced from employment to accomodate a foreigner, he stops paying taxes, and the remaining taxpayers have to make up the difference. The poorer or fewer taxes that the displacing foreigner is or pays, and the more net public subsidy he uses, the more he increases the level of aggression here. Since the effects on the net taxpayers of our citizenry vary substantially according as the foreigner of the above type, has better or worse relevant moral qualities, how are those effects not attributable to him, which vary according to his moral choices?

Wherefrom Official & Progressive Anti-Caucasianism & What Has Made Dhimmi Leftism?

For generations there was the prophesying of the class war. Everywhere government schools burgeoned, there arose also the veneration of socialism, and the class war that would bring its revolution. When the class war came to be mainly despaired-of, race war became the new hope for socialist despotism. Anti-Caucasianism was the result of this, since promoting a racial socialism for the majority, would mean affirming Nazism, which had been the enemy, and a prime weapon for smearing. Still the race war did not come, and it has been thought necessary for some years now, to add on to it the war of religion. Anti-Christianism is the rising movement of the government schools. The anti-Christian, more spiritual-minded leftism, is abjectly collaborative with the Islamic war of religion. It is the DHIMMILEFTISM, which supplements anti-Caucasianism, all for civil war, dictatorship and the indulgence of power-greed, malice and latitude for aggression.
Added 6-24 from: Saturday, June 21, 2008

If Official Anti-Caucasianism Antagonizes The Majority How May It Still Come From Power-Greed
and its cognates: Malice against successful humanity, liking for freedom-FOR-aggression, and suchlike? The way to know this is by comparing which racial, ethnic and religious hatreds are encouraged, and which used to set up smears of opponents, who are opposed to the aggrandizement of state power relative to the citizenry. Jeremiah Wright and black liberation theology win every encouragement, as does Islamic hatred of infidels including Jews. There is nothing like randomness here, but ironbound, systematic , official and longterm deliberateness to the patterns: Anti-Caucasianism, smearing of the majority and the successful, and the excuse-making for the ill-behaved. The only way to answer is to reply that there is no good argument for more state power.
Added 7-7-08 from: Saturday, July 5, 2008
Valuing Openness To Diversity Of Anti-Caucasianism
and such and so many racial hatreds, is not good for the majority. This is why it cannot be obtained by democratic means, but is made to grow by the subversion of democratic procedures.The powerful and unscrupulous are daring in this particular way, making the most out of anti-caucasianism wherever they can recruit it. They need to take that risk of outraging public opinion, and getting themselves roundly hated and distrusted, because there is no good argument why they should have more power. That is, when their best chance is to antagonize the majority, then smear as moved all by racial hatred, the opposition which they provoke. This way, the unspeakably depraved act as agents provocateurs towards the majority in a racial way, then say racism and make opponents try to prove that they're not. Regrettably, the objects of the provocations almost never think to say: you have to do this because there is no reason why you should have more power.
Posted by John S. Bolton
Added 8-1-08 from: Tuesday, July 29, 2008

When All You Have Is A Holocaust Reaction, Everything In The Way...
of one's bid for undesirable power or influence, has to be made to sound like an incipient holocaust. There is no reason why officials should have more power to do more damage, which leaves the power-greedy with this slippery-slope smear method: prove you're not sliding inexorably to a new mass-murder explosion. When officialdom and its professoriate have done such enormous damage to community of values, that they cannot invoke a general agreement on anything but perhaps that mass murder programs are undesirable, it becomes a political speech crime to mention that the Khmer Rouge were pursuing equality, brotherhood and the eradication of class divides, all in the name of socialism, too. Likewise with the Maoist extermination of tens of millions in China. The smearing approach depends on there being only a holocaust of inequality and non-brotherhood, hereditarian and unsocialist tendencies. History must be deformed in a degree that is only compatible with unfreedom. Democratic procedures become obstacles, such that the rhetoric of the power-greedy requires that the existence of the majority be considered an incipient holocaust. This is the anti-culture of the last several decades, at least in the nations which have shown some resistance to the spread of despotic rule. Only the closure of the government schools, their privatization, and the cashiering of their professoriate can stop this by now. Unless that is, the threat of doing so, were convincing enough to get them to change on their own.
Posted by John S. Bolton