Bush and Obama

They both pledged on some level to unite the country.  Bush by restoring dignity to the office.  Obama by his mere presence as a transcendent figure and because of his deep, personal understanding of minorities and their frustrations.  Well, here we are.  So much for hope and change!

In context of this Ferguson craziness, Kakistocracy Blog (Rule of the Worst) made an interesting point in the very different way the whites and non-whites discuss their group and their expectations relative to others:

Blacks, and as a general rule other non-whites, seek to enforce standards of behavior on out-groups. Their logic apparently being that if brother attacks brother it’s a family issue. But if outsider attacks brother, it’s war. This explains the sheer nonchalance toward black/black violence. It’s their issue, and others needn’t worry about it. This in stark contrast to when a white fells a black, where we see violent repercussions and literal para-military posturing. Blacks have standards and expectations for the behavior of others more so than themselves. And are furious when these are breached.

Whites have evolved an entirely different norming scheme: they patrol in-group behavior, and establish standards for it exclusively. For white liberals this means NO RACISM. This being a non-negotiable expectation for conservative peers (their in-group whether or not they care to admit it). In contrast they do not similarly discipline out groups, viewing them as wholly outside their purview. If brother attacks brother it’s critical business for everyone; but if outsider attacks brother it’s a random act of youth robbery gone wrong. This distinct compartmentalization is what induces cries of hypocrisy from quarters such as these, though is shrugged-off by liberals as wholly outside-of-scope. They enforce in-group behavior only and become goggle-eyed at infractions.

Similarly, white conservatives still largely reserve their heaviest rhetorical ordnance for the liberals who they view as having breached their own evolving in-group standards. Increasingly this standard includes survival as a people and, by necessity, the enforcement of expectations on out-groups. This driving a further wedge with their SJW peers

Taken in total, I find these distinct schemes to be quite infelicitous. To occupy the overlapping space of scrutiny rather than gambol in the open represents a cramp in any man’s style. Though one that will ultimately be sorted out. In the meantime though, enjoy the show tonight.

It’s on!


Some Militarized Cops Oppressing Students By Saving Them From a Maniac Shooter

Ain’t no one whining about “militarized policing” when relatively small town FSU cops show up with AR-15s to take out the piece of crap who shot up the library last night.  I’m glad none of the students were killed; sadly three were injured, one critically. This is a reminder that police need the gear and training to get the job done, and when they have it, it saves lives

I have to say, the whinging, some among people on the right, about “militarized policing” is the lamest, made-up issue of all time and a serious “changing of the subject” that has occurred, chiefly with regard to the Ferguson riots.  The latter is a story not about militarized policing, but that inner city blacks riot for infractions real and imaginary from time to time and have been doing so regularly since the mid-1960s.  Indeed, they are often egged on to do so by their “leadership,” but instead we’re all talking about police armored vehicles, as if the most natural thing on Earth is to riot when you see cops in a scary looking vehicle.  The latter is a symptom of the former, not its cause.

Probably the most important insight from the recent revelations of Obamacare architect, Jon Gruber’s, repeated statements of contempt for the American people and admissions that the entire program was based on misinformation, is not that it reveals the contempt so many liberals have for the American people (particularly when those people oppose their plans), but that these revelations undermine what little legitimacy the law ever had and make plain the mendacity of the entire Administration.

One of the keys of a democratic or republican government is fair and open debate.  But that did not occur with Obamacare, it was not really debated, but rather shadows and reflections of the law were debated, because it an enormously long law, which legislators for and against admitted they did not read and did not fully understand.  Whatever was sold, was different from what was bought.  We’re now told it’s a fully vetted, fully debated, “done deal” supported by the American people, but what at least some people supported–keeping their insurance policies and rates going down along with the promise of better care and universal coverage–did not occur and was not intended to occur.  People bought the marketing, not the product, because the authors of this bill knew that it would never fly if these details were spoken of openly.  So, they lied.  And whatever patina of legitimacy the law had is gone, because it was based on fraudulent inducement and confusion and false urgency in its passage that concealed its manifold flaws from both its supporters and its opponents.

As they said over at Ace’s blog, ” you can’t say we “debated” the plan when in fact the Plan was to hide the Plan from the “stupid” American voters, all along.

Indeed, the entire episode is a microcosm of the entire tenor of this Administration and this President, who was also oversold through marketing and concealment of various details of his life–his communist friends, his pro-terrorist pastor, and his overall mediocrity as a legislator and a professor.  Those who voted for him thought they were getting a moderate, debonair, intellectual uniter, and instead we got a petty, mediocre, college town, leftist hack.

Obama is losing all restraint.  And the reason is not small “p” politics, but rather the politics of people, as in who are the American people.  He knows his amnesty will create bitterness and division among Americans and hostility to him and his party from otherwise apolitical Americans.  He is callow and narcissistic, but even he can see the public mood as represented by the Republican juggernaut on election day.

But he has a long view, and that view is correct:  if enough Third Worlders settle here and have legal status and eventually become citizens, conservatives and everything this country has traditionally stood for (which he hates) is finished.  We see this on a smaller scale in cities like Detroit or Bakersfield, where the native stock has been displaced.  That’s what his plan is, namely, to destroy the power by of American whites by overwhelming numbers  He hates the latter group–at least its conservative members–has no sympathy for them, feels they’re the source of evil and retrograde viewpoints (recall his “bitter clingers” statement), and wants to permanently change the country by increasing the size of his coalition (minorities, single moms, government workers, transnational coastal elites).

And, unless this is stopped or used as a basis for impeachment or some other sanction against him, he will succeed.

He may not succeed in 2016, but he will succeed, because a country is a just a piece of earth and the people who inhabit it at the end of the day.  As Stalin once said, quantity has a quality all its own.  If a nation is partly “an idea” than it is also the collective ideas of its various inhabitants.  And those ideas are very different from those of the native stock, as evidenced by the huge predictive power of demographics in affecting electoral outcomes, crime, economic activity, education levels, and pretty much every relevant prosocial or antisocial behavior under the sun.

While I think the country is still split roughly 50/50 on the entire liberal agenda, yesterday’s election was a good and somewhat dramatic result.  I do believe it interesting that commentators all see what they want in this, and that the liberal media sees this as an endorsement of bipartisanship and the like.  Really?  With a Democratic President, voters know a Republican Congress and Senate are a formula for gridlock.  That’s the point.  Their whole purpose in life for the next two years, their mandate to the extent they have one at all, is to stop, slow, and frustrate Obama on all but the most necessary aspects of his presidential power.

The War on Ebola

Obama says we must stop the disease at its source.  Maybe.  Or maybe we can just close our borders to people that do not really do much to improve our country.

Regarding Bush’s democratizing strategy on terrorism and Iraq, I wrote (over 10 years ago):  The final problem with the neocon approach has been the whole concept that the Middle East must become liberal and democratic or that we are inevitably and perennially the victims of Islamist terrorism. This is the same “root causes” thinking behind the other liberal crusade, the War on Poverty. Conservatives and other realistic people know that some things can be dealt with more easily and efficiently by treating the symptoms. Crime for example seems best combated by locking up criminals for a long time when we find them, rather than by “draining the swamp” as we are advised to do in the case of Islamic fundamentalism.

I would add that because of the supposed inevitability of open borders, we must now spend billions and risk the health of our own people to stop what may prove unstoppable in both the case of terrorism and Ebola.  And we are told, without much evidence, that we must commit men and resources to disorderly hellholes for decades to fight against perennial conditions that would not affect us, but for open borders, like Islamic extremism or persistent jungle diseases.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers