Monday, June 14, 2010

Comment on the Belmont Club:
"Try, Try Again"

Belmont Club » Try, Try Again

Joe Hill,
press failure to vet Obama ... can only be attributed to racism

This is correct. There is I believe a reason the MSM lead by the New York Times invested so heavily in convincing the general public to buy into the Obama narrative. It was to externalize the consequences of their own prejudice.

The greatest failure of the liberal media was the success of George Bush in responding to 9-11 and then leading the nation into Iraq. That threatened to destabilize the entire corrupt international aristocracy that was funded through Oil For Food and staffed governments, media and NGOs. Bush threatened to rip the lid off of all of it and at that critical time the media proved unable to stop him. What crippled them? My theory is that it was a self inflicted wound based on their own prejudiced expectations.

In March and April 2003 the United States crushed Saddam's forces so rapidly that vast quantities of intelligence data including Oil For Food files were captured. On May 1st President Bush delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech. The power of the media to control him was at a low ebb. A few fringe elements responded with snark and a story was manufactured about the looting of a museum, as if that cost would have justified leaving Saddam in power, but other than attempting to ignore the story of what Bush had achieved and who his enemies were the media allies of his enemies proved curiously passive in their response. It took years to create in the public mind the perception that the victory was really a defeat that could support the installation of the extreme left into positions of power. What explains the weakness of the New York Times during the crucial months of April and May of 2003?

May 11 was when the Times published its extraordinary confession in the Jayson Blair fraud and plagiarism scandal. Blair was the archetype of the over-promoted affirmative action candidate placed in a position of influence for which he was not qualified. For weeks the capacity of the Times to impose its ideological vision on the world was crippled.

By fostering the candidacy of Barack Obama, a man arguably less formally qualified for his position than Blair or Patel were, the Editors of the Times have made the entire nation complicit in the consequences of their racism. This is the soft bigotry of high expectations. It is common for Confidence Scheme criminals to make their victims perform some gesture that makes them arguably complicit in some small way. That is why totalitarians insist on making everyone vote even where the vote is meaningless. Now they can say, "How can you criticize us when you voted for him too?"

-------
starling,
did you mean to say “This is the soft bigotry of LOW expectations” ?

The play substituting High for Low was deliberate. Low expectations explains shoving a weak candidate into a class and then lowering test standards. If you don't care if they really learn and assume that they can't learn but still want some benefit from having them in the room, money or social approval usually, then you admit the weak candidate with low expectations. If you believe that race is in itself a qualification, the "wise Latina" or "authentic" urban youth forged in the crucible of adversity, that is with the help of government and political activist indoctrination equivalent to skill building experience at a series of jobs and inculcation of a moral code that was best achieved in the traditional family centered society then you have possibly unwarranted high expectations about a candidate like Obama. You expect the narrative to produce results.

In the Founders Constitution who was responsible for ensuring that the tendency of mob enthusiasm and aristocratic intrigue would not combine to produce unqualified Presidents? That was to be the role of the Electoral College. The EC was intended as a geographically dispersed brake by which the leading men of each State could soberly perform the vetting process. Unfortunately they rapidly became reduced to a rubber stamp that ratifies the popular vote.

Perhaps it would help to restore the original intent of the system if the College was not only placed on a firmer basis with long term appointments, as I have previously suggested, but was used to explicitly screen candidates. Then the top two of whom would be subsequently submitted to the public for a vote.

No comments: