Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Arizona, Britain, And Harvard Law All Show Elite Contempt ForOrdinary People

Arizona, Britain, And Harvard Law All Show Elite Contempt For Ordinary
People

By Steve Sailer

"Freud noted that human beings like to "project" their own undesirable feelings onto others. The wisdom of that observation became clearer than ever last week as a mounting hysteria infected the elites of the English-speaking world, from Arizona to Britain to Harvard.


The rage of the privileged classes was on full display as they
projected onto citizens their own vices: ignorance, resentment, and
irrational anger.

* The signing of the Arizona immigration law, followed by the slow
realization from opinion polls that it was broadly popular, elicited
paroxysms of hatred for the American people from the Establishment.

For example, veteran New York Times columnist Frank Rich’s May 1 op-ed
included a full helping of the standard media code words used to
denote that voters aren’t appropriately obeying their rightful
masters: "angry," "virus," "hysteria," "vicious," "bigoted,"
"apoplexy," "slimed," "snarling," "notorious," "incendiary," "rage"
and so forth and so on.

* Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown called a
cheeky voter "bigoted" after she dared question his immigration
policy.
* And in Massachusetts, , the dean of the Harvard Law School,
Martha Minow, one of President Obama’s oldest confidantes, denounced
one of her own students for writing an email expressing open-
mindedness on the forbidden topic of race and IQ.

Bizarre as it may seem, the potential Supreme Court nominee publicly
condemned a private message to a few acquaintances written six months
ago—even though it had only been dug up and leaked to the Black Law
Students Association by a romantic rival in a petty catfight!

In other words, citizens are winning the debates, so elites would
rather demonize than discuss.

Yet, as comical as the last week has been, the power of elites to shut
down freedom of speech, to ostracize, to impose dumb dogmas as loyalty
tests, must never be underestimated.

Arizona’s SB1070 and immigration: by the end of a tumultuous week,
Democratic Party leaders were in disarray as their efforts to turn the
illegal immigration controversy into a racial struggle between
Hispanics and whites had badly backfired.

The Democrats have long tried to goad Latino voters into viewing
enforcement of the laws as a racial insult. But there has never been
overwhelming evidence that the average Hispanic-American citizen
really shares the Latino Democratic elites’ obsession with opening the
border.

For example, in 2006 Arizona voters passed—over the usual bipartisan
opposition of the states’ elites—Proposition 200, which required
individuals to furnish proof of citizenship when applying for benefits
or to vote. Latinos gave it 47 percent support. That’s far more than
you would expect from elite assumptions that Hispanic voters' race
makes them mindlessly biased in favor of illegal immigration.

Back in the spring of 2006, pundits predicted that after the massive
marches by illegal aliens that Hispanics would rush to the ballot box
in November. Yet, according to the Census Bureau survey, the Hispanic
share of the vote fell—from 6.0 percent in 2004 to 5.9 percent in
2006.

The simple reality, of course, is that illegal aliens aren’t supposed
to vote, while Hispanic-American citizens have sensibly ambivalent
views about their impact on America.

More importantly, egging on a Hispanic v. white racial struggle is a
losing proposition for the Democrats at the ballot box in 2010 because
there are still more white voters.

The plan is to change all that. But it can’t happen fast.

But these obvious truths were lost on the Democrats because they have
inflicted, as they say, "epistemic closure" upon themselves by
denouncing all opponents of illegal immigration as evil racists. Hence
they have shot themselves in the foot in 2010.

Last Thursday, President Barack Obama and Senate majority leader Harry
Reid announced contradictory plans for immigration legislation.
According to an AP article on late Thursday evening, "Obama Takes
Immigration Reform Off Agenda:"

"With that move, the president calculated that an immigration bill
would not prove as costly to his party two years from now, when he
seeks re-election, than it would today …"

Of course, when the unemployment rate in California is 12.5 percent,
amnesty’s not looking so hot right now. But the long term political
trend is against amnesty too. So Obama is probably blowing smoke when
he claims that he’ll get around to it when he’s running for re-
election.

In contrast to Obama, earlier that day Reid had outlined the Senate
Democrats’ proposed comprehensive immigration reform.

This bill is still a scam, but the winds are blowing in the right
direction. The Washington Post headlined Spencer S. Hsu’s article on
Sunday, May 2: Senate Democrats' plan highlights nation's shift to the
right on immigration. Hsu pointed out:

"The Democrats' shift underscores how, in the struggle between
enforcement advocates and legalization backers, the former seem to be
gaining, experts said."

The bill actually contains a few good ideas that could be salvaged in
a 2011 enforcement-only bill. For example, Reid concedes that we
finally must upgrade the Social Security card, which is pathetically
easy to counterfeit. For decades, that cheap, flimsy piece of paper
has served as tangible evidence to illegal aliens that the powers that
be want them to forge it to get American jobs.

So: what are the top Democrats up to?

I don’t know. Do they?

The Democrats’ botched tactics stems from their not actually having
thought much about immigration, other than to congratulate themselves
for being ever so much more sophisticated and tolerant than the
American public—those hate-filled racists.

Democrats’ certainly don’t know much about illegal aliens. And they
don’t want to learn.

To top off the week, on Saturday, May 1, 2010, the vast mobs of
illegal aliens whom the press was counting on to turn out for angry
May Day rallies to intimidate voters … mostly didn’t show up. The Los
Angeles Times wrote:

LAPD estimate crowd at immigrant rights rally is about half of what
was expected [Updated]

"Police had anticipated a larger crowd because of the controversy
surrounding the recent passage of a tough immigration law in Arizona
that allows police to check the legal status of people they believe
are in the state illegally."

About 50,000 apparently were there. That’s a big number, but it’s only
roughly one-tenth as many illegals as marched in LA as in 2006.

What happened?

Who knows? Democratic elites sure don’t. The Hispanics spokesmen who
are constantly being interviewed in the English-language press as the
self-proclaimed leaders of illegal aliens really aren’t. They are just
claiming to lead the vast numbers of illegals in order to get
themselves cushy jobs advising clueless Anglo elites.

Who are the illegals’ real leaders?

To the extent that anybody organizes them, it appears to be primarily
Spanish-language radio disk jockeys. Funny DJs got them to turn out in
2006. Apparently, it didn’t happen in 2010.

Needless to say, having vast throngs of foreigners march through our
cities waving Mexican flags on May Day, the day when the Soviet
Politburo used to review a parade of nuclear missiles aimed at America
was never exactly a political masterstroke. Those marches helped kill
the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesties of 2007 and 2008.

Britain, Brown and "Bigotry": the Labour Prime Minister was outraged
that a mere voter had asked him about the unspeakable: his immigration
policy. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown was the second-most
powerful member of the Labour cabinet that secretly boosted
immigration to Britain a decade ago in order to elect a new people.
Former Downing Street speechwriter Andrew Neather admitted in 2009:

"Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that
mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the
UK truly multicultural. I remember coming away from some discussions
with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn't
its main purpose—to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their
arguments out of date."[Labour let in migrants 'to engineer
multicultural UK', Daily Mail, October 24, 2009]

In public, though, Labour elites were reticent about what they were
planning in order to keep their "core working class vote" from finding
out about it.

Elites like it best when nobody gets to vote, when nobody thinks for
themselves.

Massachusetts, Minow, And Malice:

Thus, the strange tale out of Cambridge, Massachusetts. According to
numerous rumors, a young woman at Harvard Law School (who, curiously,
is remaining nameless) got into a catfight over some guy with another
young lady law student, Stephanie Grace. So Ms. Nameless dug up out of
her email archives a six-month-old private email from her rival,
Grace, discussing the race and IQ controversy with an above-average
level of sophistication and open-mindedness. The jealous girl then
leaked the Grace’s email to the Black Law Students Association, who
forwarded it nationally to set off the usual Two Minutes Hate.

A huge number of bystanders on the Internet immediately started
auditioning for the Junior Varsity Thought Police, putting the boot in
on the suspicion that Grace might be a Double-Plus Ungood
Crimethinker!

Clearly, in a world increasingly run on text communications that are
permanently archived, old-fashioned values like privacy and
intellectual honesty are in mortal danger. In the old days, when
people tended to have conversations rather than exchange messages that
are automatically stored, this absurd panic over some completely
obscure person’s doubts about the conventional wisdom would never have
gotten off the ground.

We are headed for a stultified world of ideological conformism.

Most egregiously, the Dean of Harvard Law, Martha Minow, [Email her]
then put her nose in to denounce—the victim. She wrote:

"I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of
our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to
white people."

The Dean of Harvard Law ought to be able to read English, but she
flagrantly mischaracterized her own student’s private email, which in
fact ended:

"I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me."

Minow burbled on:

"This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and
reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to
encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be
accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to
intellectual pursuit and social justice. …

As news of the email emerged yesterday, I met with leaders of our
Black Law Students Association [Email them]to discuss how to address
the hurt that this has brought to this community. … The particular
comment in question unfortunately resonates with old and hurtful
misconceptions. As an educational institution, we are especially
dedicated to exposing to the light of inquiry false views about
individuals or groups. "

So much for Harvard’s motto: Veritas.

As a commenter on the Volokh Conspiracy blog who aptly calls himself
"Cynical" explained:

"The real threat is to not just to the ‘social justice’ worldview, but
to the entire affirmative-action, diversity and racial reparations
industry. If individuals are judged for their deeds and abilities
instead of their skin color, Griggs goes away along with the jobs of a
great many compliance officers. Worse, the rampant credentialism which
has fed the expansion of colleges and universities as substitutes for
pre-employment aptitude tests would fall by the wayside, and that
whole racket would start to collapse as well. You can see how true
color-blindness threatens to break the rice bowls of many influential
people, and they’ll do almost anything to prevent it."

Martha Minow is on Obama’s short list for a Supreme Court nomination.
She has been Obama’s friend since the 1980s. In David Remnick’s
hagiography The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, the Chicago
political consultant Don Rose describes on p. 225 her crucial role in
the launch of Obama’s political career:

"First, [Obama] comes to Chicago with a reference from Newton Minow’s
daughter, Martha. Then Newt introduces him to a circle of high-class
liberal lawyers. ... There are also liberal, elite funders and agency
heads: Bettylu Saltzman was also part of the Minow grouping and she
has lots of friends."

For the sake of amusement, here are the titles of some books Dean
Minow has authored or edited: Just Schools: Pursuing Equality in
Societies of Difference; Breaking the Cycles of Hatred: Memory, Law
and Repair; Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge
in Liberal Democracies; Not Only for Myself: Identity, Politics and
Law, and Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American
Law.

Jim Kalb writes:

"I knew the Dean slightly when she was in law school and she struck me
as a very nice and very well-brought-up young lady. I think a lot of
her response in this case was shock and incomprehension that someone
would say something that's obviously not what one says or even admits
thinking. She brings a woman's touch to the position she holds."

Indeed, in all the parsing of the victim’s email to show she had it
coming to her for violating reigning norms, there’s a distinct whiff
of Junior High School. It’s reminiscent of how the In Clique of
popular girls dissects the clothes of a newcomer to decide whether
they’ll admit her to the club or destroy her with gossip.

Somebody should ask the President’s press secretary what Obama thinks
of his old pal’s attempt to silence dissent by misstating the content
of a private email that only became public due to petty vengeance in
order ruin the career of one of her students.

After all, the President is much closer to the Dean of his old law
school than he was to Professor Henry Louis Gates. And we all remember
how much fun that turned out to be.

Let's be frank about what this ridiculous Harvard Law School brouhaha
is all about. It's about whether you have internalized the elite class
dogmas sufficiently to be allowed into the elite. The more
unbelievable the dogma, the better it serves for demonstrating your
class loyalty. The more you rat out others for heresy, the more you
prove your fealty.

What can be done about the self-serving stupidity of our elites?

There will always be elites, and any movement that doesn’t have any is
doomed. So we have to do something about the ones we are stuck with
now.

The Sailer Solution:

Scoff at them.

Make fun of them.

Point out their moral and intellectual failings at every opportunity.

That way, when a Martha Minow declaims, Americans will roll their eyes
and fail to stifle their giggles."


http://www.vdare.com/sailer/100502_elite_contempt.htm
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Arizona, Britain, And Harvard Law All Show Elite Contempt ForOrdinary People

On May 3, 1:33*am, Bret L wrote:

In other words, citizens are winning the debates, so elites would
rather demonize than discuss.


In other words, "elites" (i.e. those of the population with education
higher than the fourth grade) understand that "rights" are not voted
on.

It's the uneducated dip****s like you and Sailer who reside in upside-
down land that look at losing civil rights as "winning".

That's because you're stoopid.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default Arizona, Britain, And Harvard Law All Show Elite Contempt ForOrdinary People

On May 3, 7:41*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 3, 1:33*am, Bret L wrote:

In other words, citizens are winning the debates, so elites would
rather demonize than discuss.


In other words, "elites" (i.e. those of the population with education
higher than the fourth grade) understand that "rights" are not voted
on.

It's the uneducated dip****s like you and Sailer who reside in upside-
down land that look at losing civil rights as "winning".

That's because you're stoopid.


Entering the country illegally is not a RIGHT.

Freedom of association IS, yet, that basic right has been taken from
us. A private club can no longer include whom it will. Employers can
no longer hire whom they will.

Your so-called education was a total waste of money. Worse, some of
it was probably MY money.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Arizona, Britain, And Harvard Law All Show Elite Contempt ForOrdinary People

On May 3, 7:51*pm, Bret L wrote:
On May 3, 7:41*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 3, 1:33*am, Bret L wrote:


In other words, citizens are winning the debates, so elites would
rather demonize than discuss.


In other words, "elites" (i.e. those of the population with education
higher than the fourth grade) understand that "rights" are not voted
on.


It's the uneducated dip****s like you and Sailer who reside in upside-
down land that look at losing civil rights as "winning".


That's because you're stoopid.


*Entering the country illegally is not a RIGHT.


Neither is being subjected to a search and/or siezure based on a
feeling. But you'd have no problem with a jack-booted individual
demanding that you "Show us your papers". LOL!

Duh.

*Freedom of association IS, yet, that basic right has been taken from
us. A private club can no longer include whom it will. Employers can
no longer hire whom they will.


Damn. The ni**ers can even use the same bathrooms as us.

Doesn't that suck?

What an idiot.

*Your so-called education was a total waste of money. Worse, some of
it was probably MY money.


"So-called".

Did we progress beyond high school, Bratzi, or do we still hold those
of us that have in contempt as "elitist"?

LOL! Yes, you're truly stoopid.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mr. Mne and justice for Arizona [email protected] Audio Opinions 121 October 19th 06 06:59 PM
FS:dbx, Valley People etcFor Sale 1 - dbx 586 Tube Mic Preamp•Perfect condition in original box $400.00 1-Valley People Dynamite •Very good condition$300.00 1 - Valley People 415 DeEsser$250.00 •Great DeEss Derek Studios Marketplace 0 June 6th 05 08:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"