Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on July 09, 2012, 05:26:57 AM
-
The Color of Your Character
By Ross Kaminsky on 7.9.12 @ 6:09AM
Liberals have a racial answer to everything they find inconvenient about our president.
Liberals really are a single-minded lot: In their view, the only possible explanation for a person hoping that Barack Obama loses his next election is racism. All things political are analyzed through a filter of skin color, putting today's left directly at odds with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that his children "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Conservatives might argue that leftists are hypocritical on this score, that they are judging Obama by his skin color and judging his critics by what they perceive to be the content of our characters -- based on nothing but our opposition to a far-left president who happens to be black.
But what they are demonstrating is not hypocrisy, it is projection. Liberals assume that since race is so important to them, it must be equally important to the rest of us, that it must, if you'll pardon the pun, color our every political thought. This is of course particularly true of the liberal elite who suffer deeply from what Hayek termed the "fatal conceit," a symptom of which is believing that all intelligent people must think as "Progressives" do -- and that all people not intelligent enough to think as they do are suited to be ruled by them.
The moral yardstick for the American left is now "the color of your character."
To liberals, when it comes to non-leftist critics of Barack Obama, the fact that many of us are not black means little less than that we wish the South had won the Civil War.
But when the subject is Barack Obama, the fact that his skin is black (despite his mother having been white) trumps all; nothing that our president does or says reflects any conceivable flaw in character, intellect, wisdom, or even policy.
As most of President Obama's fundraising seems to come from Hollywood and Manhattan, two opinions from the former are instructive as to liberal, and particularly black liberal, thinking. In an interview with Ebony magazine in February, actor Samuel L. Jackson made clear the depth of his political analysis: "I voted for Barack because he was black. Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people -- because they look like them." Project much, Samuel?
Apparently Mr. Jackson forgets that in the 2008 election, by getting 43 percent of the white vote, Barack Obama did better among whites than any Democrat had in more than three decades. Presumably few of those roughly 30 million white voters who cast ballots for Obama did it because they thought he looked a lot like them.
And on Thursday, actor Morgan Freeman -- desperately seeking a way to give race-centric liberals like Mr. Jackson a political indulgence in the unlikely event that reality inclines them against voting for Obama again -- told NPR, after noting that “[Barack's] mama… was [a] very white American," that Obama “[is] not America's first black president -- he's America's first mixed-race president." I suppose this means we are allowed to consider half of his failures.
Who would have thought that melanin is to economic incompetence what Teflon is to cooking incompetence -- though only for Democrats. Thus, the left explains black conservatives like Congressman Allen West, Kevin Jackson, Larry Elder, Dr. Alveda C. King, Star Parker, and Herman Cain as some combination of idiot, sellout, and race-traitor. (Examples here, here, here, and unfiltered, cask strength stuff in first comment here.)
In other words, black Democrats are right because they are black but black Republicans are wrong because they are Republican.
The left lives in an Orwellian world of racial Doublethink:
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. [George Orwell, 1984, Part 1, Chapter 3.]
Although it is most obvious when liberals disparage conservative blacks, their response to any criticism of the first black president (apologies to Bill Clinton) makes plain that while there are bad apples in all parts of society and politics, the Democratic Party is the true home of racism in America -- as it has been for most of the years since the Ku Klux Klan was founded as the earliest Democrat community organizers.
I was reminded of this in a more-personal-than-usual way several days ago when during my radio show, back-to-back liberal callers accused me of being xenophobic and racist.
The theme of the show (not entirely coincidentally a few days after the death of Rodney King) was "Can't we all get along?" The premise was that I, a non-religious libertarian Jew, had spent the prior two days at the Western Conservative Summit in a room full of 1,300 Christian conservatives and that my takeaway from the event was "these are my friends."
I pointed out that leftist groups will work with whomever they have to in order to win, while our side, namely those with generally pro-liberty, pro-free market policy preferences, frequently lets disagreement on a minority of issues keep us from working together.
A couple of times I used the phrase "losing our country." Apparently, that phrase is something of a radio roach motel if you're trying to catch a liberal.
The first liberal caller, Jack, opined that "your appeal to people uniting because we're losing our country is an appeal to xenophobia, and it's silly and alarmist."
The comment took me aback, but it shouldn't have. While I had made passing comments about losing free speech rights due to fear of insulting Islam, my thinking behind "losing our country" had absolutely nothing to do with foreigners. (After all, many immigrants probably love and understand America more than most Democratic congressmen do.)
I explained as much to Jack -- except for the bit about Democrats -- naively thinking that he simply misunderstood me. But what had actually happened was that I misunderstood him. It wasn't that he listened to my words and interpreted them as xenophobic; rather it was that he entered the conversation with his skin color filter over his political vision.
And so, Jack continued: "I think that you're aware that the Republican Party is issuing appeals to people based on this idea that, demographically, white Europeans are becoming a minority. Their message is that…if you don't vote for them, then you're going to be having all these brown people out there that are going to be running things."
I challenged Jack aggressively, and gave him my e-mail address over the air, asking him to send me a link to any such ad. Of course, none came from him or anyone else because this is, as I said to Jack, "leftist propaganda trying to make Republicans look like xenophobes."
Jack's call was disturbing. But as it turned out, Jack was only the warm-up act for the very next caller, Ida -- also, if I might surmise based on voice, a middle-aged Caucasian.
According to Ida, or rather to things she recently read and, like David St. Hubbins, therefore believed, "Since Barack Obama became president, there's a 400 percent increase in assassination groups, in assassination attempts. Another thing, no president has ever been disrespected as much as Obama. And you know why that is? Because he's black. You may deny it up and down. In your heart, you know it's true."
There was no point in discussing facts with Ida. Instead, I reminded her that she doesn't know me and has never met me. I mentioned that I would have voted for Colin Powell, Condi Rice, or J.C. Watts. I stated directly that "if there were a white president who did all the same things that Barack Obama is doing, I would dislike him and oppose him just as much, or perhaps even more because… I am really proud that our country elected a black president. I just wish it weren't this one."
But just as sunglasses block out certain wavelengths of light, nothing I could say would get through Ida's skin color filter. She responded, "I really don't care if Republicans are offended [by accusations of racism] because it is the truth."
Sadly for the United States, the oh-so-tolerant, diverse, progressive left have turned Orwell's dystopian predictions into reality while keeping Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream a fantasy. Honestly held differences be damned; it is the color of your character that matters.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver's NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/09/the-color-of-your-character/print
-
Another reason why you are a liberal.
1.You want government intervention like the liberals.
2. You are a racist like the liberals.
3. You love the role of victim etc
-
:)
Care to dispute what he wrote?
But for leftist racism and lib white guilt, obama would not even be potus in the first place.
Fubo!
Another reason why you are a liberal.
1.You want government intervention like the liberals.
2. You are a racist like the liberals.
3. You love the role of victim etc
-
:)
Care to dispute what he wrote?
But for leftist racism and lib white guilt, obama would not even be potus in the first place.
Fubo!
That Obama is the anti-christ and people who dont get it is guilt-ridden racists? :)
-
That Obama is the anti-christ and people who dont get it is guilt-ridden racists? :)
No, the Anti Christ was on the GOP ticket in 2008. And she cost McCain the election.
-
No, the Anti Christ was on the GOP ticket in 2008. And she cost McCain the election.
::) ::)
Yeah Palin was so bad, unlike your messiah who was best friends a terrorist who tried to bomb the pentagon, sat in a racist church for 20 years, was a drug addict, a communist sympathizer, etc. ::) ::)
-
And yet the country preferred him over her.
-
And yet the country preferred him over her.
Says a lot more about the general electorate than anything else. Obama was and is always been a myth and a media creation for delusional guilt ridden white leftists like yourself.
This country is now suffering as a result - worst economic record ever.
-
Boo Hoo.
If it were not for Obama, your life wouldn't have any purpose. What else would you do while being unemployed every day?
-
Says a lot more about the general electorate than anything else. Obama was and is always been a myth and a media creation for delusional guilt ridden white leftists like yourself.
This country is now suffering as a result - worst economic record ever.
Haha calling Obama a myth and a media creation? You kneepadded Palin you fool
-
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's say a bunch of racist stuff all the time and, after that, if anyone calls us on it - we'll just call THEM the racists.
Yeah, that should work.
-
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's say a bunch of racist stuff all the time and, after that, if anyone calls us on it - we'll just call THEM the racists.
Yeah, that should work.
I'm not a racist - i hate everyone equally.
BTW - love this song. NYC Hardcore baby!
-
Self loathing projections in full effect today.
-
Self loathing projections in full effect today.
Its cheaper than going to see the psychiatrist ;)
-
I'm not a racist - i hate everyone equally.
BTW - love this song. NYC Hardcore baby!
Why do you use the word 'chinks' to describe Chinese people?
-
Why do you use the word 'chinks' to describe Chinese people?
Because its less offensive than using the term "Egg Rolls" :P :P
-
Because its less offensive than using the term "Egg Rolls" :P :P
Hey, if you're going to be a bigot, why not own up to it?
Seriously, are you half-ashamed or what?
I don't get it.
Be a man and stand by what you say.
-
Hey, if you're going to be a bigot, why not own up to it?
Seriously, are you half-ashamed or what?
I don't get it.
Be a man and stand by what you say.
What do you call a fat Chink?
Answer - CHUNK
-
What do you call a fat Chink?
Answer - CHUNK
It's okay, you can be your regular tough self since you are anonymous.
-
It's okay, you can be your regular tough self since you are anonymous.
-
Are you playing guns tonight?
-
Hey, if you're going to be a bigot, why not own up to it?
Seriously, are you half-ashamed or what?
I don't get it.
Be a man and stand by what you say.
You have to forgive him. His self hatred manifests itself through projections on other people.
Wouldn't you hate your life too if it revolved around cutting and pasting on the internet all day while eating Raman noodles?
-
lot of dumb people these days
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberal-group-calls-romney-too-white-for-blacks-to-like/article/2501754
The leftists are already starting with their racism.
-
And yet the country preferred him over her.
Palin wasn't top of the ticket. McCain was. And, lest you forget, he was ahead of Obama, prior to the economic crash.
-
Palin wasn't top of the ticket. McCain was. And, lest you forget, he was ahead of Obama, prior to the economic crash.
Doesn't matter who is at the top of the ticket if you are voting against one of the people on it.
I think what you meant was prior to Palin opening her mouth, McCain was ahead. Even many GOP supporters couldn't stand the bitch.
-
Doesn't matter who is at the top of the ticket if you are voting against one of the people on it.
I think what you meant was prior to Palin opening her mouth, McCain was ahead. Even many GOP supporters couldn't stand the bitch.
McCain's loss had nothing to do w Palin. He would have lost even worse without her.
-
Yeah, because no one in the GOP publicly spoke against her or said she was unqualified.
LOL
You betcha!
-
-
You think people on here actually watch the crap you post from youtube?
-
McCain's loss had nothing to do w Palin. He would have lost even worse without her.
You need anymore proof that you are actually a neo-conservative?
-
You need anymore proof that you are actually a neo-conservative?
Be easy on him. Remember he thought Bachmann, Trump, Cain and Newt were qualified candidates that everyone loved too.
-
Be easy on him. Remember he thought Bachmann, Trump, Cain and Newt were qualified candidates that everyone loved too.
Relative to Obama they would all be massive improvements.
-
No, the Anti Christ was on the GOP ticket in 2008. And she cost McCain the election.
McCain's loss had nothing to do w Palin. He would have lost even worse without her.
As usual, the truth lies between two false extremes (which either of you represent).
http://www.stanford.edu/~elis/Elis%20et%20al%202010%20Dynamics%20of%20Candidate%20Evaluations.pdf (http://www.stanford.edu/~elis/Elis%20et%20al%202010%20Dynamics%20of%20Candidate%20Evaluations.pdf)
"...we estimate the “Palin effect,” based on individual-level changes in favorability towards the vice presidential nominee, and conclude that her [Palin's] campaign performance cost McCain just under 2% of the final vote share."
A single study doesn't represent conclusive proof, but it is in line with the results of other research: voter perceptions of Palin cost McCain a chunk of vote share. But, the chunk wasn't big enough to be decisive: the economic crisis and negative perceptions of Bush meant that McCain was doomed either way.
-
As usual, the truth lies between two false extremes (which either of you represent).
http://www.stanford.edu/~elis/Elis%20et%20al%202010%20Dynamics%20of%20Candidate%20Evaluations.pdf (http://www.stanford.edu/~elis/Elis%20et%20al%202010%20Dynamics%20of%20Candidate%20Evaluations.pdf)
"...we estimate the “Palin effect,” based on individual-level changes in favorability towards the vice presidential nominee, and conclude that her [Palin's] campaign performance cost McCain just under 2% of the final vote share."
A single study doesn't represent conclusive proof, but it is in line with the results of other research: voter perceptions of Palin cost McCain a chunk of vote share. But, the chunk wasn't big enough to be decisive: the economic crisis and negative perceptions of Bush meant that McCain was doomed either way.
McCain was a horrible candidate and he was sunk by the economy. Many people were going to stay home until he picked palin. However, once the stock market tanked and McLame suspended his campaign and said "fundamentals were sound" - it was over.
BTW - there are other studies showing Palin helped more than hurt - ill dig them out at some point.
McCain lost because of mcCain , not anything else.
-
McCain was a horrible candidate and he was sunk by the economy. Many people were going to stay home until he picked palin. However, once the stock market tanked and McLame suspended his campaign and said "fundamentals were sound" - it was over.
BTW - there are other studies showing Palin helped more than hurt - ill dig them out at some point.
McCain lost because of mcCain , not anything else.
fox news ,my voice in my head,did i say the voice in my head :D
-
Relative to Obama they would all be massive improvements.
Only for delusional twats like yourself.
-
McCain was a horrible candidate and he was sunk by the economy. Many people were going to stay home until he picked palin. However, once the stock market tanked and McLame suspended his campaign and said "fundamentals were sound" - it was over.
BTW - there are other studies showing Palin helped more than hurt - ill dig them out at some point.
McCain lost because of mcCain , not anything else.
OK, so far we've got Stanford political scientists' research versus a statement from 333386 on a bodybuilding message board. It's a close battle for the truth -- actual research or bald assertions from a message board analyst. How will we break this vicious deadlock? ::)
More political science
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.5/johnston_thorson.php (http://bostonreview.net/BR34.5/johnston_thorson.php)
"But within days of the speech [Palin's speech accepting the VP nomination], her ratings began a precipitous slide from which she—and the McCain campaign—never recovered. Throughout the rest of the campaign, vote intentions were closely tied to Palin’s approval ratings: each major Palin approval drop was followed, within a day or two, by a drop in McCain vote intention. No other factor moved McCain support with such precision. Comparison of the correlation between running mate approval ratings and vote intentions from 2000 and 2004 confirms Palin’s peculiar importance in 2008."
http://prq.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/04/08/1065912911401415.abstract (http://prq.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/04/08/1065912911401415.abstract)
"Palin’s effect on vote choice was the largest of any vice presidential candidate in elections examined dating back to 1980. Theoretically, the article offers support for the proposition that a running mate is an important short-term force affecting voting behavior. Substantively, the article suggests that Palin may have contributed to a loss of support among “swing voters.”
Public opinion data (Pew Research Center, Oct. 2008)
http://www.people-press.org/2008/10/21/growing-doubts-about-mccains-judgment-age-and-campaign-conduct/ (http://www.people-press.org/2008/10/21/growing-doubts-about-mccains-judgment-age-and-campaign-conduct/)
"In addition, Sarah Palin appears to be a continuing – if not an increasing – drag on the GOP ticket. Currently, 49% of voters express an unfavorable opinion of Palin, while 44% have a favorable view. In mid-September, favorable opinions of Palin outnumbered negative ones by 54% to 32%. Women, especially women under age 50, have become increasingly critical of Palin: 60% now express an unfavorable view of Palin, up from 36% in mid-September. Notably, opinions of Palin have a greater impact on voting intentions than do opinions of Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate."
Steve Schmidt (Senior Campaign Strategist for Mccain in 2008 and the man responsible for picking Palin in the first place)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/fashion/steve-schmidt-a-career-resurrected-after-mccain-and-palin.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/fashion/steve-schmidt-a-career-resurrected-after-mccain-and-palin.html?pagewanted=all)
"[Steve] has a higher profile than ever, and stands as evidence that there may be little cost to being associated with a losing campaign and a disastrous political misjudgment, as Mr. Schmidt now describes the Palin selection."
There's more where this came from.
Probably, when you suggest Palin had a positive impact you are thinking of the initial boost in support that Palin's selection produced. Certainly, this was a very real phenomenon. It was also a real phenomenon that post-election interviews indicated a majority of Republicans thought Palin had a positive impact. But all the evidence indicates that that initial boost quickly faded as Palin began talking and as the media began covering her more and more. The net effect was a loss of vote share for McCain. But again, it wasn't decisive: the most important issue was the economy, and McCain was doomed because of it even if Palin hadn't been selected.
-
Finally some actual facts on this board.
Thanks Syntax
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/02/25/top-mccain-advisor-on-game-change-palin-didnt-cost-republicans-the-election-obamas-fundraising-did
Palin had nothing to do w McCain losing.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/02/25/top-mccain-advisor-on-game-change-palin-didnt-cost-republicans-the-election-obamas-fundraising-did
Palin had nothing to do w McCain losing.
Syntax just bitch slapped you with facts.
Maybe you should abandon this thread all together. Or maybe try to recover with your typical photoshop posting spree.
-
Syntax just bitch slapped you with facts.
Maybe you should abandon this thread all together. Or maybe try to recover with your typical photoshop posting spree.
What he posted showed she did not cost him the election.
-
::)
Sure it didn't.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/02/25/top-mccain-advisor-on-game-change-palin-didnt-cost-republicans-the-election-obamas-fundraising-did
Palin had nothing to do w McCain losing.
I guess I'll reiterate this one last time and then I will just let the facts stand as they are: you keep saying that Palin had "nothing to do" with McCain losing, while the link you provide says nothing of the sort -- a single man says the primary reason McCain lost was the issue of money. Even if he's right, that doesn't mean Palin didn't contribute to the loss. In fact, that's what all the evidence I put up indicates. Palin was a net drag on the campaign that lost McCain vote share.
Meanwhile, Lurker said that Palin cost McCain the election, which of course is false as well. The primary reason was the status of the economy and the resulting unpopularity of the incumbent party. Palin did have a negative impact but if she didn't exist at all McCain would still have lost. Hence, you were both wrong.
-
I guess I'll reiterate this one last time and then I will just let the facts stand as they are: you keep saying that Palin had "nothing to do" with McCain losing, while the link you provide says nothing of the sort -- a single man says the primary reason McCain lost was the issue of money. Even if he's right, that doesn't mean Palin didn't contribute to the loss. In fact, that's what all the evidence I put up indicates. Palin was a net drag on the campaign that lost McCain vote share.
Meanwhile, Lurker said that Palin cost McCain the election, which of course is false as well. The primary reason was the status of the economy and the resulting unpopularity of the incumbent party. Palin did have a negative impact but if she didn't exist at all McCain would still have lost. Hence, you were both wrong.
You provided good links, I cant disagree, but the main reason McCain lost , was McCain, nothing else. And you know what? In 2008, its unclear that any repub could have won after the horrific GWB 2nd term and economy collapse.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The United States of Guilt
Sultan Knish ^ | Saturday, July 14, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on July 15, 2012 8:12:24 AM EDT by expat1000
There was once an America that built its shining cities on a hill in the name of virtue. That nation has been replaced by another nation that builds housing projects in the name of guilt. We used to elect the best men for the job, or at least we believed we did. Now we hold elections of guilt, deciding which oppressed minority has been most shamefully overlooked, before casting our vote for a more diverse and equitable society.
Our American exceptionalism now is a small thing that takes place in the shadow of guilt. It is rarely mentioned now without implicit rebuttals of that guilt. Its advocates are forever laboring to get out from under the burden of slavery, segregation and a thousand other hissing sibilant S's that have been used to mark us as an eternally unworthy nation.
Guilt is the shadow side of virtue. A politician who speaks about the virtues of a nation panders to his audience, and leads them with a golden halter rope to follow his policies. If he says that America is a great nation because it is a nation of immigrants, or a diverse nation or a nation where men can marry each other-- his audience will internalize that lesson and repeat it back. If a foreigner accuses his country of being a bad place, he will reply that this accusation is false because it is actually a great nation where diverse gay immigrants can marry each other.
People are susceptible to building identities out of the compliments that they are given. Tell a man that he is a generous host and he is more likely to invite you, or someone else, over for dinner. That is how philanthropists are made, with dinners, awards and other social rewards for giving money. That is also how philanthropic nations are made. Americans keep giving money to the world and expect that one day an international rubber chicken dinner of some sort will be held in our honor.
Virtue imposes no obligation, except that of living up to that virtue. Guilt, however, imposes the endless obligation of escaping the burden of guilt. As politicians spoke less of virtue and more of guilt, America changed from a nation of shining cities to a nation of slaveowners forever striving to recapture its virtue in the face of the numberless crimes of its past.
The United States of Guilt is no longer benevolent for benevolence's sake. It is benevolent because it has something to prove. When it voted for the historical moment of Barack Hussein Obama, it was trying to escape another history. It was creating new history in order to leave the old history behind.
Did America owe a debt of any sort to the bastard son of a Kenyan diplomat who had as much to do with 19th Century slavery or even 20th Century segregation as he did with the Napoleonic wars? No it didn't. Guilt, however, isn't rational, it's neurotic. It is a coat of fear that someone else puts on you and that you will do anything to take off. It's a voice in your head that says you are a bad person and, even when you don't fully believe that voice, you know that other people do, and you want it to go away.
Above all else, guilt is power. It is a debt that, once accepted from outside, has no natural end. It is a bridle, a bit and finally a cage. It makes slavery so much easier by eliminating resistance from those who no longer believe that they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is no room for these things, especially happiness, while wearing the hairshirt of a thousand historic crimes.
Exploiting guilt is much more effective than exploiting virtue. Participating in your own virtue is optional; participating in your own guilt isn't. To be guilty is to be automatically complicit in crimes that have been assigned to your name. It is the essence of being considered "Part of the problem" rather than "Part of the solution." The only hope of redemption lies in bending your back to the whip of the solution or wielding the whip against those who are still reluctant about becoming part of the solution.
Laws can only make you do so many things. Even the busiest police states have only so many men in black suits that fit badly around their shoulder holsters and sunglasses that don't reflect the sun, only so many informers and so many operators to listen to wiretaps. The best stooges and informers are the ones that men and women plant in their own heads to threaten, intimidate and spy on their own actions, to censor their own words and thoughts, and to drive them to do what they do not wish to do.
The house of guilt is built on taboos. Acts and thoughts which should automatically inspire guilt. If they do not inspire guilt in you, then they will inspire guilt in your neighbors, and, if your neighbors catch you not feeling properly guilty about something in the way that they do, they will deem you a bad person. And that will make them feel virtuous.
The dirty little secret of guilt is that it brings forth such feelings of virtue. Liberals need racism, not only because it is another crisis that vests them with the right to rule as protectors of the oppressed, but also because it reaffirms their virtue.
They need racists the way that they need people who don't recycle, who don't agonize over America's foreign policy, who unironically wear American flags on their t-shirts, who think that violence solves things, who believe that taxes should be lower, who are so privileged that they aren't aware of their privilege, who don't care about the planet or about any of the other things that they we have all been duly designated to care about this decade. It makes them feel good about their own virtues.
The manipulators of guilt strive to create a United States of Guilt, a permanent state of guilt run for their own benefit that works by imposing so much guilt that the guilt-ridden population never notices how their guilt is being spun into gold. Their goal is not to assuage the conditions that bring guilt forth, but to exacerbate them. The worse the conditions become, the greater their power grows. As with all sociopaths, those who exploit guilt for a living are the guiltiest and yet feel the least guilt.
In the United States of Guilt, the social crisis has replaced the Constitution and legislatures, courts and executives casually rewrite that old yellowed document for the sake of the social crisis. The crisis, whether it is the heat death of the planet, racism, obesity or health care must be perpetuated endlessly because it has become the source of political legitimacy and national illegitimacy.
The political legitimacy of the presidents of guilt derives from that national illegitimacy, the heaps of books, articles, documentaries, wall graffiti, pamphlets, sociological texts, scatological poems, speeches and cave paintings that thoroughly and completely prove the past and present day criminality of the nation and the complicity of its people in that criminality.
This Constitution of Guilt, with its hundreds of thousands of pages, its multimedia apparatus and its glorious flag of guilt waving bleakly everywhere, is the true source of political legitimacy for the elite. It has displaced democracy and law with social crisis after social crisis whose very existence shames us all and makes all other forms of government, other than the emergency response to the crisis, irrelevant.
To protest anything that the crisis managers of the United States of Guilt do is to display racism, criminal selfishness, disdain for the planet, a lack of concern for the future heart problems of six year olds drinking soda; along with a legion of other crimes, all of which add up to being a bad member of society. A guiltless sociopath.
The social consensus determines who is and isn't a good person. It says that good people feel a sense of responsibility toward others. Guilt is the emotion of failing to live up to those expectations and responsibilities. When it is universally cultivated, then everyone feels guilty for not living up to their social duties and guilt for not feeling more guilty about it; except those high-achievers totting back organic fair trade groceries in reusable Amnesty International bags on the way to prepare lunches for homeless gay illegal aliens while wearing buttons condemning the occupation of Afghanistan and Gaza, nuclear power, West Virginia, hunting wolves, drilling for oil, driving cars and not being more engaged with the problems of the world.
People will only do so much in the name of virtue, but they will do far more if they are hag-ridden in the name of guilt. People tire of being virtuous, but they are never allowed to tire of being guilty.
They will allow their own freedoms to be stripped away from them if they can be convinced that they do not deserve those freedoms because they have taken them from others. They will allow their money to be taken from them, if they are convinced that their hard-earned money is actually ill-gotten loot. Most of all, they will allow their happiness to be taken from them if they are convinced that their happiness indicts them for not caring enough about all the misery that they have caused.
And yet virtue is the gateway to guilt. If you allow politicians to spend enough time singing your praises, eventually they will force you to live up to them. If they praise America as a generous nation, that means they expect to take your money. If they praise it as a tolerant nation, that means it is expected not to put up a fight against any imposition. If it is praised as being willing to meet all challenges, that is a blank check. If it is praised for its willingness to come to terms with the past, that means the guilt is about to be piled on with a wheelbarrow.
Be wary of praise, for it often implies obligation. The easiest way to trap a population in guilt is to praise them to the skies, swell their heads with their own greatness, and then pull out the rug from under them by blasting them for their shortcomings. Make a people think that they are possessed of extraordinary virtues, and it is a matter of child's play to entrap them by showing them that it is not so. As virtue easily becomes guilt, so the dictatorship of virtue becomes a United States of Guilt.