08-30-2021, 01:16 PM
** 30-Aug-2021 World View: Adam Schiff and the mass slaughter of blacks
I'd like to expand on my previous answer.
Every policy, no matter how good or bad, has unintended consequences.
In fact, the size of the unintended consequences is one measure of how
bad a policy is. And a measure of how good or bad the policymakers
are is to see how well they take action to reverse the unintended
consequences.
But sometimes the policymakers fail to take any actions to reverse the
unintended consequences. Even worse, someimes instead of fixing them,
the policymakers adopt new policies that reinforce or worsen the
unintended consequences. Once the "unintended consequences" are not
fixed, but go on and worsen for years, then it becomes appropriate to
call them "intended consequences," especially when the policymakers
have obvious motives for wanting the intended consequences.
For decades, the Democrats have adopted policies to destroy black
families, by forcing black mothers to throw their children's fathers
out of the house and into the street and out of the community in order
to collect welfare. For decades, the Democrats have manipulated
welfare policy to destroy black families as much as possible, and
today 75% of black children are born without fathers. The result is
that these children without the moral and experiential guidance of
their fathers, causing many of them to enter the criminal justice
system. Furthermore, teen boys know that, thanks to the Democrat's
welfare policies, they have no hope of having a normal family life,
because they know that if they marry and have children, their wives
will throw them out of the house as soon as they're short of money.
The result is that these rudderless young black males with no fathers
and with no hope of a family life, thanks to Democrats' policies, are
out on the streets killing each other in record numbers in cities
governed by Democrats. Democrats could fix these problems (by
following the example of Rudy Guliani's tenure in NYC, for example),
but they refuse to do so, indicating that mass slaughter of blacks on
the streets is an "intended consequence" of Democrats' policies.
The Democrats' motive is perfectly obvious. Last century, Democrats
were conducting mass slaughter of blacks through the KKK. This
century, the Democrats are conducting mass slaughter of blacks through
policies. It's exactly the same objective through different means.
So there are two "intended consequences" of Democrats' policies:
destruction of the black family, and mass slaughter of blacks in the
streets of cities governed by Democrats. After decades of failing to
fix these outcomes, and in fact allowing them to worsen, there is no
doubt that mass slaughter of blacks in the streets is an intended
consequence of Democrat policies. Same as last century, but by
different means.
Last century, the direct activities of the KKK were pretty much ended
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bitterly opposed by the Democrats,
especially those in the south. The Democrats staged a 75-day
filibuster, among the longest in American history. On one occasion,
Senator Robert Byrd spoke for over 14 consecutive hours.
This bitter opposition by Byrd is significant because Byrd had been a
Grand Wizard in the KKK, and Byrd was the mentor of Joe Biden. This
provides a solid connection between the KKK of the last century and
the Democrats of today.
After their bitter defeat, the Democrats began agressively pushing
welfare policies that destroyed the black family.
I have a personal memory of this from the 1970s. Every day I would
read in the Boston Globe of how the welfare policies worked. Vans
were sent into black neighborhoods for a period of many months. Any
woman simply had to walk out of her home and walk into the van in
front of her home to sign up for welfare on the spot, provided that
she said that her children weren't being supported by their father.
So the government was paying mothers to disavow their children's
fathers, with no limitations. That was the first step in destroying
the black family.
The policy got much worse, as the welfare policy evolved to crack down
on mothers who were receiving welfare, but still had the father living
with them. They were required to throw the fathers out of the house,
or lose their welfare.
Then there was a crackdown on fathers who still were around their
families. I recall stories of mothers losing welfare because dad was
still in the neighborhood. The message was clear: get rid of dad
completely.
Next, the authorities completely closed the noose around fathers. The
government implemented large data processing systems to track down
fathers, mostly black fathers, who could be found. The message to
women was clear: Have sex with several men, so that the father can't
be identified, if you want to continue received welfare payments; make
sure you don't hang around with the father(s) of your children or,
better yet, make sure you don't even know who the father is.
It's incredible how successful the Democrats have been. They turned
their bitter defeat in 1964 into feel-good policies that completely
destroy black families, and continue the mass slaughter of blacks into
the 21st century.
In the 1960s, Patrick Moynihan warned that these would be unintended
consequences of Democrat policies. But since the policies have gone
on for decades, and have worsened, it's clear that they're now
"intended consequences." This is what the Democrats want.
And the reason they want these outcomes is also clear. The Democrats
desperately tried to win the Civil War and perpetuate slavery. When
they lost, they created the KKK and Jim Crow laws to mitigate their
disastrous defeat.
When they 1964 Civil Rights Law passed, it must have felt like losing
the Civil War all over again. There had been a hope that "The South
will rise again!", but those hopes were destroyed when the southern
Democrats were defeated for the second time.
This time, they couldn't form the KKK to mitigate their defeat.
Instead, they mitigated their defeat by adopting the policies
described above, leading to the destruction of the black family and
the mass slaughter of blacks on the street.
In later years, the Democrats adopted more policies to further the
mass slaughter of blacks. They've prevented the police from enforcing
the laws, since doing so is "racist." The let violence criminals out
of prisons, since prisons are "racist." Violent criminals are not
prosecuted, since prosecution is "racist." Police are defunded,
because police are "racist." These policies have had the "intended
consequence" of allowing blacks to freely slaughter each other on the
streets. This is Democrat party policy.
This mass slaughter of blacks is almost a genocide. Today, Adam
Schiff is a Democrat leader, and has to be held responsible for this
near-genocide, in the same way that any Nazi leader would have to have
been held responsible for the Holocaust.
Last century, the Democrats justified the lynching of blacks or the
1921 Tulsa Massacre as perfectly OK, since the targets were "n-----s",
and so it was OK to kill them. Today, I'm sure that Adam Schiff must
feel exactly the same way about blacks, since otherwise he would do
something about the destruction of the black family and the mass
slaughter of blacks in the streets. He is pursuing Democrat Party
policy.
Meece says that Adam Schiff is his hero, because Adam Schiff lied
every day and manufactured evidence, and didn't go to jail only
because he's protected by Congressional immunity. Calling Schiff his
"hero" is abomination enough.
Calling Schiff a "hero" is particularly pathetic today, when we have
REAL heroes who are fighting for America or who have lost their lives
in Afghanistan.
But it's much worse than that because Meece's hero is someone
responsible for a near-genocide and mass killing of blacks, which
makes makes Meece also indirectly responsible.
And Brower, if Schiff is also your hero, or if you're an Adam Schiff
troll, then you're just as bad. I've written thousands of articles
about all sorts of historical events, and I know what evil is, because
I've seen it over and over, and I know what fanatics are like, and
you're definitely a fanatic and you're definitely evil, but you
apparently don't have even a clue.
As I've said previously, monsters like Hitler or Mao or Stalin or
al-Assad or Xi succeed because they are supported by the enablers, the
excusers, the deniers, the collaborators, the acolytes and the trolls.
As I wrote last time, if Meece considers Schiff to be his hero, then
Schiff is lucky to have Meece. Who knows? Maybe Schiff would like to
become president to replace the senile Biden. Maybe Schiff will call
on Meece for help, and Meece's fealty and devotion will have paid off.
(08-27-2021, 07:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > What a collection of delusional verbiage!
(08-27-2021, 07:48 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > ** 27-Aug-2021 World View: Trollery
> Lol! So, are you also an Adam Schiff troll, or are you someone
> else's troll?
I'd like to expand on my previous answer.
Every policy, no matter how good or bad, has unintended consequences.
In fact, the size of the unintended consequences is one measure of how
bad a policy is. And a measure of how good or bad the policymakers
are is to see how well they take action to reverse the unintended
consequences.
But sometimes the policymakers fail to take any actions to reverse the
unintended consequences. Even worse, someimes instead of fixing them,
the policymakers adopt new policies that reinforce or worsen the
unintended consequences. Once the "unintended consequences" are not
fixed, but go on and worsen for years, then it becomes appropriate to
call them "intended consequences," especially when the policymakers
have obvious motives for wanting the intended consequences.
For decades, the Democrats have adopted policies to destroy black
families, by forcing black mothers to throw their children's fathers
out of the house and into the street and out of the community in order
to collect welfare. For decades, the Democrats have manipulated
welfare policy to destroy black families as much as possible, and
today 75% of black children are born without fathers. The result is
that these children without the moral and experiential guidance of
their fathers, causing many of them to enter the criminal justice
system. Furthermore, teen boys know that, thanks to the Democrat's
welfare policies, they have no hope of having a normal family life,
because they know that if they marry and have children, their wives
will throw them out of the house as soon as they're short of money.
The result is that these rudderless young black males with no fathers
and with no hope of a family life, thanks to Democrats' policies, are
out on the streets killing each other in record numbers in cities
governed by Democrats. Democrats could fix these problems (by
following the example of Rudy Guliani's tenure in NYC, for example),
but they refuse to do so, indicating that mass slaughter of blacks on
the streets is an "intended consequence" of Democrats' policies.
The Democrats' motive is perfectly obvious. Last century, Democrats
were conducting mass slaughter of blacks through the KKK. This
century, the Democrats are conducting mass slaughter of blacks through
policies. It's exactly the same objective through different means.
So there are two "intended consequences" of Democrats' policies:
destruction of the black family, and mass slaughter of blacks in the
streets of cities governed by Democrats. After decades of failing to
fix these outcomes, and in fact allowing them to worsen, there is no
doubt that mass slaughter of blacks in the streets is an intended
consequence of Democrat policies. Same as last century, but by
different means.
Last century, the direct activities of the KKK were pretty much ended
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bitterly opposed by the Democrats,
especially those in the south. The Democrats staged a 75-day
filibuster, among the longest in American history. On one occasion,
Senator Robert Byrd spoke for over 14 consecutive hours.
This bitter opposition by Byrd is significant because Byrd had been a
Grand Wizard in the KKK, and Byrd was the mentor of Joe Biden. This
provides a solid connection between the KKK of the last century and
the Democrats of today.
After their bitter defeat, the Democrats began agressively pushing
welfare policies that destroyed the black family.
I have a personal memory of this from the 1970s. Every day I would
read in the Boston Globe of how the welfare policies worked. Vans
were sent into black neighborhoods for a period of many months. Any
woman simply had to walk out of her home and walk into the van in
front of her home to sign up for welfare on the spot, provided that
she said that her children weren't being supported by their father.
So the government was paying mothers to disavow their children's
fathers, with no limitations. That was the first step in destroying
the black family.
The policy got much worse, as the welfare policy evolved to crack down
on mothers who were receiving welfare, but still had the father living
with them. They were required to throw the fathers out of the house,
or lose their welfare.
Then there was a crackdown on fathers who still were around their
families. I recall stories of mothers losing welfare because dad was
still in the neighborhood. The message was clear: get rid of dad
completely.
Next, the authorities completely closed the noose around fathers. The
government implemented large data processing systems to track down
fathers, mostly black fathers, who could be found. The message to
women was clear: Have sex with several men, so that the father can't
be identified, if you want to continue received welfare payments; make
sure you don't hang around with the father(s) of your children or,
better yet, make sure you don't even know who the father is.
It's incredible how successful the Democrats have been. They turned
their bitter defeat in 1964 into feel-good policies that completely
destroy black families, and continue the mass slaughter of blacks into
the 21st century.
In the 1960s, Patrick Moynihan warned that these would be unintended
consequences of Democrat policies. But since the policies have gone
on for decades, and have worsened, it's clear that they're now
"intended consequences." This is what the Democrats want.
And the reason they want these outcomes is also clear. The Democrats
desperately tried to win the Civil War and perpetuate slavery. When
they lost, they created the KKK and Jim Crow laws to mitigate their
disastrous defeat.
When they 1964 Civil Rights Law passed, it must have felt like losing
the Civil War all over again. There had been a hope that "The South
will rise again!", but those hopes were destroyed when the southern
Democrats were defeated for the second time.
This time, they couldn't form the KKK to mitigate their defeat.
Instead, they mitigated their defeat by adopting the policies
described above, leading to the destruction of the black family and
the mass slaughter of blacks on the street.
In later years, the Democrats adopted more policies to further the
mass slaughter of blacks. They've prevented the police from enforcing
the laws, since doing so is "racist." The let violence criminals out
of prisons, since prisons are "racist." Violent criminals are not
prosecuted, since prosecution is "racist." Police are defunded,
because police are "racist." These policies have had the "intended
consequence" of allowing blacks to freely slaughter each other on the
streets. This is Democrat party policy.
This mass slaughter of blacks is almost a genocide. Today, Adam
Schiff is a Democrat leader, and has to be held responsible for this
near-genocide, in the same way that any Nazi leader would have to have
been held responsible for the Holocaust.
Last century, the Democrats justified the lynching of blacks or the
1921 Tulsa Massacre as perfectly OK, since the targets were "n-----s",
and so it was OK to kill them. Today, I'm sure that Adam Schiff must
feel exactly the same way about blacks, since otherwise he would do
something about the destruction of the black family and the mass
slaughter of blacks in the streets. He is pursuing Democrat Party
policy.
Meece says that Adam Schiff is his hero, because Adam Schiff lied
every day and manufactured evidence, and didn't go to jail only
because he's protected by Congressional immunity. Calling Schiff his
"hero" is abomination enough.
Calling Schiff a "hero" is particularly pathetic today, when we have
REAL heroes who are fighting for America or who have lost their lives
in Afghanistan.
But it's much worse than that because Meece's hero is someone
responsible for a near-genocide and mass killing of blacks, which
makes makes Meece also indirectly responsible.
And Brower, if Schiff is also your hero, or if you're an Adam Schiff
troll, then you're just as bad. I've written thousands of articles
about all sorts of historical events, and I know what evil is, because
I've seen it over and over, and I know what fanatics are like, and
you're definitely a fanatic and you're definitely evil, but you
apparently don't have even a clue.
As I've said previously, monsters like Hitler or Mao or Stalin or
al-Assad or Xi succeed because they are supported by the enablers, the
excusers, the deniers, the collaborators, the acolytes and the trolls.
As I wrote last time, if Meece considers Schiff to be his hero, then
Schiff is lucky to have Meece. Who knows? Maybe Schiff would like to
become president to replace the senile Biden. Maybe Schiff will call
on Meece for help, and Meece's fealty and devotion will have paid off.
