021): Follow-Up: The ‘Democrats Ate Their Homework’ Argument

Argument, COVID-19, Crime, Democrats, Race, Racism, Republicans, South-Africa

The discussion continued, between David Vance and myself on video, about the denial-based argument certain conservative keep making as to the root causes of black crime. And the vociferous, ditto-head reader response to my rebuttal of a logically flawed argument advanced by Candace Ownes that can be summed up as, “The Democrats Ate Their Homework.”

I wrote a column, 2 weeks back, harvested from Into the cannibal’s Pot, my 2011 book, driving home the axiomatic truth about aggregate group differences in the propensity for violence. For example, East Asians such as the Chinese, Japanese and Taiwanese form relatively low-crime groups.

I wrote an entire book about this vexing issue of gratuitous violence in South Africa–unidirectional violence, mostly; ritualistic violence, violence for the sake of it and for the fun of it. Funny thing, the Democrats never came up in the causal analysis in South Africa.

The blame game Candice Owens effects, stateside, is “in essence—and without fail—that the Democrats made African-Americans do the crime. The Democrats are the provenance of all the ills of society.

More cynically, Owens’ argument can be summed up as, “Elect Republicans Again, And Your Woes Will Be A Thing Of The Past.” (How has that worked out for you, so far? Be honest. The duopoly is evil.)

All poppycock, obviously. Or, as a reader put it: “Candy and Captain Kirk are the ‘Controlled Opposition.’ The dumbed down opposition.”

Interestingly, the excuse-making industry in South Africa does a similar dance to Candace’s.

For the kinds of crimes that would make Shaka Zulu proud, excuse-makers in South Africa blamed the party of apartheid and apartheid. (Or, as the Republicans always intone, “The Democrats are the real racists.”)

The trouble with South Africa’s excuse-makers is that the extent of such violence is way worse under democracy than it was under apartheid; crime is far worse under the ANC than the old National Party, which was blamed by the excuse-making industry for black violence.

The “Controlled Opposition,” in our case Candace Owens, openly advertises her bailiwick or shtick as turning blacks into Republicans. That is party-centric, simplistic thinking, the kind this writer has always eschewed in favor of principles, seeking the immutable truth.

Keeping the debate at the party-level—the GOP vs. the Dems—is unprincipled, tit-for-tat argument. It’s exactly what the Celebrity Media, left and right, want: Keep the people fixated not on their interests as individuals in thriving communities—on the immutable truths necessary to achieve such interests—but on electing feckless, self-aggrandizing leaders who work for their own political aggrandizement.

No doubt, Democrats are dogs, but that dog didn’t eat the black community’s homework. And that dog of an idea won’t hunt.

*Image and caption courtesy The Penn Political Review

UPDATED (10/11/021): The structure of this typically Republican, Candice Owens-type “argument” is nailed by Richard Hanania. Accordingly blacks are justified in their skepticism of the Covid vaccine. The argument made by this Republican mouth cuts whites out completely; leaving them in the dark.

The structure of this typically Republican, Candice Owens-type "argument" is nailed by @RichardHanania. Accordingly blacks are justified in their skepticism of the #CovidVaccine. The argument made by this Republican mouth cuts whites out completely; leaving them in the dark https://t.co/3sTf87VUfG

— ILANA Mercer (@IlanaMercer) October 12, 2021

UPDATED (7/3/021): NEW COLUMN: Mad, #MeToo Matriarchy Ensnared Bill Cosby

Criminal Injustice, Feminism, Gender, Justice, Law, Sex

1 Reply

NEW COLUMN is “Mad, #MeToo Matriarchy Ensnared Bill Cosby.” It is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com and American Greatness.

Excerpt:

… The same myopic, malfunctioning media are currently choosing to focus on how the Cosby verdict has been overturned on a procedural or technical matter

…. don’t allow the due-process oversight, indubitably important, to distract you from the nub of the matter.

The Cosby prosecution, as I pointed out at the time, rested on he-said, she-said hearsay evidence, on facts that can’t possibly meet the rules of evidence (the ones the United States once abided), or be corroborated for the purposes of a just prosecution, in accordance with the legal standards of Western law (of blessed memory).

The tainted evidence was solicited decades too late, with utter disregard for the statute of limitations. It came from unverified “prior bad act” women (“witnesses”)–unhinged #MeToo hysterics loosed in a court of law–who acted and sounded as though they were demented. Why, even the date of “the crime” could not be established.

The Law must engage in a search for truth. Ultimately, however, courts of law do not deal with what happened. Their judgments must rely on what can be proven to have happened.

Prosecutorial power to bring charges against a person is an awesome power, stress Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Backing him, the prosecutor has the might of the state, and, consequently, he must never “override the rights of the defendant in order to gain a conviction.”

Prosecutorial duties are dual. While acting as the plaintiff, the prosecutor must also take pains to protect the defendant’s rights.

This is why the #MeToo judicial “philosophy” undergirding the prosecution of Bill Cosby and many other men is so terrifying.

“Always Believe the Victim” is a ditzy, made-in-Hollywood dogma that goes against the stellar Anglo-American common law legal tradition. …

…MORE. NEW COLUMN is “Mad, #MeToo Matriarchy Ensnared Bill Cosby.” It is currently on WND.COM, The Unz Review, Townhall.com and American Greatness.

* Image: Bill Cosby’s accuser, courtesy BBC News. Note that Mr. Cosby is legally blind NOW, but I don’t believe he was blind when he allegedly went for this apparition.

Stephen Sacks On Facebook:

Bill Cosby & Harvey Weinstein are almost in the top five sleaziest guys in Hollywood, but we don’t typically imprison boorish louts for immoral behavior.

Immoral is not necessarily illegal.

Just like one can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, a prostitute, err, I mean, sex worker, shouldn’t be allowed to yell rape in a crowded brothel.

Read the transcripts from both trials.In an alternate universe the ACLU would have filed Friend of the Court briefs in both cases to protect the integrity of our legal system.