More post-hoc fascism

The Nizkor website has pointed to post-hoc rationalization as a reason for the success of the Nazi movement. I did not make that up, as much as liberal critics like to persynalize logic, as if Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinksy told them that logic itself is persynalized and can be polarized by persynal attacks. Today’s “New York Times” is an example of the sickness of racism deeply infecting Amerikkka.

Here is another example discussing post-hoc rationalization:

“The rule barring consideration of post hoc agency rationalizations operates where an agency has provided a particular justification for a determination at the time the determination is made, but provides a different justification for that same determination when it is later reviewed by another body. See Industrial Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 , 631 n. 31, 100 S. Ct. 2844, 2858, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1980); Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95 , 63 S. Ct. 454, 462, 87 L. Ed. 626 (1943). However, this rule has been developed in the context of a court’s duty to set aside a ‘final agency decision’ if based on a post hoc rationalization. Such a ‘final agency decision,’ generally required for judicial review of agency actions, provides the court with a date certain by which it can analyze the agency’s justifications. It also identifies the particular decision being challenged and the justifications proffered at that time.”(1)

It is obvious who is playing around with timelines and justifications. It is the “New York Times.” Someone drives a plane into the IRS, and instead of taking the blame for fascism, again, the “New York Times” places it elsewhere. (See Gail Collins today.) The reason is obvious: the New York Times wrongly reported 9/11, wrongly reported the questions including weapons of mass destruction that led to the Iraq War and used a lynching to elect Obama. So now they need to find anything they can to justify that all after the fact.

The decision to go to Iraq is over. The decision to go into Afghanistan is over. The “New York Times” should own up to its responsibility in that instead of making up after-the-fact rationalizations of an ad hominem nature and using the healthcare package to buy more supporters for lynching. No matter what is done now, no matter what psychological feelings people may have about me the individual, the real violence has been done. What has not been done is owning up.

And no, Nelson Mandela did not endorse the all-white rugby team until AFTER apartheid ended. I’m tired of people telling me I should do that even more than I already have. The “New York Times” is already on record regarding the Willie Horton case in the Bush campaign, the 2000 South Carolina “miscegenation” issue against John McCain and the Jena 6. Those decisions are done and over with. Now if the “New York Times” had recanted on those three and then wanted to obliterate my more significant case, that would be one thing. However, what is being done instead is they do not recant their own standards; yet they wait for the time most favorable to themselves and the lynching cause to change their stories. They do this only by whispering and Aesopian slander, never directly in print.

Meanwhile, I WILL take credit that the Dutch government has fallen over Afghanistan.(3) No credit is due the time-wasting party apparatchiks at the “New York Times.” The Dutch have followed the correct example, that people internationally must proceed without wasting time waiting for Amerikkkans.

The Republican Party is in the small minority now. The “New York Times” should get a sense of proportion.



%d bloggers like this: