Rodney King, ad hominem attacks and distinguishing lifestyle from power

As Obama brings out endless ad hominem attacks on me, it’s useful to remember the standard of Willie Horton. He was a convicted murderer. That is the cause of a supreme ad hominem attack as to whether he should have been used in a 1988 Bush campaign ad. Nothing Obama has on me is going to match that. It goes to show a racist, anti-Asian standard in applying ad hominem attacks. That’s not surprising because ad hominem attacks are stock in trade in fascist movements.

In point of fact, Bush’s argument in 1988 was that Dukakis was soft on crime. In that context, Horton’s being a murderer was a relevant, not illogical point. Nonetheless, we at MIM and in the liberal media generally believed the ad was no good as “lynching,” because of the history of this country. Both money and career power were at stake, and the media was right to come down against it.

The British Guardian recently pointed out the same thing in an article titled as follows:
“Inside the closed ranks of Scotland Yard’s top secret deep infiltration squad

For four years, Officer A lived a secret life among anti-racist activists as they fought brutal battles with the police and the BNP. Here he tells of the terrifying life he led, the psychological burden it placed on him and his growing fears that the work of his unit could threaten legitimate protest.”

About Rodney King, the Guardian pointed out in that context:

“In this video, Rodney King is referred to as an ‘innocent motorist’ but we should clarify that he was driving while under the influence of alcohol and had led the police on a high-speed chase because he was on parole for a previous robbery conviction. None of this justifies the beating he received.”

In an ad hominem attack, the illogical persyn changes the subject from a question of substance (an argument) to a question attacking the speaker of the argument. In the above, the Guardian recognizes two separate questions, thereby successfully maintaining logical distinctions.

A critical mass of the country was able to make logical distinctions in the Rodney King case. When talking about what paid state professionals do, it is not relevant to bring up every detail from a persyn’s persynal life.

Some people see my struggle as an excuse to have a lifestyle movement covering every aspect of life with no element of paid professionals involved. In this way, they cover up for spies, bad cops etc. If I were to lay out my complaints against all the individual whites in my life, we’d never have any focus and we’d never get done. What does the most good for society is to focus on where power backs racism or sexism.

The reason Obama is an Oreo racist and anyone can be a racist is by applying power to back up white ethnocentrism. If Rodney King didn’t do his homework in sixth grade, that’s not relevant in discussion of what paid professionals do to him. People who raise that sort of attack are proving their racism.

Before joining a discussion of racism and sexism, one should have a sense of proportion. That means distinguishing what people were paid to do from ordinary lifestyle conflicts people have in everyday life. My lyncher number one gave benefit to two Democratic campaigns and her handler says she received a large sum of money. My lyncher number two was paid by the first union that endorsed Obama. Lyncher number three tried to draw my attention to money from the Democratic Party to shut me up. I am not just picking on three white females for lifestyle aberrations, so I hope people will not respond in that manner.

The Congress is also well aware that more professionals involving money or career motivations were involved. Yet the Congress failed to take action. In the Cultural Revolution, the extremists most useful in restoring capitalism also could not draw the distinction between power and lifestyle. When Mao said to focus on the people in power on the capitalist road and thereby ask questions about policy and overall direction of society, ultra-leftists attacked everyone on lifestyle grounds, thereby letting the capitalist-roaders off the hook. The rightists drew the most benefit.



One Response to “Rodney King, ad hominem attacks and distinguishing lifestyle from power”

  1. Again on my “credibility” « Mimdefense’s Weblog Says:

    […] See also, “Rodney King, ad hominem attacks and distinguishing lifestyle from power” […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: