Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, February 21, 2020
Despite his disastrous performance in the last debate, Michael Bloomberg isn’t going anywhere. He has already spent $233 million to President Trump’s $19 million on digital and TV advertising, so his pride is on the line. President Trump ridiculed “Mini Mike’s” debate performance, so if he drops out, it would look as if Pres. Trump chased him out of the race. Gamblers have soured on Mr. Bloomberg’s chances, but he remains in second place despite not competing in a single primary.
If Mr. Bloomberg had been better prepared for the debate, he might be on his way to buying the Democratic nomination. He’ll probably do better next time.
He did manage to shake the front runner, the socialist senator Bernie Sanders. “The best known socialist in the country is a millionaire who owns three houses,” he said. Sen. Sanders’s reply, that he needed separate houses for the different cities where he works, wasn’t convincing. And if “billionaires should not exist,” as Sen. Sanders claims, why not millionaires? Sen. Sanders could spare a house or two.
Sen. Sanders and other Democrat candidates are right to see Mr. Bloomberg as a threat not just to their campaigns, but to the party. If he wins the nomination, it means his technocratic authoritarianism becomes the party platform. I support some of his ideas, including “stop and frisk,” support for free speech on campus, and taxing sodas, but we should consider what Mr. Bloomberg would do against us if he had state power.
Mr. Bloomberg funds a gun control group called Moms Demand Action. Catherine Stefani, “a leader and spokesperson for the group,” was the San Francisco supervisor that labeled the National Rifle Association a terrorist organization. Now that “white nationalists” are likened to terrorists, Mr. Bloomberg would probably spy on us. In 2013, after the Boston Marathon bombing, he said “our interpretation of the Constitution” will need to change. He meant that government surveillance should come before privacy concerns.
Of course, Senator Elizabeth Warren would go after us too, and Bernie Sanders promises a “war on white nationalists.” President Trump has largely failed to protect his supporters (or former supporters), but he has not cracked down on white advocates. Michael Bloomberg and other candidates would. However, Mr. Bloomberg is different because he would use his media empire to support his policies. He could be far more effective than Sen. Warren or Sen. Sanders in repressing us.
Despite the constant media complaints about authoritarianism, President Trump can barely control his own administration. President Trump was hesitant about spending his own money in 2016. Mr. Bloomberg is not — and he is far wealthier. With his money and his media reach, he could be more authoritarian than Mr. Trump.
The situation would be bad enough with Mr. Bloomberg. The “moderate” Amy Klobuchar said she’s taken a “strong” position against making English the official language, something she supported in 2007. Democrats are pandering to Hispanics by running ads in Spanish. Whites have no collective representation in Congress, though other races do. President Trump rarely mentions whites, even though he constantly boasts about low black unemployment.
The state of California and several cities throughout the country are trying to rewrite American immigration law. The negative version of American history recasting our entire past as one of slavery, racism, and oppression, is becoming mainstream. Even the law makes racial distinctions. We now have official racial discrimination against whites and relaxation of law enforcement because blacks are more likely to break laws.
What unites or even defines the country? Increasingly, all that is left is force. The United States government can be used to pursue personal interest or racial advantage. Bernie Sanders would use it against whites as part of a “class struggle” that looks more like a racial spoils system. Elizabeth Warren has promised to tell the Department of Justice to go after “white nationalists,” which in her eyes includes Stephen Miller.
But Michael Bloomberg may be the biggest threat. He’s not just a politician, but almost an oligarch. Everything in his past suggests he will use all the power available to him. Supporters think that he has so much money he can’t be bought. We know he would go after gun owners, who are mostly white, and I have little doubt he’d pursue “white nationalists.”
Bernie Sanders is the most extreme candidate, but Michael Bloomberg could be the most dangerous. It’s just as well he doesn’t know how to debate.