Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Latest Times of Israel Post

Mike L.

Strategies of Denial in Progressive-Left Jewish Discourse

In this one I identify and briefly discuss five strategies of denial in progressive-left Jewish discourse as they relate to Obama administration failures viz-a-viz the Arab-Israel conflict.

These are:

1) Ignoring Obvious Truths

2) Denying Obvious Truths

3) Minimizing Obvious Truths

4) Diffusion of Responsibility

5) Defamation of Character.

I considered a sixth, Threats of Violence, but decided against.



  1. From your article

    "And then one day, while listening to anti-war speakers in Civic Center San Francisco, I looked up and saw a banner with a Nazi swastika entwined in a Star of David. It was then that I finally realized that the progressive movement held a poison at its core.

    I have not been to an anti-war rally since."

    Poison at its core.....sums up exactly my experience and feelings. Some would say it's only a few but that few is all it takes to poison the whole. And, truth be told, it's really more than a few.

    1. Yeah, I'm with ya, Doodad.

      Minimization of obvious truths is one of the most annoying strategies of denial, although not as annoying as ignoring the obvious.

      We look out on the world and we see virtually the entire Mid East being taken over by Islamism and the international left spitting hatred at the Jewish state of Israel, and then we get "progressive Zionists" telling us that it's somehow all in our imaginations.

      They honestly want us to believe that 2 + 2 = 37.5.

      Which is why they do not much care about the rise of the Brotherhood, despite its historical connection to Nazi Germany.

  2. Looks like Daniel has been having some fun and games here !!

    1. What are we going to do with this guy, Shirl, eh?

    2. Shirl, I posted and deleted several comments several times because of my OCD -- the OCD that I suffer from.

      Mike and Shirl, I hope that you'll tolerate me. :)

  3. Hey, what ya know?

    The Times of Israel put my piece at the top of their Top Ops page.

    It's kind of funny, tho, because I named the thing "Strategies of Denial in Progressive-Left Jewish Discourse" and they renamed it "Sh*t Progressive Jews Say."




  4. OMG look at the label Volleyball has given you

    "In a piece at the Times of Israel Hard Core Right Wing Activist Mike Lumish (formerly a Kossak) goes over the edge combining a series of lies and simple ignorance to guide his arguments. Arguments he then turns back on the Jewish community to show in some way that he far more the "Good Jew" than they are."


    Hard Core Right Wing Activist? Has he lost his mind?

    1. La-la land must be nice this time of year I guess. Incroyable!

    2. "Good Jew"?

      I don't even know what that means.

      btw, am I now to understand that being pro-Gay is "hard-core right-wing"?

      Am I to understand that opposing Islamic abuse of women in the Middle East is now a conservative position?

      I have to say, tho, that it must be rather galling for the poor guy that on the very day after I call him out for slandering Jay and threatening me with violence, one of my pieces makes it to the top of the Times of Israel "Top Ops" page.



  5. HAHAHA - You are "Hard Core Right Wing" because you cater to racists and because, though you keep telling people that you just love women and gays you openly support and advocate for the election of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in the United States. I may remind you that Romney / Ryan AND the Republican Party stand against Civil Liberties for Gay Americans. They stand against the repeal of DADT, they stand against Marriage Equality. Perhaps you missed that. And as far as Women... Sure the party of Todd Akin certainly is a paragon of women's rights....

    SO... while you are so "worried" about the rights of Women, Gays and Lesbians in Muslim countries - you don't give a shit about them in America, because if you cared, you sure as hell not would be touting your boy Romney and getting all excited about the fact that you can't wait to vote for him.

    Basically you are completely full of shit. Oh and as for Times of Israel piece... No, I don't care that you are at the top of the Ops/Ed page. Look at the crazies that are supporting you there. It doesn't gall me in the slightest that you are there... It is just your appalling ignorance, hypocrisy and racism that galls me.

    Response from Crazy Jay in 5......4.....3....

    1. Yer breath stinks. Go brush yer teeth.

    2. No.. I demean those that are lying hypocrites about these things who complain about problems in one place but say nothing about anything else. Like the so-called "Human Rights Advocates" that only stand against Israel but put up with all kinds of discrimination on their side. Same thing - different hatred.

      But way to try to distract from the point. Just face it, you don't get to claim you are in favor of Gay, or Women's Rights if you vote for that Republicans.

      Oh and your takeaway on my comments is wrong.

    3. That you demean anyone, and presume that they are evil to your good, is the issue.

      I am not distracting from the point because there is no single point.

      You are trapped, as well, in a Democratic-Republican dichotomy that permeates almost every idea you provide.

      You paint with a too broad brush of intolerance.

      I think my takeaway on your comments is on point, even if you predictably see it as wrong.

    4. you know, i wish both of you would drop the personal animosity. Ultimately, you both want the same thing, a safe and secure Israel. You just have different opinions on how to get there. But that should still put you on the same side of the argument.

      I thought he wrote a pretty thoughtful rebuttal to your Times of Israel piece. A response to that is a lot more important than cleaning up the debris left from your pissing contest.

    5. VB,

      you have defamed JayinPhiladelphia by implying that he has threatened your children which, of course, is total nonsense.

      And you have on at least two occasions threatened me, personally.

      Your first threat to me, that I am aware of, is when you said that you intend to hold me responsible for Jay's non-existent threat to your children.

      You wrote:

      And Mike - you own this blog. Should something happen because this crazy a-hole is using your blog as "jump off point" then I hold you responsible.

      And now I understand that you threaten me with physical violence in emails to friends?

      You should know, of course, that I find such threats to be almost as scary as this hummingbird outside of my window.

      Nonetheless, it is unethical that you think that you can participate here without having to address these things.

      You have defamed Jay, one of my front-pagers, and you have dragged his reputation through the mud. Furthermore, you have threatened me with physical violence.

      What have you to say to this?

      As far as I am concerned, we have nothing whatsoever to discuss until you address your defamation of character and your threats of violence.

    6. Stuart,

      will you shoot me a quick email?

      I need to recreate my address book which got wiped out by the Taliban.


    7. A thoughtful rebuttal? Surely you jest.

      For someone that was so offended because you mistakenly believed your mental competency was questioned, how could you deem calling people "The Right Wing Jewish Lunatic Fringe" to be "thoughtful?"

    8. My mental competency was questioned. There isn't any question about that. When it comes to Israel, Mike is right wing fringe. And I've known him for awhile. I'm not sure he'd argue with the lunatic part :P

    9. Fringe? I doubt that characterization, as there are many who see the dangers facing Jews and Israel no less.

      As I recall, your mental capacity was NOT questioned, even though you perceived it. Did he not explain to you?

      In any event, why do you blow off the "lunatic" label as "thoughtful rebuttal" when his mental competency expressly raised by a direct insult?

    10. Ok, I surrender. You're wrong, but lets say for sake of argument that the right wing lunatic fringe doesn't apply. That doesn't mean the rest of what was written should be dismissed. If you argue that it should be solely based on that preface, then it's pretty much proof you have no interest in dialogue, only dehumanization of those that disagree with you. You need look no further than comments on this page.

    11. I'm pretty sure I qualified it. I know you're not right wing, fringe or otherwise, with regards to domestic social issues.

      And fringe might be a stretch. Specially coming from someone who is to the south and west of gandhi.

    12. South and west of Gandhi?

      Are you kidding me?

      If Gandhi were to crawl into my brain he would almost entirely agree with everything that I think... for the most part... mainly.

      It occurs to me, tho, Stuart, that Gandhi and I might not agree upon everything and one thing that we might not agree upon is the meaning of "left" and "right" when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict.

      It used to be that if someone was on the right that they favored the annexation of Judea and Samaria. That was the traditional Likud position, no?

      We need to define our terms, because it is clear that the terms of the debate have shifted.

      Am I wrong?

    13. Maybe you misunderstood. It's me that scored on the test as being south and west of gandhi. That would kind of put me out on the fringe. But I'll hang with you anyway. You centrist.

      I don't hear much about annexation anymore. Is that still their official position?

    14. You tell him, Randall!

      But be careful, or else he'll start obsessing over you 24/7 as he does me (as demonstrated above). ;)

      Also, what Mike said. There are social consequences to making violent threats and being an unhinged smear artist, and he should answer for those deeds, and make amends, before anyone affords him even an iota of respect again. If you ask me.

    15. For a moment there, I lapsed into my DU voice. But honestly, someone like vb adds less than nothing to a discusison, IMO.

  6. If I am wrong, then do not surrender. No one asked you to.

    To imply that I have no interest in dialogue, but "only dehumanization of those that disagree" with me is not only preposterous, but foolish.

    As for "the rest of what was written," the rebuttal was too interested to uncritically defend Obama. Some do not see him as the grand master, and are willing to offer critical words when deserved. To that they get a "thoughful rebuttal" that implies their disagreement is lunacy. Give me a break!

    Jeffrey Goldberg just wrote a critical piece about Obama's Middle East policy. He says that Obama needlessly ruptured the peace process. Just another lunatic?

    I do not support Romney, but I do not worship so much at the throne of Obama that I swallow my thoughts when he screws up or acts in ways that are contradictory, unlike far too many Democrats that place partisanship at the highest level and do nothing in fear that the bogeyman will win out.