Monday, October 3, 2016

Raw Deal 7: Ideologically Partisan Pez-Dispensers

Michael Lumish

Heya guys, good morning.

This is Michael Lumish talking with you on a cool and rainy Monday, October third, here in the Oakland hills.

What I want to discuss this morning is the apparent demise of civil political discussion in the West today in favor of relentless smear campaigns and the spitting of partisan talking points.

This kind of thing always gets worse as we approach important national elections such as the one coming up this November.

And I find it a bit disconcerting that people whom I generally respect are suddenly transmorgrified into ideological talking-points Pez dispensers. Although this is nothing new, the manufacture of hatred toward the enemy of your choice has replaced discussion of issues.

Donald Trump, for example, is constantly lambasted as racist and sexist and Islamophobic and an anti-Semitic, while otherwise intelligent people post images of the guy on Facebook dressed up as Adolph Hitler or in a tutu wearing lip-stick, or whatever.

I don’t know that the Republicans are much better, but as someone who has spent most of his life within the Democratic Party, I find myself considerably more critical of “my own,” so to speak, because I tended to expect more from them, integrity-wise.

It’s as if each side just lines up behind the talking points that favor their candidate, as spoon fed to them from the media. In this way issues take a back-seat to the kind of irrational poisonous hatred that defines our political culture.

Thus the Democrats do little more than smear everyone who may disagree with them on the issues as racist and/or sexist, because that’s all they’ve got.

I don’t know that the Republicans are so much better – and I happen to be unregistered with any political party – but the Democrats, and that goes double for the progressive-left variety, love to portray themselves as both morally and intellectually far superior to those rubes who live in fly-over country.

This criticism of the Left has been around for quite some time, for decades, and I cannot even begin to describe to you what it’s like to wake up after so many years and realize that this criticism is true.

The smug sense of superiority that just oozes from what is sometimes called the Regressive Left represents, to my mind, a truly revolting sense of unwarranted superiority and snobbish faux-sophistication.

At this point, particularly when it comes to foreign policy, the views of your average Alabama pig farmer seem far more reasonable than the kind of upside-down inside-out gibberish that we’ve been getting from Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and from the universities when it comes to the rise of Political Islam and the mass importation of Arab and North African Muslims into Europe and, now, into the United States.

I saw a report this morning – and I can only hope that it is not true – that Hillary Cliton intends to import about a million Muslim refugees into the United States in her first year in office, and anyone who objects or even so much as raises questions about the wisdom of such a policy, is automatically smeared as a vile racist or hate-filled Islamophobe.

This is precisely the kind of thing that we also see in Europe although in Britain they might very well toss you in prison for saying anything negative about the EU’s cultural enrichment policy which is bringing such joy throughout the continent.

But, y’know, if Trump is slandered and demeaned and spit-at by those who represent the facile progressive-left intelligentsia, he has certainly made it much easier for them by being such an obnoxious schmuck on the campaign trail.

I mean, the guy has to be the single most obnoxious individual that I have ever seen run for the presidency within my lifetime.

I was personally disgusted when he demeaned Carly Fiorina’s looks while running for the Republican nomination. I get that, whatever else Trump is up to, he is running against the fascist-like grip that Political Correctness has upon the culture of the West, but he has done it in a manner that gives plenty of cannonballs to his enemies to shoot back at him.

If I vote, I will probably vote for Trump because Trump, at least, is willing to acknowledge that the rise of Political Islam is a significant and toxic political movement with far reaching negative consequences around the world.

On the Left, and among Democrats, however, if you even raise the question you are spit at as some knuckle-dragging hate-filled Neanderthal.

Speaking only for myself, I would rather take my chances with an Alabama pig-farmer who respects the rise of Political Islam enough to address it honestly then with internationalist elites, such as Clinton, Obama, or Merkel, in Germany, who sing precious lullabies to their constituencies, while tucking them into bed in their jammies, while the cries of Alahu Akbar ring throughout the land in places like Nice, France or Cologne, Germany or San Bernardino, California, Orlando, Florida, Boston Massachusetts, Fort Hood, Texas - and on and on and on - not to mention New York City.

It’s a shame that Trump is such an obnoxious schmuck, otherwise he could get elected and the United States might actually address the issue, rather than enable it while spitting poison at those of us who object.


  1. I hear you. And here's the thing, you can't even bring it up. Yesterday someone was telling me he had recently been in Appalachia, "you know, really ignorant whites who are voting for Trump". Never mind the snobbery of this statement or the disdain with which it was delivered, but I was thinking to myself, "as opposed to the wealth of intellect residing in our inner cities where they'll be voting for Clinton? Oh, wait, that's 'racist'." Of course I didn't say that. I didn't want to descend to that level, but did mention the lack of jobs and growing heavy drug problems in rural white areas. But, it seems there can be no discussion of any of these things.

    That TV debate was a complete insult to a once great nation. It reminded me of something from the Eastern Bloc. And you are right that if Trump wasn't such a complete schmuck with a bunch of personal ticks he would trounce Hillary. He's worse than just inexperienced. As for her, whilst the very well-paid media pundits were praising her 'composure' what my wife and I saw was everything we have come to hate in a politician. Like you, I tend to be harder on what comes from what traditionally is my side of the aisle. My wife, after seeing Hillary's performance said to me she felt like voting for Trump. I am still registered as a Democrat, but if I vote at all, and that's a BIG IF, it will not be for Hillary Clinton. I don't know what she stands for, i.e., what in hell is her rational for being president? I hear no overarching theme to her campaign, just a laundry list of PC pandering. Who is she? 8 years of a stealth presidency has been enough. And it has given the media plenty of valuable experience in covering up.

    1. P.S. Where did you read about The Hill preparing the red carpet for a million of our good friends?

    2. Y'know, I am not even certain.

      It was just a tid-bit that I came across in my daily scan-thru.

    3. I wouldn't be a surprise though if it is true. I think she's absolutely awful, and every time I try to say why, all I get is harangued about Trump, without me ever having mentioned him.
      I just saw Hillary on TV give a speech where she is all things to all people.
      The conservatives are right about her, she is a shape shifting Alinskyite.

      OMG, I just saw a letter from her to Alinsky from 1971. She lived on Derby Street in Berkeley about two blocks up from where I lived in the early 80's!
      Of course people do change over time, but what has she changed into? She takes huge amounts of money from Wall Street then says she's the champion of ordinary Americans and she's going to raise taxes on the wealthy, raise your wage, and make them do profit sharing. After giving her bonafides as the new Bernie she then says something which I think is incredible. "None of the Fortune 500 executives are supporting my opponent. Think about that." I'm thinking about it. Are you?

    4. Ah-ha-ha!!!

      She didn't seem to realize that this would be an argument in his favor among her own constituency!


  2. If Trump wins and is as bad as everyone says, then the Government will grind to a halt or he will be impeached by the Democrats and Establishment Republicans.

    But if he is able to allow for an entrenchment against politically correct, globalistic, totalitarian tendencies, where Clinton, having learned from Obama, will take the country, then we should pay a debt of gratitude.

    The world, not just the USA, must decide if elites, who scoff with intolerance unless you step in line, will create the utopia as they claim, or a distopia as their opponents fear. Experience seems more inclined to favor the latter view.

    1. Heya School,

      "politically correct, globalistic, totalitarian tendencies, where Clinton, having learned from Obama, will take the country..."

      I think that it was Merkel's obvious indifference to the the plight of her people under the ongoing "immigration crisis" that crystallized that one for me.

      I believe one of her people even told the German citizenry something to the effect of, "If you don't like it, leave."

      My ongoing question, tho, is "why?"

      I find it difficult to believe that Merkel and the EU would endure this chaos simply out of ideological conviction, but I do not know for sure.

    2. For globalism to work, if at all, there must be consensus and good faith pursuit of the Universal Declaration.

      The OIC, 57 states, rejects the UDHR. No consensus.

      And states that harangue at the Human Rights Council are so often the worst abusers. Certainly not acting in good faith.

      The Merkels of the world are mistaken that they can force political development and enlightenment by integration. They are insulated from the negative effects of believing that everyone, basically, just wants to coexist, if only given the opportunity. And they will choke out those who oppose or even say that these ideas and aims are futile because people are different in their beliefs and objectives.

      That does not account for the hardcore militants with the sole intention of bringing down the system for their own hungry power.

      There's a lot at stake, but it may just take a bit more for until the Merkels can acknowledge the reality that has obscured them and cease trying to create something surreal and oppressive to most of the citizenry.

    3. You have taken myopia to a whole new level. I'm as pro-Israel as anybody (so is HIllary), but of course there are other issues. Things like whether food companies can poison our food, whether we should spend money to prevent pandemics, how to deal not with trade but with automation, how to prevent the collapse of our economy within 15 years (as predicted by Thomas Piketty) because of our unsustainable wealth inequality, the use of nuclear weapons against twitter enemies, and so on. And by the way, that million Muslim immigrant nonsense comes from Breitbart and other alt-right sites. the real number is up to 65,000. And for someone who is concerned about Jews, you seem extremely nonplussed by the notion of actual Nazis and white nationalists being close to Trump.

    4. Hi Joseph,

      I have one question.

      If Hillary is pro-Israel and, therefore, pro-Jewish, just how is it that she feels so comfortable telling the Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live within our own ancestral homeland?

    5. "And I was often the designated yeller. Something would happen, a new settlement announcement would come and I would call him up, what are you doing? You've got to stop this."

      "...and just fundamentally disagreed with Bibi in the '90s that I was in favor of a two-state solution. I was the first person associated with any administration to say that out loud"

    6. Indeed, why is she comfortable saying we need a Palestinian State. The conditions for establishing such an entity are simply not there. Yet she seemed to be saying this is an urgent matter. Why is she comfortable calling Max Blumenthal a 'mitzvah'?
      The 'real' number is 65,000... for now. The dire conditions in Syria are at least in part a failure of the administration for which she was Secretary of State as is the rise of ISIS.
      "...the use of nuclear weapons against twitter enemies,..."
      Joseph, You lost me on that one. This refers to what?

      You keep telling us that Hillary is as pro-Israel as can be. I, for one, would love to believe it, so please make the case.

    7. Many progressives love to act like they know best. Looking at reality, it's arguable they know least.

      Many progressives love to act like they care more, but in most cases they care no more than anyone else.

      Many progressives want to dictate how others live and act, but they live and act differently.

      Any smart, caring, moral progressive that suggests Trump would respond to a tweet with nuclear weapons is either an idiot or duplicitous.

      And these people generally refuse to see the obvious anti-Israelism and antisemitism among their peers, then suggest how in tune they are.

      The lectures from these people become tiring for many that live in the real world, not the global village of their imaginations.

      The religion of Progressives is no less fundamental in many respects than what is seen from the Evangelicals, as it affects every aspect of their being.

    8. Michael,

      The two state solution is mainstream policy in both parties and has been for as long as I can remember.But HIllary, and Bill, have made it clear who they blame for the failure of the peace process. It's in their books. And Hillary has made it clear that she is pro Israel, as opposed to Trump, who has promised to remain neutral in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. That is, unless Putin or his white nationalist friends (Bannon) tell him otherwise.

    9. Trump opponents hear only what they want to hear, or what they are fed, and invariably misrepresent what he says by changing the context or selective wording to fit their purpose. We see it illustrated above, from someone who thinks he knows what Trump actually says and stands for, but most likely has not heard Trump fully explain his position or policies in the manner intended.

      Writing something in a book is far different from acting out. Clinton supports BLM and identity politics that is anathema to Israel and Jews. She thinks Max Blumenthal is a mitzvah. Among other things. Who are these Clinton supporters trying to kid?

    10. Joseph,

      so am I to understand that you agree that Hillary has every right to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live within our own traditional homeland?


    11. Perhaps a more important issue about Clinton for Jews, in and out of Israel, is her embracing BLM.

      BLM is way more dangerous than the KKK, though most progressives, including Jews, believe the opposite. Others are scared to be ostracized, so they go along. Others are afraid to acknowledge error because it will reveal they are not so smart as they pretended.

      The result of the above is "intersectionality" and mainstreaming that brings in masses of people to be further misled to dislike Jews and Israel.

      Trump is a theoretical danger more than a real one, but can the same be said of Clinton? Maybe we should ask the Blumenthals?

    12. Clinton's running mate boycotted Netanyahu's speech. Her party proudly displayed palestinian flags at DNC. It doesn't even matter what she herself believes, she's a politician representing a party that made antisemitism great again. She's already surrounded by people that hate Israel. And when she's incapacitated in a year or two, we'll have Huma running the show.

  3. 2012 was the last semi-legitimate presidential election. This one, is nearly entirely fake but good news everyone! We won't have them any more. I suspect 2020 will be more along the lines of single party state 'electing' its own leaders in a big closed forum like any other nominally communist authoritarian state. The popular vote, which isn't in the Constitution will be abandoned in favor of 'polling' that we're told, will feed the mechanics of the Electoral College, which IS in the Constitution. By 2024 we'll be told that Big Data and AI already knows our preference so we won't need this polling anymore. And a leader like a modern day Pope will be announced. By 2028 they'll do away with the fiction of a named leader entirely and simply tell us 'The government' is fine the way it is, running smoothly.

    1. Sounds like a dystopian novel.

      Maybe a cross between George Orwell and Philip K. Dick.