Saturday, November 12, 2016

Conquest of the Deplorable Cheese Doodle

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon and Jews Down Under.}

As I write these lines, anti-Trumpers are protesting and, in some cases, rioting, throughout America's largest cities. In Chicago two young black men beat the holy hell out of a 50-year old white guy because he allegedly voted for Trump.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in big trouble and many of us are still quietly processing the gravity of the current political moment.

Much to my astonishment, the day after I went onto the Nothing Left radio show to discuss the meaning of Hillary's likely win, Donald Trump handed the Democratic Party a big can of whoop-ass.

My suspicion is that the Brexit Effect befuddled the pollsters, the majority of whom indicated the strong likelihood of a Clinton win.

The Brexit Effect

It is probable that many Trump voters, like many Brexit voters, were intimidated into believing that their political sensibilities represent the very worst of human failings and therefore they misled pollsters concerning their positions. These would have been among the very large numbers of people who represented Trump's soft base.

In the months leading into the election Trump-leaning voters were told - over and over again - that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots. The victory of Hitler-cum-Trump, therefore, is said to reveal an American political-social consciousness rolling in the muck of barbarism, stupidity, and the unjust prejudices of earlier times.

And who gets the blame for this insidious state of affairs? Why, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots who refused to support those who called them racist, sexist, homophobic, bigots, of course.

Many throughout Britain felt much the same way concerning Brexit voters. EU supporters, much like Hillary supporters, believed that the opposition was (or is) comprised of backward-looking, low-life Neanderthals who - when they aren't feeding the pigs or banging their heads against rust-belt walls - are out spreading hatred and racism toward people "of color" in order to gratuitously satisfy irrational anachronistic prejudices.

Therefore, because the "deplorables" were constantly told how deplorable they are, they sometimes lied about their true electoral intentions and thereby skewed the polls. In other words, both Trump and Brexit had the kind of quiet support that tends to hamstring pollsters, or so goes the theory.

Broken Glass in the Streets

Some of the angry are out in the streets breaking windows in American cities, today, because they believe that the United States is a horribly racist country and the conquest of The Deplorable Cheese Doodle (or is he a Cheetoh?) represents a confirmation of their worst fears.

They revel in the alleged ugliness of their fellow Americans because they have been encouraged to do so by much of the media, much of academia, and by politicians looking to divide the electorate for personal political gain.

Thus we end up with this surreal political moment wherein people are in the streets spitting hatred at haters for the purpose of ending hatred in America. It is apparently through breaking store-front windows and the bones of middle-aged white guys that Love Trumps Hate.

The Democratic Party assumption of anger or racial malevolence as a primary motivating factor for Trump voters points to a serious problem in the ways that we have come to see ourselves as a people and a country.

While the United States is a flawed democracy, it is nothing like the fascistic hell-hole that some make it out to be. From a human rights perspective, in fact, the US is one of the most decent countries on the entire planet and that is not going to change anytime soon, Trump or no Trump.

Furthermore, while the man can obviously be boorish, there is little to indicate racism in his policy propositions around issues of immigration.

Trump wants immigration into the United States to take place through a legal and tightly-controlled process which, during a period of rising Jihad, emphasizes security measures. Given the spread of Political Islam throughout the Middle East and Europe, and the unfortunate European experience with mass Muslim immigration, this is merely commonsense. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "race" hatred and everything to do with people who are eager to blow up the infidel in the name of Allah. It is not about skin color or ethnicity. It is about the spread of a theofascistic ideology that holds women in contempt and that encourages the throwing of Gay people off of tall buildings as an expression of religious justice.

It is one of the great ironies of recent western political history that the movement most associated with social justice and universal human rights, i.e., the progressive-left, is also the political movement least likely to stand up for the minority rights of hundreds of millions of people living under al-Sharia throughout the Muslim world.

America does not hate - and neither does the West, in general - but the world is not lacking for countries that do.


  1. "It is probable that many Trump voters, like many Brexit voters, were intimidated into believing that their political sensibilities represent the very worst of human failings and therefore they misled pollsters concerning their positions."

    I'm not sure about this. I believe it's probable that many Trump voters feared being identified and singled out as "irredeemable deplorables" rather than seeing themselves as such.

    1. That's right.

      It's not that they saw themselves as such, but they knew others might and this kind of thing makes people exceedingly uncomfortable.

      In any case, Jeff, I am still flabbergasted that the Cheese Doodle is going to be president. Once that audio tape came out and the media started truly piling on, I thought for sure that he was toast.

      Now I don't know what the hell to think!

    2. Yes, I too thought his comments combined with the pile on would do him in, although I never thought she would win in any kind of landslide electoral or otherwise.
      Did you watch the Scott Adams interview?

  2. You have to take 'polling' and surveys out of the equation entirely. It's irrelevant for two reasons. 1) the polling such as it was complete nonsense, and 2) the media tossed out the results because they attempted to lie their way to victory.

    First things first the actual polling. As someone whose household wound up on some mysterious list of 'must ask' we found ourselves the object of more than a dozen mail in survey polls and the target of multiple calls per DAY from pollsters. An example from the state Democratic party - one question was and I quote "Do you prefer a candidate with years of experience and success or a candidate who assaults and insults women" That is a word for word quote of the 4th question in a 20 question mailer. There are two issues with that. 1 - it's impossible to answer that question and 2 the results are utterly meaningless to anyone asking the question. It's obvious that what they're looking for is confirmation bias by design. Similarly Nate Silver concluded what yours truly has been saying he's guilty of, for years: autoregression and homoskedasticity. Nate Silver ask people what they think other people they think other people think other people think about what other people think. It's autoregressive and will ALWAYS tend toward your initial condition assumptions by definitions. Simply put, all his data inputs trend to the same tiny set of data for all the people asked. Ultimately what you would find is that most the answers point back to the NYT, CNN, WaPo and so forth. So of course the results are going to be what they were.

    Second, as we are all certain of now, because they've told us, the media was in cahoots. They colluded with the Clinton campaign to shape a narrative that would lead to an outcome they could plausibly sell. The challenge for the media polling was to craft an outcome that wasn't unbelievable. It was a very difficult row to hoe. On the one hand the media and Hillary campaign needed to sell her as a Mandate President but on the other hand they couldn't sell her imaginary margin of victory with some absurd number like 20 points. So they picked a subtle approach by aiming her victory as 'inevitable'. It was divinely inspired and historically mandated. That way the numbers would not be the focus of that discussion.

    Taken in combination Hillary's loss became nearly a stone cold lock.

    If you looking for guidebook on the DNC plan, I implore you read one of the most important overlooked pieces of the past few decades. It's called "The Urban Archipelago" and defines clearly their electoral objectives and the electoral map that Hillary won.

    1. O.K. Couldn't finish the article, because I just couldn't take anymore. What struck me, aside from the arrogance and vitriol toward people who might dare to actually have a different set of needs from all those supremely intelligent urbanites, how much 'liberalism' has changed from the time I was, what famous TV variety host of the past, Ed Sullivan, would have called, a 'youngster'. This includes a number of films I saw on TV as a child, made during the FDR Administration, where the country bumpkin outsmarts the college educated callous sophisticate from the city, imparting his common sense values, usually in some sort of romantic comedy, This was a staple of New Deal era entertainment, and, Ithink, an old American tradition. Within the span of my own living memory Democrats would champion all those blue collar types and rail with rhetorical disdain against the college educated and elitist country club prudes who voted Republican.

      Anyway, the article, a vituperative exercise in exclusion as inclusion, seemed like a good primer for balkanization and sadistic vindictive punishments, as the saying goes, "if that's what you're into." When you're right and they're wrong, you're smart and they're stupid, there is never a need to compromise. Take no prisoners.

    2. Push Polling.

      Once a feature of election campaigns around here but now outlawed under electoral legislation.

      It really is the dirtiest of tricks. Parties that try it on risk exposure and a backlash. Now very rare.

      You need tighter electoral laws.

    3. "The Urban Archipelago," eh?

      Alright, well, if you're going to throw around terms like "homoskedasticity" then I have no choice but to read it!


      Have I ever explained to you just how much I despised statistics as an undergrad?

  3. The sea change pre-exists Trump. He was able to ride the wave of how to use it with great skill. If his incredible success portends what he accomplishes, great!

    The Brexit effect is certainly a part of it. The stand against a globalist approach that rejects American exceptionalism. This includes the cancer of political correctness.

    Another interesting aspect is how far out of touch progressives have shown themselves to be. How could they be so wrong when everyone knows they are so right!

    When you see the utter despair and behavior, some of the protesters, the non-Soros connected, are perhaps less to blame after being misled and manipulated to believe Trump is worse than Hitler. Better to be a deplorable than an intolerant.

    The media is pathetic, and social media almost no less. If there were no comment threads anymore, could easily live with that, as was once the case. Getting back to the media and elite class, are the mea culpas like outrage, usually false? Why should anyone take the advice of know it alls that were so wrong because they reside in a false reality?

    1. I sometimes find myself a little surprised at the number of people that I know who are still heavily reliant on the Times and WAPO and, say, The Atlantic or any of the other "high end" left-leaning outlets.

      We're in tough spot at the moment, info-wise. Understanding politics and cultural changes has become like looking into a house of mirrors... no wonder we need new protologisms/third person singular gender neutral pronouns!

      Nobody knows which way is up.

      Which from a cultural-historical standpoint is nothing new.

      We went though it in the 1920s and in the 1960s and now we seem to be going through a similar shift.

      {Either that or not at all. One or the other.}

    2. No, we don't need "gender neutral pronouns"! Imagine an elementary school English lesson these days--now imagine how it looks with mandatory "gender neutral" language. Can the children keep not only "I, you, he, she, it, we, they" straight, but also "xe, xem, hir, hirs," etc.? I don't think WE can remember all that!

    3. sheldan, I, needless to say, agree with you.

      I never ceased to be amazed at some of what is going on on the campuses.

    4. Gender neutral pronouns? I got one. "it" as in he, she, it.

    5. Examples:

      "It laughed."
      "I kissed it." - Monica :0)

    6. Mike, when I read an article this week about the need for students to "mourn" Hillary's loss, on top of the famous "safe spaces," I am really wondering at the ability of students to cope with anything. I always thought college was for students to be exposed to new ideas and challenge themselves against perspectives that may be opposed to what they were taught.

  4. What's happening here is now disgusting. However, since nothing else happened in 2016 according to plan, why should this have been different?

    Maybe this is what had to happen to wake people up. People who claim to be tolerant are more intolerant than their enemies, because they claim to be "right" and therefore stop listening to a dissenting point of view. It's a cycle that seems to feed on itself and something must stop it before the extremists destroy everything.

  5. One huge takeaway from all this is the fate of the media. Can ANYTHING they say be trusted now? If they were in the tank and disastrously WRONG about all this might they be just as bad about everything they offer up as right and true? Well, of course. And hopefully the scales have just fallen off a lot more eyes.

  6. Jeff, I think I am familiar with "it." It's the "xe's" and "hir's" that I have more of a problem with. :-)

    My feeling is that if anyone says, "My pronouns are..." I would look at them as if they were from outer space. I just can't wrap my head around the need for pronouns other than the ones we all use.

  7. I stayed completely out of the election once I knew it was the matchup from h-e-double toothpicks. I wrote in Kasich instead.

    Somehow, I thought that each blunder Trump made would sink him in the primaries. Then I thought that he'd be opposed at the convention. Then I thought that he wouldn't be able to control himself and that would destroy him.

    I suspected that the problems Hillary had late in the campaign really did her in. Having no alternative (other than third-party, write-in, or voting down-ballot), many people just regarded him as a change and took their chances.

    One advantage of what I did is that I am not losing my mind as the ones who voted for Trump or Hillary are doing. ;-)

    1. I'm basically in the same boat.

      I didn't vote for either and I never advocated for either.

      At least with Trump perhaps the country can open a reasonable discussion concerning Political Islam, tho, maybe.

      What I am wondering is whether or not we can have such a national discussion without both sides flying off the rails.

    2. It will depend a lot on the tone the new administration sets, i.e., if it can come across as sober, just, competent and confident. Considering the campaign we just witnessed, that would be a neat trick, but it is long overdue. I will try to remain hopeful.

    3. We will eventually have to talk about political Islam. Let the chips fall where they may; we can't let political correctness allow the other side to claim we are lumping all Muslims in the same boat when we also know not every Muslim supports political Islam.

    4. Jeff, a number of presidents came into office with the public afraid of what kind of president they would be. I think Trump will realize that he must govern differently than he campaigned.

    5. sheldan,
      You are probably right, but we won't know for a while yet. In the meantime, picking Bannon as chief strategist might not be a good sign. And I'm not talking about charges of antisemitism here, but more that he's a fire breathing hater of liberals who wants to settle scores.

  8. The idea that shouldn't vote for anyone you have misgivings about is to me a total corruption of what democracy is. We're supposed to suspect them and we're supposed to hold them up for accountability and even contempt. They're supposed to govern us by our consent not the other way around. If you don't have misgivings then you're practicing hero worship. That always ends badly.

  9. btw, the degree of malice being spat today at the American white working-class is unlike anything that I've seen before.

    There is also an irony in the fact that while it is not Trump voters who are in the streets breaking shit up, it is still they who are described as "angry."

  10. Keith Ellison? Man, when the Dems decide to self destruct they really go all out.

    1. see, that's one of the bad things about the Clintons losing; it has dramatically sped up the radicalization of our politics into far-left and alt-right; the center is in the hospice.

      Ellison is a 9/11 Truther.

    2. The electorate is polarized.

      Each side sees nothing but evil in the other.

  11. Keith X. Ellison. There's a puzzler, no? The adults have left the building.

  12. that Alan Dershowitz is defending Bannon says something: people are now calling out the left's hypocrisy on anti-Semitism.

  13. however, here's one thing we gotta stop: