Are you liberal? Do you care one way or the other?

Michael Lumish 

Hating on white people is not liberal. Hating on "Zionists" and, thus, Jews is not liberal.

Supporting Socialism is not liberal.

Hating cops is not liberal.

Supporting Antifa is not liberal.

Supporting Black Lives Matter is not liberal.

Supporting Hamas or the Palestinian Authority is not liberal.

Supporting dictatorial theocratic regimes, as Barack Obama did with Iran, is not liberal.

Supporting race-based hiring or admissions is not liberal.

Opposing freedom of speech on college campuses, or anywhere else, is not liberal.

Cancel Culture is not liberal. 

Black-Only college dormitories or graduation ceremonies are not liberal.

Despising the Western Tradition as "white" is not liberal.

And, obviously, using United States tax-dollars to pay the Palestinian Authority so that it can finance the random murder of innocent Jews in Tel Aviv or Haifa or Jerusalem, as the Democratic Party will do once they regain Executive Power, is not liberal.

If you are a Democrat, are you sure that you are liberal?

What is "whiteness," anyways?

Michael Lumish

It always cracks me up when people say that the progressive-left or Antifa cannot be anti-white because they are white. Well, BLM is primarily white also, yet still very anti-white.

One thing to understand is that the radical left does not consider "white" a descriptor of one's ethnic background. I always thought that to be white meant to be a person of European descent and that to be black meant to be a person of African descent.

This is no longer the case.

To be white, in today's parlance, is no longer merely about an ethnic background but thought to encompass toxic ways of being (ontologies) and toxic ways of knowing (epistemologies).

Thus any black people -- like, say, Candace Owens or Larry Elder -- who opposes what they sometimes call the "Democratic plantation" is deemed no longer to be black. They are suffering from "wrong-think" or what was called among an earlier generation of Socialists "false consciousness."

And that is why the idiot in the picture below, despite apparently being white himself, wants to abolish "whiteness." He does not mean that we should commit genocide against people of European descent. What he means is that white ways of thinking and being must be undone.

The only way to accomplish something quite so ridiculous is to undermine the Western intellectual tradition, itself.

Thus to rid the world of "whiteness" is to rid the world of the Enlightenment and everything that flowed out of it, politically, socially, and psychologically because it is all tainted by toxic "whiteness."

Orange may be an evil color, but white is beyond redemption.

Never Ending Toxic Hatred

Michael Lumish

It is tempting to compare this moment in American history to the mid-late 1960s and early 1970s.

There were riots then, too, but they tended to last only a night or two versus the one hundred days and counting that BLM/Antifa have been torching buildings in the streets in Portland and Seattle and Minneapolis and Chicago.

{They are, after all, just doing their part to ruin the economy of this "systemically" racist, colonialist, imperialist, militaristic, very bad country which is led by the Great Orange Evil.}

But in the mid-late 60s and early 70s we had tens of thousands of American kids dead in the Vietnam War, not to mention God Only Knows how many Vietnamese. We had a Klan that was still active in the streets. And we had millions of husbands who still expected their wives to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Between 1967 and 1969 there was a grand total of 12 women in Congress. Today there are 127.

As for police violence toward black people, the Wall Street Journal tells us:

"The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015."

9 out of 45 million black people.

9.

Yet BLM spreads fear and hatred throughout the black community in the United States to such an extent that many feel "hunted" by cops.

Today is nothing like the bad old days, yet the hysteria is considerably worse.

One would have to go back to the early 1860s to find this much vitriol and ideological toxicity driveling out of the mouths of the American citizenry.

Why?

REMEMBER TO STAY SAFE!

Michael Lumish

Do not take risks. Stay at home. Do not see anyone. Do not kiss anyone. Do not touch anyone. Do not eat in restaurants. Stay away from strangers. Only trust people who hide their identities, like bank robbers, Klansmen, and Antifa.

Never touch your face.

Wash your hands.

{Are you washing your hands? Go wash your hands!}

Yay, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death I will cringe in fear and tremble beneath a blanket.

Do not visit friends or go to parties.

Stay away from your office or places of business until Nancy Pelosi and Andrew Cuomo allow.

Do not go to sporting events or parks or weddings or houses of worship.

{Rioting, burning buildings, attacking cops, and killing people in the streets are just fine, however, if done in the name of "social justice."}

Accept unemployment with good cheer, because you are not alone.

Never mind the tanking world economy because the ruination of our national and personal lives is necessary to fight this evil.

Never mind rising rates of crime and homicide.

Never mind the likely rise in divorce and domestic violence.

Never mind increased rates of suicide.

Never mind increased poverty.

Never mind increased homelessness and the consequent rise of wretched tent encampments throughout the United States.

Never mind old people sitting alone in their homes or apartments with no one to help them.

Never mind the hearing impaired who find it exceedingly difficult to negotiate a world filled with masks.

Never mind children raised to fear others.

Just keep your head down, your mouth shut, and do as your told.

Remember, it's only been six months of lockdown with masks.

Only six more years to go!

Please live safely and in fear.

Responding to Diana Buttu

Sar-Shalom

Diana Buttu has another screed up today in the New York Times about how the Israel-UAE deal supposedly betrays the Palestinians. I can leave much of Buttu's article to others, but one part has been mentioned numerous times before without sufficient rebuttal (Daniel Pipes provieds one example of rebuttal is here) and is at the root of the narrative of Israeli Goliath wantonly oppressing Palestinian David.

Beginning in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accords, the P.L.O. embarked on a process of negotiation with Israel that was supposed to lead — at least as the Palestinians viewed it — to an independent state, kicked off by recognition of Israel.

Buttu is correct that the signing the Oslo Accords in 1993 meant that the P.L.O. embarked on a negotiation process with Israel that kicked off with a recognition of Israel. She might even be correct that rank-and-file Palestinians only sought an independent state for themselves. However, the P.L.O. viewed the Oslo Accords as a means to strength the Palestinian national movement and weaken Israel so as to achieve what decades of conventional warfare and terrorism had been unable to achieve, which is the eradication of Israel. Yasir Arafat's talk to a Muslim audience in South Africa, in which he cited the Treaty of Hudaibiyah as a precedent entering into the Oslo Accords, makes sense once one assumes that motive.

For years, Israelis were in denial that the Palestinians sought Israel's destructions and insisted to themselves that they only wanted a some degree of independence for themselves. However, repeated muggings by reality have forced the overwhelming majority of Israelis to recognize the Palestinians' true objectives. In response, Israelis have decided to stop cooperating in their own destruction and have voted for parties that are reliable to withhold that cooperation. The end of any progress towards a Palestinian state is the result.

For some time, the Arab world was willing to bear any price for ethnic solidarity with the Palestinians, which meant support for any demands their leaders made with no demand for genuine concessions on the Palestinians' part. However, the price of sticking up for Palestine right-or-wrong has risen to include strengthening Iran in its quest for domination of the region. The result is the Gulf states' sacrifice of tribal solidarity that Buttu, and her supporters in the Western left, decry.