Sunday Ethics Reflections, 8/12/2018: Division And Divisiveness

What time is it? I’ve lost track…

1. Keep being intentionally divisive, and eventually you’ll get division…I trace the irresponsible efforts to divide the nation and unravel the bonds of society to the 2000 election, and the false partisan claims that Bush’s was a “stolen Presidency.” Divisive rhetoric became an 8-year strategy of the Obama Administration, with blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, Muslims, LGTB citizens and women being accorded special status as victims and groups in need of special consideration, while whites, men, straight citizens, wealthy citizens, Christians, and, naturally, conservatives and Republicans were consistently demonized and marginalized.  Critics of the first black President were racists, critics of illegal immigration were xenophobes, critics of Hillary Clinton were sexist, and opponents of gay marriage were bigots. The resentment over this long-term and cynical strategy bore misshapen fruit in the election of Donald Trump, and now, says a Zogby Analytics survey, 39 percent of the country support states breaking away from the national government and country, with 42% of Democrats, who have continued to escalate the divisiveness by refusing to accept the election of President Trump as  legitimate, leading the way.

This was where we were headed in 2000, and those who have been reading the Ethics Scoreboard and Ethics Alarms since then know I said so as forcibly as I knew how. Now we are at a point where one party’s leaders are calling for members of the opposing party’s administration to be harassed in public, an attitude that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.

In the latest example , Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited Houston last week and dines at two Mexican restaurants. The general manager of one of them posted on Facebook,  “We had the honor to serve Mr. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States. Thank you for allowing us to serve you.” The post attracted such an angry reaction that it had to be taken down. [Pointer: Neil Dorr]

2.  Of course! Why else would anyone not love Nancy Pelosi? The news media and its various pundits is deeply complicit in the unraveling of the bonds holding American together, as exemplified by the Washington Post’s jaw-dropping column claiming that Republican opposition to Democratic House leader Pelosi is entirely based on misogyny and sexism—you know, the same reasons I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. Paul Waldman wrote,

“Can we stop treating this lie seriously once and for all? We all know what’s really going on. The Republican attack on Pelosi is about conservative identity politics, full stop. It’s partly the same kind of ugly misogyny that has driven conservatives for years, and that comes out whenever the prospect of a woman wielding genuine power rears its head. Women who display ambition are judged harshly, particularly by conservatives; it’s no accident that Bernie Sanders, whose policy ideas are much more opposed to conservatism than Pelosi’s, inspires nothing like the venomous loathing on the right that Pelosi and Hillary Clinton do.”

Oddly, I have found many reasons despite her gender to regard Nancy Pelosi as an unethical menace, and I haven’t come close to covering all of them.

3. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is obviously up to speed. Cute, smug, glib and ignorant young socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez–she’s the emerging face of the Democratic Party, did you know that?—was challenged by Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, a well-practiced conservative advocate, to a debate. Shapiro promised to  donate $10,000 to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign if she agreed to spar on his “Sunday Special.”  Now, no rule says that anyone is ever obligated to accept such challenges, and there are many acceptable ways to decline. I’d advise Ocasio-Cortez to declines, because it’s abundantly clear that Shapiro would make her look foolish. However, the tactic the New York Congressional candidate took was as unethical as it was absurd. She responded via Twitter,

“Just like catcalling, I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions. And also like catcalling, for some reason they feel entitled to one.”

You go girl! Except the statement makes no sense, like so much of what she says. Who solicits a challenge to debate? Shapiro’s offer had no gender component whatsoever, and he has challenged male progressives to debate in the past. Her response, however, was anti-male and sexist in exactly the way his offer was not, as she gratuitously compared him to men harassing women on the street.

Meanwhile, Washington Post Fact-checker Glenn Kessler couldn’t resist debunking five of  Ocasio-Cortez ‘s more ridiculous claims on her recent media tour:  Her claim that “Everyone has two jobs.” (The July jobs report showed only 5.2 percent of Americans hold two jobs;  her statement that “ICE has a bed quota”(Kessler: “this is an urban legend”); “the upper-middle class does not exist anymore in America” (It has actually grown 16.5 percent since 1979); her really silly statement that Medicare for all is “much cheaper than the current system.” (the Washington Post had already awarded three Pinocchios for this;  Medicare for all would cost at least $33 trillion over the next 10 years), and her explanation that the Affordable Care Act was upheld by the Supreme Court because SCOTUS deemed monthly health care payments to be a tax. ( Ugh. This was rather thoroughly publicized, I’d say. SCOTUS upheld the Obamacare individual mandate as a legal tax rather than an unconstitutional penalty.

But we all know Kessler only wrote the column because he objects to women in power. Or maybe Latinas.

Or perhaps political candidates who don’t know what the hell they are talking about…

89 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Citizenship, Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, History, This Helps Explain Why Trump Is President, U.S. Society

89 responses to “Sunday Ethics Reflections, 8/12/2018: Division And Divisiveness

  1. dragin_dragon

    I got $20 says she wins her election.

    • But who will bet against you?

      • dragin_dragon

        Nobody sane.

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          And $50 says she becomes the Sarah Palin of the left.

        • I got something to say on that.

          I think the established Democrat elite will conspire to get her ‘disenfranchised.’ Notice that her opponent is still running. Note that money will be channeled to him. Note what the DNC did to the Sanders campaign. Note the ‘voting irregularities’ that seem to benefit Democrats during close races.

          They are giving her rope right now. She has already said enough for them to suddenly become ‘sane’ enough to debate and wipe the floor with her.

          In short, DD, I will take your $20 bet.

          Meeting you to pay off would be worth the cash risk. 🙂

          • dragin_dragon

            You’re on. Rather than make this a cash bet, know where Picante Grill is, across from Witte? I lose, dinner’s on me for you and your wife, if she’d like to come.

            • Wait… they closed last January. It was in all the news, as San Antonio lost an icon (so they said)

              I just know we lost a fine eatery.

              How about Alamo Cafe off 281 or off I 10, whichever is easiest for you?

    • She’s the Democratic nominee in a New York district that’s so safe that a Pug could win it so long as you tied a blue bandanna around it’s neck. No bet.

  2. JutGory

    Silliness. I oppose Pelosi because I know what she would do. We have the ACA.

    I oppose Ocasio-Cortez (not that she is in my district and can’t vote against her) because SHE does not know what SHE is doing. Not ready for prime time.

    -Jut

  3. #1 This is very close to what I’ve been thinking about since my comment on the 5th, here is what I’ve been writing in my online storage spot since the morning of the 6th. I thought it was really interesting that this fit as a comment related yo Jacks #1 and in particular how my thoughts 6 days ago also touched on the election of 2000. Without further ado…

    On August 5th I wrote a rather pessimistic comment and the more I reflect on what I wrote the more I wonder why I wrote it. There was a core to that kind of thinking and I wanted to find it.

    Contrary to what some may think, I’m generally a rather optimistic person. Yes I’m a hard man, sometimes very hard, but optimism has always been a strong rudder through life; however, my view of the future of civility in the USA is overwhelmingly pessimistic these days. What used to be an overbalance towards optimism in my life has shifted towards and overbalance towards pessimism and I’m acutely aware of this shift. Is this new overbalance towards pessimism a projection of myself upon society around me or is it the result of a fundamental shift in society around me? After considerable personal reflection, I’ve come to the realization that my pessimism is the direct result of a fundamental shift in our society towards pessimism that’s grown into outright paranoia for some and what’s driving my personal pessimism to the forefront is that the paranoia shown by so many has become acceptable in society and in some cases expected.

    Today I began to seriously wonder how a modern intelligent society shifted from optimism to pessimism? How and why did we as a society allow paranoia to become openly acceptable? What caused society in general to set aside their once perceived intelligence and our core system of values, as it relates to general civility, and travel down the road of rationalizing everything? Why did emotion start to trump critical thinking? Why is it now acceptable to actually hate those who opinions simply differ than yours. Was there a definable major turning point in the psyche of our society or is it the inevitable blossoming grandness of a mustard seed planting?

    For me, optimism and pessimism are feelings associated with an proposed action based on the perceived possible results. Optimism is a feeling that when a specific action is taken the perceived possible result will be something that is considered positive, pessimism is a feeling that when a specific action is taken the perceived possible result will be something that is considered not necessarily positive and maybe even very negative. I’ve always felt that there needs to be a healthy psychological balance between optimism and pessimism; pessimism guides me to always keep the doors and windows shut and locked to keep everyone safe, and optimism guides me to open them up so everyone can enjoy the sun and the breeze. There really has to be some kind of healthy psychological balance between optimism and pessimism for people to effectively function in society and be considered “normal” and I believe that the healthy balance is achieved when our conscious thoughts are overwhelming balanced towards optimism with a healthy acknowledgement of the pessimism that is required to keep us safe. When our conscious thoughts are heavily overbalanced towards pessimism paranoia will set in, “Paranoia, they destroy ya’”.

    I asked earlier if there was a definable turning point or a mustard seed planting that caused us to changed, I think the answer is it was a definable turning point or in this case turning points one feeding the other until a the turning point that put people over the edge of sanity.

    Thinking back over the years I think something fundamentally changed in the overall perception of how politics works with the election in 2000 where the political left openly declared that Bush stole the presidency and the conspiracy theories began to take hold of major sections of the political left; a major, major wall was intentionally being built to divide the population and trust had completely broken down, and that folks was only the beginning. Next came the major change the major blow to the psyche of the United States and over the last 17 years that change is the major growth of pessimism, destruction of trust, hate and all that negativity has rolled over into paranoia. Then the last event, which in ordinary circumstances would have been a non-event, happened.

    Back in the early 2000’s there was a growing recession creating pessimism about our economic future in the early 2000’s, the election in November of 2000 created terrible mistrust and pessimism about politics began to flourish, and then IT happened a major blow to the psyche of the United States. On September 11, 2001 our national “feeling” of invulnerability was absolutely shattered, our physical safety was directly threatened by those that have chosen to hate the USA for what we are and what we stand for and they found a way to sneak through our defenses, take advantage of what our society accepted as vulnerabilities associated with our freedoms, and struck us at our core without any any regard for human life thus attacking the core psyche of the United States and terrorizing the general population. Unlike the traumatic event that happened on December 7, 1941, what followed in the psyche of society after September 11, 2001 wasn’t the growth of national optimism that came from the awakening of a sleeping giant filled with a terrible resolve (Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto) but was the rapid growth of national pessimism and outright fear. September 11th was a major traumatic event for the people of the USA causing wide spread PTSD from the direct and indirect effects of the attacks and that PTSD has not been properly addressed, instead we have the media and political apparatus in frenzy trying to feed the fear beast promoting social divisions any way that it can be promoted. Now we have a population that has been suffering from a form of untreated PTSD for 15 years and people are on the verge of a psychological breakdowns and no one is even noticing the trend toward paranoia because it’s seems so common place that it’s almost normal. Now the straw that broke the camel’s back. For 15 years the media and politicians have been poking and prodding you to mistrust anyone that differs from you, they are promoting mistrust, they are promoting pessimism, and then a Presidential election happened that completely broke the psyche of a huge cross section of the population. People that once were one intelligent people have resorted to conspiracy theories and are intentionally using those theories to drive a wedge between Americans that is as deep as the wedge of slavery was in the mid 1800’s.

    It’s now 2018 and even as our economy begins to grow nicely, jobs are available, people are working, we have a President that is trying to do the things he promised he would do; optimism should be on the rise but still there is massive anxiety, lots of pessimism, and way too much outright paranoia driving our society down a black hole of despair. On one side, there are Americans that oppose the President and are doing everything they can to destroy his presidency regardless of the anti-prosper consequences to the United States as a whole. On the other side, there Americans that want to give this President the same chance that other Presidents have been given and want the United States to prosper. The anxiety on the side of those that oppose the President is obvious; however, the anxiety on the other side isn’t so obvious – why isn’t optimism growing in them and in me and in fact pessimism is growing instead. I think I know why.

    We are faced with brainwashed individuals. It’s an onslaught of absolute negativity and paranoia that no matter how you approach it, no matter what facts you present to counter it, no matter what logic you present, no matter how civil you choose to be you are constantly faced with hostility and an intentionally impenetrable rhetorical barrier built specifically to keep any and all possible infections of real truth and intellect out of their echo chamber. When that is constantly what you are faced with and nothing you do seems to change that, you lose hope that the brainwashed people are fixable therefore pessimism grows.

    These people have been brainwashed on a massive scale and the method of passing this brainwashing has grown like a popular meme, in that it’s an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation. To these brainwashed people, innuendo is now a guilt verdict, accusations are now a guilty verdict, and those that have differing opinions are evil. Period.

    I do not believe that this is fixable in a civil manner.

    • Zoltar,

      I agree with your conclusions. The pessimism and propaganda have given us a fine crop of useful idiots, not to put too fine a point on it.

      What these people, this ‘lost generation,’ have in common is a lack of societal foundations from which to operate. The past 20 (and 40, and 60) years have seen an erosion of common values. We once had a society that at least knew the common mythos, related to the same core version of truth, and had a well defined definition of what was right and wrong, what was acceptable and not. Americans were defined by their past, for better or worse, and that past was used to learn for the future. Fact and law ruled, and if the law was unjust, Americans changed that law.

      Over time, we lost the commonality of our nationality. As we removed rules, what is acceptable or not has blurred, until no one is allowed to judge acceptability at all. In our freedom, we have forgotten what is prudent and worthy; in our liberty, we have forgotten our responsibilities; in our tolerance, we have become intolerant. Where once fulfillment was to be gained in family, community, and nationality, in the things that have general approval (‘this is good, go forth and prosper’) now there is no common agreement on what is good. We have fractured that definition, and thus lost that fulfillment. We have removed all restraint, taught that the once sacred is mundane, or worse, evil; asserted there are no rules in the pursuit of fulfillment.

      Then we raised a new (lost) generation in this environment. They are without guidelines, without a firm foundation, without the fences that all children need to feel secure. An thus, at the core, they are insecure.
      They have been taught that this life is all there is: fulfillment will be found in approval of others (social media), in sex at will, in money, in career, in celebrity, in politics, in drugs. This generation clicks for likes; believing that their own worth can be found in the number of people who think as they do, who share their invented reality: even as that reality shifts like sand under their feet.

      Yet it all rings hollow, and they grow angry at a world that fails to deliver on the promises of educators, politicians, and entertainers. Where is the promised panacea? Something must be interfering with the happiness they have been taught all their lives is just one act away. They realize that being allowed to act as they wish is not enough, so they must force others to not only allow them this immoral, unethical license, but to endorse, embrace, encourage and admire them in their freedom. For, in their minds, if any will not acknowledge them as the sole purveyors of truth and wisdom, then their freedom is tainted, happiness thwarted. The choices of others negates the lost ones’ will! The benighted rubes (deplorables) thus prevent them from achieving the satisfaction they crave. These dissenters must be the reason for the failure to collectively attain enlightenment, and therefore must be converted or destroyed. By any means necessary!

      The time is coming when the lost generation will no longer be able or willing to contain their hurt; the lost dreams of utopia and a society where all injustice (real or perceived) is removed. One resolution for the pain is to tear the society apart, rupture the nation such that a new one can be built from the ashes. Violence in a cause has been proven to affect change in the past. Once the enlightened ones are totally in charge, total control can enforce the greater good on those who survive. Totalitarianism.

      However, another solution is possible. If the cause of the downward spiral was a loss of common values, a return to those values can reverse the trend. A revival of America the Exceptional, the light on a hill, equal justice for all under a document known as the Constitution can bring us together. The same optimism that stalked this country for the first 150 years of our existence can save her once again.

      The question is: can this solution be given a chance?

    • Great comment Z, if a tad dark.

      Though I notice that you haven’t assigned any blame to the EVIL Triumvirate: Trump/FoxNews/Racism.

    • Esteemed Zoltar:

      You speak of ‘brainwashing’ but cannot see how your own washed brain allows you to hold to some very crucial lies. It is hard to speak hardly to a *hard man* but if anyone should be able to take it, it is you!

      I will use a you-plural and not the singular, familiar ‘you’. It is always problematic to speak in generalities, but necessary for communication.

      The general consensus now, and it is not ‘conspiracy theory’ in the dismissive sense the term is used, is that there is much much more to the events of 9/11 than meet the eye. There seem to be paramilitary operatives and a grand collusion of players. (See Graeme McQueen on 9/11 and also the Anthrax Deception as one of the best reconstructors. A Harvard graduate and a very decent man).

      But you start with the false-notion, the propaganda idea really, that ‘they snuck through our defenses’ and other such mishegoss. These are false stories and they have been significantly taken apart.

      The 9/11 attack, I agree with you, is definably a key event in the psychological reaction we are all living through, but just imagine what will go on in our psychology when we begin to come to terms with the truth.

      This Event was used as a pretext for years and years of attacks and a vast militarization of the world. This was brought about intentionally. And to understand why and how requires research. To do so requires bravery. It requires as well a conscious choice to disentangle oneself from a form of complicity in upholding an entire structure of lies. It is very painful to go through the process of taking the lies apart, but on the other side of that process is a form of freedom. And if one has freedom, and one also has truth (in the sense of *clear seeing*) one can then act appropriately in one’s world. Not until then though.

      From that (new) stance you would be in a better position to answer these questions:

      Today I began to seriously wonder how a modern intelligent society shifted from optimism to pessimism? How and why did we as a society allow paranoia to become openly acceptable? What caused society in general to set aside their once perceived intelligence and our core system of values, as it relates to general civility, and travel down the road of rationalizing everything? Why did emotion start to trump critical thinking? Why is it now acceptable to actually hate those who opinions simply differ than yours. Was there a definable major turning point in the psyche of our society or is it the inevitable blossoming grandness of a mustard seed planting?

      Psychological and political terror have definite functions. ‘Paranoia’ is indeed a destructive emotion (if it is an emotion, I am not sure), but it is completely justified in our present, underpins with deceptions on top of deceptions. An honest man is required to rise to the occasion. A week, lying, complicit man will not be able to do much of anything.

      a) What caused society in general to set aside their once perceived intelligence and our core system of values?

      Good question. My answer? The inappropriate and immoral use of the war-function would be the beginning of my answer to you. The subversion of society by intelligence operatives in the postwar. The massive use of propaganda techniques to manipulate and to mold society. But the effect of absolutely improper wars that were begun not for justifiable war-aims, but for radically different reasons: these produce pathologies that infect a society and, eventually, destroy it. Vietnam is the prime example. It seems to have opened a wound within the social body that, because it is not and cannot be dealt with, festers horribly.

      When people cannot really *see* reality, and more especially when what is real is deliberately hidden or shielded, they tend to ‘project’ onto the events, and embellish things with content from their own imagination. I doubt that Bush ‘stole’ the election in the sense that people took it, and yet there was, strangely enough, a sort of ‘policy coup’ in the United States. And entire cycles of unjust and unjustifiable wars have followed hard upon.

      Who has the spiritual, moral, and analytical fortitude to see into these events and to label *what really is going on*? Who can divest themself from their own complicity in the ‘structure of lies’ which, it seems, become *part of the self* and are then defended like the junkyard dogs? Not at all easy.

      But on the other side of that — which is large enough! — who can then propose what is needed and necessary to counter the present pathology?

      It’s now 2018 and even as our economy begins to grow nicely, jobs are available, people are working, we have a President that is trying to do the things he promised he would do; optimism should be on the rise but still there is massive anxiety, lots of pessimism, and way too much outright paranoia driving our society down a black hole of despair.

      Good material circumstances cannot cover over nor change the psychological conditions which, until they are seen and dealt with, will remain in force. Material well-being has never functioned to alter psychological conflicts. All the same conditions that led to the war-stance of 2001 continue forward today unaddressed at a national level.

      Yet beyond any of these dark and destructive events and processes, there is another element: the beginning of the recognition of vast levels of social and political manipulation that are part-and-parcel of the ‘liberal construct’ of the postwar. Trump is a complex cipher. He is a manifestation of the same sickness, and yet he has been *called upon* to respond to elements of it. For example ‘white angst’ and ‘white displacement’. But Trump is not an ‘actor’ really, he is more a reactor.

      The political and metapolitical idea-movement that begins to address what has happened in this Postwar, of which you and others stand in terror of, is being carried out NOW by articulate people who are genuinely concerned for their world. They see you-plural as having allowed it to take place, and thus they will take you to task for your willful blindness, your stubbornness, your insistence that you *see* reality and can accurately describe it, and that you have any part of a solution at your disposal.

      You don’t. It is time for you to begin to listen!
      you to hold to some very crucial lies. It is hard to speak hardly to a *hard man* but if anyone should be able to take it, it is you!

      I will use a you-plural and not the singular, familiar ‘you’. It is always problematic to speak in generalities, but necessary for communication.

      The general consensus now, and it is not ‘conspiracy theory’ in the dismissive sense the term is used, is that there is much much more to the events of 9/11 than meet the eye. There seem to be paramilitary operatives and a grand collusion of players. (See Graeme McQueen on 9/11 and also the Anthrax Deception as one of the best reconstructors. A Harvard graduate and a very decent man).

      But you start with the false-notion, the propaganda idea really, that ‘they snuck through our defenses’ and other such mishegoss. These are false stories and they have been significantly taken apart.

      The 9/11 attack, I agree with you, is definably a key event in the psychological reaction we are all living through, but just imagine what will go on in our psychology when we begin to come to terms with the truth.

      This Event was used as a pretext for years and years of attacks and a vast militarization of the world. This was brought about intentionally. And to understand why and how requires research. To do so requires bravery. It requires as well a conscious choice to disentangle oneself from a form of complicity in upholding an entire structure of lies. It is very painful to go through the process of taking the lies apart, but on the other side of that process is a form of freedom. And if one has freedom, and one also has truth (in the sense of *clear seeing*) one can then act appropriately in one’s world. Not until then though.

      From that (new) stance you would be in a better position to answer these questions:

      Today I began to seriously wonder how a modern intelligent society shifted from optimism to pessimism? How and why did we as a society allow paranoia to become openly acceptable? What caused society in general to set aside their once perceived intelligence and our core system of values, as it relates to general civility, and travel down the road of rationalizing everything? Why did emotion start to trump critical thinking? Why is it now acceptable to actually hate those who opinions simply differ than yours. Was there a definable major turning point in the psyche of our society or is it the inevitable blossoming grandness of a mustard seed planting?

      Psychological and political terror have definite functions. ‘Paranoia’ is indeed a destructive emotion (if it is an emotion, I am not sure), but it is completely justified in our present, underpins with deceptions on top of deceptions. An honest man is required to rise to the occasion. A week, lying, complicit man will not be able to do much of anything.

      a) What caused society in general to set aside their once perceived intelligence and our core system of values?

      Good question. My answer? The inappropriate and immoral use of the war-function would be the beginning of my answer to you. The subversion of society by intelligence operatives in the postwar. The massive use of propaganda techniques to manipulate and to mold society. But the effect of absolutely improper wars that were begun not for justifiable war-aims, but for radically different reasons: these produce pathologies that infect a society and, eventually, destroy it. Vietnam is the prime example. It seems to have opened a wound within the social body that, because it is not and cannot be dealt with, festers horribly.

      When people cannot really *see* reality, and more especially when what is real is deliberately hidden or shielded, they tend to ‘project’ onto the events, and embellish things with content from their own imagination. I doubt that Bush ‘stole’ the election in the sense that people took it, and yet there was, strangely enough, a sort of ‘policy coup’ in the United States. And entire cycles of unjust and unjustifiable wars have followed hard upon.

      Who has the spiritual, moral, and analytical fortitude to see into these events and to label *what really is going on*? Who can divest themself from their own complicity in the ‘structure of lies’ which, it seems, become *part of the self* and are then defended like the junkyard dogs? Not at all easy.

      But on the other side of that — which is large enough! — who can then propose what is needed and necessary to counter the present pathology?

      It’s now 2018 and even as our economy begins to grow nicely, jobs are available, people are working, we have a President that is trying to do the things he promised he would do; optimism should be on the rise but still there is massive anxiety, lots of pessimism, and way too much outright paranoia driving our society down a black hole of despair.

      Good material circumstances cannot cover over nor change the psychological conditions which, until they are seen and dealt with, will remain in force. Material well-being has never functioned to alter psychological conflicts. All the same conditions that led to the war-stance of 2001 continue forward today unaddressed at a national level.

      Yet beyond any of these dark and destructive events and processes, there is another element: the beginning of the recognition of vast levels of social and political manipulation that are part-and-parcel of the ‘liberal construct’ of the postwar. Trump is a complex cipher. He is a manifestation of the same sickness, and yet he has been *called upon* to respond to elements of it. For example ‘white angst’ and ‘white displacement’. But Trump is not an ‘actor’ really, he is more a reactor.

      The political and metapolitical idea-movement that begins to address what has happened in this Postwar, of which you and others stand in terror of, is being carried out NOW by articulate people who are genuinely concerned for their world. They see you-plural as having allowed it to take place, and thus they will take you to task for your willful blindness, your stubbornness, your insistence that you *see* reality and can accurately describe it, and that you have any part of a solution at your disposal.

      You don’t. It is time for you to begin to listen!

      • This post — my wicked and horrible post that will earn me many justified enemies! — somehow got doubled.

        Please delete the repeat halfway down:

        You don’t. It is time for you to begin to listen!
        you to hold to some very crucial lies. It is hard to speak hardly to a *hard man* but if anyone should be able to take it, it is you!

    • PennAgain

      Thank you (I think), Zoltar, for explaining the psycho-illogicality of it all. I thought it was just me finding out, after almost eight decades of relative optimism, that clinical depression was something intolerably heavy that could come upon me too. It hovers above me these days wherever I go as the halo of dirt round Pig-Pen’s head, more as a weighty but invisible lumpy old mattress lowering an inch every time I finish-defeated-before-I’m-finished talking with a still-friend. I was blaming myself for not being able to break through. You’d think I’d have recognized paranoia walking around the neighborhood after all these years working on crisis lines. I wasn’t considering the extent of the logic-defying brain barrier that has, as you say, become the norm.

      It is the Stepford Left. They need to be stopped one by one and placed in a therapeutic coma if already dangerously sleepwalking, or held without harm as we do a child in the throes of a terrible tantrum who wants to scream her throat raw, or scratch his own – or your – eyes out. Unfortunately, we are not permitted to touch them, either physically or emotionally: their illness is that they are not.

      I have a friend who is a writer and a scholar, an historian of the Roman Republic — those five hundred centuries of growing optimism (and a healthy skepticism) that preceded the mad chaos of the Emperors. He has been a lifelong pessimist … who is now greatly disturbed by an unexpected and daily growing optimism. He can’t help it: the parallels he had envisioned all along are coming to be.

    • Brother Zoltar asks: “Why is it now acceptable to actually hate those who opinions simply differ than yours[?]”

      This too is a good question yet the answer I would give would not, I do not think, satisfy you. It would make you angry with me. Make you question my ethics and my morals.

      My understanding is that the *culture of hate* which describes the psychic structure largely of the Progressive Left has origins that we can locate. There is a definite line of causation. But we have to start with a definition of what you mean by ‘hate’. And then approach what they understand about their absolute contempt and absolute intolerance of those they define as *the enemy*. These are not the same things.

      My researches have indicated that the ‘hate’ you notice in them derives from American anti-Nazi propaganda (I might say ‘Allied anti-Nazi propaganda’ as it is more inclusive). It was made into a virtue to hate the Nazi and to locate in the Nazi the counter-human, the oppositional-human, the ‘anti-human’ to be exact. The WW2 generation, the succeeding generations, up until the present, have been raised up on mother’s milk into which was infused this emotional-political possibility of a) labeling and localizing a source of Absolute Evil outside of yourself and your own activities, and b) training people how to perceive in this dichotomous manner in which the Real Evil, the absolute evil, is defined as existing somewhere else. But clearly not in oneself and definitely not in one’s polity.

      The Social Justice Warrior is a strange creature really! Not a simple creature by any means. But each one of them has been allowed the possibility of seeing him- or her-self as separate, as different from, this externalized Evil which is located, vaguely, in ‘the Nazi’. This ‘Nazi’ therefor becomes a psychic emblem, a complex symbol, of ontological evil.

      But the SJW is really *you* as American. That is, these propaganda constructs, these ways of seeing ‘the other’ and seeing yourself as obviously different and separate from evil and its possibilities, have been the mother’s milk you have been raised on! It is part-and-parcel of not just an *attitude* or a passing idea, but rather *the very structure of the self*. That is, the Self has been built around a group of these notions. They are so fundamental that they are not really thought, and they are so fundamental that they are not really felt, but rather the foundation on which the very self operates. You cannot contest the idea because it causes a crisis within that self. So, the self continues with its self-definition.

      The SJW that now careens through the cities in a black mask and with a huge marking pen, spitting and cursing, is an American Construct! True, it is distorted as such. But it is nonetheless fundamental to the American personality.

      This is not the place to discuss the particular influences that worked hard to develop this postwar ideological construct, since in fact there are numerous topics that must not be allowed to enter public discourse anywhere in America, but yet it is possible to cobble together a narrative that explains the postwar *Hate the Nazi* construct and to see, quite directly, cui bono.

      It is now, just now, on the verge of being deconstructed in order to then be rebuilt so … hang on to your seats boys and girls … you are in for a *bumpy ride*.

      Admittedly, this opens a difficult can of worms. But some of us have determined that we have to undertake this work. We have to *trace back causation* in order to get to the root of what is happening in hyper-liberal and hyper-decadent America (and of course Europe too).

      So, one aspect is that such HATE! has been encouraged and has become a necessary feature of the personality, and the Object of Hate has too.

      But there is another aspect too, and because you likely grasp what I am proposing and what will be entailed to dismantle the layers and layers of lies, anyone who proposes such a thing and alludes to meta-political and meta-social events of such scale, must really be *hated*, don’t you think? It is a psychological mechanism and a complex one.

      • Alizia Tyler,
        Sometimes things are not as complicated as some choose to make it.

        In this particular case I think you have earned to right to be told that it’s not likely that I’ll address the totality or even selected parts of your comments other than what I addressed in my sentence above; I simply don’t have the time or energy to wade through all of it right now. After a brief glance through your comments I’m just going to say that you’re welcome to your opinion. Maybe others will dive into your comments if they have time. Sorry Alizia.

        • No need for apologies…

          Maybe others will dive into your comments if they have time.

          I doubt it. I operate intellectually in transgressive areas. To speak with some one who is transgressive opens on up to that transgression. There is the danger of becoming tainted. The reaction I mostly get is *silence* and silence is the best strategy if you think about it.

          I try to bring to people’s attention that we are at the beginning of a large and demanding shift. It can be described as the *dismantling of the postwar construct*. I think this is an important topic and even for those who do not wish to sacrifice those gains. I just try to frame the issue. To see it from a meta-political height.

          Though in the last few *we* have succeeded in opening the conversation, it will ultimately take years and years for the topics that are easy and natural, for me, to be discussed publicly. That is, to be allowed to be discussed.

          I am in this for the long haul!

          • For what it is worth, I agree that we are in the early stages of a major shift, and that postwar alignments will be changed.

            I think that the change itself will negate the years you think it will take for the changes to be publicly discussed.

            If it doesn not happen, America as it has existed will be destroyed, and the nation that takes its place will not look like the land of the free any longer.

    • My extremely rare visit to CNN’s website this morning revealed this enlightening interview with Governor Kasich…

      “I’ve become convinced that the solutions to so many of the problems we have in this country, have to be solved where we live. Stop waiting for someone to come in on a big white horse and solve the problems, take control of them where you live. Try to address whatever it is, poverty, whether it’s the issue of human trafficking, whether it’s the issue of drug abuse, it doesn’t matter. We have to drive America with a value system where we come together regardless of party, regardless of philosophy to have a common purpose and a common goal and then send that up the stream. Don’t wait for the people at the top to fix our problems, and just to tell you one perfect example of it is the civil rights movement. Martin Luther came out of the church, he came out of the civil rights movement, he didn’t make it, it was the people at the local level who said we’ve had enough, and that’s what we’ve got to do in this country, take our country back!” Governor John Kasich 2018

      CNN Interview
      https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/politics/kasich-dilemma-gop/index.html

      I think what Governor Kasich is spot on and guess what folks that’s exactly what the political left has been doing for years and the political right has been essentially idle, sitting by and letting them do it all. Now that the political right is stepping up and taking back the country the political left is furious that they aren’t getting their way.

      Watching the body language of the interviewer while Governor Kasich was speaking was interesting then when the Governor was done and the interviewer started to talk what did was to shift the conversation to how everything is Trump’s fault.

      • Oops left out a word…

        “I think what Governor Kasich said is spot on…”

      • Stop waiting for someone to come in on a big white horse and solve the problems, take control of them where you live. Try to address whatever it is, poverty, whether it’s the issue of human trafficking, whether it’s the issue of drug abuse, it doesn’t matter. We have to drive America with a value system where we come together regardless of party, regardless of philosophy to have a common purpose and a common goal and then send that up the stream. Don’t wait for the people at the top to fix our problems, and just to tell you one perfect example of it is the civil rights movement. Martin Luther came out of the church, he came out of the civil rights movement, he didn’t make it, it was the people at the local level who said we’ve had enough, and that’s what we’ve got to do in this country, take our country back!

        How hard it must be, how unpleasant, and how rude and brusque I feel to challenge your cherished ideals! Förlåt mig.

        Let’s start with

        We have to drive America with a value system where we come together regardless of party, regardless of philosophy to have a common purpose and a common goal and then send that up the stream.

        False, completely false. Sad I guess but true. We cannot have a ‘common purpose’ because our philosophies and our political ideas differ too much. It is precisely because gulf is widening between various peoples and their different philosophical views (et cetera) that apparent unity begins to unravel. If this is so, then coming to grips with essential divisions, essential differences, is necessary and is the route to be taken. Not diminishing differences, not glossing them over, but understanding why they are necessary and good.

        This idea of ‘common purpose’ is one I find saccharine. First, there is no ‘common purpose’. You could not name it. You could not define a time when such existed. It is a propaganda notion. Only people in a given community, in their region and their state, could find a ‘common purpose’, and to have such a purpose requires a similar and shared *vision*. The fact is that it is precisely this that is lacking and, sad to say, will not and cannot come about through wishing it so. The longing for that is a false-longing and has come about through Hollywood movies, through PR and Propaganda, and to a degree through Sixties Radicalism and Progressivism. But it is not ‘organic’, it is contrived. It requires a peculiar *enthusiasm* to chime that note, but the note does not resonate and rings hollow. I suppose people wish that such *enthusiasm* existed but it is more honest to notice that it does not. Better then to come to terms with that.

        This narcotic idea arose with the ‘propositional nation’. I listened to a talk once and the man was saying “I do not wish to live in such a ‘propositional nation’. I want to live in my nation, in my region, in my State, and with people like me“. The Lincolnian ideal has severe limits and cannot bind people. What has bound people has been *propaganda constructs* from films and, to some extent, through music (Sixties music mostly, as I have noticed). And then the governmental propaganda or that infused into the indoctrination centers (national education centers). There is a strange idea, really sort of pathological, that you can throw disparate people together, recite some social credo like a ‘proposition’, and they will come to some mystic cultural agreement! Not so. The idea is false through-and-through and needs to be seen as such. Left to themselves, that is without the binding intervention, people do not naturally choose this.

        Don’t wait for the people at the top to fix our problems…

        But ‘the people at the top’ interpose themselves. The whole notion of expanding government, and certainly American National government, has been to take on that role. One large element of the American postwar (and post-Sixties) has been attempting to squelch the self-sufficiency and independence of the region.

        I get tired of saying this, but here goes: There are lots of people now who have been thinking about all these different things and are, in fact, ‘working to fix their own problems’ by identifying what those problems are. It is in a siginficant sense the national government in collusion with business interests that have engineered the ‘America’ of today. ‘America’, that is, as propaganda construct, as something out of a slick PR campaign. In America now and in Europe people are questioning the postwar construct and are seeking alternatives to Hyper-liberalism in the style of the Americanopolis.

        I don’t know if in addition to declarations as the one quoted Mr. Kasich might also quack. But his quacking would be more convincing. This is an example of the so-called Conservative posturing that … conserves nothing because there are no ideas there at all.

        I apologize for seeming to attack what I think you honestly see as a positive contribution or a necessary activity in our difficult present. But as you know I am very interesting in confronting and defeating false-Conservatism (as I understand it) and recovering real Conservatism (and it will take work to define it). Real American Conservatism must become radical in strength of idea. That ‘strength of idea’ will not (IMHO) be found in the tired form of Amercain Bucklyite Conservatism. That is on its way out …

        What is the New Form? That has yet to be defined…

        • Alizia Tyler wrote, “First, there is no ‘common purpose’.”

          That’s the defeatist opinion of a person peering through a tunnel at “common purpose” and it’s also absolutely false.

          I unconditionally reject that viewpoint.

          Alizia Tyler wrote, “You could not name it.”

          POPPYCOCK!!

          To have the freedom to make our own choices, to prosper, to educate our children (although this one is prohibited or severely limited in some cultures but there is still some level of education necessary to function and prosper in any society), to effectively provide for our families, and do all that all in safe and peaceful society are just a few common purposes to ground discussion upon.

          The differences come in the ideological opinions that tunnel vision people into believing that their opinion is the only correct path of how to effectively achieve the common goals.

        • Alizia Tyler wrote, “I am very interesting in confronting and defeating false-Conservatism (as I understand it) and recovering real Conservatism (and it will take work to define it).”

          Alizia,
          Until you’re completely honest with yourself and accept the fact that you don’t have the ability to effectively define anything, your goal is unachievable for you. You simply can’t stop yourself, you always have to “blur and muddy things by piling on generalities, tangents, cosmic puzzles, dancing angels and navel-gazing exercises” (#JackMarshall) and that will always prevent any kind of definitive resolution in your mind.

          • A curious word! When you use it (I am curious) do you use it knowing what it actually means? (I always thought it was something like calling someone a peacock. That is, having to do with vanity).

            Poppycock: mid 19th century: from Dutch dialect pappekak, from pap ‘soft’ + kak ‘dung’.

            Kak: Etymology 1: Borrowed from Khmer កាក់ (kak).
            A subdivision of currency, equal to one hundredth of a Cambodian riel.

            Etymology 2: Borrowed from Afrikaans kak (“shit”), from Dutch kak (“shit”).

            I guess ‘kak’ was integrated into Dutch in the conquest of South Africa?
            ____________________

            You wrote:

            Until you’re completely honest with yourself and accept the fact that you don’t have the ability to effectively define anything, your goal is unachievable for you.

            It is good that you high-light ‘honesty’, IMO. I think it is honestly that is the most lacking feature. To become honest, to become truthful — to be capable of telling the truth! — is a very important characteristic.

            Parrhesia:“to speak freely”, “to speak boldly”, or “boldness”. It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.

            The Right that I say I am a part of is involved in parrhesia. The so-called Conservatives, taken on the whole, are quacking-lying ducks!

            To begin to tell the truth we begin with small things. It is spiritual work really.

            What I do not have are *actionable conclusions*, nor does the movement of which I say I am a part. Therefor, the first order of business, and not a simple one, is the work to arrive at definitions. If I always fall back on this, it is an honest position to take.

            I made a critical comment about Kasich declared. He pretends that there is actionable content in what he recommends but I assert that there is not. As a so-called Conservative his entire position is that of service to an established and ensconced elite which has — as I never tire of repeating (because it is *true as rain*) — given itself over to the open service of Progressive-Left doctrines. This is called ‘Cultural Marxism’ and *it* as a Weltanschauung is so pervasive, so penetrant, that it has become like the air breathed or the water in which we swim.

            But the act of *arriving at actionable definitions* must continue and there is a great deal that has to be laid out on the table. For example, the *present situation in the United States* needs to be fully and trenchantly defined. Who can do it!? He definitely cannot, nor can you, nor can Jack, and nor can anyone writing on this Blog! But if I say that, and I do say it (because it is *true as rain*), I am implying that it can be done. A) that it can be done and B) that it needs to be done.

            We are now living in a peculiar time in which the Cultural Marxist, in collusion with the State and with *vast industrial actors*, is bringing its attack against culture and civilization out into the open. Whew! There. This is a continuation, it appears, of historical processes that have defined the 20th century. The result of this will be an attempt to enslave. We notice it now. That is, the first efforts. This has two *prongs*: 1) silence dissent and 2) restructure the mind so that dissent is not possible.

            I assert that it is devilishly hard to *see America clearly*, and that the American does not a) see him- or her-self clearly nor b) see his or her situation clearly. Everything in America is enclouded with confusion-fogs. So, perhaps you will agree that the work, or a part of the work, is to clarify the situation. To see it, to explain it.

            That’s the defeatist opinion of a person peering through a tunnel at “common purpose” and it’s also absolutely false.

            That is just an assertion, and it is one that has been created by sophisticated PR and Propaganda. I do not deny ‘common purpose’ but I do say that it cannot be contrived nor installed from above. Common purposes arise within specific communities, or in groups and families. I am very much in favor of defining purpose and if possible common purpose, but as you gather I do not see a National Propaganda Program as being able to carry that load (as it were).

            Therefor, I suggest that my attitude is not destructive to either purpose or common purpose, but I do suggest that *the glue that has bound people*, certainly in the Postwar, is coming undone. And things, when they come undone, have to go through their own *natural cycles*.

            To have the freedom to make our own choices, to prosper, to educate our children (although this one is prohibited or severely limited in some cultures but there is still some level of education necessary to function and prosper in any society), to effectively provide for our families, and do all that all in safe and peaceful society are just a few common purposes to ground discussion upon.

            You are talking about externals, overall. You are speaking of a general situation. That is not enough of a basis of *unifying doctrine* to create a national ‘common purpose’. What I sense in what you write when you refer to common purpose is your desire, your wish, your longing really, that it existed! That heavy loads could be placed on it.

            One of the things I wish to do is bring *clarifying light* to the present, and I have a strong sense that there is now no genuine ‘common purpose’ and that American society is at a significant turning-point or cross-roads because this has come about.

            The Marxist dream, the Marxist vision, is in my view what raises its rather ugly and deformed head in our present. And it is that Vision and the structure of ideas that stands behind it which is rampaging on the national stage(s) right now.

            The Original American Vision was extremely different than this Marxist mutation now rampaging in our present (which, by the way, took form with the Lincolnian ‘propositional nation’ just as Marx and his idea-school got started around the same time). Obviously, to recover that ‘original vision’ is a radical idea and must be made *actionable* again by working out hard definitions. You know very well what I am talking about and it terrifies you.

            Be all of that as it may, my purpose since I came here has been just as I have said: gather information, think things through, read & study, and try to at least pose good questions.

            • Alizia,
              Stop wasting everyone time with your cosmic tangents.

              pop·py·cock
              /ˈpäpēˌkäk/

              noun informal
              noun: poppycock

              nonsense.

              synonyms: nonsense, rubbish, claptrap, balderdash, blather, moonshine, garbage; informal rot, tripe, jive, hogwash, baloney, drivel, bilge, bunk, eyewash, piffle, phooey, twaddle; informal bushwa, malarkey, gobbledygook, mumbo jumbo; informal, bunkum, tommyrot; vulgar slang crapola, verbal diarrhea
              “their claims are poppycock”

              The think the rest of your comment is just argumentative trolling.

              Stop digging…

              • The think the rest of your comment is just argumentative trolling.

                Try to see it in a larger meta-political context. I think that if you do you will better be able to understand the mounting resistance in America and in Europe. The object being to classify, to identify, to locate, to describe, a postwar-global (hyper-) liberal culture.

                Yes, we seek confrontation with those who do not have and will not develop a solid foundation in ideas with which to confront hyper-liberalism and neo-Marxism. Because their efforts, in effect, serve not the conservative faction interested in conserving civilization, but that faction which is working, consciously or unconsciously, to destroy it.

                For you this resolves into an ego-battle against ‘trolls’. For *us* this is totally outside and beyond such irrelevant considerations.

                We either work now to develop an *actionable platform* or we simply allow ourselves to be carried along by an overpowering current.

                We either win or we lose. It really comes down to this I think.

          • Ideological chasms can be bridged by…

            a solid foundation in Marxian economics.

            You could rework that statement in many ways. Substitute ‘Christian idealism’ and other such. What about ‘wife-swapping’? Or ‘porn-parties’?

            But you could also use the term ‘race realism’ to some effect. Or ‘Eurocentrism’.

            It is really a meaningless phrase … perfect for meaningless assertion in a present devoid of the longed-for ‘foundations’!

            This is not to say that ‘commonalities’ do not exist. But in truth it is the differences that are infinitely more important. Except in a present dominated by Marxian logics! 😉

  4. #3 I’d watch very closely how the left promotes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I think she is being used as a pawn. Plus, remember she will be 35 in 7 short years.

  5. #2 When Nancy Pelosi opens that dumbass pie-hole of hers and defies all reasonable logic and says dumb shit like “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” arguments from the Washington Post “claiming that Republican opposition to Democratic House leader Pelosi is entirely based on misogyny and sexism” is nothing but transparently false propaganda bull shit trying to drum up faux outrage from their sheep.

    With transparent faux propaganda like that, why again do people continue to deny that the predominantly left leaning news media is full of fake news? It’s because they are brainwashed into using Progressive Magical Thinking to fill their echo chamber.

  6. Other Bill

    And let’s hear it for the Nationals’ bullpen blowing a Max Scherzer win. Way to go Nats!

    • Other Bill

      Exactly as you predicted.

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        And how much more dramatic could a Cubs win be?
        Storybook, that was.

        • How much more dramatic could ANY baseball win be? All that was lacking was the game being a decisive game in a World Series. Bottom of the 9th inning, two outs, two strikes, a 3-0 deficit, the bases loaded, a pinch-hitter, a rookie, and then a walk-off grand slam. Roy Hobbs only hit a three-run walk-off, and he wasn’t pinch-hitting. Kirk Gibson wasn’t a rookie, and that wasn’t a grand slam. Carlton Fisk’s home run was a walk-off in a Series, but the score was tied.

          • Edward

            I guess Bote (or the Cubs) got a lot of complaints about his bat flip and he issued an apology. This apologizing for every little thing is getting ridiculous. I saw the highlights and his celebrating wasn’t anything near over the top, besides, it was cause for celebration. Compare it to the Bautista bat flip (2015 ALDS game 5).

          • Jack, for drama in a baseball game, I still treasure the game of May 17, 1997 at Camden Yards, between the Orioles and Mariners. Similar drama: Bases loaded, bottom of 9th, two outs, full count, and Orioles catcher Chris Hoiles at bat – the only Oriole who had not hit safely in the game. Hoiles hit a grand slam for a 14-13 Orioles win. Griffey was 0-for-night. Cal Ripken had one of the Orioles’ homers, and was still piling-on consecutive games played. At the time, it was the longest 9-inning game in MLB history.

  7. Aleksei

    #2 That is some USDA grade A bullcrap. I guess whenever progressives criticize female Republicans, like Betsy DeVos, or Sarah Palin back on in the day, it’s just “nothing but the facts” objective critique on the policy. And then SNL will probably make fun of their appearances as well. I think it’s safe to say that the author is either so entrenched that he sees no wrongdoing, a la “no enemies to the left”, or he is willfully engaging in intellectual dishonesty to fire up the base, who don’t go farther than the headline and the brief sentence. Talk about jumping the shark. It won’t take long for a NYT op-ed to come out glorifying the guy who shot up the congressional baseball game. They’ll say he was the last American hero, standing up for what’s right, standing up against hate, and just doing his civic duty. I think it’s plausible, I mean we have Sarah Jeong. The envelope needs pushing.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Although the NYT op-ed board won’t go so far, the left already DID say things to the effect of James Hodgkinson was just standing up to the evil GOP, and one such person, a DNC leader in Nebraska by the name of Phil Montag, said something to the effect that Steve Scalise got what he deserved and he wished he was “fucking dead(and was promptly fired for it).”

      We’ve been talking about this deliberate stoking of anger, division, and hatred of those who disagree with whatever side we happen to be on for over two years now. We have made zero progress. If you look back through the posts over those two years you will find a lot of heat and almost no light. The only reason things have quieted down at this point is that one liberal voice is posting less, two more have left on their own, and the most obnoxious one finally pushed Jack too far (which I was surprised to see) and was thrown out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. When both sides yell at each other instead of talking to each other, then there will be no progress. When one side would rather hold the line than cede even a little to the other, even if what it is holding is not objectively good, and the other’s idea of compromise is it gets all it wants and gives up nothing, all you will get is yelling at each other.

  8. Somebody should tell Waldman the obvious, which is that Bernie Sanders is not hated by the right to the extent that Pelosi is because Pelosi was effective as a congressional leader in enacting legislation that the right hates. Sanders has been as close to a non-entity in the Senate as a Senator can be, with the exception of his Presidential campaign which, to the extent it was successful at all, served to weaken Hillary and therefore help Trump. Why should the right have any special hatred of Sanders?

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      The same reason the left hated Sarah Palin. Both were crowd-pulling, highly visible “faces” for their side.

  9. Cenk Uygur is in full meltdown mode over the Ocasio-Shapiro thing.

    Off the top, because I know this is going to be taken the wrong way if i don’t say it… Progressives, I’m not saying she had a duty to accept, I’m not saying she had a duty to respond, I’m saying that if you’re going to run for high office, and you decide to respond, then you have a duty to do so appropriately, and making bad faith arguments about someone due to their gender is probably not appropriate. We can agree on that, right? Or is it only a problem when a man does it?

    Anyway. In response to all the criticism of Ocasio, Cenk Tweeted this:

    “This whole @benshapiro offering to debate @Ocasio2018 issue is ridiculous and shows the bias of the media in favor of the right-wing. Fine, I offer the same $10,000 to debate @tedcruz. Not joking. Guaranteed it gets no coverage. Why won’t the bumbling coward Ted Cruz debate me?!”

    See, Cenk is under the impression that the reason Ocasio is being criticized is because there’s an unrealistic expectation put on her, specifically, to debate Shapiro. This viewpoint has to be arrived at in a vacuum, because any bit of surrounding context only makes that more ridiculous.

    -First off, the only reason Ben made that offer is because Ocasio said that conservatives were afraid to debate her. In response to Ocasio’s comment, one of Ben’s listeners called in to his show and asked if he would debate her and his response was, immediately, “Not only would I debate her, I’d pay her for the privilege.” Then he made his tweet.

    -When she didn’t accept his offer, Ben shamed her, not as a public official failing some kind of social contract that forces politicians to do media bits, but because she talked the talk, but wouldn’t walk the walk. A more… I hate to say it like this, but call a spade a spade….. mature candidate, might take the lesson inherent in this and let it all die down, but no. Ocasio is a stupid, young progressive, and why take responsibility? She has a vagina, don’t you know, all of the things that go wrong in her life are obviously related to that, and so she claimed sexism. That went over well.

    -So what does the Great White Knight of the Order of the Water Buffalo do? Well, white knights go white knighting. And Cenk chooses Ted Cruz to debate. Why? No one fucking knows. Ted Cruz hasn’t made a headline since 2016, Ted Cruz didn’t say progressives were afraid to debate him, but it sure made a neat sounding bumper sticker, didn’t it?

    Now a part of me wishes that Cruz has done the right thing and ignored the offer… But no, this is 2018.

    As much as that shows the ridiculousness of Ocasio’s original response, and is a hell of a zinger, it’s just not useful. Now Cenk has spent the last week or so making hay off it, pretending the situation is exactly the same, and that any of this means anything.

    • God. Was all that really only three days ago? Read this comment in four days and the “last week” line will have caught up with reality.

      • I remember three dozen outrage-cycles ago when California Progressives started shrieking at straws. And four dozen outrage-cycles ago that democrats got mad at printers.

        The latest, where democrat goons are beating up democrat news reporters, seems oddly under reported.

        • Wasn’t it about 6 or 7 years ago that the democrats flew into an outrage over a reasonable supreme court nomination… Judge Caviness or Judge Kalvinaugh or something…? I can barely remember.

          • It is eerily accurate (by today’s [double] standards) to say that a century ago, Democrats flew into a similar outrage over a reasonable Supreme Court nomination – Uncle Thomas, or somebody. It pays to remember correctly that the political left, not the political right, has provided the bulk of the muscle behind lynchings in ‘Murica, be they with rope, or high-tech.

  10. ”Medicare for all is ‘much cheaper than the current system.’ ”

    Demonstrably cheaper when you apply the following…um…externality.

    The inimitable Ocasio-Cortez: “Americans have the sticker shock of health care as it is, and what we’re also not talking about is: WHY AREN’T WE INCORPORATING THE COST OF ALL THE FUNERAL EXPENSES OF THOSE WHO DIE BECAUSE THEY CAN’T AFFORD ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE? That is part of the cost of our system.” (bolds/caps mine)

    Clear things up?

    Makes her Two-State Solution and because everyone’s working two jobs observations seem positively Mensan.

    Lefty’s Flavor-of-the-Month is giving Joltin’ Joe Biden a serious run for the money as the league-leading, most prominent (read: imbecilic) gaffe-meister on the circuit.

    • Other Bill

      I think the Dem guy she beat is still on the ballot as the candidate for some smaller party. I think his and the Dem party’s strategy is to let Ms.Ocasio-Cortez so make herself look a little, okay, a lot, suspect that more people will vote for him than her (or the Republican) this fall just as a result of name recognition. .

      • Joe Crowley is still on the ballot, but were you to tally who’s drawing all news buzz and appearances, you sure as heckfire wouldn’t know it.

        I’d play it the same way; when your opponent is making a fool of themselves by just being who they are, don’t get in their way.

        Lefty’s cash-strapped and wandering aimlessly, due in no small part to President Trump playing them like a Strad.

        Ocasio-Cortez, as their Next Big Thing, is helping them just like the Piano Man helped those bar regulars: to forget about life for a while.

        • Other Bill

          I just wouldn’t be surprised to see Joe Crowley all of a sudden back on the stump about four or five weeks prior to the election. He and the DNC may declare an emergency. Politics ain’t bean bag and the Clinton Pelosi wing is very adept at it. She may get crushed like a bug. I just can’t imagine a pol like Joe Crowley contentedly exiting the stage when he was about to finally get a leading role. As Bullwinkle would say, “There seems to be skullduggery afoot!”

  11. “Critics of the first black President were racists, critics of illegal immigration were xenophobes, critics of Hillary Clinton were sexist, and opponents of gay marriage were bigots.”

    Media critics of Trump are called “enemies of the people”…

    • Windypundit wrote, “Media critics of Trump are called “enemies of the people”…”

      Outside the using the word “critics” do you really think that’s some sort of equivalence?

      If you replace the word “critic” with the phrase “purveyors of fake news” does your equivalency still work? Here let me help you with that answer; critic ≠ purveyor of fake news.

      • Great point, dude! If you change what I said to something completely different, it means something completely different!

        • Windypundit wrote, “Great point, dude! If you change what I said to something completely different, it means something completely different!”

          Now you’re just acting like an asshole.

          I figured you were intelligent enough to “get it”, I was wrong. Let me help you. It’s not simple media critics that are being called “enemies of the people” it’s those in the media that are “purveyors of fake news”.

          Again Windypundit; critic ≠ purveyor of fake news.

    • I think that’s a false description, WP. Journalists who make up narratives, use unreliable sources, engage in unethical journalism practices, employ double standards, and generally abuse the First amendment to undermine an elected President out of ideological and personal animus are enemies of the people. If journalists were playing it straight, then you would be correct. (And maybe Trump would make the same accusation.)

      • Other Bill

        Trump is speaking truth to power (certainly one of the left’s most annoying and cloying mantras). Who’d a thunk it? Which just goes to show you how out of whack things have become since Watergate. The press think they run the country.

  12. #3

    Her response was meaningless as soon as she asserted the term “unsolicited request” which literally means “unrequested request”. By definition no request is requested until it’s requested, so essentially she’s established in her word jumble an impossibility.

    Ole Alexandria is the first gift to come out of Socialism that actually keeps on giving.

    There’s actually a New York district that a Republican has a better than 0% chance of winning if the GOP would bother to even lift a finger going into deep blue territories (without accidentally putting up closet Nazis)

  13. PennAgain

    I know nobody’s going to pay any attention to this so I’ll get it off my chest: San Francisco (granted, it’s a peculiar stronghold) just voted in a nothing-burgeresse as mayor for one main overriding two-part reason (this is freely admitted and bragged of): she is black … and she is a woman. Ocasio-Cortez is Hispanic … and she is a female. Her bona fides (or lack thereof) are totally irrelevant. In the ancient tradition of the tribe of Obama cometh the millenium of the Demographic Presidents of America. Let Joy Be Confined!

    • Holy crap PA, you’re leaving out some real real important…um…shit.

      Some straight poop about # 2 from the talented Ms. Breed:

      There is more feces on the sidewalks than I’ve ever seen growing up here,”

      Appears she enjoyed an interesting childhood…

  14. Ocasio-Cortez said: “Just like catcalling, I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions.”

    Isn’t that a sneaky, even cowardly, anti-MeToo statement? That lady just says stuff that is off-the-wall – unlike TRUMP, who says stuff 10 different ways ABOUT “the wall.” I guess I, too, am now guilty of “catcalling” her.

    “A man with bad intentions” = a man who disagrees with her. Right.
    Let’s just call that “O-C math.” Or Stepford Leftism (thanks, PennAgain).

  15. Chris Marschner

    “Keep being intentionally divisive, and eventually you’ll get division.”

    No truer words were ever spoken.

    On the anniversary weekend of the incident in Charlottesville the media hammered home the point that I am not worthy to live in their civil ideal society. Why do I interpret their coverage this way you may ask? Perhaps it is because I reject the notion that any person’s opinion should be silenced and I stand with those that reject the proposition that select populations should have the ropes of past injustice be perpetually hung around the necks of those that have neither the personal history, desire nor ability to economically discriminate or oppress anyone. I have no problem with refutations of opinions – I would encourage them – but my tolerance for those that suggest that only they have the right to determine what is good and proper is waning; especially in light that those people often cast wide nets in their sanctimony; which is no different than the behaviors of others they claim results in their oppression.

    Why would many marginalize me for my belief that I simply do not believe that because one gender or race is in greater or fewer numbers relative to their overall population than another in a given population it is prima facie evidence of discrimination and bias. For if I did, I would have to believe that males are discriminated against in teaching positions within the primary and secondary grades, in most health occupations today, and within the administrative support positions in many public and private institutions. I would also have to believe that white sports team owners discriminate against whites because they are under-represented on most teams with the exception of perhaps hockey and soccer. Numbers in any occupation are a function of human choices and capabilities. Even if one feels fully capable of running a fortune 500 firm as the CEO, one’s choice is the primary gatekeeper because if one never applies to reach that goal then only those that do stand a chance.

    Bias is only every seen in others and not in themselves.

    No group sees bias when deriving benefits of bias as a group. For example, women see no bias when they are treated as superior care givers and thus courts favor them more frequently in child custody cases. No one sees the abject bias in the violence against women act. Why is that? What makes an assault on a woman worse than an assault on anyone for that matter? I might be able to see different charges based on differential physical stature but not on gender. Why not a violence against the frail and weaker act? I see no outcry from women and minorities when most of the SBA programs favor women and minorities even though the data show that they are creating more new businesses than their white male counterparts for almost the last twenty years. There are no special programs to increase male enrollment in post secondary education even when their numbers are being outpaced by female enrollment and graduations. No one is running to change the selective service rules that create lifetime bars to federal employment, education grants and other federal benefits for failure to register for the draft by age 26 even though women fought for the right to be in forward combat so that promotional opportunities can be afforded to them. Commerce department data show that women control 60 percent of the wealth in the U.S. and 80% of all Consumer spending. One can see the evidence of this in the thematic content in most mass media advertisements. Each of us sees bias through our own lens. Therefore, if a group of white men protest what they think is bias against them that is their right. We can reject or accept their arguments based on the facts presented. When we begin to go down the path of silencing critics we find objectionable we will lose the right to petition for redress of grievances.

    Is there any wonder why a growing number of white males may feel less sympathetic to advancing the current notions of progressive policies when the noose of a legacy perpetrated by others is believed to be unfairly tightened around their necks today; which brings me back to Charlottesville.

    When facts are denied real truths evaporate over time. The riot in Charlottesville last year was absolutely avoidable. The entire incident was precipitated by a demand to remove a statue of the historically important Confederate General Lee. We have forgotten that this was one of the last statues sought to be toppled by progressive forces. For those that wished it gone the statue represented the glorification of slavery. For others that wanted it to remain it was a symbol of Virginia’s proud history. Both sides have every right to feel as they do.

    As a prelude to my point you need to know I grew up in Baltimore and when the riots of 68 took place whites were fearful and had every right to be. As a twelve year old child living well outside the primary area of the riots I was still chased and attacked several times by gangs of older blacks who lived in the neighborhood simply because I was white. At the time my progressive democrat parents taught in a nearly 100% black high school so we never thought of discriminating but we knew of others that did. We never uttered derogatory epithets at anyone. Up until the assassination of Dr. King we blacks and whites went to school together pretty much incident free.

    My point is that Eldridge Cleaver and the Panthers who picked up the mantle of Malcom X after Malcom’s death in 66 was in the forefront of the black separatist movement of the day and became a revolutionary figure among local black males. He empowered them to commit violence and rape (see Soul on Ice) in the name of liberation against whites. Only later did both men repudiate their racist beliefs. Nonetheless, we have schools and streets in urban America that bear the names of these men. Should those of us who were actual victims of the violence that these men extolled at one point in their lives demand that these men’s names be stricken from the schools for which they are named? I don’t think so. More importantly, I have moved well beyond the beatings I took as a child.

    I am reminded of a quote by Sheldon Stern, a professor of African American history and historian at the John F Kennedy Library and Museum from 1977-1999.

    “Failure to educate young Americans about the whole story of Atlantic slave trade threatens to divide our nation and undermine our civic unity and belief in the historical legitimacy of our democratic institutions. Education in a democracy cannot promote half-truths about history without undermining the ideal of e pluribus unum—one from many—and substituting a divisive emphasis on many from one. The history of the slave trade proves that virtually everyone participated and profited—whites and blacks; Christians, Muslims, and Jews; Europeans, Africans, Americans, and Latin Americans. Once we recognize the shared historical responsibility for the Atlantic slave trade, we can turn our attention to “transforming the future” by eradicating its corrosive legacy.”

    Why do I include the above passage in this essay? I did so because every person alive today is deriving benefits accruing to the enslavement of someone. Great civilizations be they Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Germanic would never have advanced within the limitations of their own workforces. That is not to rationalize slavery as something good for it is an abomination to the notion of free men. But we cannot continue to hold the descendants of ancient cultures liable for the acts of their forebears. Long before the Atlantic Slave trade ever took hold eastern Europeans were enslaved. The etymology of the word slave derives from the Ethnic group Slav.

    Does anyone really believe that the words of a small band of disenfranchised white guys whose economic prospects are diminished by their own radical ideas are a threat to greater tolerance of other ideas, beliefs and cultures? Besides, whose voices are enjoined from speaking by virtue of crowd behavior? Or, is this preoccupation with “white nationalists” or, “supremacists”, part of a larger more insidious plan to undermine the real values of American culture; a culture that allows diversity of thought, one that has has a formalized process to welcome and integrate more new people into its way of life than anywhere on this planet, and has been a driving force for upward mobility for anyone that chooses to apply themselves toward those goals. What we should be worried about is that the continuation of identity politics which pits one group against another is more of a threat to democratic republicanism and social tolerance than any outside force. I choose the conservative ideal of e pluribus unum and reject identity tribalism as a cultural imperative.

    Unlike the media and the 21 century carpetbaggers who exploit divisiveness, I will choose to forego the ability to profit from creating disunity and division but I will not stop challenging those who sow the seeds of distrust and Nihlism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.