Saturday, June 29, 2019

"Trump's racism" vs. his opposition's dishonesty

[Warning for snowflakes: drill instructor mode below.]

Here's a question that would be asked in a polity governed by reason and wisdom:

If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, Trump said that neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in Aug. 2017 were "very fine people" - purportedly an implication of his statement that there were "very fine people on both sides" in Charlottesville in Aug. 2017.

If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, Trump's statement emboldened and gave succour and comfort to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, racists, white nationalists, etc.

If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, there's nothing that Trump said or did since that time to downplay his giving comfort and succour to white supremacists.

So, the question:

Why hasn't there been a repeat of Charlottesville all around the country since then (close to 2 years now), with emboldened white supremacists running amok and terrorizing non-whites?

Isn't that what Trump's haters/opposition would have predicted might ensue?  That non-whites would have to live in fear in Trump's America?

The reason there hasn't been a repeat of Charlottesville is because the narrative Trump's haters have promoted since that time is a lie - the product of willful dishonesty or stupidity.  In short, his haters are almost unbelievably stupid, or fucking liars, or a combination of the two.

And it really isn't difficult to figure this out, with some intellectual honesty and a bit of persistence.

The facts:

Politifact provides the transcript from Trump's Aug. 15, 2017 press conference in which the "very fine people" phrase is used.  (The posting of the transcript at Politifact is dated Apr. 16, 2019.  Question: why the fuck would it take Politifact almost 2 years to post the transcript?  More on that in a bit.)

Now, Politifact has a rating system for the truthfulness of a statement, ranging from "True" to "Pants on Fire."

Politifact's "rating" or determination at the bottom of the posted transcript is: "full context is needed."

Well, no shit.  But what does that imply about Trump's haters (including those in the press - and you can see how even the reporters questioning Trump in his press conference seem to have comprehension issues [where did they receive their "education"?])?

If Politifact were to do what it really ought to do in addition to posting the transcript, and that is to assess the truth or falsity of the Trump haters' claims that he called neo-Nazis "very fine people," what would be the correct rating for Politifact to give those claims?

The claim that Trump said neo-Nazis were "very fine people" is a pants-on-fire lie.  It indicates such a degree of disregard for truth and context by his haters that they shouldn't be considered credible sources about what their opposition says or thinks.

And what's more, it definitely damns the "news" sources - Trump is exactly right to call this "fake news" - who emboldened Trump's haters and gave them aid and succour in their lie.  The "news" organizations - and this goes definitely for CNN - either knew it was a lie, or failed in their job as news sources to get the full story.  Scott Adams has all the archived evidence of CNN's blatant dishonesty.  Will CNN ever issue a correction, or will it slink away into silence in hopes that they won't be called to account about this again?  Will they admit that they unprofessionally peddled a lie to the American people, or will they unprofessionally avoid all accountability for their peddling the lie?

Either alternative puts CNN (and other similar situated "news" organizations) in a very tough spot.   They have been caught dead to rights, promoting a lie.  The best option at this point for CNN would be to admit that it's no longer a news organization - certainly not in its politics coverage - but a selective and biased source plus selective and biased commentary.

So fuck CNN, and fuck all the Democrats/left/"progressives" who peddled this lie.

One thing that these Trump haters do a lot of, is to say how scared immigrants are that Trump's goons will come into their cities and homes and destroy their lives.

But the real, main cause of the immigrants' fear on this count is that they listen so much to dishonest and/or monumentally stupid Democrats who have every partisan political motivation to stir up the fear among their constituents.

So fuck the Democrats/left/"progressives" yet again for their epistemologically criminal fear-mongering.

Anyway, why did it take Politifact so long to post that transcript?  It's because the dishonest partisan Dem/left/"prog" had stonewalled long enough in the face of Scott Adams calling them to task.

Back to the original question: why didn't Trump's remarks about "very fine people" embolden white supremacists?  Because very shortly after that press conference, Trump issued an unequivocal condemnation of white supremacy, calling out such organizations as the KKK by name.  He sent the unequivocal message that he does not support or condone their activities in any way.

That, too, is a fact disregarded by the dishonest left/Dem/"prog" crowd.  (I almost said "stupid/dishonest" but stupidity doesn't explain blatantly disregarding facts.  These are intellectually dishonest pieces of shit.)

Fact is, the scummy Dem/left/"progs" weave an entire false narrative about Trump's supposed racism by going out of their way to assume the worst when Trump says something that might be tied to some ethnic or racial subject.  This race-hustling has become the stock in trade of the entire party, indeed the entire intellectual culture of the Left, including the parasites of subsidized classrooms (who should be swept aside).

By the way, the URL that I just linked contains as its first search result this item from HuffPo.  It's the same basic epistemological criminality, this time applied to Ayn Rand.  And I dare say that this example is typical of leftist Rand-bashing:
Letter from a Galtian

“I am really curios (sic) to know what motivates the mind of a socialist,” you write. “Why do you think its (sic) fair to penalize those of us who produce while rewarding those who do not?”

(Apparently the email software used by producers doesn’t have a spell-check function. Fitting, I guess, for people whose fictional hero described scientists and other educated members of society as “parasites of subsidized classrooms.”)
This hubristic piece of shit apparently either didn't read the Galt speech or did read it but has serious comprehension problems.  After all, what is John Galt but a scientist?  What is Hugh Akston if not an educated member of society?

Given such serious comprehension problems, one has to ask: was he "educated" by parasites of subsidized classrooms?

I dare submit that the entire intellectual culture of the Left has become (if it wasn't always) a dishonest cesspool in which opposition ideas are constantly caricatured so as to be made to look weaker by comparison to the "superior" leftist alternative.  Whenever an opportunity for a serious debate about their caricatures presents itself, they run away like cowards.  I've seen this happen every time when it comes to their caricatures of Rand (their most formidable intellectual adversary).  And in this case it's entirely no accident that the parasites of subsidized classrooms aid and abet them in their smears; if Randian ideas take hold in the culture, they (in their present form, that is) are out of a job and stripped of their power to "educate" the youth.

The way the Dems/left/"progs" treat Trump and Rand falls into a pattern of an intellectually-bankrupt non-approach to examining competing socio-political-economic ideas.  It's just that this corruption comes out most blatantly and obviously in the case of Trump (because, well, he's president) and Rand (because she's their most formidable intellectual adversary, and she's got them running around like decapitated chickens trying to "refute" her).

(The intellectual criminality in the latter case, though, is greater because it goes all the way to the upper echelons of the academic food chain, whereas in the former it's mostly political hacks (including the political "news" generators at CNN) doing the dirty work.  The chief tactic used among the professional rationalizers in order to rationalize not taking Rand seriously is to pay attention only to her real or supposed weaknesses while disregarding her strengths.  That's it; that's all it comes to.  There's no way that any of them could honestly look at the goings-on at the Ayn Rand Society and conclude that professional philosophers couldn't take Rand seriously.  What makes their rationalizations more dangerous and destructive than those of rank-and-file leftists is that they are trained in the art of making their arguments appear the stronger even if their position is the weaker.  (IOW, they're a variety of sophist.  One can observe the mental gymnastics of such anti-Rand sophists here, for instance.  They might try to rationalize how a high-profile Aristotle scholar such as Gotthelf could also be an Objectivist, but they certainly have no answer that fits in with their highly dubious anti-Rand narrative as to why Hospers would take Rand so seriously despite not being an Objectivist himself.  They have no consistent-with-narrative answer as to how this president of the American Society for Aesthetics [1983-4] would praise Atlas Shrugged in such glowing terms.  What, oh what, is a sophist to do?))

The "very fine people" hoax is just one clear-cut, dead-to-rights example of Dem/left/"prog" dishonesty, but it's far from the only such instance.  Just the other day, commenting on the Democrat debate the night before, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough ("Morning Joe") said (paraphrasing) that "Trump called Mexicans rapists."  Scarborough doesn't strike me as the dishonest type, so an alternative explanation for this is that he's another victim of the parasites of subsidized classrooms, rendered unfit to think at the higher levels.

If you're not a piece of intellectual shit, on the other hand, you can easily make sense of what Trump was saying, which is that there is too much criminal activity in our country due to way too many people of a criminal bent crossing the southern border illegally (and then coddled by Democrats).  (Democrats/leftists/"progs" stupidly/dishonestly conflate illegal immigration and all immigration when they say Trump is anti-immigrant.  They then stir up fear among their immigrant constituencies that Trump is hostile to all of them and has an agenda actually in place to deport all people who are here illegally.)  Then we have Nancy Peloser lying that "Trump's thing is 'Make America White Again' " and that the border barrier addition Trump wants to build - a barrier that by definition would reduce only illegal immigration - is a symbol of racism.

(And what the fuck is Joe Scarborough doing bringing up something Trump "said" four years ago now, at the very outset of his campaign, when he was a political newcomer with no serious experience in political communication?  How the fuck, exactly, was Trump supposed to know about the iron law of politics that if a statement can be construed in its worst possible light it will be and with the aid of complicit "news" outlets no less?)

How can pieces of intellectual shit such as Peloser, CNN, the Democrats, et al, be expected to get it right about anything of fundamental importance in the realm of politics?  I mean, they might get it right when they cite this or that fact and figure they have actually studied, or heck, the natural scientists among them might well get it right about the scientific things they study, but as to what constitutes racism, or what constitutes sound government policy, or what constitutes the American ethos, or what constitutes corporations victimizing people . . . how can these people claim so much as a shred of credibility any longer?  They habitually lie through their teeth, and/or are hubristic fools.

A few months back I made a post titled "Donald Trump, Ayn Rand, and their haters."  In that post I said:
Sure Trump says a lot of dumb things, can be quite the dick sometimes.  But have you seen his haters?  They often behave like absolute pieces of shit. 
Sure Rand's polemics leave a lot to be desired, but have you seen how her haters polemicize against her?  They often behave like absolute pieces of intellectual shit. 
And I can, if and when I have the time and interest to do so, marshal a mountain of evidence to prove all of this....
Now, I haven't yet marshaled a mountain of evidence that Trump says a lot of dumb things and can be quite the dick sometimes (do I really need to go through the motions there? Don't his own fans admit this while still preferring him to the even-more-toxic alternative?), and I haven't yet marshaled a mountain of evidence that Rand's polemics leave a lot to be desired (which would establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rand isn't the expert on everything philosophy-related as quite a number of her devoted followers believe).  (I mean her polemics directed at philosophers, that is; I think at the very least the vast majority of her political polemics are so on-target as to be beyond serious criticism, and her diagnosis for why the political creatures whom she demolishes are the way they are is based on a general fact about our political culture: intellectual bankruptcy.)

But as to the exceedingly shitty nature of Trump-haters as well as the Rand-haters?  Well, since right around the time of the posting excerpted above I have made the following abundantly (if not overwhelmingly) documented posts exposing what these creatures are up to.

Trump's haters:
The left's MAGA hat meltdown and "Progressive" scummery as the Trump-era norm ("Progressives" recklessly smear Covington High School students)
  • Prediction: Trump (or a Republican) will win in 2020 (how today's Dems/leftists/"progs" generally speaking are shitheads, with dozens of documenting links in just one paragraph; the anti-Kavanaugh smears in particular reveal the nature of the present-day Dem/left/"prog" cesspool, and that includes the current top 3, and top 4 out of 5, front-runners for '20, and that goes especially for current front-runner, Scumbag Kamala Harris)

Rand's haters:

Now, I don't know whether the totality of the evidence presented in these links qualifies as a mountain, but it sure is a heck of a lot of evidence and the essential nature of the phenomena are captured well enough for me to rest my case with utmost certainty that any plausible, not-self-defeating defense of these creatures' MO is nowhere to be found.  They are a bunch of unphilosophical, caught-dead-to-rights, conceited scumbags who deserve the lion's share of blame for what a shitshow the American political "conversation" has become.  The only question remaining is addressed to the remaining decent Democrats whose voices and input have been (inevitably and irreversibly) drowned out by the ever more strident, ever more statist, ever more anti-Western-civ scumbags (a group now spearheaded by an ignoranttoxic moral exhibitionist) who've taken over the party: And you are still a Democrat?

If the Dems/left/"progressives," in the name of the best within themselves (it's in there, somewhere), ever manage to get their act together, that means having to confront the Randian "menace," discover that their fears are entirely unfounded, and become Aristotelians - in short, jump on the team and come on in for the big win, for fuck's sake already.

[Addendum: The potential/future leftist "recruits" for philosophy boot camp could sure use a drill instructor highly skilled in the art of integration/dialectic.  Where might such possibly be found, I wonder?]

[Addendum #2: In the interests of full dialectical non-one-sided context-keeping, the best piece of evidence that Trump harbors animus toward a minority group is his original proposed ban on Muslims entering the country.  The proper term for this proposal would be Islamophobic, not racist, since Islam isn't a race (a point Trump's haters are too stupid or dishonest to grasp).  Trump's haters might have gotten more mileage out of his apparently unqualified Islamophobia (as well as his early 1970s housing company policies) if they hadn't already blown their credibility on just about everything else, as already demonstrated.]

[Addendum #3: I've been getting some pushback on this wonderfully aggressive post where I've been posting it online, but the pushback hasn't been very good.  One objection I am getting is that I'm really hard on Dems/left/"progs" while not being "fair and balanced" enough to acknowledge all the misdeeds and intellectual bankruptcy among Republicans/right/conservatives (with or without scare-quotes), such that I might appear to come off as some kind of partisan GOP shill.  So let me start by saying, the GOP has a shitty track record on LGBT+ rights, and clearly so.  So while the left want to force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings (you see, the left got its well-earned victory with gay marriage, but it just couldn't help overstepping into trampling on others' freedoms, now could it), if the GOP had its way there wouldn't even be gay civil unions.  So fuck 'em on that score, they have a lot of rehabilitating to do to regain the moral credibility squandered there. One can find a good amount of commentary (including polemics) on the GOP under my 'republicans' tag.  One extensive listing of GOP intellectual misdeeds is contained in this post in a long paragraph beginning with "Before continuing...".  Another point of pushback on this wonderfully aggressive post has to with data purporting to show a rise in hate crimes, particularly murders by white supremacists, under (and therefore presumably attributable to) Trump.  One such releasing of data, by the Anti-Defamation League, is relayed uncritically by WaPo writers while being torched by someone who looked into the ADL report.  (Further context.)  This, all in connection with my lead question, "Why hasn't there been a repeat of Charlottesville all around the country since then (close to 2 years now), with emboldened white supremacists running amok and terrorizing non-whites?"  The Dems/left/"progs" would have the American electorate believe that this sort of thing would be a regular occurrence under Trump because of a culture of hatred he would unleash.  As it turns out, the number of what the ADL calls extremism-related murders (using its methods criticized at the "torched" link) in the year 2018 is all of 50 in a nation of 340M+.  39 of those are murders "by white supremacists," whether ideological or non-ideological in nature, and this figure evidently includes the 17 people gunned down in the Parkland, FL school shooting (2/14/2018), which all on its own would nearly account for the increase from 18 "murders by white supremacists" in 2017 to 39 in 2018.  Be very wary of statistics cited by known-to-be-partisan "news" outlets.  Has the worn-out credibility of the anti-Trump media not been made thoroughly apparent yet? ffs  Anyway, there seem to be a number of readers who just don't like to see it being said that vast swaths of today's Dem/left/"prog" crowd have become basically demonically warped morons in their (political) thinking, or that the intellectual culture of the left is essentially a basket case, but that's what the exhaustively-documented facts say, so tough shit.  Just follow the gobs of links I provide in this and other posts tagged 'democrats' and 'leftist losers' for incontrovertible proof of this seemingly hard-to-swallow truth.  It pains me that it is true.  But I offer an undeniably no-brainer solution, goddammit.]

[Addendum #4, in the interests of dialectical completeness: Well, guess what. Here is an alternate, well-supported take on Trump's remarks about Charlottesville. It is decidedly negative. It hits Trump right where he usually or often deserves to be hit, and for which he has been caught out countless times -- his casual relationship to the truth. But what it is NOT is the line of attack that Trump's haters and opposition media have put forward, because that line is absolutely indefensible given the context, which includes multiple statements across a few days in which he condemns in no uncertain terms: hate; bigotry; racism; white supremacy; white nationalism; neo-Nazis; KKK; and "other" hate groups. The only term he apparently left out was: alt-right. (Is Trump ideologically aware enough to know what the "alt-right" is? How many people can pin down the meaning of "alt-right" so that it isn't used as some fast and loose smear, as though that sort of thing would ever happen in politics?) Nowhere in this piece is it asserted that Trump stated, implied, insinuated, or anything else that he considered white supremacists to be "very fine people." That is as much a lie as ever.
And guess what else. This eminently reasonable takedown of Trump on his handling of Charlottesville is performed by an Objectivist (adherent to basically the entirety of Ayn Rand's philosophy, or at the very least all its fundamental principles [and he was one noteworthy player in the "Peikoff-Kelley schism" literature, siding against Kelley on technical grounds within Objectivist epistemology...]). So how is it that an Objectivist can outperform by a mile a whole army of Dem/left/"prog" people, I wonder?]

[Addendum #5: This contains the most brutal anti-Trump comments section I've encountered, with lots of erudition to boot.  But it's a bunch of conservatives doing the brutalizing, not the left/Dem scum who've squandered all their credibility.  Trump's best critics are not to be found on the intellectually bankrupt/collapsing scum-left.]