Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Linda Sarsour is a Beautiful Person

Michael Lumish

I find Linda Sarsour fascinating.

I earnestly want her to go away, but at the same time I respect the woman's abilities.

Whatever her finest intentions she is the first progressive-left American activist to introduce Sharia to the general American public in an apple pie kind of way and at the same time she is standing up for the Jewish community in St. Louis, Missouri.
A Palestinian-American activist who has voiced support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise money to help repair a St. Louis-area Jewish cemetery where at least 170 gravestones were toppled over the weekend.
I am impressed by her tenacity, political timing, understanding of her audience, and the brass-balls audacity it takes to sell Sharia as a complement to western feminism, while endeavoring to court semi-Zionist American Jews.

No wonder that she comes out of Brooklyn, my old man's town.

Speaking strictly for myself, I have no reason to doubt her absolute sincerity. The reason for this is because I am well-aware of the ability of intelligent and decent people to promote the worst ideas while doing so for the very best reasons.

In her latest Facebook post we read this:

sarsour1

This is instructive material.

It is a good example of how Sarsour plays to the counter-cultural wing of the progressive left with an emphasis on blurry spirituality and generalized niceness... in contrast to the anarcho-syndicalist wing that we saw beating up innocent people just off Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley.

She writes:
Feeling blessed. Feeling grateful for so many people, places and things. God is truly the greatest.
Sounds like a beautiful statement to me and I would very much like for myself and for the Jewish people to be included in it.

Sadly, it is impossible to see it that way.

When she says that "God is truly the greatest" it is a less-than-clever way of slipping "Alahu Akbar" into the American vernacular.

"Alahu Akbar" means "God is Great" or "God is the Greatest" or "Our God is Better than Your God" depending upon just who you speak with.

What it means to semi-conscious non-Muslims, however, particularly those of the Jewish persuasion, is that we are going to kill you dead, you insidious children of swine and orangutans. Every murderous jihadi that has existed since Muhammad screeched those same exact words before blowing perfectly innocent people to smithereens.

If this sounds paranoid to the ears of comfortable and isolated Americans, it is because they have no recognition of 1,300 years of second and third-class non-citizenship under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperial rule.

The obvious way to approach Sarsour, however - or anyone else who hopes to introduce Islamic Supremacism into progressive-left ideology - is to simply request that they justify the contradiction.

Sarsour, as a proponent of Sharia, should explain how Islamic jurisprudence is compatible with western feminism.

She also needs to describe how Jewish self-determination and self-defense in the Jewish national homeland is somehow incompatible with the ideals of the Democratic Party.

Nonetheless, her fundraising efforts for the vandalized Jewish cemetery near St. Louis should be applauded.

I like this woman because she seems to have tenacity and conviction.

She deserves an honest shot in justifying the obvious contradictions in her political stances.

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

Nothing Left
This week Michael Burd and Alan Freedman are delighted to have a very special studio guest in Edwin Black who is leading a campaign to have the United Nations replaced by a new organisation called the Covenant of Democratic Nations.

We also hear from Smadar Pery, an Israeli advocate living in Berlin who has some troubling observations about Jewish life in Germany, and Isi Leibler joins us as usual from Jerusalem.


1 min            Edwin Black, on Covenant of Democratic Nations

51 min          Smadar Pery, Berlin (Part 1)

1 hr 4 min Smadar Pery, Berlin (Part 2)

1 hr 22 min Editorial: Trump / Netanyahu meeting

1 hr 27 min Isi Leibler, Jerusalem

The podcast can also be found on the J-Air website:

Or at our Facebook page: 

NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website www.j-air.com.au

Contact us at Nothing Left:

michael@nothingleft.com.au

alan@nothingleft.com.au


Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Another Note to a Friend on Facebook

Michael Lumish

I tend to be more sympathetic to the progressive-left's economic message than their racial message, which is non-liberal, promotes race hate, victim hierarchies, violence, and national divisions.

I think, however, that it goes off the rails when it assigns malicious intent to those who disagree.

You quote Bernie Sanders:

"Trickle down economics is a fraudulent theory designed by the rich and their think tanks in order to protect the billionaires and large corporations."

Or it is a flawed theory designed to lift all economic boats.

See, that's the difference.

You want to instigate "class war" whereas I just want to see a continued steady decrease in poverty levels.

We both agree that "trickle down" economics makes little sense. My opposition, however, is not grounded in Marxist ideology but in general common sense. Merely because a corporation receives tax breaks for the purpose of increasing profits does not mean that this will translate into the hiring of more labor.

Where Bernie and I disagree is that he seems to view trickle down as a cynical attempt by bad people to rob regular Americans on behalf of the wealthy.

Sadly, I have no such mind-reading abilities and am also perfectly aware that people can promote the worst ideas while doing so for the very best reasons.

For example, much of the progressive-left promotes the notion that white people, particularly white men, are a nefarious group in need of a good ass kicking.

This view is promoted by "identity politics" which posits a hierarchy of racial and gendered victimhood and dockets people (by skin color or gendered orientation) on that hierarchy.

In this way it recreates the very thing that MLK, Jr. warned against and does so, laughably enough, in the name of social justice and universal human rights.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Donald Trump: a Nazi Zombie or Cthulhu?

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon.}
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche 
"In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming." - H.P. Lovecraft

Welcome to the new American moment of rising white nationalism, anarchist violence in the streets, and an irate progressive-left that refuses to reconcile itself to the fact of a Donald Trump presidency.

It is not merely that the Left disagrees with Trump on policy issues, it is that they have aggregated that hatred into the core of the sun for the purpose of creating nuclear fusion.

This is a level of domestic collective political hostility that no living American has seen before and nobody knows what it will produce beyond getting an autistic white kid tortured in Chicago, among other such imbecilic acts of identity politics-based violence and cruelty.

One would have to travel back to early 1860s Savannah, Georgia to gloriously revel in this degree of rancor for the President of the United States and for people of the wrong color.

When I was a kid the Left despised Richard Nixon and when he died in 1994 Hunter S. Thompson wrote an obituary for The Atlantic that twisted the knife even in death. In "He Was a Crook," Thompson wrote:
I have had my own bloody relationship with Nixon for many years, but I am not worried about it landing me in hell with him. I have already been there with that bastard, and I am a better person for it. Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we developed a keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together.
But even Nixon, despite the secret bombing of Cambodia, was not as reviled as Donald J. Trump is today.

In college many of my friends did not much like Ronald Reagan, either, but we did not dress head-to-toe in black - almost like tight-fitting burkas, if you think about it - and then form ourselves into "black blocs" for the purpose of beating the holy hell out of perfectly innocent people in the streets.

And that is precisely what we saw when Milo Yiannapolous dropped by UC Berkeley on his "Dangerous Faggot Tour."

And then, of course, there was George W. Bush, the "Cowboy President" who allegedly robbed Al Gore of his rightful ascension and who followed in George Sr.'s footsteps by dragging the United States into more pointless warring in the Middle East. So we bitched and we moaned and we cried and we marched and some of us even went to Midland, Texas to say hello to Cindy Sheehan at "Camp Casey" not far from W.'s ranch.


Nazis, Klansmen, and Fascists

So, why does the disdain for Trump seem so much more angry and intense than these other examples of famous American presidential loathing? It is in part because while those who dislike Trump are loudly spreading their hatred, the rest of the country is quietly going about its daily business. Recent polling shows that something close to 50 percent of Americans actually favor the temporary ban from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya. My assumption is that, like all rational westerners, these people take the rise of political Islam seriously. Some of them follow the news of the immigration crisis in Europe. 

One would not get this sense from the overall mainstream media, nor the alternative media, because the drumbeat of fear and loathing is so relentless one would surely think that almost every ethically-decent American considers the temporary ban as on some moral par with the unjust internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

So, why have so many Americans gone stone-cold crazy? Why are so many otherwise normal and intelligent people bursting with horror at this particular political moment?

The reason has to do with Nazis, Klansmen, and fascists.

Homophobes, Islamophobes, and Antisemites.

Sexists, Transphobes, and all other manner of benighted Arkansas pig farmers.

That's why.

When The Enemy - as embodied by the hideous yammering visage of Donald Trump - represents the very worst that unearthly existence can manifest then there are no ethical limits on behavior in beating back the terrible cosmic menace. A righteous moral stance cannot include mere disapproval or protest, but full on resistance by any means necessary... however bloody, hypocritical, or devoid of simple human decency.

And if Democrats and progressives prefer not to get their hands dirty, that's what the Boys in Black are for. Perhaps if they curb-stomp enough Trumpeteers it will serve as notice to the rest to stay out of sight and keep their white-bread, humanist-individualist, Judeo-Christian yaps shut.

And make no mistake, Trump did not magically transform into Zombie Hitler - or the monster of your choice - through his own behavior.

He was transmogrified into Zombie Hitler by a Democratic Party leadership that had grown so confident, fat, and self-satisfied that only a spectral fascist could possibly stall their well-meaning efforts to change America into a semi-socialist enclave of sneauxflakes and drones. If the Democrats decided that they are "the good people" and the Republicans are "the bad people" then they decided that Donald Trump is Cthulhu, a multi-tentacled, insatiable, monstrosity from the Deep... or a Zombie Nazi... choose whichever you like.

And this is why the self-righteous Idiots in Black took to the streets of UC Berkeley to beat the holy hell out of Trump supporters at the Milo event.

What else can you do to a supporter of fascism other than kick its head in an anti-free-speech riot in the place most famous as home of the Free Speech Movement?


Race, Gender, Class

In the years between the end of the Vietnam War and the present, the progressive-left (or what political youtube icon Dave Rubin refers to as the "regressive-left") took the best ideas that American politics has to offer and turned them into mierda.

Questions of racial, gendered, and economic-class injustices go directly to the heart of the western political experience. From a liberal humanist perspective there is nothing more important than treating human beings as individuals with rights rather than as some annoying or frightening member of an othered group to be treated like dirt.

The fundamental purpose of movements for ethnic and gendered freedom was to relieve all of us of the burden of never-ending bigoted and unjust animosities. In Martin Luther King's iconic "I Have a Dream" speech, that was the dream.

But no sooner had this dream approached reality than the Left turned it into a weapon and betrayed its core values in doing so.

And this is where Hillary Clinton, her "basket of deplorables," and some ridiculous grinning green frog named Pepe, comes into the story.

During the campaign, and much to Bernie Sanders' ongoing annoyance, the drums of race and gender beat considerably harder and louder than those of economic class. Activists in the Democratic Party and the progressive-left who wanted to challenge the allegedly brutal, racist, white, patriarchal, imperialist, rape-culture of America were torn between Hillary's neo-liberalism and Sanders' anti-capitalism.

So, when Hillary, who we all knew was going to get the nomination despite Sanders' admirable challenge, decided to smack Trump around with Breitbart and white nationalism she unleashed The Fear into the American population on a national scale. The next thing that we knew Facebook and Twitter and God-Knows-What-All overflowed with rumors of gun-toting, Republican-voting, Nazi-sympathizing, angry, white guys prowling the streets of America as swastikas popped up all over the media like psilocybin mushrooms after a good rain.

The fact that there are no actual Nazis, Klansmen or fascists within the ranks of American power was not about to stop a good case of mass hysteria, however, so Team Hillary dug up Richard Spencer, tied Spencer to Breitbart, and threw both into the face of Donald Trump.

And they did so even as Milo darted between American university campuses humiliating idiots and referring to Trump as "Daddy." It is thus not difficult to see just why they would despise the guy and thereby smear him as a Nazi.

The truth, however, is that this sort of manichean, black-and-white, Good versus Evil, partisan politics is ripping this country to pieces. It's harming families and friendships.

Of course, if it makes people happy, they should continue spitting the hate.

I may find it interesting in a perverse and twisted kind of way, but it's certainly not doing the country any good.

Friday, February 17, 2017


Here is a question. When we talk about political ideology, just what are we talking about? Are we talking about political theoretical models, constructed by individuals engaged in ideas which we consciously modify over time and use as a tool to help us better understand what is happening around us? Or is it more like a set of political predispositions inherited from family and friends and teachers (and the media) that serves as an unconscious ideological filter turning intellectually passive individuals into ideological Pez dispensers? Or, perhaps, some of both?

Oh, and by the way, I bet that there is no way in hell that any of you guys will recognize the ballplayer above. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if proven wrong.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

On correcting the present, but not the past

Sar Shalom

Via Elder of Ziyon links list, I came across a post by Hunter Stuart, a journalist who held all the standard left-wing positions about Israel, and then came to realize the error of his understanding as the result of spending a year and a half in Israel. However, while his experience living in Israel taught him that his perceptions about the present were at odds with the reality, it did not confront him with how his perceptions of the past have elements that are similarly at odds with reality.
I know a lot of Jewish-Israelis who are willing to share the land with Muslim Palestinians, but for some reason finding a Palestinian who feels the same way was near impossible. Countless Palestinians told me they didn’t have a problem with Jewish people, only with Zionists. They seemed to forget that Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years, along with Muslims, Christians, Druse, atheists, agnostics and others, more often than not, in harmony. Instead, the vast majority believe that Jews only arrived in Israel in the 20th century and, therefore, don’t belong here.
Of course, I don’t blame Palestinians for wanting autonomy or for wanting to return to their ancestral homes. It’s a completely natural desire; I know I would feel the same way if something similar happened to my own family. But as long as Western powers and NGOs and progressive people in the US and Europe fail to condemn Palestinian attacks against Israel, the deeper the conflict will grow and the more blood will be shed on both sides.
As followers of Israel Thrives would know, the best statement that could be made to support the notion that "more often than not, [the Jews and Muslims lived] in harmony" is that the Muslims only rarely massacred the Jews and others living under their jurisdiction. Other than that, the social order was one in which Islam was the master faith and any infidel who would not want to face repercussions had to be obeisant to that reality. Any peace that existed during that time was the result of non-Muslims recognizing their place in society and thus not provoking their Muslim masters.

There is nothing wrong in sympathizing with the Palestinians' desire for autonomy. However, Stuart goes beyond that in stating that he doesn't blame the Palestinians "for wanting to return to their ancestral homes," implying that their "ancestral homes" are in the southwestern Levant. The question to pose regarding that claim is what percentage of Arabs living in Mandatory Palestine in the 1920s were born there and of those what percentage were born to parents who were born in what became Mandatory Palestine? Whatever amount of time one deems sufficient to make the Levant one's ancestral home, to claim that just one generation more than since the start of the British Mandate is sufficient just cannot be supported. Moreover, unlike the case of the Jews, the Arabs who did not live in the southwest Levant maintained no connection to the Levant. Thus the contest is not between indigenous residents and immigrants, but between immigrants who had no prior connection (the Arabs) and immigrants returning to their spiritual home (the Jews).

One could ask why this matters. After all, he supports Israel's claims today, what's the big deal if he has mistaken views about the past? However, this ignores Orwell's lesson that "he who controls the past controls the future." As Stuart further wrote:
I’m back in the US now, living on the north side of Chicago in a liberal enclave where most people ‒ including Jews ‒ tend to support the Palestinians’ bid for statehood, which is gaining steam every year in international forums such as the UN.
Now how many of Stuart's new neighbors in Chicago believe that "Jew and Arabs lived in peace and harmony, as equals, in the state of Palestine, until white, European, religiously driven Jews were given a country because of the Holocaust, and committed genocide against the indigenous Arabs, while colonising the land using American and British weapons?" Is siding with the Palestinians an unreasonable conclusion from such a premise? While speaking accurately about the pre-Zionism condition of the Jews of the Levant and how many of the Palestinians have bona fide ancestral connections to the land will not necessarily induce his neighbors to abandon their factually erroneous view, accepting the false facts will definitely not challenge those views and thus leave in place the narrative that standing with the Palestinians is like standing with the Civil Rights movement that ended Jim Crow rather than standing with the Klan that opposed Reconstruction and ushered in Jim Crow.