Thursday, November 04, 2010

The Day After: Analysis 2

Today is Thursday, 4 November 2010.

Is the USA/USE “ready” for a Jewish president?

I seriously doubt a Jew could be elected, given the hordes of stealth anti-Semitic “Christians”. The non-stealth type is the garden variety, spewing “kike”, “Hebe”, “Abie”, “Christ killers”, etc. By “stealth” I mean those who support Israel as a nation-state, but only because they fancy that its existence is one of the factors which must be fulfilled before the “Second Coming” of Christ.* After the purported return, all those who don’t meet the standards of right-wing, non-universalist “Christians” will be damned to hell forever, including and especially all Jews, thus achieving an eternal Final Solution and the ultimate Holocaust (Shoah).

However, a set of circumstances can be imagined within which a temporary confluence of voters might suffice to furnish the requisite electoral votes. But: could a Jewish president govern? I seriously doubt it, because such a president would surely arouse the stealth anti-Semites (concentrated disproportionately in the right-wing in general and the Repugnicant Partei in particular), who would exert their maximum efforts to obstruct such a president’s agenda.

Sound familiar?

In 2008, through a particular set of circumstances, a Black was elected president. (These circumstances included, but were not limited to, widespread dissatisfaction with the lethally-clownish Bush-Chainy/Chainy-Bush regime, the Crash which began in September of that year, and a Repugnicant candidate notably unsuited by morals, policies, judgment, and temperament.) The backlash was swift: the psychotic-strength ravings of birtherism, the depiction of a centrist Democrat as a Marxist socialist, the attacks on the bailout/rescue/stimulus which prevented a collapse of the global financial system and a Second Great Depression, the nostalgia for a failing healthcare system, etc. And the Teabaggers using government spending and the National Debt as code words for “nigger”.

All leading to Repugnicant-generated gridlock, and hordes of white voters trooping to the recent polls like lemmings, blindly voting against their own economic and social best interests.

Could this have been averted? For months, I’ve been pointing out that Obama and his crew clearly didn’t understand the nature of the Repugnicant threat. The Repugnicant leadership has fewer-than-no scruples, and can only be fought no-holds-barred. Instead, Obama played the role of a poorly-conceived ivory tower intellectual, failing to barnstorm the country. Which is one way of saying that Obama ain’t much of a practical politician or a political thinker.

In terms of raw candle power, Obama is obviously head-and-shoulders above W. Bush as a thinker. (But then, so is my cat.) However, Obama gives every sign of having chosen to be possessed by the same sort of narcissism and complacency as W. Obama seems to have assumed that, since his policies and positions were so obviously and radically more correct than those of the Repugnicants, the vast majority of voters would naturally fall all over themselves in a rush to agree.

In what alternate universe?

Had Obama and company the lofty political skills they imagine they posses, and fought a scorched earth campaign instead of a toddle, the outcome might have been different.

* For those keeping scholarly score, “Second Coming” isn’t a Biblical term. The word so mistranslated is parousia: literally, “coming alongside”, a different kettle of fish entirely.

Thanks to “Voter” for your reading and comments.

To say that the policies of the GOP are repugnant isn’t schoolyard name-calling (if I called GOPers “faggots” or “pussies”, that would be), but a highly-informed ethico-political analysis and judgment which just happens to be correct. To suggest substituting “WTF” for “GOP” is sarcasm, an ancient and honourable political device. As to ‘human nature”: please define and prove the definition, and why it is immutable.

Yes, I did vote, and, as usual in the benighted state of Oaklahoma, all my candidates lost. If noting that the Repugnicants were supporting white supremacists and anti-Semites such as the Pauls for office isn’t enough to motivate people to vote, I doubt an overt appeal and begging on my knees would have sufficed.

Quite frankly, I have nothing but the proper disrespect for any political party which so blatantly and gleefully embraces race and religion hate.


Anonymous voter said...

Well, I guess I had better not comment ever again on your blog. You possess "ethico-political analysis and judgement" that "is correct." Therefore, why bother to engage in discussion of opposing views?

8:31 AM  
Anonymous what the . . .? said...

A Jewish President? Where did that topic come from? That has nothing to do with the elections on 11/2/10. Don't deflect your readers' attention from the 11/2/10 results' immediate impact.

11:02 AM  
Blogger HH said...

Friend "Voter": You will note that, in this instance, as always, I engage in discussion of views I find incorrect, sometimes to excruciating detail. And isn't it part of the point that one advocates views one believes are incorrect, and doesn't attempt to convince people of views which one believes to be incorrect, or of which one is uncertain?

Friend "What the...?" Please note the entire argument, that the response to a president who is Black is similar to the response I project if a president were Jewish. It is this response which led many white voters to vote against their own interests. Note also that this is not the last installment.

Thank you both for your reading, thinking, and comments.

11:12 AM  
Anonymous what the ... ? said...

So you are saying that the House of Representatives attained a majority in 2010 as a backlash to the existance of a Black President? He was elected in 2008 and was Black then, too.

Again, why are you bringing up the possibility of a Jew as President? Where did this topic come from? I have not doubt it came out of your fertile imagination, but, again, I view it as a distraction from the results of 11/2/10. You are not addressing this most recent event.

3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't wanna steal "Voter"s fire but, here goes:

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely (kinda like Potter Stewart's definition of "pornography" - I know it when I see it). We each behave as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature - human nature.

This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago (the "immutable" part). Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.

Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. Most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolutions stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways.

Frankly, it appears that, at the most basic levels, "human nature" is, in many (if not most) ways, immutable. But, on to brighter subjects...

Here's a great version of "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" - Christine O'Donnell's new theme song (you can add "unemployed", as well), as she and the odious Carl Paladino ride that crazy stallion together into the realm of "also-rans."

4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The national news is reporting that the great state of Oklahoma became the first state to amend its state constitution to prevent Courts from considering Sharia law when ruling on cases. Way to wage that preemptive strike, Oklahoma!! (Oklahoma's Muslims number about 15,000 out of a population of 3.7 million.) Boomer Sooner!!

5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too many "anonymouses" - does that make you/us "anonymice"? Anywho...

To Anonymous I: Why in the world would you respond to HH's "challenge" to Voter to "define and prove the definition (of "human nature") and why it is immutable"? I'm certain that Voter rightfully ignored it - as most adults don't respond favorably to being lectured, chastised, scolded or given homework assignments. Besides, if HH doesn't like the definition or common usage of a word or phrase, he just changes it (or claims that it is a "highly-informed ethico-political analysis and judgment which just happens to be correct"). Hilarious! We can all do the same, and certainly have no obligation respond to demands for homework. Prepare and post a theme of no less than 250 words discussing this, please.

To Anonymous II: Everyone knows that, when you're naming the most politically bass-ackward states in the Union, Oklahoma just has to be near the top of the list. Just check out the people they elect (the Tom Coburns, Jim Inhofes, etc.) and the laws they pass. That state is regularly fodder for lampooning on Letterman, Daily Show and Colbert. Go Sooners!

11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HH has, for months, been pointing out the "Obama and his crew" clearly didn't understand the nature of the "Republignicant threat." With this type of writing and thinking, it's abundantly clear to me why HH is in Oklahoma and not a top advisor in the upper echelons of our government.

HH continues: "Obama ain't much of a practical politician or a political think." "Obama possessed by the same sort of narcissism and complacency as W." REALLY??!! At least President Obama has not fallen victim to the sort of contrived affectations which afflict some; ie., the use of "colour", "honour", etc.

AND --

"Had Obama and company the lofty political skills they imagine they posses (sic),... the outcome might have been different." In other words, had PRESIDENT Obama listened to the sage advice of HH, or courted his counsel, the outcome would have been different. Woe to President Obama, and Democrats nationwide, that they failed to heed HH's sound advice. I'll wager that's a lesson they won't soon forget.

In what alternate universe?

12:56 PM  
Blogger HH said...


The use of "colour", etc. is not a "contrived affectation", but an attempt to blend in. Many locals constantly bleat, "Speak English!" Very well. And in English, as opposed to the American dialect, let alone the even more debased sub-dialect spoken in Oklahoma, the word is "colour".

I thought the discussion of "human nature" was quite fine, and thank whichever of the "Anonymi" shared it. This is a very serious question, since various definitions of it have been used frequently through the ages to justify all sorts of vile behaviour. I'll have more to say in the future.

1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anon #4 said...

To Anonymous #3:
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have, for a long time, thought that HH's misspelling (with American English as the basis) of words like "favour", and "colour" were quite affectacious. I recall at least one other responder, in the past, has commented on this, too. (By the way, colour and favour show up as misspellings in my spellchecker.) In HH's response to your dislike of this, he claims he is "speaking English." Good for him. (Pat on the head.) Notice that of all the things he calls you on, he chooses that and the topic of the definition of "human nature," conveniently ignoring the topic of Obama, et al.

Also, you are quite right in that HH has not imparted his "wisdom" on Mr. Obama and his crew. HH feels quite content shooting barbs from the cheap seats while the folks in Washington D.C. are doing the heavy lifting. Consider that Obama and crew have been on the job less than two years. With all there is to handle, how can anyone expect everything to be hunky dory in that time?

To HH:
You still haven't answered "what the...?'s" questions regarding (1) why you brought up the topic of a hypothetical Jewish President and are equating it to an actual Black President situation, and (2) why you infer that the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 2010 because the seated Democratic President is Black.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah... "Anonymooses" is definitely more artful. Good choice.

Just proofreading my post (Anonymoose 3):

Paragraph 1, first line should read "that" Obama and his crew...

Paragraph 2, should be "Obama ain't much of a practical politician or a political thinker."

My bad.

1:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, HH, let me get this straight. You're trying to blend in. You don't blend in (and can hardly be understood) because you, being so learned, erudite and proper, do not speak in the debased sub-dialect spoken in your native Oklahoma. So, in response to the "bleats" and pleas of your friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances, co-workers, et al., to "speak English", you have chosen to use the "Olde English" SPELLING of words such as "colour", "honour", "behaviour", "favour". And that's to "blend in" with your chums. Wow. That's amazing to me. You must undoubtedly be just the hit of every party.

3:10 PM  
Blogger HH said...

Actually, I'm native to Mississippi.

Also actually, I can't recall anyone ever even commenting on such spellings outside these columns.

Why should irony cause such conniptions?

3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conniption - a tantrum, an emotional outburst of ill humor or a fit of bad temper wherein the 'higher' cognitive functions are unable to stop the emotional expression of the putative 'lower' (emotional and physical) functions.

I have found neither irony (in HH's posts) or conniptions (in the posts of others).

Again, any disagreement with HH's opinions and hyperbole are summarily dismissed - this time as "conniptions". Looks as though the comments posted here by others are simply highly-informed analysis and judgment which just happens to be correct.

4:27 PM  
Anonymous bull shit said...

Truth/Fact - HH was born in Mississippi, but has in Oklahoma the majority of his life.

Hey HH: Concede the fact.

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To "bull shit" -

Yes, just more of HH's nit-picking and avoidance of the real issue presented for comment. HH's avoidance usually takes the form of feigned outrage or feigned misunderstanding. Oftentimes, HH is simply disdainful, contemptuous or dismissive of any remark or comment he doesn't appreciate, or with which he disagrees.

I suspect that, when asked where's he from, HH rarely, if ever, answers "Mississippi." If one attends junior high, high school, and university in a state, and/or spends the majority of one's adult life in one state or another, and/or has family, friends, colleagues, and other significant ties to a state - that's probably the state one claims when someone inquires "where are you from?"

2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home