It is not what is said, it is what is heard, that counts


Mrs Dalwhinnie said that she finally had understood what the women’s protest in Washington was about, and since her concerns reflected exactly what Kate Heartfield wrote in the paper this morning, I shall cite Miss Heartfelt:

Anti-Trump women’s marches send message to misogynist demagogues: We won’t go back to the bad old days

“Going backward is the thread that runs through Donald Trump’s plans.

  1. He has promised to undo the progress of the past half-century, in ways that completely unnerve reasonable people on both the left and the right in every country. Undoing decades of trade liberalization and market-friendly policies that have brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to humanity.
  2. Undoing the legal and cultural reforms that affirm an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
  3. Overturning the Cold War victories of so many around the world who declared, sometimes at great personal cost, that a free press and an open government were the better way.”

(numbers are mine)

  1. True, in part. He certainly talks of protection and managed trade and negotiating better trade deals, controlling US immigration, deregulating energy exploration and production, lowering taxes, school reform, cutting government spending by 20%, abolishing some cultural spending agencies, increasing personal choice in education, and crushing Islamic terrorism. This is an ambitious program.
  2. Where? When?
  3. Whaaat? Same questions as 2 above.

In discussing this with Mrs Dalwhinnie, I was stumped when she said “it is not what is said, it is what people hear”. Appeals to facts when dealing with emotional issues are mostly vain. In the spirit of combatting emotional truths that are just not so, let me ask the following:

  • When did Trump promise to roll back abortion rights?
  • When did Trump promise to roll back gay rights?
  • When did Trump promise to roll back Cold War victories, or suppress free speech and open government?

[hear the sound of crickets, or wind over snow]

Trump is a New York liberal on social matters and a pragmatic conservative on matters of economics. So far as I can tell, he does not give a damn for conservative Christian shibboleths popular among Southern Baptists and some Evangelicals.

Where there’s smoke, said President John Kennedy, there’s a smoke machine. In the case of the well organized and supposedly non-partisan women’s march, here is some  research of interest. It shows that the links between the march organizers and the funding activities of George Soros are clear, many, and uncontested.

These were the principles of the Women’s March.

This was part of the statement of mission:

The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault – and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

In the spirit of democracy and honoring the champions of human rights, dignity, and justice who have come before us, we join in diversity to show our presence in numbers too great to ignore. The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights. We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.

All important, but it is fair to say quite peripheral to what the election was about – as if reality matters. And in addition I observe that the gap between the treatment by the official feminist movement of Trump for his vulgar but private comment of 22 years ago in a locker room about grabbing pussies of women who offered them, and the treatment of Bill Clinton for his serial seductions over the decades, is grotesque.

This brings me around to the comment that “what matters is what is heard, not what is said”. Today we see directly in Heartfield’s article the lies – that is not too strong a word – about what Trump said, and what the Post is willing to publish. What Trump intends is revolutionary enough, but it has nothing to do with women’s rights, or anyone else’s rights, for that matter.

If I may borrow a line from the People’s Cube, that naughty satirical pseudo-Communist send-up of all  things Leftist:

“Arguing the issue is beside the point. The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.”