(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



A decoder for what Lump said in response April the 5th's protests [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-04-06

What Lump says What (I think) he means

Protesters for different reasons. He starts with a vague statement which, while fragmentary and ungrammatical, on the face of it is entirely accurate, unarguable even. Different motives were present, despite being congruent in some significant ways. Lump wishes to imply incoherence here, I suspect, in his charmingly oblique way.

You’re protesting also because, “You…” An interesting personification, as if he were addressing himself to the protestors. But this is a smokescreen. It is his rhetorical method of setting up an object, to whom his target audience – the MAGAts, who are expert at reading innuendo between actual statements – will respond negatively. In short he really means “they.” Them – the ones who are often referenced in Lump’s utterances; the ones who are the implacable, inscrutable enemy not unlike Indians in pre-1950s cowboy movies. A negative force of nature which must be contained, tamed, conquered.

you know, No, no; this is an entirely different “you.” Try to keep up. The “you” here is the interviewer. The woman who is talking at him and demands he utter sounds in response. He is vaguely aware that although this is a woman, it would be unPresidential simply to gaze at her blankly and wonder if she’s fuckable. No; she’s too old. And also…well, how can one put this politely? Not white. Not even his type.

they just didn’t know. They didn’t know…what? It’s a blanket statement, a fill-in-the-gaps, a colour-by-no-numbers for the faithful to crayon in whatever they think “they” might not know. And since the “they” in this equation is “libtards,” they can be assumed to be dumb as shit and ignorant as hell. In all, another moment in which projection surfaces in the discourse like a turd bobbing to the surface of a swimming pool.

I’ve watch – I’ve watched them closely. Probably not. But in his mind, Lump knows protesters probably more than anyone ever in history has known them. So…he’s watched them closely; because he relishes criticism, and responds to it with such forthright clarity. No, no; no observational analysis can be allowed to intrude on the man’s mastery of all fields. I genuinely think he’s seen the propaganda films of Kim Jong-un sitting at a table with “senior advisors,” holding forth while everyone else in the room nods sagely and takes the occasional note. In Tunis in 1993 I saw very much the same thing on Tunisian TV – in Arabic, so I was not entirely on top of the discourse – in which Ben Ali held forth and his ministers held their tongues.

Why are you here? And this is the question he claims he has posed to them, rhetorically, in his mind. He hasn’t; what he’s doing here is harking back to the vaguely-remembered question posed by the remarkable Harris Faulkner who, on behalf of Fox, argued that ‘401(k) people’ should treat Lump’s tariffs like ‘war effort’. So…sort of war bonds, I guess. Anyway, “why are you here”? is a question – like Faulkner’s – which could easily be answered in a simple sentence: “Because they don’t like me and my policies.” That would do it. Nothing to interpret; literally nothing to report. But. But he couldn’t. He couldn’t make a simple statement like that because it would be…true. It has been joked that he lies when it would be easier to tell the truth, and I think this is, in fact, the case. Well, that in addition to the mental chaos that seeps out of his skull with astonishing consistency. I think that Dr. Gabor Maté’s discussion of Lump’s childhood trauma is enlightening on this point.

They really weren’t able to say, In his earnest – albeit entirely imaginary – conversation with protesters he found them shy and inarticulate, unable to express what was troubling them. The really couldn’t say; he pressed them on the matter and waited to hear what they might say. Fruitlessly! The ingratitude of protesters is something to behold, is it not? This does not correspond, of course, to my or (I dare say) anyone’s experience at yesterday’s “Hands Off!” protest, where a thousand flowers bloomed (in the rain), a thousand schools of thought contended, but nevertheless everyone was there with one common focus, endlessly articulated in chant and placard, which I need not elaborate here.

but they were there for a reason, Lump allows, however, that they may be there for “a reason.” Don’t be misled! He’s not suggesting “they” have a reasonable reason: he is suggesting that the reason was (you pick) the Deep State; George Soros (through payments I’ve yet to receive); mean selfishness; Lump Derangement Syndrome; simple lunacy; or a fill-in-the-blank option for the more imaginative MAGAt.

perhaps. Having granted “a reason,” he immediately withdraws the offer. This reminds me of the famous televised moment when George W Bush began a sentence, realized mid-utterance where it was going to end up, and mangled it as he tried to fix it: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice…[thinks really hard]…can’t get fooled again!” [Looks around at room in triumph having narrowly dodged a bullet, beaming like an infant who has successfully created a neat bowel movement and awaits the praise due to him.]

But a lot of them really were there because they’re following the crowd. But now, aha! Lump conjures a let-out clause for the beastly protesters: they’re mindless sheep! This, at any rate, is a rationale which will make all kinds of sense to the MAGAt faithful. I go out with the crowd… Lump has managed to enter the headspace of all the many protesters, a heterogeneous and vocal group at the very least, and understood, in that deep Lump way, what motivates them.

A lot of them were there because what we witnessed was a terrible thing. And here a sudden rhetorical turn. There is a terrible thing. The terrible thing has been witnessed; we witnessed it. It’s why they were there. On the face of it, this is just sand in the eyes of the jury, a bit of chaos, a random turn. And let’s not be confused here; the “we” in this sentence is the awful babbling of the legion of contesting impulses and pathologies in Lump’s mind. Still, I think it is best to read this as a standard rhetorical gesture Lump adopts when he loses track, at least to some extent, of what he was talking about. This is the danger of tactical rambling, what Lump or one of his handlers has called “the weave”; one tends to forget the antecedents of whatever bullshit one is currently emitting.

What we saw was a terrible thing. Refocus! The thing was terrible; he wants us to remember this. It was kittens in a blender; it was children dying of measles; it was terrible.

And we’ve seen it over the years. But it’s not new. No. This has been around for years.

We haven’t, you know, One way to recoup a lost thought is to appeal to your interlocutor, someone you know to be sympathetic, someone who is likely to agree – even if they have no fucking clue what they’re agreeing to – that they do, in fact, know.

this was one horrible example, They know, for instance, that this was one horrible example. Just one. There are others; we need not dwell on them. They were horrible. But we are discussing this horrible example.

but you’ve seen other terrible examples. Oh. Never mind: we do have to confront the other ones. Other terrible things. And note that the “thing” is now so encrusted with multiple backward pointers in Lump’s speech that it would hard even for an alert and literate person to remember, in the moment, what “the thing” Lump claims to be talking about actually was. Which is reasonable, since he never said what it was. We are asked, essentially, to assume that The Terrible Thing has just been exemplified. Somewhere. Somehow.

You know that better than anybody who would know it. Flattery: another transparent and idiotic tactic, but since Faulkner hails from Fox “News,” she can be assumed to be on-side and unlikely to say “um, no, what? What do I know better than anybody else?”

And I know it. I’ve seen it, too. I’ve seen it before I was president. Repetition, as Goebbels was always eager to insist, is the essence of the ‘argument.’ Having constructed the “it” which has become the subject of his discourse, and having “reminded” the person asking the question that they know what this “it” is, it’s time for Lump to repeat that he, himself, has seen “it.” In all probability, he knows more about “it” than even experts in “it” have ever been. Nobody knows more about “it” than he. And he even saw it before he was president! The intellect at work here is, indeed, subtle, powerful, all-encompassing.

I’ve seen it. In case you missed the point, he’s seen “it.” I mean, he hates to remind you, but sometimes it’s important to pound the thing home. “It,” I mean. Not the thing. Or not that thing. We are getting off track.

I think it’s a shame. So now the moral turn! Hooray. Having established “it” as the problem – a problem remarkably far adrift from the subject of the question or, indeed, any discernible thing whatsoever – Lump advertises his aversion for “it.” It’s a shame. Now, it would surely be cheap to laugh, here, at the word “shame” coming from Lump’s mouth, and I refuse the invitation. I’m not laughing.

I think it’s a disgrace OK. Now I’m laughing. “It” is a disgrace. This diagnosis, from a man who embodies grace in every gesture, is a pointed and heartfelt one, undoubtedly. “It” is a disgrace.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/4/6/2315065/-A-decoder-for-what-Lump-said-in-response-April-the-5th-s-protests?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/