Fantasy ‘fascism’ and the totalitarian Left

We live in Orwell’s nightmare.

There was yet another demonstration that turned violent this past week. This time it was in the picturesque, 400-year-old, walled backwater known as  Quebec City of all places. It involved a legal gathering by a relatively small group that no one on the planet Earth has ever heard of called La Meute. They were apparently protesting Justin Trudeau’s government for failing to do anything about the surge of illegal, mostly Haitian migrants pouring into Quebec across their border with the US. It’s a growing problem largely generated by the outrageously irresponsible Tweet Trudeau sent out in the midst of Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim travel ban’ controversy. In an act of self-aggrandizing virtue-signalling notable for its narcissism even by what we’ve come to expect from Justin, he essentially invited all illegal immigrants in the US to come to Canada if they feared deportation to their home countries under the Trump presidency.

jt

Anyway, the usual thugs from the far-Left showed up… bused-in 254 km from Montreal… to express their profound commitment to human decency by attacking people, destroying property and rioting. The folks from La Meute on the other hand, whose ‘far-rightyness’ was instantly proclaimed by the entire mainstream Canadian media (although I’m yet to see any attempt to support that claim by the tireless truth-seekers in Canadian journalism) and who collaborated with the police were forced to hide-out in an underground parking garage so as not to be torn to shreds by their tolerant, compassionate, loving, non-judgmental moral superiors on the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left.

You may have noticed that ever since the grotesque events in Charlottesville Virginia, the mainstream media seems to be labeling anything that isn’t ‘far-left’ as ‘far-right’… with the obvious connotations of jack-booted Nazis or slope-browed skinheads rising up from the dustbin of history to threaten all that is noble and virtuous. At the same time, they are either not identifying the far-left extremists at all… or they are treating them like the defenders of the one true and righteous belief system… whose zealous commitment to all that is wonderful and good (in other words,  their enforcement of strict conformity to Far-Left ideology) miraculously transmutes their Nazi-esque tactics  into a kind of frightening benevolence.

Maclean’s Magazine: “their violence in retaliatory self-defence was the “last resort” so often referred to by those more committed to order than justice.”

New York Times: “But the tragedy in Charlottesville… undercut the notion that the black-masked radical leftists who smash windows and hurl firebombs are an equal menace.”

CNN: “Unmasking the Leftists Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence.”

Reuters: “Pro-Trump supporters face off with peace activists  during protests outside a Trump rally in Phoenix,”

The Atlantic: “Using the phrase “alt-left” suggests a moral equivalence that simply doesn’t exist. For starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn’t perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do.”

CBC: “While groups like Antifa and BLM might engage in violence at times — no one is disputing that — the major difference is that their existence is not predicated on hatred of others.”

And what does Antifa say? The Globe and Mail reported: In interviews, antifa activists explained their position. “You need violence to protect non-violence,” said Emily Rose Nauert. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.” 

Sure, it’s violence and oppression… but it’s violence and oppression for all the right reasons (or left reasons). There is an unmistakable ‘hate is love’, ‘war is peace’ atmosphere descending on us. You can practically taste it.

Have a look at the perception of the events that the supposedly ‘right-wing’ National Post chose to manufacture for its audience:

 

a1

Is there any doubt about the interpretation that the headline of the article above is intended to generate in the reader? The message is pretty clear: It’s the ‘right wing’ people who are the unwanted. Who are to be despised. Who represent the real threat. The fact that they collaborated with the authorities, obeyed the law, were peaceful and were the targets of the violence from the Left-wing extremists doesn’t matter. Sure, “some” completely unknown, politically and ideologically unidentifiable “counter-protesters” inexplicably “turned violent”. But it’s the non-violent, law abiding people prevented from exercising their democratic rights who are ‘right-wing” and therefore evil by definition who must be singled out as pariahs and banished.

So let’s cut through the mass cultural group-think and describe in plain language what is really happening here: The mayor of Quebec City and the National Post are consciously focusing everyone’s antipathy on a tiny, insignificant group of people who are politically right of centre… whom no one has ever heard of, who have no power, who obeyed the law and were the targets of violence and abuse of their civil rights…. while simultaneously downplaying the threat posed by the perpetrators of the violence whom they fail to name (Antifa), fail to identify as representing far-left extremism, refer to by using the generic and neutral term “counter protesters”… and who represent a widespread movement, openly supported by facets of the media establishment and the political elite…  which has endorsed and repeatedly resorted to politically motivated violence in several North American cities over the past year.

We have a submissive and neutered political class in this country who are frightened to death of appearing not to conform to ‘progressive’-Leftist ideology. At the same time, the media class has abandoned objectivity altogether and has adopted the role of conduit for the single-perspective messaging pushed out by the liberal American media machine.

It is getting harder and harder to find voices in the mainstream advancing the perspective which actually reflects authentic reality: The now inconceivable notion that normal, moral, intelligent and perceptive human beings can find things about the fashionable, ‘progressive’-Left worldview (the one preferred by the elite wielders of power and influence in the media, academia, entertainment and mainstream political establishment ) that is flawed, counter-productive and deserving of critique and criticism.

This manufactured binary conception that you either conform without question to ‘progressive’-Left ideology or you’re a Nazi is what actual totalitarianism looks like from the inside… as opposed to the fantasy fascism the political Left and their lapdogs in the mainstream media are using to sow hysteria and prejudice against any views more than half-a step to the right of Chairman Mao’s.

Going to Getugly on Facebook 

Advertisements

Violence and oppression…. but for all the right (or rather, Left) reasons!

 

antiiii

Globe and Mail Article: Is violence the way to fight racism?

So the peace-loving, compassionate, tolerant, morally perfect mainstream ‘progressive’-Left get to languidly ponder the wisdom of supporting an organised, widespread movement of armed thugs – who  also share their political beliefs – and their preferred tactics of attacking people in the streets and destroying property.

At the same time the Left condemn mainstream conservatives by linking them with a ragtag handful of white-supremacist social misfits who nobody, anywhere in the mainstream is connected to, has ever supported and whom everyone has always taken for granted are despicable losers and totally beneath contempt.

This is just more evidence that the folks on the allegedly ‘progressive’-Left need to stop telling themselves that they are the good people. They’re not.  Their instinct towards conformity to group thinking and privileging of social validation over truth-seeking represents the real, imminent threat to civil society.

Related: Liberal Reality Check: You’re NOT the GOOD People!

Rebuttals of the Week#11: Why ‘progressives’ hate reality

ta

Poor old Tony Abbott just can’t catch a break it seems. He makes some completely benign, not uncommon, absolutely reasonable pro-marriage comment and all the tolerant, compassionate, accepting, non-judgemental, empathetic, morally righteous ‘progressives’ and feminists take it as an opportunity to unleash upon him any vile, cruel, dehumanizing accusation and epithet their corrupt little minds can generate.

Abbott’s comment inspired the above nasty, predictably anti-male and anti-Western civilization screed by Jenny Noyes in the radical feminist propaganda pamphlet The Age. As usual, this was an invitation to all the exemplars of virtue and goodness on the ‘progressive’/feminist Left among the general public to weigh in with their own wise and insightful observations in the comment section. In other words, there was a lot of this sort of thing:

Sharon F: “Cockhead”

Sezzy: “Being a woman myself, I feel like I need protection from idiots like him. Bloody ignorant fool!”

Bubba: “the irony is that marriage has not protected his missus or kids from having a complete dickhead as a husband and father.”

Stephen: “The man is just a delusional fool. I cannot wait to see the look on his hideous head when we finally receive true equality.”

Faye W: “Abbott you are a dickhead and an embarrassment.”

So a contributor to the comment section, Carl  L, tried to raise the quality of the discourse by injecting some factual evidence into the discussion:

Carl L: Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.

ta a

Mum’s boyfriend – the worst sexual risk to children

Which provoked quite a few responses like these from folks who won’t let truth get between them and their preferred version of reality:

Kirsten A: “So, not a peer reviewed piece of literature.”

Lisa B: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”

My rebuttal, directed primarily at Lisa, is a breakdown of an extremely common thinking pattern which a lot of bad thinkers default to when they are confronted with evidence and argument that refutes their self-confirming, subjective beliefs. It’s the “Truth or Concept Pattern”. It highlights the distinction between people who have an attachment to a belief or concept which they find personally gratifying in some way,  and those who have an attachment to truth. When you become aware of the pattern, you’ll see it all of the time…. particularly when debating ‘progressives’, feminists, Leftists etc..


Going to Getugly: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”. Just like Kirsten Alys above. I’ll tell you how your mind is working here Lisa so you can improve your reasoning in the future:

Lisa’s mind: “I have a specific perception of this issue and  I’m really attached to it because  it’s very satisfying to my ego.  And I’ve never bothered to look into it because I just assume I’m right if a particular belief appeals to me.

Now I’m presented with credible information that completely invalidates my preferred assumptions and which gives me insight into actual, objective truth.

But I’m not interested in objective TRUTH! MY priority is preserving my preferred but false perception… because the satisfaction I derive from believing it is WAY more important to me than having an authentic appreciation of reality.

Problem: I refuse to update my understanding of this issue based on this new information (like a mature thinker would do)…. but I need some excuse that appears to justify my irrational denial of reality.

Solution: Oh, look! This was published in 2012.  I’ll assert that because the study was published FIVE WHOLE YEARS ago… that makes it invalid somehow! Sure, that makes no sense…. it’s a completely arbitrary proclamation…. and if I’m asked to explain why that invalidates it I’ll have to make something else up on the spot. But it’s all I’ve got! Oh yeah…. and I’ll put a condescending ‘lol’ at the end (even though that’s the sort of thing 14 year olds do) to convey that I’m so much more ‘aware’ and ‘clever’ than the dummy who provided the information.”

Do you see how transparent this flawed thinking process is, Lisa? Hopefully now that it’s been pointed out, you and Kirsten… as well as a lot of other women posting here…. will catch yourselves before you default to this pattern of inadequate reasoning in the future.

 

 

Poor from Middle East used as election props by Justin Trudeau now languishing?

bs

According to the article, Mr.Sharbaji spent 4 YEARS in EGYPT before being dragged here by Trudeau in his attempt to win the ‘Canadian leader with the most refugees in the shortest time’ contest! ‘You’ll bring in 20,000 over the coming year? Well, WE will bring in 25,000 in the next two months! And that’s just for starters!’ 

Mr.Sharbaji wasn’t fleeing Syria! We took a guy who was safe from the war in Syria and established for years in Egypt… a country that is culturally, religiously, linguistically and geographically very similar to his own… and bribed him with Canadian taxpayer’s money into moving to bloody New Brunswick for God’s sake! A half-frozen, underpopulated piece of real estate on the edge of the North Atlantic with an Anglo-Celtic/Acadian cultural identity… a place that he’d never heard of in his life. In other words, a spot on the globe that couldn’t be less similar to where he’s from.

Surprise! Despite all the lobster, fiddleheads and dulce he can eat, he’s not very happy there!

Hurriedly importing people like Mr. Sharbaji and his family was not an act of benevolence or generosity on behalf of Trudeau’s Liberals. It was a deeply cynical political calculation to bolster Justin’s persona during an election campaign as the new loving, caring, compassionate, ‘progressive’ Canadian leadership choice. They used poor people who had left Syria (as in Sharbaji’s case, often years prior) and were living in other Middle Eastern countries (Egypt, Turkey) as props…. whose participation they bought with taxpayers money…. shipped them over and dispersed them around the country to impress the kind of naive, sentimental, easily manipulated Canadians who don’t distinguish feeling good about themselves from actually doing what’s best.

And guess what? It worked! At least it did for Trudeau. For Mr.Sharbaji…. not so much.

How dare they assume they can decide what is ‘true’ for Donald Trump!

don

Where is the intellectual consistency? On the one hand they’re supporting the premise that what is ‘true’ and ‘real’ is whatever transgendered people subjectively ‘feel‘ is true for them….and no one has the right to question that or impose their standards for truth on them.

And yet when they say Donald Trump’s support for LGBT rights was a “con”…. they are imposing their personal ideas of ‘true’ and ‘real’ onto him. What makes them think they have the right to determine what is ‘true’ for someone else?

 

 

Excuse me, mainstream media! Your anti white male prejudice is showing.

qa

So if politicians respond to the legitimate concerns of “middle aged white men”…. it’s characterised as “charismatic” politicians exploiting white male anger. Sounds scary. Kind of brings to mind scenarios that are vaguely Hitlerian.

Why then when “progressive” politicians pander to the demands and alleged grievances of women and feminists (or any other identifiable group in society pushing issues of identity politics or other ‘social justice’ causes) is that never characterised as “charismatic” politicians ‘exploiting’ (primarily white) female anger (or transgender anger? Or racial minority anger? Or aboriginal anger? Or youth anger? etc.) Why are we to think of that as nothing other than responsible, engaged politicians addressing the needs of their constituents?

Could it be that this is a vivid example of a pervasive but socially acceptable ideological prejudice embedded in the media that is being propagandised to the public at large?

Let’s see…You have one group in society identified by race and gender whose suffering and genuine grievances are characterised in the mainstream media as vaguely ominous and sinister (why are they so “angry”?). Politicians who attempt to address the grievances of that identified group are characterised as extremely sinister… even invoking not particularly subtle allusions to authoritarian dictators.

At the same time, every other identifiable group with a grievance in society almost always receives unqualified affirmation, empathy and validation from that same mainstream media. Politicians who take up the causes of those classes of aggrieved people are lauded for their ‘progressive’ outlook and their moral and ethical excellence.

Hmmmm.

Is the propaganda working? Ask yourself how often you’ve heard or read some variant of the expression “old white men” used as a pejorative to deride and invalidate the perspective of people who fall into that combined category of age, race and gender.

Here is a sample I pulled from a quick glance at just a single thread on a major newspaper’s online comment section recently:

Sharon K: How unusual that a middle aged white Man doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McD: It looks so sad to see old white men insisting that women aren’t in danger of being oppressed. I’m guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Ro: Another white middle aged male mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

Nicolette A: But hey, freely tell me about how it sucks for white men because trans people are using the toilet they identify with

Kevin C: I would however like to reduce the unreasonable influence some rich old men have over the overall system.

That isn’t individual insight, folks. That’s group-think.

Rebuttals of the week #10: Dear all feminists… The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t happening to you.

It seems the new TV version of Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s Tale  is severing what remaining threads once linked ‘progressives’ and feminists in Australia to reality.

hnttHMT


Emma : To all the men thinking the story is far fetched; it isn’t. Women have not had rights for that long a period of time, we are still fighting for equal rights. In a lot of countries still women are oppressed. It is scary to us women, for if the government really wanted they could take – and are trying to take away the rights to our own bodies – our rights any time they want. Men would not understand that fear.

Going to Getugly: Emma, what do you mean “Women have not had rights for that long a period of time”? Do you think they were kept in cages or something until just before you were born? If you actually believe that in this era of gender equity quotas, calls for laws requiring gender parity in boardrooms, an era in which condemning men collectively for their ‘male privilege’ is common and acceptable, an era in which dozens of people on this thread alone don’t hesitate to parrot the fashionable slogan ‘old white men’ as a pejorative because it’s perfectly acceptable in our society to single out people based on their race and gender for collective denunciation and social shunning as long a they belong to this one category….

Sharon K: How unusual that a middle aged white Man doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McD: It looks so sad to see old white men insisting that women aren’t in danger of being oppressed. I’m guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Ro: Another white middle aged male mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

Nicolette A: But hey, freely tell me about how it sucks for white men because trans people are using the toilet they identify with

… If in an era where all of that is commonplace and in which mainstream politicians are terrified of appearing to be out of step with fashionable identity politics… if you can still believe that governments are targeting women to remove their rights and doing so strictly for the sheer malevolent pleasure of it …. then you have bought into an extraordinarily irrational delusion.


 

 

Justin C: If we keep voting for politicians who put the super-wealthy elite before ordinary citizens, a scenario as dark as The Handmaid’s Tale is inevitable. Probably in our lifetime.

Jewel D: It’s already happening- instead of hanging people (as per The Handmaids Tale) , the pollies in the “Land of Oz”, “Murica” and “Yeh Olde England” are offing the poor/elderly/disabled/ugly etc etc by cutting off any form of social security and treating any of those who dare squawk “please sir may I have more” in a manner that befits Dickensian times. 😒

Justin C: Like the bath that gets hotter & hotter until we suddenly realise we’re cooked.

Going to Getugly: Are you guys joking? Look around you! We live in a time in which the political class are terrified of appearing not to be pandering sufficiently to any real or imagined grievance claimed by any minority, racial group, feminists, subjectively conceived gender identity group, social justice activist etc. etc. Even mild, reasoned questioning of their claims, assertions and demands will get you labelled racist, misogynist or accused of indulging in any number of irrational phobias.

This is one of the bizarre traits of those on the  ‘progressive’-Left: The more they are pandered to… the more power and influence they achieve… the more attention is paid to their ideologically derived claims and grievances…. the more wild and hysterical their claims of ‘oppression’ and ‘marginalization’ becomes.


Mary Mc: I remember reading the Handmaids Tale when it was first published and have read every Atwood book since then. The TV screening is brilliant – I’m watching it with my daughter and its totally gripping. Oryx & Crake is another prescient Atwood novel … Atwood is a scientist as much as a writer so plenty of evidence and logic influence her writing – that’s what makes it – for me – so chilling at times. Obviously not everyone is going to relate to it in the same way – but I’ll resist calling them delusional…

Going to Getugly: It’s not the people who know this fantasy isn’t “prescient” who are delusional. And since when is Atwood a “scientist”?