The group-thinking class have been conditioned to believe that the term “conspiracy theory” can be used as an incantation that magically invalidates facts that conflict with the group-think while relieving themselves of the need to demonstrate they know anything at all.
The political class and the media establishment are essentially a single entity in Canada. It is a coalition between a small group of people with political power and a small group of people who control the means of shaping public perception. Like many political coalitions, the two parties in the Political/Media Coalition (PMC) have a history of being adversaries. But over years of close interaction they have gradually come to an understanding that their interests are better served by cooperating.
Sure, there is still the façade of the old adversarial dynamic: Questions are asked. Criticism is leveled. But only within a very narrow band of mutually agreed upon parameters. Mostly it amounts to dinner theatre put on for the Canadian public who now fund both sides of the Coalition with their tax dollars.
Here’s how it works: A politically safe, status-quo concept is agreed upon and adopted by everyone in the political and media establishments regardless of the issue. It could be catastrophic man-made climate change, systemic racism, COVID-19 or any number of other hot-button topics. We are then presented with the theatre of dissent and debate as Conservatives and their allies in the media criticize Liberals and their allies in the media over the management of the status-quo concept. And vice versa.
But the validity of the central premise itself is never questioned.
In other words, we are given the illusion of meaningful opposition and effective scrutiny of the issues. Genuinely meaningful scrutiny would have to at least include if not emphasize a critical examination of the central premise upon which the entire project is based. But it doesn’t happen. Opposition and scrutiny are permitted only within the context of an official narrative which is unreservedly endorsed by all the players.
Take carbon taxes for example. The original argument for their implementation was that they would allow us to control the temperature of the planet. I know. It sounds laughable when you just come out and state it like that. But that was the point. If carbon dioxide reduction schemes can’t do that to any meaningful degree, then the foundational justification for their implementation is nullified.
In short, if the policy will have no meaningful effect on the alleged problem then it should be abandoned.
But questions like how?… or why?… or by how much?… disappeared from the discussion almost immediately. The premise of government imposed reduction of carbon dioxide emissions as a required policy initiative was simply adopted as the status quo position by everyone in the political and media establishments. It became an end in itself: Reduction for the sake of reduction. Debate was confined to questions about whether a given climate policy fulfills Paris Climate Accord commitments, or whether the policy goes far enough, or complaints about the speed with which a policy has been implemented.
But questioning the efficacy of the policy to achieve the ultimate goal for which it was proposed vanished completely and forever. Asking “By how much can we reduce emissions?” usurped the one truly pertinent question: “By how much will any of these disruptive state interventions control the temperature of the Earth?”
We are presently seeing this sham process of strictly controlled questioning, scrutiny and debate applied to every aspect of COVID-19.
For instance, the entirety of the political/media establishment in Canada is currently obsessed with vaccines. It’s one of the half dozen or so subjects the PMC has designated as officially sanctioned topics for public discussion.
The status quo premise that has been adopted by the media and the political class is that a COVID-19 mRNA ‘vaccine’ must be procured and widely distributed to everyone in Canada as quickly as possible. The current public discourse is entirely consumed with criticism of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s bungling of that process.
Below is a random sample of the kind of discussion and debate we’re hearing. The first example is a press release from the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Erin O’Toole. The second is a tweet by conservative journalist Brian Lilley:
“Today is another disappointing day for Canadians who know that without vaccines, there is no recovery. The Liberals need to be honest with Canadians on what they’re doing to secure the vital tools needed today to fight COVID-19 and secure our future.” – Erin O’Toole
“Don’t worry! PM @JustinTrudeau announced we will make vaccines in Canada this summer and by summer he really means the end of 2021.”– Brian Lilley
There is no doubt that Trudeau’s government has demonstrated striking ineptitude in accomplishing the stated goal of procuring and distributing these ‘vaccines’. And it should come as a shock to no one that they’ve been characteristically slippery when pressed to account for it. So the criticism of his handling of this file is not unjustified.
However, the necessity of pursuing the process in the first place has never been questioned let alone examined.
Specifically, there has been no conversation at all about the wisdom of holding the population at ransom over the chaotic, mass roll-out of a rushed, expensive, experimental gene technology to treat a virus we now know represents less of a threat to most people than seasonal influenza.
But of course, anyone who dares step outside the official group-think is immediately excoriated by the rest of the establishment. They have broken the rules of their elite little club and exposed the pantomime which is passed off as serious debate. As a result, courageous, intellectually honest thinkers are defamed as loons, labeled conspiracy theorists, denounced as morally corrupt and expelled from official public discourse.
Here is an example of the Canadian media specifically calling for this very practice:
“It might be understood that political parties can play an important role in keeping a country’s political debate on the tracks by shunning the most extreme views and aiming to appeal to the broadest swath of voters. “ – Aaron Wherry, CBC
This is an alleged ‘journalist’ at Canada’s taxpayer funded state broadcast corporation actually calling for political elites to force the narrowing of the ‘country’s political debate’. He wants across the board conformity to politically safe, officially sanctioned narratives that he patronizingly says will ‘appeal’ to Canadians. Views that wander outside the anodyne official group-think are to be labeled ‘extreme’ and shunned.
And we’ve seen this happen. MPP Roman Baber was recently expelled from the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario by Premier Doug Ford for publicly addressing the questionable scientific justification and devastating impact on citizens of Ford’s harsh lockdown measures. Bringing this compassionate, data-driven and widely shared point of view to the table was characterized by the ‘conservative’ Premier as “putting people at risk by spreading misinformation and undermining the efforts of frontline healthcare workers.”
Unsurprisingly, members of the media wing of the PMC gushed in support of the Premier’s actions:
‘Doug Ford deserves credit for expelling MPP, but Roman Baber’s cherry-picked data and unscientific opinions have support’ – Bruce Arthur, Columnist Toronto Star
This kind of malicious slander and public ‘shunning’ is how principled people are punished for trying to expand the discussion beyond the controlled narratives favoured by the political/media establishment in Canada.
Going to Getugly: High numbers are normal at this time of year. Start thinking for yourself instead of unquestioningly accepting anything that is projected at you.
2015: “Overcrowding getting worse at Edmonton hospitals, Alberta NDP says
Overcrowding in Edmonton hospitals has become more common in the last two years, driving the system toward a crisis point that can only be averted by the construction of new facilities, Alberta NDP Leader Rachel Notley says.
2015: Hospital overcrowding leading to patient suffering in Alberta: doctors
2010: Overcrowding at Alberta Hospital
CTV News was told the demand for beds at Alberta Hospital is so high that patients are often doubled or tripled up in rooms, with some patients have even had to sleep in the TV viewing area.
Devry Skiba: Those previous issues do not negate the seriousness of the pandemic, and hopefully, if any good comes from this mess it’s that those issues will finally be addressed.
GOING TO GETUGLY: Yes, they do negate the seriousness of this “pandemic”. It demonstrates three facts:
- That what we are experiencing is not outside the boundaries of normal seasonal occurrences.
- That despite this fact, we are being encouraged by politicians, media and health bureaucrats to perceive it as an extraordinary event representing a unique level of threat to public health, thereby justifying destructive authoritarian measures that ARE a unique threat to public health.
- That a large swath of the general public have abandoned independent critical scrutiny of what they are told in favour of blind obedience and uncritical acceptance of official narratives.
This is an issue of politicians and health bureaucrats who have failed in their responsibility to maintain adequate hospital capacity… and it’s being passed off as an issue about a uniquely threatening virus. But there is nothing unique about this at all. Look at the dates below: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
Going to Getugly: Unrelenting lies and fear mongering.
Professor Carl Heneghan, epidemiologist at the Centre For Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University:
“The falling number of hospital cases comes despite infections having been on the rise since lockdown restrictions were lifted at the start of July. Experts say this is because the groups getting infected and diagnosed now are completely different to those at the start of the pandemic.
Scientists say it is younger people driving up infections and they are less likely to get seriously ill and end up in hospital. For that reason, hospital cases and deaths will not necessarily follow higher cases, and there may not be a deadly wave like the first.”
Mary Dale: Ooh Daily Mail. What do we need knowledgeable people for when we have the daily mail?
Going to Getugly: The people at the Daily Mail clearly are more knowledgeable than you about basic, high school level logic and reasoning. It’s simply bizarre that people like you are convinced you’re smart:
‘You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.’
Mary Dale: You’re a genius. What can I say? Is your real name Dunning-Kruger? Lol
Going to Getugly: No Mary. That’s not how it works. It was just proven that you lack a basic-level awareness of how to reason effectively. Pretending it didn’t happen and acting like writing “Dunning-Kruger” will make it appear as if you’re not in the category to whom that term applies is piling absurdity on top of absurdity.
Old, frail people who are always susceptible to complications from viral infections are dying because every level of government in Australia failed them. The political class in Australia watched the majority of deaths occuring in nursing homes in the Northern Hemisphere for 5 months over their winter period and did absolutely nothing to prepare and protect that demographic in Australia in anticipation of winter descending on the Southern Hemisphere.
Instead, they chose to impose insane authoritarian controls on 6 million healthy people in Victoria, destroy their jobs and their mental health while ruining the state’s economy.
All to provide themselves with the excuse that they did everything they could to protect the people of Victoria.
What effect is this going to have on this generation of kids? In 10 years the media will be talking about Generation “C”… the COVID generation. A generation of anti-social, high anxiety germaphobes who instinctively view other people as a threat.
Penni T: They must be stark staring nuts to even be contemplating a protest march at this time! Get the water cannons out and give them a good drenching. If it’s 10° again… they won’t stick around for long!!!!
Going to Getugly: Or instead of acting hysterical and begging authority figures to control everyone, you could make an effort to understand the reality of this virus like an independent thinking, responsible adult:
“For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05%-0.3%.”– Dr. John Ioannidis, C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, at Stanford University School of Medicine and co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford.
Dr. John Ioannidis: “Our data suggests that COVID-19 has an infection fatality rate that is in the same ballpark as seasonal influenza.”
The infection mortality rate for the seasonal flu is estimated at about 0.1%.
Penni T: My answer to this would be so far!! How many deaths are enough? Who in your family and friends are expendable?? What is the world up to now? Heading towards 750,000 now. Will a million be enough for you to say we need to stop this? That’s a nice round figure but as many are old and they were going to die anyway.
but it will be too late then…. it will be in every house, in every street, in every town…. people will be dying in the street because there will be no room in hospitals, but that doesn’t matter because there will be no nurses or doctors left….all either died of exhaustion, totally given up or died of the virus… the time to stop the spread is now… Australia has been lucky (or well managed) so far….. let’s try and keep it that way.
Going to Getugly: Your ‘answer’ is ridiculous, anti-rational and anti-scientific.
Only people whose priority is protecting an attachment to a particular belief react to facts that refute it by generating justifications for dismissing the evidence.
This clearly isn’t about knowing what is true for you. It’s about believing a particular, catastrophic narrative.
There is something very weird going on with people these days. It appears they actually want to believe the most apocalyptic interpretation. So much so, they will actually deny and block from their awareness any facts and data that conflicts with the catastrophic narrative in their heads.
It’s very, very weird.
‘NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called a Bloc Quebecois MP racist Wednesday after a New Democrat motion on RCMP discrimination failed to receive unanimous consent from the House of Commons.
Singh had asked the Commons to recognize there is systemic racism in the RCMP…’
Going to Getugly: Jagmeet Singh demonstrates the intellectual and emotional maturity of a teenager….“If you don’t tell me I’m right about the RCMP I’m entitled to denounce your humanity as inferior to my own!”
Marty McDuff: Your white privilege is showing, and ignorance. Walk a mile in his shoes or anyone of colour, including the Indigenous. You are guilty of “demonstrates the intellectual and emotional maturity of a teenage” most of the time.
Going to Getugly: Marty, this is hard for conditioned group-thinkers to understand because they can’t step outside of the group-think and look at it from a detached perspective. But the truth is that when you simply regurgitate stock ideological slogans and cliches, i.e. – “white privilege” – and act like you’ve proved some point or made an argument, all you’re communicating to the other person is that you’re a conformist to a particular brand of ideology and that you’re nothing but a vehicle for its generic concepts.
You’re advertising that you don’t think for yourself and therefore you can’t generate genuine insights about the world.
Dave Penner: Marty, if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again it doesn’t make it right. It might be time for you to spend some time learning how to have meaningful dialog. Going to Getugly can correct me if I’m wrong but what I think they are trying to say is that Singh needs to keep his cool and keep an open dialog. He failed at that. Instead of calling the guy racist he should have been asking where they were disagreeing and work from there. Find common ground. Then start working through the disagreements. Nobody learns from each other if they don’t talk to each other.
Going to Getugly: Actually Dave, I’m doing much more than that. I’m highlighting that with people like Singh and the Left in general these days, there is no possibility for “meaningful dialogue”, finding “common ground” or “working through disagreements”.
In order to even begin pursuing those objectives there are a few requirements that must be met:
The two parties have to appreciate that they are bringing personal perspectives to the issue. They have to accept the limitation and fallibility of any given perspective, including their own. They must be open to potential validity in the other person’s perspective. And they must commit to objective standards of reason, evidence and analysis to evaluate which perspective most accurately describes reality.
Singh very clearly demonstrates that he is incapable of any of that. Instead he displays the defining characteristic that we see again and again in people who gravitate to the Left: an inability to identify with or relate to any perspective other than their own.
Which is the same thing as saying they don’t recognize their own perspective as a perspective at all. To them, they are not generating an interpretation of the world in their head. They are directly apprehending universal, absolute truth which they equate with moral perfection.
This is the cognitive apparatus of the narcissist.
When people conflate their subjective point of view with morally perfect, universal truth there is no room for “meaningful dialogue”, finding “common ground” or “working through disagreements”. There is only a simple binary option: Tell them they’re right and be deemed one of the enlightened people or be denounced as wrong, corrupt and evil by definition.
And Mr. Singh has provided an exquisite demonstration of this exact phenomenon.