Rebuttals of the Week! #1… Definition of a ‘white supremacist’: anyone who wins an argument with a ‘progressive’.

Political correctness is not designed to counter bigotry and prejudice. It is used by people who identify with the ‘progressive Left’ as cover to justify their bigotry and prejudice.

Scott Reid’s fantastically hypocritical essay in the Ottawa Citizen –  ‘It’s time to defend political correctness‘ –  is a great example of this.


The first half is all about his redemption from a sinful past: He confesses that along with his family and friends, he used to casually direct mean epithets and apply derogatory labels towards people who were not like him in some way – until some road to Damascus moment enabled him to recognize how profoundly wrong he was to engage in such contemptible behaviour.

The second half of the essay is comprised of Reid calling people names and labelling anyone who doesn’t share his political views as racist, bigoted, vulgar, stupid, inconsiderate, ignorant – and deliberately mischaracterizing Donald Trump’s statements in order to prop-up his thesis.

Why are these people always completely blind to their self-contradiction and hypocrisy?

Appalling stuff. But very useful for illustrating precisely why it is time to stop treating the perspective of the ‘progressive’ Left as if it is worthy of being taken seriously.

Even more enlightening are the responses that Reid’s column elicited from folks who share his ‘progressive’ philosophy….. which essentially amounts to giving yourself permission to indulge in nasty character traits you condemn in everyone else.

See for yourself and check out how they react to having their terrible reasoning pointed out to them. ‘Jo’ starts it off…. but it’s ‘G’ who get’s into it:


In other words, the “good old days” we’re only good if you were a white, Christian male. I’m glad we have moved past that and have no desire to go back, unlike many on the right who dream deluded dreams of those racist, sexist, homophobic times.

Going to Getugly

You perfectly illustrate the hypocrisy and total lack of self-awareness that defines the ‘progressive’ Left: The assumption that expressing unashamed bigotry magically turns into a virtue when YOU do it.


How is it bigoted to observe the privilege that’s associated with being a white Christian male?

Going to Getugly

How is it bigoted to single out a whole segment of society strictly by their race and their gender and label them as the problem?

The fact that you ask that question is proof that the conditioning that has been occurring has completely destroyed the capacity for reason, critical thinking and rationality in some people.


Because white supremacy and patriarchy are the architects of Western culture at the expense of non-white peoples and women for as long as we have written history? Wow that question was easy.


Guess what, white males aren’t the problem unless they refuse to see the problem. Your move.


Exactly my point. So for you, bigotry isn’t wrong in ‘principle’. In fact, you’re all in favour of singling out people for vilification by race and gender if the ideology you have adopted has marked that race and gender as an acceptable target. Any other fashionable trends from the 1930’s that you admire? Big Marlene Dietrich fan, are you?

The problem here is that too many people have been conditioned to believe that reflexively repeating slogans and memes verbatim that have been drilled into them by the ‘progressive’ establishment is the equivalent of insight and thinking. They assume that merely writing words they’ve been taught to parrot, like ‘patriarchy’, ‘white supremacy’ and ‘privilege’ amounts to having made an argument or having proven an opinion.

Are you not embarrassed to identify yourself as one of the people so susceptible to group-think by parroting these generic clichés and slogans?

And yes, white men are the architects of Western civilization. The first civilization to abolish slavery. To conceive and entrench the notion of representational democracy, universal human rights and freedom of speech. To embrace multiculturalism and pluralism. To recognize the equality of rights of women, homosexuals, religious affiliations, classes, races and ethnicity. To generate the scientific and technological revolutions that have extended the human lifespan, drastically lowered infant mortality, eliminated countless fatal and crippling diseases, connected the world through intercontinental travel and global telecommunications – and has generally provided the comfort, stability, freedom and means for a couple of generations of self-involved, spoiled posers who are the beneficiaries of all of this to bleat their vacuous and intellectually barren slogans about how white men and the civilization they have created are nothing but a curse on humanity.


Calling a demographic privileged is not being bigoted against that demographic. Having your feelings hurt by uncomfortable truths isn’t oppression. Stop playing ‘poor white man’ and grow up.


As for trends from the 1930s, I’m rather a fan of art deco!

This is another defining characteristic of the ‘progressive’ Left – when their perspective is shown to them to be flawed and hypocritical, they try to save credibility by redefining words, concepts and even the terms of the discussion.

So because you have found yourself in the awkward position of endorsing singling out people by race and gender for social vilification – the very definition of bigotry… you’ve decided to insert the term “demographic” in the hope that this will distract somewhat from the unflattering implications of your position. The only reason you would try this tactic , is because you recognize that by uncritically adopting these fashionable opinions, you have unwittingly endorsed an ideology that promotes bigotry. But because the ‘progressive’ establishment has cultivated the perception that this particular ‘demographic’ is deserving of collective social vilification, people have bought into the idea as a means to identify themselves as belonging to the morally righteous, ‘right-thinking’ group.

In the context of nostalgia for 1930’s Germany…. do you think the Jewish business class could have been labelled a ‘privileged demographic’?


>white supremacist attempts to link criticism of white supremacy with Nazism

Ooooookay, we’re WAY down the rabbit hole here.

Going to Getugly

Today you have provided a master-class in the predictable, robotic thinking-patterns and default responses that are definitive of the ‘progressive’ Left. Here you’ve demonstrated the classic ‘progressive’ response to having your argument defeated by reason – call the other person a racist! Once again, more proof that there is absolutely no need for thinking people to treat the ‘progressive’Left as if their perspective was worthy of being taken seriously.


Okay try this one; I will replace two phrases in my first post, and retain your response. The structure of my argument is unchanged, and your response makes as much sense now as it did then:

Me: “How is it bigoted to observe the POVERTY that’s associated with being a BLACK WOMAN?”

You: “How is it bigoted to single out a whole segment of society strictly by their race and their gender and label them as the problem?

“The fact that you ask that question is proof that the conditioning that has been occurring has completely destroyed the capacity for reason, critical thinking and rationality in some people.”

Looks pretty ridiculous like that, doesn’t it! Obviously the black woman isn’t the problem, but her poverty is. Likewise in my original reply, the white male isn’t problem, but his privilege is. The only difference is that the black woman doesn’t benefit from her poverty, whereas the white man does benefit from his privilege.


Going to Getugly

Okay. Let me get this straight… so for the last couple of hours you’ve been trying to defend the statement that you made at the beginning of this. You’ve failed at that… so now you want to change that point into a completely new context…. while insisting against all logic the “structure of my argument is unchanged”.
Do you think wanting to reword your statement at this point in the conversation strengthens the credibility of your position or weakens it? 

Your rewording is this: “How is it bigoted to observe the POVERTY that’s associated with being a BLACK WOMAN?”

Let me take a moment to savour the delicious irony of presenting this reworking of your initial point. Because I think it’s safe to say that a lot of black people would consider that to be quite an offensive and yes….bigoted, statement. The explicit link you have drawn here is that if you are a black woman… you are poor. Some might call that a racial stereotype. AND a sexist stereotype.I think I sense another rewording in the making.

But this alternative version to your original statement is actually extremely helpful. It provides the perfect contrast for revealing the pernicious intent and effect of the social acceptance of the ‘white male privilege’ concept. Because to the ‘progressive’/Left mindset, the ‘black woman’ in poverty is a victim. But to that same mindset, the ‘privileged’ white man – is the culprit.

As you acknowledged – THAT’S the difference.

And as I say, the intent and the ultimate effect of dispersing this concept in society is to socialize people into identifying white men and white ‘maleness’ as the enemy. An enemy so intrinsically loathsome that social vilification and collective bigotry directed towards them is not just condoned and encouraged – but is a signal that you qualify for inclusion among the morally superior class because you conform to what they have deemed to be the ‘right’ way to think.


Once more for the cheap seats:It’s not a slur to say someone has privilege. Your entire tirade is predicated on nothing. I don’t know if you actually don’t understand, or if you’re just trolling.

Going to Getugly

I never said it was slur to say someone has privilege. I said it is bigotry to single out a particular segment of the population for social vilification based on their race and gender.

It IS a slur however to call someone a “white supremacist” simply because he doesn’t share your poorly thought out, self-contradictory, un-ethical and badly argued opinion. Which is what you did.



Michael, you can’t get as big a chub as you did from the White Man’s Burden without being a white supremacist. Sorry dude.Ah look, a standard debating tactic of ‘conservatives’: not knowing what you’re talking about!

Going to Getugly

 Yes, well… I think it’s pretty clear you have exhausted the little capacity you had for defending your ideas like a thinking adult.


How to beat the ‘progressive-Left’ and ‘Rebuttals of the Week’!

There are basically two kinds of people. First, there are those who are intellectually courageous and free thinking. These are people who at some point in their lives have recognized just how susceptible we all are to allowing our mostly unconscious , primal desire for social validation to shape our perspective. These people understand how conformity to the value system of the tribe is reflexive, instinctual and seductive….and how only by cultivating a detached, critical and sceptically curious approach can we counteract this default reflex and  have any hope of  developing an appreciation for the world approximating something like truth.

Now consider the ‘progressives’. These are people who are either completely ignorant of these inherent, reality distorting impulses or for whom the promise of ego gratification and social acceptance is so irresistible  that any aspect of objective reality which presents a barrier to that indulgence is simply ignored or dismissed.maxresdefault (1)

This is the Achilles heel of all ‘progressive’/Left thinking. And targeting this undeniable and easily demonstrated blind-spot is the most effective way to confront those who espouse ‘progressive’ ideas. Not by attacking what they think…but how they think. Because the truth is that ultimately… they don’t think.  They merely adopt, internalise and repeat.

Well enough is enough. It’s time for thinking people to take back control from the weak minded, the emotionally self-indulgent, the intellectually immature and the flat-out, bat-shit crazy. It’s time for those who value reason, rationality, objectivity, critical thinking –  and who are capable of genuine self-reflection and self-awareness to reimpose control of the situation before it is too late. That is… if it’s not too late already.

My small contribution will be to post a selection of the interactions I’ve had with people who exemplify the flawed thinking style routinely practised by ‘progressives’, SJWs, Third Wave Feminists and their ilk. I’ll present this under the heading – ‘Rebuttals of the Week’!  Hopefully this can be instructive…. because an obvious pattern emerges when you collect examples of ‘progressive’ thinking in one place: It quickly becomes clear that people who share these opinions demonstrate identical flaws in their reasoning. And if we want to undermine their claim to moral, ethical and intellectual credibility…let alone supremacy – we need to hammer at  the ‘progressive’/Left’s inability to engage the critical thinking skills that are a requisite for generating a perspective that adequately reflects objective reality.

These people are not insightful. They don’t even care about insight or truth. Their only priority is projecting a persona that conforms to currently fashionable concepts of moral propriety.darwin-magellanA brief glance at history would reveal that every era and every society has had a mainstream concept of what should be considered ‘acceptable and good’ that was reinforced by the elite and the ruling class – and which only a small portion of courageous, free-thinking contrarians challenged and confronted. With the advantage of hindsight,   we now recognize that – almost without exception – it was the insightful outliers challenging the status quo who propelled society forward and overturned the corrupt structures that primarily benefited the elite.

Rosa Parks: an introvert who changed the world.


It’s Galileo and Copernicus challenging the status quo of the Catholic Church and ushering in the scientific revolution. It’s William Wilberforce forcing the establishment to face the immorality of the slave trade – leading to the abolishment of slavery in the West. It’s Charles Darwin. It’s Magellan and Columbus. Einstein and Freud. King and Parks. Picasso and Presley. And all of the unknown and unheralded individuals throughout history who resisted enormous social pressure to conform and obey.

All of us have a choice: We can be part of that legacy of free-thinking individuals championing truth, clarity and transformation….. Or we can keep our heads down, parrot all of the popular memes, slogans and socially sanctioned opinions – demand nothing of ourselves other than that our values mimic those of our peers – and bask in the validation that comes with compliance and conformity with the herd.

Here is a sample of the interactions with ‘progressives’ that I’ll be including in the ‘Rebuttals of the Week!‘. The context of my debate with ‘S’ – who describes herself a “bleeding heart” and “leftie” – is UK columnist Brendan O’Neill’s recent article –We must have the freedom to hate: Hatred is an emotion, and the state has no business policing emotion. – and his appearance on the Australian panel show Q&A.

As is customary for tolerant, non-judgemental, deeply “compassionate” progressives – S’s initial comment is not a critique of O’Neill’s argument…. but a personal, harsh and definitive attack on his character:

Stacey NixonS… You may have the space to be hateful & small, if that is what you wish??? You do not have the right to make us be like you 💕

(You gotta love that she included the little love-hearts at the end. Adorable, right? It’s like she’s saying “You’re a thoroughly despicable, insignificant person – and the reason I’m entitled to judge you is because I’m so much better than you….. and I’m saying that with love“.  You see this blindness to hypocrisy and irony from ‘progressives’ over and over again. It’s a standard trait that you’ll notice time and again in other ‘Rebuttals of The Week’.)

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly With that statement you have perfectly demonstrated the primary motivation for those who support ‘progressive-Left’ policies…. it’s the desire to think of yourself as morally superior. So anything that feeds that desire is reflexively supported. It has nothing to do with truth, reason or the application of critical thinking skills.

Stacey NixonS…  Not morally superior, just no desire to compete. The truth is I am better than no one. The application of my skills is in listening, not talking. We seek enlightenment on different paths…but that is ok. You are interesting, I never understood those who separate fact from emotion – we would have some great chats!

Oh, we would have some great chats! That’s for sure. My full exchange with ‘S’ is in ‘Rebuttals of the Week!’#2.

YOU’RE NEXT! The ‘politically correct’ are eating our brains!

There is something particularly creepy about the push-back against the push-back against political correctness. It’s like the tipping-point in the movie ‘The Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ when enough people are displaying the identical robotic, zombie-like behavior that Donald Sutherland and his friends suddenly realize that they’re the only free-thinking humans left.


I was reminded of this after coming across a column in the Ottawa Citizen over the weekend by political analyst and communications consultant, Scott Reid. His piece ran under the banner –  ‘It’s time to defend political correctness‘.


One of the worst effects of political correctness is that it inspires the kind of self-serving, trite, virtue-signalling of the – ‘I was a sinner but now I’ve seen the light!’ – variety that Reid indulges in with this column. He exudes equal parts shame and sanctimony as he recounts his transition from pre-‘seed pod’ ignorance to one of the reborn, enlightened-class obsessed with achieving the perfect state of niceness.

PC infection also seems to encourage ‘progressives‘ to believe that straw-man arguments and selective application of principles are just as good – if not better – than objectivity and accurate representation of facts.

For example, Reid directly asserts that Donald Trump has expressed the opinion that “all Muslims become waiting jihadists.” Of course, like a lot of ‘progressive’ opinion, he doesn’t feel the obligation to support his accusation in any way. Reid must be able to show where Trump has expressed that sentiment – or we can conclude that this is a misrepresentation of Trump’s views that Reid has deliberately contrived to serve his own biases.

This fallacious tactic is repeated with the assertion that Trump has expressed the view that “Mexicans…. are mostly drug runners and rapists.” Again, can Reid point to an example of Trump saying this? Or is this Reid yet again screening Trump’s words and meaning through his own biases to produce a version that better supports his premise?

In further service of that premise, Reid strips all context from his statement “A respected American judge is really a biased Mexican” to manufacture an impression that the sole motivation for questioning this judge’s impartiality was his ethnicity – and nothing to do with Trump’s concern that an Obama appointed liberal judge who belongs to an activist group called La Raza (which means ‘the Race’…nothing supremicisty about that!) which advocates for the interests of Latino immigrants and is critical of Trump’s immigration policies… may have a bias against the candidate who wants to build a wall and deport illegals. This group is supposedly affiliated with The Hispanic National Bar Association which has openly advocated for the targeting of Trump’s business interests. Rightly or wrongly, Trump is suspicious that these factors might have influenced the judge’s decision to release sealed court documents from the ongoing case against Trump University… and that all of this doesn’t bode well for a fair outcome.

But including those facts and context just get’s in the way of the narrative that Reid is committed to… so like all ‘progressives’, he just ditches it.

Reid then writes: “The next thing you know, you’re receiving endorsements from the white supremacist movement. But hey, it’s not really like that. He’s not racist, he’s just being politically incorrect. So that makes it OK.”

So some white supremacist nut-jobs with whom Trump has no connection say they will vote for him – an endorsement that Trump is on record as saying he rejects…. and this justifies labelling Trump a racist.

But Hillary Clinton’s endorsement of once high-ranking KKK member, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd – who she eulogized as her “friend and mentor” and said “Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility….It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd” – makes her what? Not worth mentioning?

And why is that? Oh right… it’s because she’s politically correct! Which means she get’s to say and do all of the awful things that the ‘progressive Left’ pretend to be against!

Ultimately, this is what people who practice and defend political correctness are really  concerned with… the surface appearance only of moral excellence. Because once you feel you have the cover of moral superiority…. you can justify pretty much anything you do.

BREAKING NEWS: MSM says ‘white guys’ are dicks!


Read the article here: What happens when white men realize that their perspective isn’t the only one that matters

With this column by David Berry, The National Post provides a vivid example of the sort of content that is causing thinking people to abandon mainstream media in droves. The kind of ego based virtue-signalling and fashionably conformist pontificating that constitutes  Berry’s oeuvre  is taking up more and more media real estate that used to be occupied by well-reasoned, historically contextualized insight.

What is the point of this column other than to provide us with the opportunity to admire the flawlessness of David Berry’s conformity to the ‘progressive’, politically-fashionable, anti-Western, anti-male, anti-white, anti-heterosexual, anti-intellectual orthodoxy?

In other words, this column does not provide any insight into the objective world. It merely provides an insight into David Berry’s subjectivity.

He writes: “The only people who got to define humanity were white guys: they were the only ones who could own things, who could hold political power, who could have their thoughts listened to. Even as more people fought for some kind of basic recognition — the right not to be treated as chattel, the right to vote, the right to not face state-sponsored discrimination — the (straight) white male notion of ourselves didn’t really change.”

This is really nothing more than a context-free, ideologically biased, ‘progressive’ narrative clumsily grafted onto the evolution of Western culture. Not only is it appallingly self-indulgent and ignorant – it requires approaching history with an excruciatingly narrow focus and a flair for selective reasoning to deliver an interpretation of the past that so exquisitely mirrors the currently fashionable ‘progressive’ worldview.

It is also logically incoherent and self-contradictory. If it’s true that ‘white guys’ believed that only they should ‘define reality’, how does Berry account for the success of all the social movements that he alludes to? Isn’t it more likely that demands for recognition made by women, different ethnic groups and other minority interests would be quickly and decisively silenced if Berry’s version of a society in which white males enforced a totalitarian regime based on their gender and race was accurate?

We only need to look at how European, white male dominated civilization handled these issues and compare it with how non-European, ‘non-white’, male dominated societies have handled them. It becomes immediately clear that European civilization is the ONLY one in which principles of equality, universal human rights, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, women’s rights, gay rights, minority rights etc. arose, were fostered, were enshrined and flourished.

If ‘white males’ were the tyrants compulsively driven to protect their hold on power and privilege as Berry insists, why did they not simply use their power to crush any and all challenges to their societal dominance… just like every other male-dominated society did and continues to do?

For example, how do women, gays, religious and ethnic minority communities fair in most Middle Eastern countries when and if they have the courage to demand equality?

I think we all know the answer….not so well.

Let me suggest what is really happening here. You see, there are two things that people who are attracted to a ‘progressive’/Left worldview hate. The first thing is truth. The second thing is context.

The overwhelming priority for all ‘progressives’ is ensuring the dominance of conceptual-constructs which appeal to their egos. That’s all they care about. ‘Truth’ just gets in the way of them believing what they would prefer to believe. And ‘context’ gets in the way of appearing to others like they know what they’re talking about.

So let me fill-in a little truth and context.

It is true that Western civilization – like all major civilizations – was until very recently, predominantly male-centric. The causal factors for this are primarily biology, practicality and the unguided unfolding of history. It was not a plot. It was not a conspiracy against women or anyone else. It was evolution. It was the natural development of our species and it ensured our survival and prosperity. To put it bluntly, women made babies and men made civilizations. THAT is why every single major civilization in history – wherever it arose on the globe – was dominated by men. It’s what men do. PERIOD.

It is bad enough that arrogant and poorly informed people like David Berry excoriate the people who invented civilization for the unforgivable crime of also running the thing they were creating.

But we cross into the realm of hallucinatory perception when they single out the one civilization in human history which gave rise to democracy, universal human rights, multiculturalism, freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief, the abolition of slavery etc….. and vilify its men as preternaturally intolerant and pathologically compelled to suppress the perspective of anyone but themselves.

The fact is that our’s is the one male created, male dominated society out of all the others in which men actively and continuously relinquished an exclusive claim to “define humanity”.

In other words – it’s the exact opposite of the delusional – but impeccably ‘progressive’ – version of reality advanced by David Berry.