Watch four of the most sanctimonious and obnoxious ‘progressives’ to ever walk the Earth lecture the ignorant masses about ‘cultural appropriation’ in this blatant piece of mainstream media propaganda. New Getugly video:
A very good friend who has been consistently re-posting the standard, predictable anti-Trump memes and mainstream news items on Facebook recently re-posted this clip of Yuri Bezmenov from the 1980’s :
Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions… but considering the tone of every other politically-themed post she has ever shared, I’m guessing that like just about everyone who tends towards a ‘progressive’-Left view of the world, she interprets all information that she happens to come across as confirmation of her preconceived, stereotypical ‘progressive’-Left conclusions.
In my experience, most ‘progressive’, Leftist, SJW adherents to all things liberal and otherwise politically correct are aware of little if any context for the snippets of video, news reports and various opinion pieces that drift into their consciousness as the result of no deliberate effort of their own. They simply incorporate this free-floating messaging into their established view – and as they rarely if ever encounter living, breathing human beings in their circle of peers who do anything other than reflect their own opinions back to them… they have no incentive or intellectual pressure to reflect on the limitations, potential flaws or weaknesses in their point of view.
In other words, whatever comes to them most easily is all they know… and all they feel they need to know… in order to consider themselves sufficiently informed on any given subject…. not to mention to pass judgement on anyone whom they assume can only be less enlightened than themselves to actually hold a different opinion.
It’s like the uptick in sales recently of George Orwell’s novel 1984... attributed to Trump winning the White House. The people rushing to buy the 1948 novel are of course under the impression that the book predicts the potential totalitarian regime that a ‘conservative’ right-winger like Trump is on the verge of bringing into being.
If these people had paid attention in high school when they should have first been introduced to the novel, they would know it is in fact a warning from a member of the Left about the very real – and repeatedly proven – dangers of a tendency towards totalitarian tyranny arising from…. wait for it… the Left! (pssst…. that’s the side of politics that people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are embedded in).
But hey…. who needs reality and context when self-serving, circular reasoning is so much more gratifying?
So in a sincere effort to introduce context into the discussion of these very important subjects, I offered the following comment to my friend who posted the link to the video:
“So you realise that this is Yuri Bezmenov talking 30 years ago about how ‘Cultural Marxism’ has infiltrated the institutions… like the media and academia… and is being used to produce generations who are hostile towards their own country, the West and its traditional values… and who embrace the values of Marxism, right?
In other words, the process he’s talking about began in the 1960’s…. and this video was filmed in the 80’s…. so it’s been roughly 50 years…. which is exactly the period of time Bezmenov says is required to bring about the desired shift in the culture.
In OTHER other words…. the people he was warning us about in the 1980’s are today’s ‘progressive’-Left liberals…. the people, you might have noticed, who are presently losing their minds over Donald Trump.”
So I recently had a comment rejected by the overseers of all things proper and decent at the online version of the Australian daily newspaper The Age. And sure, it’s their publication and web site… and if they want to exclude my perspective from the public conversation, it is certainly their prerogative. It’s not the first time and I think it unlikely it will be the last. Nevertheless, it is interesting … and I think very revealing… to look at the kind of commentary from their own readers they would prefer be denied a platform.
My unwanted remarks were in response to a column by the reliably vexatious feminist activist Clementine Ford in which she went after the critics of media personality and activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied (‘The hypocrisy that lies behind the reaction to seven words from Yassmin Abdel-Magied’) . Yassmin had caused quite a kerfuffle recently when she used Australia’s national day of remembrance – a day dedicated to those who fought in the world wars – to indulge in a little self-aggrandizing virtue signalling about refugees via Twitter.
I didn’t address the predictably overblown backlash to Yassmin’s deliberate provocation. Instead, my comments focused on what I consider to be Clementine’s unjustified assumption that she occupies the moral high-ground in her sanctimonious judgement of Yasmin’s critics.
Here is my comment that the gatekeepers of The Age’s forum deemed undeserving of inclusion in the public discussion and debate. In my post I referenced another column by Clementine which had been published just a few weeks prior:
This moral indignation and accusations of hypocrisy are a bit rich coming from someone who used her platform in this publication a few weeks ago to target specific high school boys in Sydney for public ridicule after they made a pro-feminist video.
Not only did this adult woman express her open contempt for these kids from Sydney Boys High School and a shameless resentment for the fact they received kudos for their efforts… she suggested that threatening women with rape is much more in their character than making well-intentioned videos with positive messages about women:
“It’s better than the rape threats and abuse that schoolboys often seem to throw about the internet … but is it really an amazing project deserving of heartfelt praise and gratitude?” (Clementine Ford, March 16 2017, The Age)
As you can see in the screenshot above, there is no reason given for the decision by the overseers of the discussion board at the Age to designate a comment unworthy of inclusion. A post deemed unacceptable just ends up in the ‘rejected’ section of your ‘Masthead’ page a day or two after being submitted (the snippet in the screenshot of the other rejected comment is one I submitted in response to the previous Clementine Ford column I referenced and which inspired the video below).
Absent any declared justification for rejection, I am left to conjecture about their reasons for the rebuff.
It can’t be my use of language, since my comment is nothing other than an accurate description of Clementine’s argument using her own words which I quoted verbatim. Which leaves only one plausible explanation as far as I can tell: The Age feels obliged to protect the poor darling from having the weaknesses and inconsistencies of her perspective exposed.
Such valour! What chivalry! This instinct to shield the little lady from genuine critique of her ideas is… dare I say it… practically traditional! Even suggestive of old timey patriarchal values!
The Age is happy to let Clementine dish it out… but apparently they know she can’t take it in return. Either that, or they are well aware that Clementine is a hypocrite, a phony, an intellectual lightweight… that she is the embodiment of every cruel, bigoted, self-serving and intolerant character flaw that she and the rest of the principle-‘fluid’, allegedly ‘progressive’- Left loudly proclaim to oppose.
Ultimately, it just comes down to a good business decision on behalf of the editorial staff at The Age. They recognise that it is in their interest to protect their property from effective scrutiny and critique.
The Daily Wire drew attention this week to a revealing new study from the Danish Meteorological Institute. Not only does the study contradict the widely accepted catastrophic man-made climate change official narrative… it 100% refutes the endlessly recycled messaging from the mainstream media, the liberal political class and government funded scientists that the theory of man-made climate change is ‘settled science’ and that there is universal scientific ‘consensus’ on the issue.
(read the article here)
In other words… this one study alone ends the debate about whether or not scepticism towards the claims of the climate change establishment is justified. The verdict is in and it is indisputable: IT’S JUSTIFIED!
The fact that this paper is just one in a long series of under reported studies and news items undermining the validity of the ‘consensus’ climate change establishment orthodoxy only helps seal the deal. In February of this year for example, a whistleblower accused NOAA (one of the government funded scientific bodies that is a primary source for information and data supporting and promoting the man-made climate change premise) of “flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards”. The allegation is that this was done to intentionally “discredit” the so-called “hiatus” – the now two decade-long period in which there has been no global warming. The whistleblower, former principal scientist of the National Climatic Data Center John Bates, accused senior officials at NOAA of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” (Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming ‘pause’).
Last year, the journal Nature Climate Science published a report titled “making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown.” The scientists who authored the report presented the following summary:
“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”
John Fyfe, climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia and lead author of the report described it like this:
“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing…We can’t ignore it.”
Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge was quoted in the journal Nature that “Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.”
I could go on. There are countless other examples like these that receive essentially no attention from the mainstream press. But this is clearly sufficient to justify scepticism in any rational, objective adult about the claims of indisputable veracity made by the man-made climate change establishment and their proxies in the political and media classes.
What cannot be justified in light of information like this is anyone who would still impugn the motives or intelligence of people who simply acknowledge the inconsistencies and contradictions that are right in front of their eyes…. let alone affix to them the pejorative and inflammatory label of “denier“. To do so would be to exhibit a mindset more analogous to that of a devotee of some pernicious cult rather than a serious minded adult capable of independent thought and reasoning.
Not only is scepticism justified when it comes to these claims… for objective, thinking laypeople who privilege the pursuit of truth it is the only intellectually viable position to hold at this point.
Of course, this is not news to anyone who has bothered to make even a mild effort towards self-directed scrutiny of the climate change issue. As I point out in my ‘Rebuttal Of The Week’ below, every single person who objectively investigates this issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the liberal political class and the mainstream media immediately discovers the same thing: this is a far more contentious, uncertain and politicised issue than we have been encouraged to believe. There are massive economic, political, professional, personal and ideological interests at stake in sustaining the myth of catastrophic man-made climate change theory as ‘settled science’. And yet the narrative that has been constructed in the minds of many lay people is one of purely benevolent saviours of ‘Mother Earth’ versus the absolute evil of greedy oil executives and their malevolent or stupid stooges.
Here is my rebuttal to someone who responded to me posting the Daily Wire article by essentially downplaying the report and making the argument that it’s not the science that’s relevant, but rather it’s caring about the future of the planet that counts.
For those of us who actively look for information about the climate change issue beyond what is spoon-fed to us by the mainstream media… there is nothing surprising, unique or controversial about this report. Despite what we have been encouraged to believe, there is no shortage of expert opinion and data that challenges the so-called ‘settled science’ of catastrophic man-made climate change. Everyone who is interested enough to look into it finds the same thing.
Does the preponderance of scientific evidence and opinion that is contrary to the claims of the climate change establishment prove the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change is false? Not necessarily. But it does prove beyond contention that we have been and continue to be lied to by that establishment about the certainty of their theory and the absence of disagreement among experts in their field. It also proves the mainstream media and the liberal political class have helped perpetuate that lie…. if not deliberately, then by systemic incompetence.
Which means the sceptics… or ‘deniers’…. were right all along.
For what it’s worth, here is my personal ‘big-picture’ take on all of this…. EVERYONE cares about the health of the natural environment. But only some people care about the natural environment and also care equally about being told the truth.
I have always been a big admirer of anyone who has mastered the art of acerbic wit. The convergence of intelligence, sophistication, humour, critical insight, self-awareness, language skills and a precise comedic timing is damn impressive. People who wield this skill can expose bullshit, enlighten and make you laugh out loud all at the same time…. often with a single, impeccably well-observed and penetrating sentence.
The more famous maestros of the artform immediately spring to mind. Think of Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Winston Churchill or William F. Buckley in the world of politics and commentary. Of course there is Johnny Carson and Woody Allen from mainstream and late-night entertainment. John Lennon was famous for it. There is the genius of the Monty Python crew with their deliciously merciless skewering of the absurdity of the human condition itself.
One of the wonderful things about this talent is that some of its most gifted exponents are completely unknown, otherwise average people from every walk of life and background you can imagine. I’ve met several of them in my time… my own dear ol’ dad was one of the all-time greats.
So when I see bland purveyors of contemporary ‘infotainment’ lionised by the public as comedic geniuses for smugly purging themselves of whatever adolescent, puerile inanities happen to emerge from the black hole of narcissism that is the wellspring of their particular brand of creativity…. it bugs me.
Which leads me to my “Rebuttal of the Week” . It is inspired by the recent brouhaha ( or was it a fracas?) over hi-larious conformist, politically Leftist shill Stephen Colbert’s homo-erotic fantasy about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
My exchange with commentator Jane C (below), came from her response to Washington Post columnist Craig Konnoth’s weird, social justice warrior-esque, politically correct admonishment of Colbert. Like a lot of people, Konnoth found Colbert’s joke contemptible…. but not because it was infantile, vulgar, self-consciously mean spirited and unfunny.
No, for Konnoth, Colbert’s crime was that he transgressed a sacrosanct edict of the religion of ‘progressive’-Leftism: Thou shalt not make a “gay joke”. For it has been ordained that gay jokes are “never okay”. This makes Colbert guilty of the sin of “homophobia”. And, as Konnoth reminds us, homophobia is just another form of misogyny.
Yes folks, I kid you not. Konnoth actually makes that argument in his column. Let’s take a moment to fully absorb what is happening here: We have a major American mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post (and also Canada’s National Post by reprinting the piece) promoting the notion that a particularly boorish joke about falatio is proof of an irrational ‘fear‘ of homosexuals… which is really just an expression of hatred of women.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should be mad at Stephen Colbert.
And they wonder why intelligent, reasonable adults are abandoning their lousy publications in droves.
The fact that morally superior ‘progressives’ like commentator Jane C. are fighting with morally superior ‘progressives’ like writer Craig Konnoth over who is most against homophobia and therefore the most morally superior is not only hilarious (ironically, unlike Colbert)…. it is yet another example of how the anti-rational, cognitively self-annihilating ideological foundation of the ‘progressive’-Left is causing the whole thing to collapse in upon itself ( see Progressive Left is Eating Itself Alive! ).
Here is Jane’s comment and my ‘Rebuttal of the Week!’:
Jane C: It’s a BRILLIANT monologue – super funny and it did exactly what he intended to – piss off the conservatives and those who are actually homophobic and thought that gay jokes are not ok, so here’s looking at you, writer of this article.
That’s the only plausible explanation for how anyone could possibly mistake Colbert’s spewing of adolescent cheap shots designed to pander to the mundane, predictable prejudices of his comfortable, liberal, middle class audience as somehow worthy of the evaluation of “BRILLIANT”.
If you want to consider yourself some kind of aficionado of comedy… you may want to extend your exposure to the genre beyond the immediate era. If you do, you will notice that until very recently, comedy that was recognized as ‘BRILLIANT’ actually challenged and unsettled the assumptions of the comfortable, status-quo class. Now, it panders to it.
And even the most mainstream late night television hosts and their audiences could once distinguish between acerbic wit and infantile, crude vindictiveness.
Based on your comments, you clearly represent a distinct changing of the guard in this respect.