Rebuttals of the Week #31: Kavanaugh’s ‘temperament’ makes him unfit? No… you’re just a mouthpiece for propaganda.

 

nedia

This past week we watched as Republican nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself against increasingly wild accusations piled onto the original allegations of sexual assault from almost four decades ago which his accuser’s own named witnesses refused to corroborate under oath. Immediately following the hearings Democrats uniformly began promoting the same bizarre, cold and calculated narrative: That the emotion judge Kavanaugh displayed while defending himself is itself proof … wait for it… of his lack of fitness for the position on the Supreme Court.

Apparently the premise here is that  it is shockingly inappropriate  for a  man  under immense pressure to express indignation and anger at having his life, the lives of his wife and daughters and his reputation systematically destroyed in public for political purposes…. if he is a judge.

Why you ask? Well… because as everyone knows and as everyone has always known… the established norm is that when a judge’s life is torn to shreds under these circumstance the universally accepted standard is that he express no normal human emotion whatsoever or demonstrate any personal investment in the annihilation of his career, his good name and his reputation.

He must remain inert. Unmoved. He must accept being labelled a sadistic  serial rapist with  placid good humour. Anything other than that is abnormal; an indication of a ‘temperament’ that no one who has ever been confirmed as a Supreme Court judge would ever have demonstrated had he or she been subjected to the same thing. As more than one Democrat and their allies in the media have remarked, if this is how he reacts to having his life ruined for political purposes…. can you imagine what he’d  do with a couple beers in him?

Any objective observer regardless of their partisan preferences could immediately recognize this as nothing but the agreed upon, ruthless spin that the Democrats constructed to advance their political agenda of thwarting not just Kavanaugh’s appointment… but the appointment of any conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

The truth is that this has been the political strategy employed by the Democrats well before Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein brought forth the allegations against Kavanaugh which she had been sitting on for six weeks. The quote below from the New York Times lays it all out:

“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”

These are the extreme political machinations which form the context in which all of these events are taking place. This is a raw drive for power. Nothing noble. Nothing good. Sadly, many people are too ill-informed or too wholly given over to personal bias and blind ideological partisanship to allow any of this context to inform their interpretations or intrude upon their preferred conclusions.

In the naive, fixed constellation that is their worldview… all things Republican, Trump and conservative are malevolent and evil by definition. Their guilt and soullessness are preordained. This is treated as an axiom built into the very fabric of reality itself. There is nothing to think about. No generosity is to be afforded them. No one gets the benefit of the doubt. If you express anguish and anger as your life is systematically destroyed around you it will be interpreted as confirmation of your malevolence and incompetence. You will be openly mocked for it. If you remain stoic and detached your lack of emotion will be denounced as evidence of your guilt….”An innocent man would be furious if he was accused of such things don’t you know!”

At the same time, all things Democratic, liberal and ‘progressive‘ are unquestioningly accepted as intrinsically benevolent. They’re the tolerant, compassionate, empathetic morally excellent people after all. They must be. They tell us so all of the time. They deserve nothing but the benefit of the doubt. Their motivations are always pure and they are preternaturally immune to self-interest, lust for power, dishonesty and corruption. Why would you scrutinize and question their practices, ethics and motivations when they constantly reassure us that everything they do is righteous and just?

It is this state of childlike belief in the inherent trustworthiness of one side of the political spectrum and equally childlike belief in the cartoonish malevolence of the other that renders people so receptive to propaganda. When this is coupled with the passive absorption of messaging from a 24/7 media presence with multiple sources all projecting the same handful of video clips, soundbites and interpretations…. you end up with the pattern we see now: Politically motivated, constructed narrative leaves the lips of viciously partisan politicians… is repetitively broadcast directly into minds already primed to receive the massaging… where it is instantly transmuted into personal opinion and conviction without reflection and repeated.

Below is one of many exchanges I’ve had online over the last few days with people who are reflexively parroting the official Democratic narrative… practically verbatim.. and treating it as personal insight:

Ian Hunter: The verdict is in: Kavanaugh does not have the credibility or temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. He failed the job interview.

Going to Getugly: You are yet another person here who is demonstrating just how effective the media is at constructing the opinions of people who are easily manipulated.

It has been very revealing reading comments on media outlets in the US, Canada and Australia since the end of the hearings and seeing just how quickly people began mindlessly parroting this talking point of the Democrats… almost word for word… which has been repeatedly broadcast by Democrat friendly media about how he supposedly “not fit for the highest court in the land”. The most chilling part of it is that you’re all acting like this is an idea that you came up with on your own.

Immediately after the hearing Democrats began uniformly repeating the same messaging which was clearly the official Party narrative that had been decided should be imposed:

Democrat Robert Reich: “demonstrates a temperament unbecoming of Justice on the Supreme Court.”

Democrat Diane Feinstein: I have never seen someone who wants to be elevated to the highest court in the country behave in that manner.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal : “My opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which I believe he lacks.by virtue of the screed that he sat here and gave us.”

Democrat Nancy Pelosi: “We know one thing… he does not have the temperament to be a judge.”

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that it’s mere coincidence that these people on comment sections  just happen to be mimicking the Democratic narrative that the media has been repetitively broadcasting…

Ian H (Canada): “Just watching him answer the questions, he doesn’t have the fortitude and composure you’d want in someone in such a high position.”

Bek D (Australia): he clearly does not have the appropriate temperament or mentality for such a role!

Eli W (Canada) : “His demeanour and explicit partisanship alone should discount him. It is unprofessional.”

Eileen M (US): I felt that way at first but then watched him at the hearing where he revealed he is unsuitable for that important seat.

Itty R (Canada): “what I witnessed in his hearing showed that he is completely unfit to be on the Supreme Court or actually any judicial role.”

Maureen E (Canada) : “Kavanaugh was a belligerent bully who evaded all the question asked and lacks the dignity and unbiased demeanour required to preside over a court of law at any level.”

That’s a pretty widespread coincidence. It’s almost as if people are passively internalizing uniform messaging that has been broadcast at them and they are now regurgitating it as if it was their own idea.

Advertisements

‘Progressive’ ideology + cowardice = more dead black men, women and children

shoot

“With Toronto edging toward another record year of shooting victims, there is a growing push from researchers and advocates to tackle gun violence from a public-health perspective and to instead focus on the social inequalities that lie at the root of the problem.”

This is conformity to ideology presented as analysis. The default axiom of Leftist conditioning is that anti-social behaviour by members of certain protected classes is always and only a reflection of inherent problems EXTERNAL to their own community. To appreciate the glaring indifference to truth which this axiom represents one has only to observe how quickly and unapologetically it is reversed when the perpetrators are from the perceived dominant class… which is to say, white males.

Within 24 hours of the van attack that killed 10 people on Yonge Street earlier this year the story shifted from a lone nutcase committing a one-of-a-kind act of violence in the city of Toronto to a narrative about the obscure group of Internet nerds called ‘INCELs’… how this was really a story about a white male driven to an act of horrific violence by rampant misogyny and perceived injustices being heaped on white men and therefore ultimately a reflection of something gone terribly wrong with white males in society in general.

In contrast to that singular incident we have a problem that has persisted for decades to the point it has become a fixture of daily life in Toronto with a specific class of black men  mimicking the glorification of gun obsession, criminality and extreme violence of American black thug culture. And where are we being instructed by our media elite, ‘researchers and advocates’ to “look” to locate the “root of the problem”?  Not to the community from which this activity has been consistently arising but to an unquantifiable phenomenon called “social inequalities” they claim exists in society at large. In other words, black men shooting each other in the streets of one of the most open, freest, self-consciously welcoming and ethnically diverse cities to ever exist on the planet is not a reflection of something that has gone wrong within a class of the black community itself…. but of an intrinsically racist society created by and for the exclusive benefit of…. you guessed it… white men.

This privileging of fashionable ideology over reason and truth and the spinelessness displayed by politicians and journalists towards saying out loud what everybody (including, I suspect, most people in the black community) is thinking is precisely what allowed this problem to fester in Toronto for years and to escalate to critical proportions.

That is also why the problem will not be effectively addressed; why it will only get worse and why we will continue to see black families in this city mourn this senseless loss of life.

Rebuttals of the Week #27: Propaganda trumps truth

The controversy surrounding the now infamous TIME magazine cover and the reactions to its distortion and manipulation has revealed something quite fascinating about how people in our era relate to the media. Specifically, it showed how much of a blindspot there is for the degree to which the media constructs our view of the world.

By now it is well known that the little girl whose image was used in the montage to promote the Trump “snatching children out of the arms of their mothers” narrative was not only not separated from her mother but, according to the child’s father, was the one child of four whom the mother didn’t abandon in Honduras but paid a human trafficker $6000 to illegally smuggle along with herself into the US.

To be fair, at least judging by my perusal of the reactions online to this story it appears that the majority of people who are commenting are lining up on the side of condemning TIME for their glaring misrepresentation of reality. But there are a lot of people downplaying or dismissing the egregiousness of an elite mainstream media outlet… owned by the same people who own CNN by the way… willfully sacrificing truth in service of popularizing a politically partisan interpretation…. not to mention defending doing so when they are caught!

What is notable is that people are not denying this is a misrepresentation of objective truth by mainstream media. The point that you see being made over and over again is this:  The imagery that was constructed to convey the mainstream media’s narrative  is clearly a lie… but the overall narrative itself is true and that’s all that matters.

But if members of the mainstream media elite have been caught demonstrating their indifference to objective truth so long as the perception they desire is being generated… why would you have any confidence that your perception of the ‘overall’ situation is ‘true’ when you got it entirely from the mainstream media?

Have a look and see how consistently this blindspot is demonstrated in this sample of my online interactions below:


Brandie: No it does not matter..  the atrocities are real. the children are being traumatized and detained in deplorable conditions. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS! don’t let this photo take away from the REAL ISSUES> please i BEG of you 🙂 don’t lose sight of the horror and act hastily to rectify it.

Going to Getugly: Brandie, the intention behind the construction of this image… which is a misrepresentation of reality... was to bypass the public’s intellect and manipulate the emotions of people who never learned how to think like responsible mature adults. Your comments reveal that you were among the target audience.

Here is some objective analysis : ALL of the interpretations that you have expressed here have been provided to you by the mainstream media. This incident with TIME magazine is proof that the mainstream media is misrepresenting objective reality in order to construct and disseminate a particular perception of the situation.

The question that you need to ask yourself therefore is this : Why would you continue to trust a perception of the situation which is a product of the media… when this is proof the media is deliberately distorting objective reality in order to manipulate your perceptions?


Marilyn E: What is the difference what child it is?

Going to Getugly: “What is the difference what child it is?” Seriously?

Marilyn, where are we all getting all of our perceptions about what is happening at the American border with Mexico? We’re getting them from the MEDIA. This TIME magazine incident is proof for those of you who seem to be completely ignorant about this stuff that the mainstream media is willing to misrepresent objective reality in order to manufacture perceptions among the public that reflect their own political preferences.

In other words, when you say “What is the difference what child it is?”… what you are really saying is “I see no problem with the media lying to me.”


Jane: It’s called symbolism – a viral symbol of Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy. A picture of a little girl who’s being searched by border patrol agents. Terrified and scared.

It was taken by award-winning Getty photographer John Moore, who’s followed the border crisis for years and it was meant to embody the horror of Trump’s policy to prosecute all people crossing the border illegally, leading to the separation of families.

It helped fuel the public outrage that forced Trump to backtrack by issuing an executive order to end the practice.

Going to Getugly: Right. So to put it simply… it was pure manufactured propaganda designed to bypass the public’s intellect and play directly to their emotional response for the purpose of manipulating their perceptions and reinforcing a partisan political agenda.

Yeah, that’s just great Jane.


Sylvia: Does this mean children aren’t being separated from their families and locked in cages? No. Stop getting tripped up in the details and pay attention to what is happening. Geez.

Going to Getugly: So let me see if I understand your logic here Sylvia…. Your entire perception of this situation.. your interpretation about children “being separated from their families and locked in cages”…  is 100 percent, totally dependent on what has been delivered to you by the mainstream media. But this incident with TIME magazine is proof of the willingness of the mainstream media to misrepresent objective reality in order to manipulate the perception of the public and to generate a politically partisan interpretation.

That being the case… how do you justify your certainty that your perception of what is “happening” is actually what is objectively “happening”?

“Geez” indeed.


Monica: This is silly. The actual report told the truth. What if Time had used a stock photo of a random crying child to illustrate it? Or had an artist do a pencil drawing of a crying child? The story is still true.

Going to Getugly: Yeah. It’s just “silly”! After all… the only thing that happened here is that the mainstream media demonstrated its willingness to misrepresent objective reality in order to manipulate the public’s perceptions and to promote a partisan political agenda. You big sillies out there thinking there’s anything about that for responsible thinking adults to find disturbing and worthy of criticism!

Video: Australian feminists shift focus from murder victim to themselves

In this video I discuss how feminists and the media in Australia used the tragic murder of Eurydice Dixon to promote divisive ideological narratives and to make the ‘story’ about themselves.

I guess all of the morally excellent folks figure Faith Goldy deserves it.

This is what people these days seem to be unwilling to grapple with… It isn’t supposed to matter if you agree with Faith Goldy’s opinions or politics. As a principled person, you are supposed to be outraged that this woman… an independent reporter… is being intimidated and attacked by masked, male thugs… in public… in Canada… and that the national media is making a conscious choice to exclude this incident from their narrative construction. Remember, this is an era  in which two random guys in a third rate city in a foreign nation who are told they can’t use a bathroom in a Starbucks unless they buy a coffee is deemed to merit daily, national news coverage for at least two to three weeks in this country.

And yet an incident involving someone who has worked in the mainstream media and who is very well known in the alternative media, who is a Canadian and who is covering a major story that is happening in our own country to which that same mainstream media has paid only passing attention is deemed unworthy of serious coverage. This is despite employees of every single one of those mainstream outlets being present to capture reams of audio and video to present to their editors and producers at all of the mainstream media bunkers back in Toronto.

A lot of people in management in a bunch of different offices decided, “Naaaaa! This isn’t something we want the public to think about.”

This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that the mainstream media does not provide a window into objective reality. The media constructs narratives. That’s their job. And the only narrative that this generation of homogeneous, incompetent and useless Canadian mainstream journalists are comfortable promoting is the one about how anyone who protests this absurd transgression of this country’s right to control its own borders is a Nazi.

And don’t ya know…. Nazis’ deserve whatever they get.

State media in Canada and Australia use Toronto tragedy to promote the same ideological narrative

abccbc

This is a great demonstration of how the mainstream media in the English speaking world are now essentially a single entity that circulates homogeneous, constructed and noticeably ideologically slanted narratives.

The same threadbare, tangential fragment of salacious material that the state broadcaster at the top of the world in Canada has leapt upon to sex-up the pointless act of barbarism that occurred in Toronto last week is simultaneously being torqued for its sensationalist value by the state broadcaster at the bottom of the globe in Australia.

So what if “we don’t have proof that these conditions led to the horrific van attack in Toronto that left 10 dead and 14 injured” as the CBC freely acknowledges in its version of the script?  What’s the point of a reputable news organization refraining from divisive and irresponsible speculation when it can justify it by simply pronouncing “it’s worth discussing regardless”?

And so we have ‘The Dawn of the Planet of the INCELS’ story-line. We will be contending with it for the foreseeable future. Proceed to set your hair on fire and run around hysterically exaggerating out of all rational proportion the threat posed by a handful of obscure Internet nerds who can’t get laid.

But the media is only using  this nonsense about ‘incels’ as a literary device. The real intention is to insert their favourite ideological narrative into a tragedy that has no inherent meaning of its own. The unambiguous takeaway that both the CBC and the ABC are propagandizing to their respective hemispheres is that the proper focus of your rage, your blame and your fear is on “white” people, on “men” and on those who do not conform to ‘progressive’-Left ideology.

CBC: “Combine powerful online echo chambers, the perceived decline of the white male, a surge in online troll culture and groups of angry and alienated men, and you have a powerful cocktail for dangerous radicalization.”

ABC: “They’re primarily straight, white dudes who claim to be plotting violent revolution because women won’t have sex with them.”

The CBC explicitly identifies a “hatred of social progressive values”  as one of the officially sinister characteristics motivating all of the lunatics who have deliberately mowed down pedestrians in a rented van in Toronto. From the first one ever to this latest one. Which is also the first one ever.

This is apparently sufficient evidence of an irrefutable pattern to those in charge of our state broadcasters… whose sole purpose it seems is to expose the public to their biases.

If you are a taxpayer in Canada or Australia who has internalized this ideology… then you probably regard having  your generic preconceptions mirrored back to you by your publicly funded media as something like responsible journalism.

Those of you who still prefer independent thinking might be inclined to feel like you’re not exactly getting your money’s worth.

 

cbc 2abc 2

Going to Getugly Censored By Facebook For Criticizing Feminism!

FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP NOTICE up2 bFACEBOOK CENSORSHIP notice this one

Yes folks… if you are critical of feminists and mention the objective fact that they are women you will be reprimanded by Facebook, have your comments censored and be at least temporarily banned from their platform. They also warn that unless you learn your lesson you could be banned permanently. So you better behave.

I received the message above from Facebook today along with notification that I’ve been locked out of my account. As you see, they provided a copy of the comment that allegedly transgresses the high standards of respectful discourse that we all know Facebook dutifully and uniformly enforces for anyone commenting on the feeds of major media outlets like the CBC, the ABC, The AGE, The Globe and Mail, CNN etc..

In this circumstance the comment was on the Facebook feed of  the Australian public broadcaster’s weekly panel show Q&A. It was in response to a video clip taken from a recent episode in which an audience member posed a question to panelist Harriet Harman of the Labour Party in the UK. The question loosely referenced Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson’s critique of the standard feminist conceptualization of the ‘gender pay gap’. I encourage everyone to watch the clip below and decide for yourself if my criticism of Harman’s response isn’t at least justifiable if not spot on.

Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with my assessment of Harman’s response, to claim that it represents an “attack” on anyone “based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability” is blatantly false. It is a lie.

Remember the old saying attributed to Voltaire about how to identify the truly privileged class in society? It goes like this: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Isn’t it oddly Orwellian how often it is these days that the very people who constantly proclaim themselves to be the victims of societal systemic oppression are precisely the  people who are protected from criticism by that very same system?

As anyone who has even a casual familiarity with the degree of uninhibited maliciousness that routinely passes Facebook’s incredibly rigorous ‘Community Standards’ will know… the idea that some policy of  prejudice-free, moral excellence compels them to  remove posts that ‘attack people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender or disability‘ is an absurd and dishonest joke.

And of course, the fact that my comment doesn’t meet any of their own criteria for censure doesn’t really matter. The only thing I ‘attacked’ was the willingness to engage in “intellectual dishonesty” by the people who are pushing the discredited notion of a ‘pay gap’. The fact that those people are women and feminists is… sorry folks… just that, an objective fact. I clearly didn’t ‘attack’ anyone because they are women. What  I ‘attacked’… or to put it less hyperbolically, what I criticized…. was the atrocious and disingenuous reasoning demonstrated by using deflection as a tactic to avoid addressing the flaws in their argument.

In other words, I criticised their ideas. I did not ‘attack’ their gender.

Now contrast my comment  with a small sampling of what the arbiters of respectful discourse and decency at Facebook apparently regard as meeting or surpassing the lofty ideals of their Community Standards. Pay particular attention to the deep commitment these paragons of virtuous elocution demonstrate to the noble principle of never ‘attacking’ anyone based on race, gender, age, blah blah blah….

Mandy Noone: It’s not about what any guy (let alone OLD WHITE GUYS) thinks

Sharon Knighton: How unusual that a MIDDLE AGED WHITE MAN doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McDermott: It looks so sad to see OLD WHITE MEN insisting that women arent in danger of being oppressed. im guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Robinson: Another WHITE MIDDLE AGED MALE mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.