“Populism”: The latest buzz-word for failing to conform to Leftist group-think

glob

“Countries around the world have been gripped by an incoherent, rage-fuelled nihilism that rejects elites on the left and the right. It’s not income inequality, as many think, but a fear of immigrants undermining culture and a way of life , argue Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson”

“I think ‘populist’ is a term that some people use for things they don’t like.” – Douglas Murray

What is driving so-called “populism” is the inevitable and completely predictable push-back by normal people against the relentless expansion and normalisation of extreme Leftist ideology in Western society. It is also the expectation of unquestioning conformity placed on the individual by elites in the political, cultural, academic and media classes who are so overwhelmingly enamoured with that ideology.

And because the people in those elite classes… people like Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson… find it so confounding to relate to any perspective that exists outside of the closed loop of their ideological bubble… they invent dark and malignant motivations to explain to themselves why anyone would possibly reject the purity and absolute truth of their own worldview.

After several decades of displaying unprecedented goodwill and acceptance towards a series of social engineering experiments being imposed on them without consultation by  the ideologically possessed in the ruling classes… some people are… for the first time in any significant numbers… exercising their democratic right to voice their growing sense of disenchantment with the process. And how are the people who are most directly affected by the ideological fancies imposed upon them by the wealthy, powerful and protected classes treated? The moment these people open their mouths…. the moment they dare stand up for what they consider to be their own interests… they are slapped down, accused of “incoherent, rage-fuelled nihilism” and condemned for their lack of virtue by those who take their own enlightenment and moral excellence for granted.

It doesn’t seem to occur to those elite ideologues that it’s the narcissism of restructuring society in their own image and the arrogance of expecting everyone to be humbly grateful to be the beneficiaries of their self-proclaimed superior wisdom that is the real genesis and driving force of the growing discontent.

Advertisements

Telling the most inclusive, tolerant and welcoming people in the history of human civilisation how uncommonly racist they are is going to backfire.

 

islaa

 “It’s time the federal government designates Jan. 29 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia so that we take the opportunity to educate fellow Canadians about this poison in our midst. Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

This ladies and gentleman… is the real, unabashed, undisguised bigotry of our times.

What the author of this column is calling for is that the state officially declare that Canadian society…. and let’s just say what he is really meaning here: white Canadians… are intrinsically morally corrupt and despicable. Not only that, but that we owe his specific co-religionists unique recognition as penance for the systemic wickedness we  are collectively inflicting upon them. I suppose we are to be grateful to Mr. Yussuff and the federal government for taking the time to “educate us” about this.

It is precisely this kind of self-righteous, hypocritical and intellectually corrupt arrogance and sense of entitlement that drives otherwise tolerant and inclusive Canadians to view his community with animosity and resentment. And yet as these insults to the character and basic humanity of mainstream Canadians continue to accumulate… those pushing these derogatory narratives feign shock and wonder that more and more of the people they are enthusiastically disparaging are turning sour on the whole multicultural experiment.

If this keeps up… and there is no cause for hope that it won’t… we are in for some extremely unpleasant social unrest in this country in the very near future.

Fake News: National media hypes bogus ‘hate crime’ story

cbc c

This was national headline news in Canada for three days. The Mayor of Toronto, the Premier of Ontario and even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau felt obliged to release official statements about it.

Even if this had been TRUE it would have been a minor… if ugly,  isolated incident.

But the CBC gave these people a national platform, hyped the story out of rational proportion and broadcast it repeatedly around the clock. It was the lead story on their flagship nightly news program The National! That’s how consumed the mainstream media in Canada is with demonstrating their ‘progressive’ bona fides and virtue signalling. Some random little girl lies to her mum and before anyone has bothered to activate a neuron or two…. our $1 billion a year, taxpayer extorting, state-run, multimedia news and information corporation has turned it into a national news event and an indictment of the character of Canadian society.   As mentioned above, even the Prime Minister jumped at the opportunity to get in on the act and virtue signal… thereby blowing the incident even further out of proportion.

And yet the same CBC and other mainstream media corporations keep telling us that THEY are the only sources of news and information that can be trusted…. and that it’s those grotty little alternative media outlets… which just happen to pose a threat to their own jobs and industry… who must be seen as having no credibility and expunged from the Internet for being purveyors of ‘fake news’.

The underlying problem here is more troubling and insidious than simply a lack of due diligence on behalf of professional journalists…. which is a serious problem in its own right. The incautious enthusiasm to believe and imbue this story with a significance far beyond anything such an isolated incident should merit exposes how the media has exchanged objective reporting for the promotion of narratives which reflect a ‘progressive’-Left worldview: “Of course a little Muslim girl was attacked by a man driven insane by his hatred and racism! That’s the inherently racist, Islamophobic, far-right, white male privileged, random hijab scissoring world we live in don’t ya know!”

‘Progressives’ will ignore the media’s role in turning what was literally a non event into national moral crisis and simply delete this from their consciousness. For these people, critical judgement is a faculty reserved exclusively for people and institutions with whom they disagree. And the next time the CBC or another mainstream media outlet frames a story in a way that just happens to mirror the assumptions and preoccupations fashionable among the Left or casually dehumanizes their enemies by labeling them ‘racist’…. they will be comforted by the affirmation while taking for granted that they are getting an unobstructed, unmediated window directly onto objective reality.

‘Shithole-gate’: Democrats responsible for inflaming racial tensions, not Trump

shithole

Scott Adams made a great point about this that should have been obvious to all of us. First of all, assuming the accusation is true, there is no excuse for Trump’s language… very dumb. But what is the responsibility of the person who takes an off-the-cuff remark made in the context of a specific discussion in a private meeting and makes it public… thereby completely changing the context?

In other words, the only person whose conscious intention in all of this was to do damage, inflict hurt and sow division was the person who leaked the comment.

It’s fascinating how we are all falling for the ruse by allowing ourselves to be totally deflected from holding to account the individual whose actions actually caused all of the harm. Despite the enthusiasm of the morally excellent crowd to rush to judgement and start chucking around the word ‘racist’… the private intentions behind an alleged comment made off-the-cuff in a private meeting, taken out of context and which we only know about as the result of claims made by Trump’s political enemies are clearly unknowable.

However, the intentions of the person who leaked the alleged comment are self-evident. It was to betray the President’s confidence and deliberately inflame the tinderbox of racial tensions and divisiveness currently consuming the US in order to hurt Trump politically.  Making it public served no other purpose.

The morally outrageous offence here is not ‘racism’ on Trump’s behalf.

It is the pettiness, vindictiveness and willingness to sacrifice national and even international stability for the sake of political expediency on behalf of Trump’s opponents in the Democratic Party.

This is a level of irresponsibility and political ruthlessness that would make Machiavelli wince.

And everyone fell for it.

 

Video: The Left Demonize People Who Can Think

New Going to Getugly video: Just as ‘progressive’-Left ideology manufactures a flattering generic identity for its adherents… it also manufactures a generic, dehumanizing identity for anyone who doesn’t conform to its worldview.

Rebuttals of the Week # 21: Using the term ‘mansplaining’ makes you look dumb. Stop it.

 

age

There is a debating tactic favoured by all older sisters when they are around the age of 12 and which every younger sibling knows all too well. It would be deployed at times when the older girl was clearly in the wrong, in danger of losing an argument or simply wanted to indulge in some behavior that impacted negatively on her brother or sister. It was a particularly immature strategy which involved adopting a deliberately pompous, shamelessly arrogant and obnoxious tone and using purposefully condescending, insulting language towards her younger opponent. It would go something like this: “Oh, poor BABY! Is the widdle woo-woo gonna cwy about it? Let me kiss da booboo better!”  The intention was to humiliate, degrade and convey her utter, cold contempt for the feelings and interests of the other person. Not very edifying behaviour. But hey, we’re talking about 12 year old girls. What do you expect, right?

Well, one thing I expect is that such infantile, narcissistic self-indulgence would be long outgrown by the time those petulant little girls were old enough to be employed as professional writers for major media companies. I would expect such women to hold themselves to appropriate adult-level standards of journalism and rational thinking.

Judging from this column in the Age ( link: Men, hush now. Let us womansplain it to you) my expectations were misplaced.

Keep in mind that the following lines were written by a grown woman, Jacqueline Maley… a professional ‘journalist’… who evidently thought this was an appropriate manner with which to express serious ideas to sophisticated thinking adults in a major news publication:

“Men, hush now. Let us woman-splain it to you.” 

“Is there any way men can speak up about sexual harassment and the #metoo movement without sounding stupid, sexist and part of the problem?

“Man-actors, maybe it’s time for you to be quiet, dears. Look pretty, act in your action movies, dress up nicely on the red carpet, and for the moment, at least, leave the talking to the ladies.”

The fact that Jacqueline would not be embarrassed to represent the quality of her intellect with this level of rhetoric is sad. Very, very sad. That Fairfax Media would publish this juvenile tripe as legitimate, professional commentary is mind boggling.

But such is the era in which we now live. It’s why the public must come to terms with the fact that whatever social outrage the mainstream media happens to be pushing… whether it’s the now completely forgotten hysteria over Nazis popping out of the woodwork a couple of months ago or the current hysteria over sexual harassment…. the narrative is likely 1 percent related to something real and 99 percent ideologically derived, manufactured outrage driven by the media.

At least this terrible column provided the impetus for the somewhat heated exchanges below about the awful expression ‘mansplaining’… which culminated in what should be considered… in my humble opinion… the ultimate deconstruction of the shallowness of this self-infantilising, ludicrous expression.


The exchange starts with Pasha offering an excellent description of the inherent hypocrisy of using this recently invented phrase. Marcica quickly chimes in with some predictable circular reasoning to defend its use…. at which point I enter the fray in my usual demure manner. Kittie stumbles into the scene somewhat blindly… and ‘White Knight’ Campbell arrives on his steed to salvage her honour! He is quickly slapped off his saddle… at which point the main event begins with male feminist (Ughhhhh! I KNOW!) Paul’s attempt to set me straight. Enjoy!  :

Pasha : The concept of “Mansplaining” epitomises sexism: it dismisses an argument based on gender of the person making it. When open, all inclusive public deliberation is rejected, only violence remains.

Marcica: Wrong. Mansplaining is a patronising explanation not a difference of opinion.

  – Going to Getugly: Marcica, “mansplaining” is a silly, generic slogan used by under confident women who can’t tolerate having their sense of their own authority challenged. It’s self-infantilising. Calling it “a patronising explanation” reflects your sense of your own subordination in the dynamic.

Kittie: In your opinion.

  – Going to Getugly:  “In your opinion”? What kind of thinking adult’s response is that?

Campbell:  See that there? Textbook patronising.

  – Going to Getugly: No Campbell. ‘That there’ is a valid question in response to a childish rebuttal.

This is “textbook patronising”: “Oh no! I think he’s patronising someone! I’m going to signal my virtuousness and post a comment about it… as opposed to using reason like an adult to address the points he raised!”

Kittie: You raised no valid points….just more mansplaining.

  – Going to Getugly:  That’s a great example of what this silly ‘mansplaining’ slogan is really about. In this context, “You raised no valid points” means ” I don’t like what you’ve said but I have no rationally valid reason to take issue with it…. so, “mansplaining”.

Paul: Someone please explain to this guy what mansplaining actually is

 – Going to Getugly: Paul, I’m sure you will get all the pats on the head from feminists that you’re clearly looking for by so randomly signalling your submissiveness to their childish concepts. Here’s an idea… instead of reasoning like a feminist and making snarky emotional comments…. why don’t you make an effort to demonstrate that you can think like a grown man? Why don’t you explain what “mansplaining” actually is? Wouldn’t that be simpler?

Paul: jeez m9[sic] settle petal. As was stated above, it’s explaining something to a woman because you think as a woman she doesn’t understand the concept even though she may be inherently more qualified than you (yeah I know right, women can be more qualified than men for a given task? Mind-blowing stuff) and what do you mean by ‘looking for feminists?’ I hope you’re not implying (like so many do) that I just say these things to ‘get laid’ because that is not a motivator for morality for me.

  – Going To Getugly:  Okay… so you are repeating the generic justification that women who use the ridiculous expression always use.

And according to your own definition, the premise of ‘mansplaining’ relies entirely on the woman attributing motives to a man who doesn’t agree with her or who fails to tell her she’s correct. The motive being attributed is that the man believes the woman doesn’t understand something based exclusively on the fact that she is a woman.

Tell me, how does the woman know that this is the man’s motive?

How does she objectively single out that one motive in particular from every other potential motive he could have for not agreeing with her? How does she know that he wouldn’t say the same thing to another man? How does she know that he doesn’t genuinely just think she is incorrect? What objective metrics is the woman employing that provides her with such an unobstructed view into the soul of another person that she can so definitively proclaim to know his deepest motivations in this situation?

Of course, the only motives that the woman is actually capable of knowing are her own. But that requires not only the capacity for self-awareness and honest self-critique… but also an active interest in knowing to what degree one’s own motivations are particularly virtuous.

Would it not be wise and far more mature for her to scrutinize her own motivations for how she is reacting before reflexively concerning herself with inventing motivations for the other person?

For instance, how certain is she that it’s not her own ego…. not his… that is too fragile to handle being challenged by the opposite sex? Perhaps she is simply having a negative emotional reaction to a man disagreeing with her and is indulging in pettiness by applying a convenient label to him to compensate for her own insecurity and wounded pride? Has she thought about that?

Has she given serious thought to the fact that attributing sinister motives as an explanation for someone disagreeing with you is a purely subjective, self-serving form of circular reasoning and is logically fallacious?

Has she reflected on the fact that she is a total hypocrite for trying to undermine the man’s point of view by using a demeaning phrase to dismiss it based entirely on his gender? Isn’t that what she is accusing him of doing and condemning him for it?

Frankly Paul, since it’s safe to say that none of this has ever occurred to the women who have latched onto this dumb slogan… I’m equally confident that none of that has occurred to you either.

Ultimately, this is a reflection of much bigger and pervasive problem: There are too many intellectually lazy people these days who uncritically and reflexively internalise fashionable, ideologically derived concepts which are propagated by the mass media… and who mistake that for being intellectually and ethically sophisticated.

In other words… If I believe what is popular to believe that makes me good.’

I would recommend cultivating an instinct for autonomous critical thinking as the antidote.

Finally, you write, “I hope you’re not implying (like so many do) that I just say these things to ‘get laid’ because that is not a motivator for morality for me.”

I have no idea what you do to ‘get laid’ nor is it a subject in which I have any interest.

I do believe however that you have acquiesced to conditioning that is telling men they are obliged to be submissive to women in general and feminist ideology in particular if they want to consider themselves ‘moral’.


Oh yeah… and Paul did in fact get the pat on the head he was looking for:

Vee: Paul , lovely to hear a voice of reason in amongst the twerps. Thanks

“Social Justice”: A benevolent sounding name for fanatical ideology

ababab

“Universities are thus caught in the battleground of competing expectations between affluent students who treat university as a transitional period between adolescence and adulthood — a place where they can freely debate ideas — and traditionally underrepresented students, who tend to view university as both a stepping stone out of poverty and a way to support their communities. That is, university education as “finishing school,” versus university education as social justice.” Angela Wright (link)

“Social Justice” is a self-justifying label invented for a very rigid, essentially fanatical and radical ideological construct. It is used by adherents to that ideology to generate a perception of benevolent intention and unquestionable moral righteousness. Putting these two words together.. ‘social, justice’.. obviously doesn’t convey any specific meaning whatsoever. Like other recently coined slogans constantly parroted by the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left like ‘white privilege’, ‘rape culture’ or ‘mansplaining‘… it is deliberately vague. The intention behind slamming these unrelated words together is more about promoting a collective, subjective impression which validates their own ideological premise rather than to express anything logically coherent or objectively true. This of course is the ideal use of language for the extreme Left because it allows any of these suddenly fashionable phrases to mean anything they say it means and to apply it in any way that suits their purposes… with the moral righteousness automatically assumed.

The author of this ‘opinion’ piece from the publicly funded state broadcaster is one of those ideologues. By framing the university in divisive terms of class and race… pitting the motivations of ‘affluent’ students (code word for white people) against the those of the “traditionally underrepresented” she is imposing that ideological construct onto the institution.

The role of the university should never be the promotion of radical and divisive ideologies. “Social Justice”… despite the intentionally soothing title… is just such an ideology and therefore should have no place in the curriculum of these publicly funded institutions of higher learning.