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.

Galileo-sustermans

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.
4e2a32720af661fa786d0ebe332fd2b7

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.
Advertisements

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.

sdsa

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‘.

Eww.

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!

dfdf

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.

Quick thought: The problem with the MSM

IT'S ALL AROUND YOU - Copy

The problem with the mainstream media is that it is populated with very conventional thinkers who have no interest in challenging the boundaries of established orthodoxy.

Of course, as people turn more and more to alternative sources for information and analysis, the remaining consumers of their product tend to be an older demographic of very conventional thinkers as well.

So they are stuck with catering to a loyal but dwindling clientele who are comfortably attached to the status quo and who expect their conventional worldview to be reflected back to them by the media they consume.

m

BREXIT – You say you want a revolution!

Congratulations to the people of Great Britain. For the first time in our lifetime, the majority population of an entire nation has directly and courageously confronted the establishment status quo. This is an extraordinary moment in history. It rightfully puts to shame the various sham protest movements of recent years like ‘Occupy’, ‘Slutwalk’ and ‘Black Lives Matter’.

Those ‘movements’ – manufactured as they were by media exposure, were nothing but vacuous sideshows… circuses full of clowns enjoying the sensation of rebellion by indulging in infantile histrionics – all the while risking nothing, accomplishing nothing, and ultimately proving themselves to be the face of ‘protest’ permitted by a bemused but unthreatened governing class.

In contrast, the vote to leave the European Union represents an authentic mass uprising of the people. One that conveys the unambiguous message that the era of passively submitting to being told what is good for them by their ‘betters’ is over.

In short, it is a revolutionary act. The repercussions may well be far-reaching and profound. Revolutions tend not to be easy.

But for now, let’s simply show gratitude and admiration for the example of courage and self-confidence that the people of Great Britain have provided us.

And let’s hope it catches on!

Targets of Islamic terror: Sympathy for France, Belgium… condemnation for USA. What is going on here?

1

The Charlie Hebdo attack in France. The terror attack on concert goers and cafe patrons in  Paris last November. The terror attack at the airport in Belgium this year. Each a terrible act of vicious violence perpetrated on unsuspecting, innocent people in the name of Islam, the “religion of peace”. These attacks were widely seen as not just attacks on individuals, but as assaults on the principles, values and humanity of the European countries in which they were perpetrated – and by extension, on Western civilization itself.

That is why the outpouring of sympathy from within the targeted countries and from the entire civilized world was most commonly expressed using symbols which embodied the collective violation of all that is decent and honourable about those nations.

742f1d8b22b36ddea8014b6184f34e32b31508e8

And there was certainly no shortage of sympathy on display for the those countries in the immediate aftermath of the tragic events.

So why is the country that is collectively suffering from the latest in this series of  Islamic terror attacks receiving such a different response? Why, rather than being the beneficiary  of mass sympathy, is the massacre in Orlando that has left 49 people dead and as many injured eliciting mostly condemnation of the victimized nation itself?

Untitled

cvfddUntitled.pngvb

mjUntitled.jpgdfddf

Untitled

Let’s do a simple comparison. On November 13 of last year, Islamic extremist gunmen entered a nightclub in Paris, opened fire on the crowd, killing 90 and injuring many others.

On June 12 this year, an Islamic extremist gunman entered a nightclub in Orlando Florida, opened fire on the crowd, killing 49 and injuring many others.

Following the Paris attack, there was a mass outpouring of sympathy and goodwill for the people of France and condemnation of Islamic terrorism.

Following the Orlando attack, there was a mass outpouring of condemnation of American society – focusing primarily on gun laws but also branching off into homophobia, men in general, religion in general and even American Islamophobia.

terror-meme

Nobody with a sprig of sense would have insisted that the Charlie Hebdo attack , the November terror attacks in Paris or the attack at the airport in Belgium this year were first and foremost issues of local gun control.

What happened in Orlando was just as much an atrocity fuelled by Islamic hatred of  collective Western values as the attacks in Europe – only this time perpetrated on the American people. And yet the focus of condemnation is being directed against the target of the hatred – Americans and their society. What is going on here?

Thank goodness we have Internet ‘memes’ to remind us to hate our civilization

What would we do without Internet ‘memes’ to reduce complex and nuanced issues to trite statements designed to confirm our biases?

A friend shared the one above today which was originally posted by a group calling itself Palm Oil Investigations .

In an attempt to counter the reflexive civilizational self-loathing, fashionable misanthropy and blind hypocrisy,  I thought it was worth pointing out to them that there were one or two benefits that accrued during that ‘1 minute’ period referenced in the meme….like, higher wages, increased quality of life, longer life span, lower infant mortality, established middle class, manufacturing and technological innovation, labour saving devices, mass transit, medical advances and eradication of diseases, increased food production, more leisure time, access to travel, expansion of education and literacy, expansion of human rights and democracy, animal welfare, greater opportunity and choice for earning a living, hitherto inconceivable expansion of global communication and connectivity (telegraph,telephone, radio, television, internet), indoor plumbing, electric light, efficient and convenient home heating, refrigeration…

You know, basically everything that makes our lives so comfortable, easy and spoiled that we are now able to indulge in the luxury of having time to care about the world’s forests.