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?

Advertisements

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.

Liberals introduce bill to protect transgender Canadians from hate speech and discrimination

The Canadian Press reports that Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party continues to prioritize ‘virtue signalling’ as it panders to as many fashionable social justice preoccupations as possible.

See report here: ‘Liberals introduce bill to protect transgender Canadians from hate speech and discrimination’

The number of transgendered people is less than 1%. You would be hard pressed to find an issue that directly affected less people than this one.

And yet we are constantly being bombarded with it as if it is a huge and pressing priority.

We’re being manipulated and lied to.

Welcome to Orwell’s world.

 

 

More unsolicited advice from Canada’s ‘Prime Life Coach’, Justin Trudeau

 The constant refrain we hear from feminists – particularly when they are responding to any form of criticism – is that feminism is simply about equality for women. That being they case, they insist, anyone who has a problem with feminism just doesn’t like everyone being treated the same.

That’s why the Prime Minister of the nation of Canada is taking it upon himself to issue special instructions specifically directed at men to exercise extra vigilance when speaking to women. It seems that women have sensitivities that are peculiar to their gender and men have a special obligation to make allowances for them.

And THAT’S how you get equality.

See how easy it is?

I would be astonished to think that any mature thinking woman wouldn’t find it profoundly condescending to have this man giving ‘how to talk to women’ lessons… as if they’re some weird subset of the species that need men’s special care and attention.

It’s as if feminism has finally gone full circle. Are we actually at the point where its proponents are advocating that men think of women exactly the way they used to BEFORE feminism?

When a rich, powerful, elite, establishment man who insists that women need special consideration and treatment from men due to their gender-specific sensitivities is lauded by feminists as a champion of their cause….I  think it’s safe to say the  movement has jumped the proverbial cisgendered shark.

Going To Getugly on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/goingtogetugly/

 

The hypocrisy of the climate change elite

Harris Signs

Like many jurisdictions around the Western world, Canada is  currently crawling with politicians desperate to demonstrate their “progressive” credentials by enacting various policies for the purported goal of saving the planet from climate change.

This of course comes in the wake of last year’s Paris Climate Thingy or whatever it was called – which enticed the world’s ruling elite to burn through more fossil fuel in a few days than entire towns consume in a year – travelling as they did in CO2 spewing government planes by their hundreds to the City of Environmentally Unfriendly Lights, staying at luxury hotels, dining on expensive French cuisine and being chauffeured to and fro in gas guzzling limousines. All for the noble cause of ensuring that the rest of us face such punishing economic and social repercussions for the comparative fraction of energy consumption required to sustain a reasonable facsimile of a middle class existence.

Of course, I’m sure these politicians-cum-self anointed super-heroic planet savers detest all the luxuriating in opulent splendour and environmentally damaging extravagance. And sure…. it may look mind-numbingly hypocritical. And it may look like the same entitlement to privilege of the “let them eat cake” variety that the ruling class have claimed for themselves since the dawn of civilization. But let’s not be cynical.

Take tax-payer subsidised enviro-guru David Suzuki for example. As he patiently explained in a recent interview, he simply has to jet-set around the globe. It’s necessary for his lucrative career, you see. And he has to own multiple, excessive energy consuming  luxury properties. They’re investments, don’t you know. After all, you don’t expect him to prioritize concern for the environment over his preferred lifestyle and economic self-interest, do you? That would be nuts! Who would advocate such a notion?

Similarly, I am sure that if our politicians decided that it was in their best interest to adopt a lifestyle that reflected their deeply held beliefs they would do so.

Okay, perhaps the sincerity of our political class is open to question. But at least the policies they are committed to imposing on us are founded on a premise of such unassailable precision that such state intrusions and the excoriation of anyone who questions their efficacy is justified.

For surely if there was reasonable evidence that the theoretical impetus for these policies was less certain than we have been led to believe… and surely if there was even a hint that the scientists and institutions that have hitched their credibility – and therefore funding opportunities – to the theory were engaged in anything other than disinterested, objective pursuit of truth…then such aggressive implementation of said policies could only be understood as either reckless governmental incompetence or deliberate deception.

Perhaps it is useful at this point to note a widely unreported report in the journal Nature Climate Change issued within the last few weeks. It is relevant to the issue at hand because it confirms that there has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming since 1998. It also says that the media supported attempts by major scientific institutions(such as NOAAthat represent the primary sources for the promotion of the catastrophic man-made climate change agenda) to smear the credibility of science that contradicted their narrative was unfounded.

The paper states:

“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.”

This is but the latest of any number of significant challenges to the narrative of  the alleged “settled science” that ever increasing CO2 emissions are the causal factor to impending catastrophic  global warming.

That the mainstream media appear disinclined to report such significant findings is perplexing. That our governing elite are so eager to expand their power on the basis of a premise that is so evidently deserving of renewed scrutiny is deeply troubling.

Animal welfare activism or anti-Western, misanthropic impulse?

The following post is a critique of this recent column from Huffington Post Canada :

How Our Cultural Narcissism Is Killing The Planet

Posted: 03/28/2016 3:10 pm EDT Updated: 03/28/2016 5:59 pm EDT

DOLPHIN SELFIE

Like most reasonable people, I saw the killing of a dolphin by “selfie” seeking beach goers in Argentina as an ugly act of stupidity. Other than a general agreement on that basic premise, I found the rest of this recent column  from Huffington Post Canada contributor Laura Bridgeman to be riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.

For instance, the author condemns humans for “anthropocentrism” while insisting we recognize ourselves as “part of nature”. Let’s set aside the fact that if humans are “part of nature”, then anything they do must also be “part of nature”. Regardless, it is hard to think of a more “natural” instinct than privileging your own species. Is there an example of “other-than-human animals” that put the interests of different species ahead of their own?

Perhaps some would be tempted to defend the author’s position by arguing that the human capacity for choosing between right and wrong, for conscience, reason, moral and ethical evaluation etc. puts a unique onus on humans to consider more than merely their natural impulse for self-interest. But wait… would that not indicate that humans are in fact ‘superior’ to other animals in certain very significant ways?

These qualities are hard to reconcile with the unambiguous belief of the author that animals are in fact superior to humans – a belief that is made clear by her deft substitution of the clumsy phrase “other-than-human animals” in the first half of her piece with the clumsy and misanthropic expression “more-than human” animals in the second half.

Weirdly, she sets up two distinct categories: humans who privilege their own interests on one side, and indigenous communities, cetaceans and the rest of the non-human animal world on the other. Exactly what species does she include indigenous people among?

Misanthropy and a fashionable loathing of Western civilization is embedded throughout this column. Anyone who is even mildly motivated by objectivity and common sense realizes that the only societies that places any emphasis on animal welfare whatsoever are those of the European-based, Western world.

Why do ‘progressives’ refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with the premise of catastrophic man-made climate change?

In Sight, 36 X 48 inches - Copy
A recent column in the Ottawa Citizen posed the question, “Conservatives and climate change just don’t mix. But why not?” The author of the piece, Mohammed Adam, was at pains to fathom the great mystery of why this peculiar sub-category of the human species don’t simply accept the premise of catastrophic man-made climate change like he and his friends… you know, normal people – have all done. Adam prefaced his argument by stressing that this was definitely “not an attempt to pass judgement“. Heaven forbid! He then offered a statement of his true intentions which expressed no passing of judgement whatsoever: “It is really an effort to understand why conservatives often park themselves on the wrong side of this compelling issue”.
In other words, there are two sides: People who agree with him, and people who are predisposed to being wrong. But just to be clear, he’s not passing judgement.
Adam’s support for his premise amounted to random quotes from conservative politicians expressing varying degrees of uncertainty about the conclusiveness of the anthropogenic climate change theory. Tellingly, he felt no obligation to provide any specific evidence or argument to justify his assertion that this automatically situated these people on the “wrong side” of the issue. Actual reasons for embracing or not embracing the definitiveness of the theory are apparently irrelevant as far as Adam is concerned. You are simply obliged to embrace it – otherwise he is entitled to ‘not judge’ you as being unwilling or unable to comprehend what he deems the only acceptable opinion.
Of course, the question Adam poses could easily be turned around to ask: “Why do ‘progressives’ refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with the premise of catastrophic man-made climate change?”
Part of the answer to that compelling question could be the tendency to take for granted that concepts which appeal to them automatically equate with pure, unqualified truth. Could the unexamined conviction that their own perspective is immune to bias or error account for this habit of seeing dissenting views as symptoms of pathology?
Could this be the explanation for progressive’s commitment to an exclusively uncritical embrace of the man-made climate change premise? Is it plausible that their ultimate motivation has more to do with a desire to identify with ego-enhancing narratives than pursuing objective reality?
It is worthwhile noting that within the past month the journal Nature Climate Change issued a report confirming that there has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming since 1998. It also says that the widely reported efforts by major scientific institutions to discredit science that contradicted their narrative was unfounded. The paper states:
“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.”
This is but the most recent in a long list of challenges to the catastrophic man-made climate change narrative. No doubt those who define the “right side” of the issue as uncritical, reflexive acceptance of that narrative will steadfastly deny the implications of this one as they have all of the others.