“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.
“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.
Claire S: Toxic masculinity is clearly defined by P45’s “grab ’em by the pussy” comment, especially if when combined with the many “what, yer gonna judge him for that?” responses. A better adjusted masculinity would see more men crying in public and fewer men leering and groping. If the phrase “toxic masculinity” offends you, is it because you practise and justify it?
Going to Getugly: Claire, you demonstrate perfectly why these absurd, ‘progressive’ slogans are so odious. They offer a veneer of intellectual credibility for the indulgence in plain old pettiness, shallow thinking and bigotry.
You parrot the ridiculous “toxic masculinity” expression exactly as it was intended… as a vague catch-all term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean in order to justify their desire to collectively vilify men. The arrogant, self-aggrandizing chauvinism in your Orwellian phrase “A better adjusted masculinity” speaks volumes. And the anti-rational, circular reasoning of your conclusion… that the only explanation for men rejecting the validity of this vacuous slogan is that they want to indulge in the very premise they reject… displays the atrocious logic and self-serving rationalisations of the people who embrace this nonsense.
The mindset behind this is obvious: The standard for the norm of maleness is to be determined exclusively by feminist women. And that standard basically defines men as ‘adjusted’ to perfection when they mirror those women back to themselves. And apparently this includes infantile emotional self-indulgence and “crying in public”.
One of the pathologies in all of this of course is the schism between this currently fashionable feminist group-think conception of how women supposedly want men to be… and the characteristics of men that women actually tend to like, respond to and find attractive. So we have self-absorbed, narcissistic women raising a generation of boys to hate and disassociate from their own nature and to conform to a feminized version of the perfect man… who then will go out in the world and discover that women despise them for embodying the very characteristics they were trained to believe made them acceptable to women. Good job ladies.
(Link to the article: Equal outcomes have replaced equality of opportunity )
Tracy H: Who says diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive?
Going to Getugly: Tracy… you are the third person I’ve seen here who has indulged in the very same, unbelievably banal straw man:
Liam SO: Why do you think that diversity of thought or intellect is mutually exclusive to racial, gender, ethnic and sexual diversity???
Leslie M: The article confuses different issues; excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive…
To me, this is an example of the incapacitating effect that being captured by a generic, all-consuming ideology has on an individual’s ability to think: You reflexively go to preconceived ideological categories in your head to tell you how to interpret what you are looking at rather than identifying the genuine characteristics of the ‘thing’ you are (supposedly) trying to understand.
Nowhere in Wente’s column does she say “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”. Neither does she make that argument.
And yet you and at least two others here have asserted that she directly or indirectly made that claim.
So if it didn’t come from Wente…. how did it get in your head? The only answer to that question is that it got in your head because YOU put it there. Not her.
When you say she said “diversity and excellence are mutually exclusive”… you are not describing Wente! You are describing YOU! Only you can’t tell the difference between what you make up in your mind and the ‘thing’ out there in the world that you believe you are describing.
And in my experience… this is the foundational characteristic of people who are on the ‘progressive’-Left. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s a demonstrable justification for equating ‘progressivism’ with incompetent reasoning skills.
Halloween is fast approaching… so naturally the ‘Let’s Pretend Trivial Nonsense Is Incredibly Important Squad’ is back to remind us that comfortable people in a uniquely successful and pluralistic civilisation will invent problems for themselves in order to have something to complain about.
Whereas normal people see the holiday as a rare opportunity to temporarily escape an increasingly mirthless, censorious and rigidly conformist daily grind (once known as having fun)… the New Puritans of the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left are intent on making sure that the rest of us are just as miserable, uptight, boring and uncomfortable with spontaneity and as themselves.
That’s why something like the packaging of obscure, seasonal products that have no effect on anyone can be accepted as worthy of intense scrutiny and moral consternation by major mainstream news organisations like the Globe and Mail.
The article prompted the following, reasonably non-agitated response from Michael G:
Michael G: If you’re secure with yourself and heritage/culture, it’s not really an issue. All I’d be pissed about is having a non authentic costume….obviously those depicted are not authentic representations. But still i wouldn’t get my breaches in a bunch about it…
Commentator Su Con however, found Michael’s take on the matter to be in conflict with the standard ‘progressive’ party-line:
Su Con: Given the racism that still exists, how can they be secure? Doesn’t this all come down to trying to change that?
So I helped clarify the situation:
Going to Getugly: No. This has nothing to do with stopping racism. It’s about two very specific things:
1. It’s about people who want to leverage their ‘victim’ status in order to see their will imposed on other people.
2. It’s about mainstream, middle-class people who find it gratifying to their ego and self-image to appear supportive of any fashionable trend… regardless of how stupid… that is marketed to them as atoning for past wrongs inflicted on minorities.
These two videos explore in detail what is really going on with the whole ‘cultural appropriation’ craziness:
In the article, John Doyle asserts: “It is stating the obvious to note that satiric comedy is enjoying a golden age in the United States. Every late-night chat show benefited from a tumultuous election and the triumph of Donald Trump. The Daily Show, much less pugnacious than under Jon Stewart, is thriving. The arrival of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Full Frontal with Samantha Bee only underlines that the appetite for the genre is huge.
The landscape here in Canada is different, but surely it is ripe for more caustic humour than we’ve been getting.”
Doyle is an example of the PROBLEM… not the solution.
The reason Canadian comedy is so meek and unfunny is NOT because it isn’t sufficiently like current American comedy. It’s because Canadian comedy is an even lamer version of the same predictable pandering to the conceits, assumptions and biases of the comfortable liberal middle class that defines American comedy today.
It’s simply delusional to believe that there is anything dangerous or brave about millionaire, Hollywood establishment liberal American television comedians telling an audience of mainstream, middle-class liberals that they are absolutely right about everything.
In the article, Doyle claims that these mainstream TV comedians like John Oliver, Samantha Bee and Jimmy Kimmel are encouraging everyone to “mock and distrust authority”. Now that’s funny! It’s also in complete defiance of reality!
These people are the CHEERLEADERS for the unchallenged authority of the ruling class. Don’t believe me? Then answer this question: Who does everyone… and I mean EVERYONE… in the political establishment, the mainstream media establishment, the Hollywood establishment and the academic establishment… in other words, all of the elites with power and authority in society…. absolutely despise and want to destroy right now?
You know the answer.
So you have to ask yourself…. who is really the one openly mocking and encouraging distrust of those who have grown accustomed to their hold on power and authority?
Nath: Sorry to the snowflakes who have to learn new words(I understand basic comprehension of proper grammar is probably hard for y’all). It’s called compassion, suck it up and get with the times.
Going to Getugly: Imposing your values on other people by making this mandatory is as far from ‘compassion’ as you can get. This fondness that ‘progressives’ have for changing the meaning of words to give a morally superior facade to their desire to force people to conform to their worldview is pathetic.
Nath: So you aren’t imposing your views by trying to stop it? It doesn’t hurt anyone. Its so people can understand. These people exist and deserve to be treated as people.
Going to Getugly: How do you know it “doesn’t hurt anyone”? And clearly, you don’t understand the meaning of “imposing”. Imposing means forcing someone to do something whether they agree with it or not. Saying “Don’t impose this on people”… is the OPPOSITE of imposing things on people. Unfortunately, you have provided yet another example of how the only reasoning that ‘progressives’ seem capable of engaging is self-confirming, logically incoherent circular reasoning.
Nath: Clearly we disagree. I don’t necessarily agree with the whole trans thing, especially when it comes to children, I find it strange. But, these people just want acceptance in society. I see nothing wrong with doing that. Why do you disagree with it?
Going to Getugly: Well as you say, the “whole trans thing, especially when it comes to children” is extremely troubling. In fact, it is completely irrational to propose that human beings at the earliest stages of their development… whom we don’t even grant authority to decide for themselves when they go to sleep or what they eat for dinner… are nonetheless completely competent to declare that their ‘identity’…whatever that is…. is the opposite of the reality of their biology. These are concepts that even reasonably informed adults are finding extremely challenging to contextualize…. and yet we’re granting absolute authority to the self-assessment of 13 year olds.
My concern is that today’s adults are prioritising their desire to not be seen as being out-of-step with fashionable ‘progressive‘ ideology over the true well-being of children. And the intention of The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (which Professor Jordan Peterson has called “one of the most dangerous institutions in Canada”) pressuring institutions like the Ontario Hockey Federation into imposing these policies is to FORCE people to agree with all of this and to make it so socially, professionally and even legally unpleasant to question the wisdom of any of it that people just obediently submit and conform.
And all of that is terrible.