Canada’s largest newspaper now mainstreaming anti-white racism

Things are changing folks. And not for the better.

This op ed by national columnist Vicky Mochama was published in the Toronto Star this week:


star


The Star is the biggest newspaper in Canada. It has always been known as a decidedly Left-of-centre publication. But as the extreme far Left has come to dominate Leftist thinking in general, the Star has kept pace and has moved to reflect those extremes. By presenting radical ideological concepts in the most mainstream, ubiquitous platform imaginable… they are attempting to shift the public’s perception of these extreme ideas and to normalize them.

The Star has truly ‘jumped the shark’ this time. Publishing articles in a still widely read mainstream newspaper that promote the concept of ‘whiteness‘ as a social ill that society has failed to ‘grapple with’ is signalling that racist ideology of the far Left and the collective demonisation of white people is perfectly normal and acceptable.

It’s actually quite shocking to see the same intellectually barren and contemptible ideas that were once confined to loony, hyper-partisan web sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed now presented as credible mainstream editorial content.

If that wasn’t bad enough… these types of far-Left ideological screeds are almost always terribly written. How these people manage to write for a living is a complete mystery. For example, Mochama uses a 2017 mass shooting by Alexandre Bissonnette at a Mosque in Quebec in which six people were killed… an almost unheard of category of crime in Canada… as evidence of the scourge of ‘whiteness’. She writes:

“His crime is exceptional; he, however, is not. Bissonnette is as Canadian as the good old hockey game.”

Mochama makes no attempt to reconcile the contradiction in characterizing Bissonnette’s actions as ‘exceptional’…. in other words, anomalous in relation to the behavior of every other Canadian… while insisting that he simultaneously personifies the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian.

The explanation for her indifference to the logical incoherence of her reasoning is obvious: she is far less concerned with making logical sense as she is with conveying her feelings of animus and contempt for white people. The goal is not to communicate a rational insight or to say something objectively true. It is strictly to let you know that she personally makes an equivalence between this despicable mass murderer and white Canadians in general.

Does Mochama ever get around to connecting any of these disparate dots to show how a crazy gunman, white people as a race and Canadian society come together to support the gaseous concept of ‘whiteness’?

Nope.

She just carries on… stream of consciousness style… presenting what appear to be random, fanciful interpretations which she feels no urge to justify or connect to anything objectively real. To be honest, it’s more like reading the personal journal of someone whose purpose for writing is merely to disgorge the flurry of subjective impressions running through her head rather than making coherent, reasoned arguments.

For instance, she says that because Bissonnette is white, “his murderous anger was given the benefit of the doubt. The guns he killed with were purchased legally without a hint of an obstacle. His whiteness provided cover for a deeply dangerous violence.”

You’re probably asking yourself….what the hell is that supposed to mean?  “Because he is white, his murderous anger was given the benefit of the doubt.”  Really? How do you quantify that? “His whiteness provided cover for a deeply dangerous violence.” It did? How does that work?

Perhaps you are giving Mochama the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she must have elaborated and clarified how these intangible premises relate to something that can be objectively evaluated or demonstrated.

Nope.

Mochama just carried on with a completely different set of premises, personal impressions and tenuous connections between things that are not obviously related.

You may think I’m being unfair and selecting bits from her column out of context to emphasize the incoherence of her thesis. I can assure you that I’m not. I will provide a link below to the original article for you to judge for yourself.  Be prepared… it’s a very irritating read.

link: Every time is the right time to grapple with whiteness in Canada

 

Advertisements

‘Cultural appropriation’ propaganda pushed by mainstream media

Watch four of the most sanctimonious and obnoxious ‘progressives’ to ever walk the Earth lecture the ignorant masses about ‘cultural appropriation’ in this blatant piece of mainstream media propaganda. New Getugly video:

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.