Rebuttals of the Week #31: Kavanaugh’s ‘temperament’ makes him unfit? No… you’re just a mouthpiece for propaganda.

 

nedia

This past week we watched as Republican nominee to the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh was forced to defend himself against increasingly wild accusations piled onto the original allegations of sexual assault from almost four decades ago which his accuser’s own named witnesses refused to corroborate under oath. Immediately following the hearings Democrats uniformly began promoting the same bizarre, cold and calculated narrative: That the emotion judge Kavanaugh displayed while defending himself is itself proof … wait for it… of his lack of fitness for the position on the Supreme Court.

Apparently the premise here is that  it is shockingly inappropriate  for a  man  under immense pressure to express indignation and anger at having his life, the lives of his wife and daughters and his reputation systematically destroyed in public for political purposes…. if he is a judge.

Why you ask? Well… because as everyone knows and as everyone has always known… the established norm is that when a judge’s life is torn to shreds under these circumstance the universally accepted standard is that he express no normal human emotion whatsoever or demonstrate any personal investment in the annihilation of his career, his good name and his reputation.

He must remain inert. Unmoved. He must accept being labelled a sadistic  serial rapist with  placid good humour. Anything other than that is abnormal; an indication of a ‘temperament’ that no one who has ever been confirmed as a Supreme Court judge would ever have demonstrated had he or she been subjected to the same thing. As more than one Democrat and their allies in the media have remarked, if this is how he reacts to having his life ruined for political purposes…. can you imagine what he’d  do with a couple beers in him?

Any objective observer regardless of their partisan preferences could immediately recognize this as nothing but the agreed upon, ruthless spin that the Democrats constructed to advance their political agenda of thwarting not just Kavanaugh’s appointment… but the appointment of any conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

The truth is that this has been the political strategy employed by the Democrats well before Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein brought forth the allegations against Kavanaugh which she had been sitting on for six weeks. The quote below from the New York Times lays it all out:

“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”

These are the extreme political machinations which form the context in which all of these events are taking place. This is a raw drive for power. Nothing noble. Nothing good. Sadly, many people are too ill-informed or too wholly given over to personal bias and blind ideological partisanship to allow any of this context to inform their interpretations or intrude upon their preferred conclusions.

In the naive, fixed constellation that is their worldview… all things Republican, Trump and conservative are malevolent and evil by definition. Their guilt and soullessness are preordained. This is treated as an axiom built into the very fabric of reality itself. There is nothing to think about. No generosity is to be afforded them. No one gets the benefit of the doubt. If you express anguish and anger as your life is systematically destroyed around you it will be interpreted as confirmation of your malevolence and incompetence. You will be openly mocked for it. If you remain stoic and detached your lack of emotion will be denounced as evidence of your guilt….”An innocent man would be furious if he was accused of such things don’t you know!”

At the same time, all things Democratic, liberal and ‘progressive‘ are unquestioningly accepted as intrinsically benevolent. They’re the tolerant, compassionate, empathetic morally excellent people after all. They must be. They tell us so all of the time. They deserve nothing but the benefit of the doubt. Their motivations are always pure and they are preternaturally immune to self-interest, lust for power, dishonesty and corruption. Why would you scrutinize and question their practices, ethics and motivations when they constantly reassure us that everything they do is righteous and just?

It is this state of childlike belief in the inherent trustworthiness of one side of the political spectrum and equally childlike belief in the cartoonish malevolence of the other that renders people so receptive to propaganda. When this is coupled with the passive absorption of messaging from a 24/7 media presence with multiple sources all projecting the same handful of video clips, soundbites and interpretations…. you end up with the pattern we see now: Politically motivated, constructed narrative leaves the lips of viciously partisan politicians… is repetitively broadcast directly into minds already primed to receive the massaging… where it is instantly transmuted into personal opinion and conviction without reflection and repeated.

Below is one of many exchanges I’ve had online over the last few days with people who are reflexively parroting the official Democratic narrative… practically verbatim.. and treating it as personal insight:

Ian Hunter: The verdict is in: Kavanaugh does not have the credibility or temperament to be a Supreme Court justice. He failed the job interview.

Going to Getugly: You are yet another person here who is demonstrating just how effective the media is at constructing the opinions of people who are easily manipulated.

It has been very revealing reading comments on media outlets in the US, Canada and Australia since the end of the hearings and seeing just how quickly people began mindlessly parroting this talking point of the Democrats… almost word for word… which has been repeatedly broadcast by Democrat friendly media about how he supposedly “not fit for the highest court in the land”. The most chilling part of it is that you’re all acting like this is an idea that you came up with on your own.

Immediately after the hearing Democrats began uniformly repeating the same messaging which was clearly the official Party narrative that had been decided should be imposed:

Democrat Robert Reich: “demonstrates a temperament unbecoming of Justice on the Supreme Court.”

Democrat Diane Feinstein: I have never seen someone who wants to be elevated to the highest court in the country behave in that manner.

Democrat Richard Blumenthal : “My opposition solidified because of temperament and fitness, which I believe he lacks.by virtue of the screed that he sat here and gave us.”

Democrat Nancy Pelosi: “We know one thing… he does not have the temperament to be a judge.”

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that it’s mere coincidence that these people on comment sections  just happen to be mimicking the Democratic narrative that the media has been repetitively broadcasting…

Ian H (Canada): “Just watching him answer the questions, he doesn’t have the fortitude and composure you’d want in someone in such a high position.”

Bek D (Australia): he clearly does not have the appropriate temperament or mentality for such a role!

Eli W (Canada) : “His demeanour and explicit partisanship alone should discount him. It is unprofessional.”

Eileen M (US): I felt that way at first but then watched him at the hearing where he revealed he is unsuitable for that important seat.

Itty R (Canada): “what I witnessed in his hearing showed that he is completely unfit to be on the Supreme Court or actually any judicial role.”

Maureen E (Canada) : “Kavanaugh was a belligerent bully who evaded all the question asked and lacks the dignity and unbiased demeanour required to preside over a court of law at any level.”

That’s a pretty widespread coincidence. It’s almost as if people are passively internalizing uniform messaging that has been broadcast at them and they are now regurgitating it as if it was their own idea.

Advertisements

Video: Conformity and the Language of the Left

In this Going To Getugly video: White privilege. Mansplaining. Rape culture. Wage gap…. It seems that as quickly as these terms are manufactured they are adopted and parroted by people eager to demonstrate their conformity.

“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.

‘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.

 

Rebuttal of the Week # 20: How genuine issues of sexual harassment become just another media-induced fashion.

se

Here’s the background to this ‘incident’. Six months ago, a male Canadian MP for the Conservative Party, James Bezan,  was in a photo-op with a female MP from the governing Liberal Party,  Sherry Romanado, and another unnamed person. As the picture was being taken, Bezan made the off-the-cuff quip, “This isn’t my idea of a threesome” –  which Bezan intended as a joke about being in a photo with a Liberal member of caucus.

Har har, right? Well, no. Not in this day and age. We live in an era in which ‘progressive’, Leftist, politically correct feminism has brought society full circle to the point we find ourselves increasingly governed by a repressive prudishness that the average Victorian  would have regarded as ridiculously prissy. Believe it or not, Romanado filed an official complaint with the chief human resources officer. Bezan, responding as a typical spineless, submissive male Canadian politician, immediately offered to enter into mediation so that he could apologize.

The chief human resources officer launched a review of the incident. That review apparently concluded that the complaint “did not support a claim of sexual harassment”.

Despite this, Bezan prostrated himself even further before the guardians of other people’s feelings and willingly submitted to Orwellian government re-education programming… otherwise known as “sensitivity training”…  offered by the House of Commons.

In a final act of self-abasement, presumably designed to demonstrate the profundity of his willingness to appease the Goddesses of political correctness and spare himself their wrath , Bezan made another grovelling apology on Monday in the House of Commons:

“Earlier this year I made an inappropriate and insensitive comment in the presence of the member for Longueuil—Charles—LeMoyne. I have nothing but the greatest respect for this member, for this institution, and I sincerely apologize.”

But again, in this day and age, a grown man holding high office voluntarily relieving himself in public of any shred of dignity or self esteem isn’t good enough for the insatiable self-righteousness of a female colleague who recognises an advantage has been presented to her to  indulge her ample ego. So Romanado… who is actually paid by hard working taxpayers for this… rose in the Commons to announce her sense of her own victimisation:

“In May, the member from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman publicly made inappropriate, humiliating and unwanted comments to me that were sexual in nature. These comments have caused me great stress and have negatively affected my work environment.”

Yes folks, this is the quality of people whom we have elected to govern us. It’s basically  high school but with gold-plated retirement packages.

But as the comments from Liz, below, demonstrate… the real problem is that too many people in the public at large are currently endorsing this societal shift towards privileging the indulgence of  individual subjective sensitivities over objectivity,  reason and principles that cause us to transcend the impulse to indulge our self-serving, narcissistic drives and motivations.


Liz: It may have made her feel uncomfortable and offended her we have no right to criticize her feelings. But I will take this opportunity to discuss how disgusted and offended I AM by the way Trudeau has his lips and arms all over everyone like it’s his backyard Bbq. We should not be able.to pick and choose who we point the finger at when the example is blatantly set at the top.

Going to Getugly: “we have no right to criticize her feelings”. That… right there… is precisely the current problem. This insipid notion that if someone ‘feels’ something we are obliged to validate it. If an adult is displaying the emotional maturity of an infant… particularly if that adult is in a position of responsibility… and even more particularly if the indulgence of that person’s subjective emotional reactivity threatens the profession and reputation of another person… we have EVERY right to “criticize her feelings”.

In a few short years we have transformed from a society which privileged character, maturity and reason… to one that seems to operate by the maudlin values of your average kindergarten teacher: “James… you’ve upset little Sherry! I want you to apologize and then go sit in the corner of the House of Commons and think about what you’ve done!”

Fantasy ‘fascism’ and the totalitarian Left

We live in Orwell’s nightmare.

There was yet another demonstration that turned violent this past week. This time it was in the picturesque, 400-year-old, walled backwater known as  Quebec City of all places. It involved a legal gathering by a relatively small group that no one on the planet Earth has ever heard of called La Meute. They were apparently protesting Justin Trudeau’s government for failing to do anything about the surge of illegal, mostly Haitian migrants pouring into Quebec across their border with the US. It’s a growing problem largely generated by the outrageously irresponsible Tweet Trudeau sent out in the midst of Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim travel ban’ controversy. In an act of self-aggrandizing virtue-signalling notable for its narcissism even by what we’ve come to expect from Justin, he essentially invited all illegal immigrants in the US to come to Canada if they feared deportation to their home countries under the Trump presidency.

jt

Anyway, the usual thugs from the far-Left showed up… bused-in 254 km from Montreal… to express their profound commitment to human decency by attacking people, destroying property and rioting. The folks from La Meute on the other hand, whose ‘far-rightyness’ was instantly proclaimed by the entire mainstream Canadian media (although I’m yet to see any attempt to support that claim by the tireless truth-seekers in Canadian journalism) and who collaborated with the police were forced to hide-out in an underground parking garage so as not to be torn to shreds by their tolerant, compassionate, loving, non-judgmental moral superiors on the allegedly ‘progressive’ Left.

You may have noticed that ever since the grotesque events in Charlottesville Virginia, the mainstream media seems to be labeling anything that isn’t ‘far-left’ as ‘far-right’… with the obvious connotations of jack-booted Nazis or slope-browed skinheads rising up from the dustbin of history to threaten all that is noble and virtuous. At the same time, they are either not identifying the far-left extremists at all… or they are treating them like the defenders of the one true and righteous belief system… whose zealous commitment to all that is wonderful and good (in other words,  their enforcement of strict conformity to Far-Left ideology) miraculously transmutes their Nazi-esque tactics  into a kind of frightening benevolence.

Maclean’s Magazine: “their violence in retaliatory self-defence was the “last resort” so often referred to by those more committed to order than justice.”

New York Times: “But the tragedy in Charlottesville… undercut the notion that the black-masked radical leftists who smash windows and hurl firebombs are an equal menace.”

CNN: “Unmasking the Leftists Antifa movement: Activists seek peace through violence.”

Reuters: “Pro-Trump supporters face off with peace activists  during protests outside a Trump rally in Phoenix,”

The Atlantic: “Using the phrase “alt-left” suggests a moral equivalence that simply doesn’t exist. For starters, while antifa perpetrates violence, it doesn’t perpetrate it on anything like the scale that white nationalists do.”

CBC: “While groups like Antifa and BLM might engage in violence at times — no one is disputing that — the major difference is that their existence is not predicated on hatred of others.”

And what does Antifa say? The Globe and Mail reported: In interviews, antifa activists explained their position. “You need violence to protect non-violence,” said Emily Rose Nauert. “That’s what’s very obviously necessary right now. It’s full-on war, basically.” 

Sure, it’s violence and oppression… but it’s violence and oppression for all the right reasons (or left reasons). There is an unmistakable ‘hate is love’, ‘war is peace’ atmosphere descending on us. You can practically taste it.

Have a look at the perception of the events that the supposedly ‘right-wing’ National Post chose to manufacture for its audience:

 

a1

Is there any doubt about the interpretation that the headline of the article above is intended to generate in the reader? The message is pretty clear: It’s the ‘right wing’ people who are the unwanted. Who are to be despised. Who represent the real threat. The fact that they collaborated with the authorities, obeyed the law, were peaceful and were the targets of the violence from the Left-wing extremists doesn’t matter. Sure, “some” completely unknown, politically and ideologically unidentifiable “counter-protesters” inexplicably “turned violent”. But it’s the non-violent, law abiding people prevented from exercising their democratic rights who are ‘right-wing” and therefore evil by definition who must be singled out as pariahs and banished.

So let’s cut through the mass cultural group-think and describe in plain language what is really happening here: The mayor of Quebec City and the National Post are consciously focusing everyone’s antipathy on a tiny, insignificant group of people who are politically right of centre… whom no one has ever heard of, who have no power, who obeyed the law and were the targets of violence and abuse of their civil rights…. while simultaneously downplaying the threat posed by the perpetrators of the violence whom they fail to name (Antifa), fail to identify as representing far-left extremism, refer to by using the generic and neutral term “counter protesters”… and who represent a widespread movement, openly supported by facets of the media establishment and the political elite…  which has endorsed and repeatedly resorted to politically motivated violence in several North American cities over the past year.

We have a submissive and neutered political class in this country who are frightened to death of appearing not to conform to ‘progressive’-Leftist ideology. At the same time, the media class has abandoned objectivity altogether and has adopted the role of conduit for the single-perspective messaging pushed out by the liberal American media machine.

It is getting harder and harder to find voices in the mainstream advancing the perspective which actually reflects authentic reality: The now inconceivable notion that normal, moral, intelligent and perceptive human beings can find things about the fashionable, ‘progressive’-Left worldview (the one preferred by the elite wielders of power and influence in the media, academia, entertainment and mainstream political establishment ) that is flawed, counter-productive and deserving of critique and criticism.

This manufactured binary conception that you either conform without question to ‘progressive’-Left ideology or you’re a Nazi is what actual totalitarianism looks like from the inside… as opposed to the fantasy fascism the political Left and their lapdogs in the mainstream media are using to sow hysteria and prejudice against any views more than half-a step to the right of Chairman Mao’s.

Going to Getugly on Facebook 

Rebuttals of the Week#11: Why ‘progressives’ hate reality

ta

Poor old Tony Abbott just can’t catch a break it seems. He makes some completely benign, not uncommon, absolutely reasonable pro-marriage comment and all the tolerant, compassionate, accepting, non-judgemental, empathetic, morally righteous ‘progressives’ and feminists take it as an opportunity to unleash upon him any vile, cruel, dehumanizing accusation and epithet their corrupt little minds can generate.

Abbott’s comment inspired the above nasty, predictably anti-male and anti-Western civilization screed by Jenny Noyes in the radical feminist propaganda pamphlet The Age. As usual, this was an invitation to all the exemplars of virtue and goodness on the ‘progressive’/feminist Left among the general public to weigh in with their own wise and insightful observations in the comment section. In other words, there was a lot of this sort of thing:

Sharon F: “Cockhead”

Sezzy: “Being a woman myself, I feel like I need protection from idiots like him. Bloody ignorant fool!”

Bubba: “the irony is that marriage has not protected his missus or kids from having a complete dickhead as a husband and father.”

Stephen: “The man is just a delusional fool. I cannot wait to see the look on his hideous head when we finally receive true equality.”

Faye W: “Abbott you are a dickhead and an embarrassment.”

So a contributor to the comment section, Carl  L, tried to raise the quality of the discourse by injecting some factual evidence into the discussion:

Carl L: Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.

ta a

Mum’s boyfriend – the worst sexual risk to children

Which provoked quite a few responses like these from folks who won’t let truth get between them and their preferred version of reality:

Kirsten A: “So, not a peer reviewed piece of literature.”

Lisa B: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”

My rebuttal, directed primarily at Lisa, is a breakdown of an extremely common thinking pattern which a lot of bad thinkers default to when they are confronted with evidence and argument that refutes their self-confirming, subjective beliefs. It’s the “Truth or Concept Pattern”. It highlights the distinction between people who have an attachment to a belief or concept which they find personally gratifying in some way,  and those who have an attachment to truth. When you become aware of the pattern, you’ll see it all of the time…. particularly when debating ‘progressives’, feminists, Leftists etc..


Going to Getugly: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”. Just like Kirsten Alys above. I’ll tell you how your mind is working here Lisa so you can improve your reasoning in the future:

Lisa’s mind: “I have a specific perception of this issue and  I’m really attached to it because  it’s very satisfying to my ego.  And I’ve never bothered to look into it because I just assume I’m right if a particular belief appeals to me.

Now I’m presented with credible information that completely invalidates my preferred assumptions and which gives me insight into actual, objective truth.

But I’m not interested in objective TRUTH! MY priority is preserving my preferred but false perception… because the satisfaction I derive from believing it is WAY more important to me than having an authentic appreciation of reality.

Problem: I refuse to update my understanding of this issue based on this new information (like a mature thinker would do)…. but I need some excuse that appears to justify my irrational denial of reality.

Solution: Oh, look! This was published in 2012.  I’ll assert that because the study was published FIVE WHOLE YEARS ago… that makes it invalid somehow! Sure, that makes no sense…. it’s a completely arbitrary proclamation…. and if I’m asked to explain why that invalidates it I’ll have to make something else up on the spot. But it’s all I’ve got! Oh yeah…. and I’ll put a condescending ‘lol’ at the end (even though that’s the sort of thing 14 year olds do) to convey that I’m so much more ‘aware’ and ‘clever’ than the dummy who provided the information.”

Do you see how transparent this flawed thinking process is, Lisa? Hopefully now that it’s been pointed out, you and Kirsten… as well as a lot of other women posting here…. will catch yourselves before you default to this pattern of inadequate reasoning in the future.