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 

Advertisements

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.

 

 

CNN IS WATCHING! Trump wrestling CNN GIF CONFESSION!

So CNN went after the guy who made the Trump wrestling the CNN logo GIF. They tracked him down, found out his real name and sent him an email. The very next day, CNN hosts are on air brandishing the guy’s written confession, apology and requests for forgiveness.

In CNN’s own words, they have so far chosen not to make his personal details public “because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

But as CNN makes absolutely clear, if this supposedly free citizen does anything to upset CNN again, all bets are off:

“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”

Check out this video. This is the actual confession of the Trump vs CNN GIF CREATOR! I swear… I didn’t manipulate this video in any way. Don’t come after me CNN!

Paris Climate Change Accord and Elitist Hypocrisy

Donald Trump fulfills an election promise to withdraw the US from the completely ineffectual Paris climate accord... and the liberal, progressive Left loses its collective mind. The most incensed of course are those in the governing class who embraced the accord as an expression of their noble and superior values.

But have you ever noticed how the governing elites conduct their lives in a manner completely contrary to the values they proselytise to the rest of us? Have a look at the new Getugly video!

‘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:

Traditional values at The Age protect feminist Clementine Ford from criticism.

So I recently had a comment rejected by the overseers of all things proper and decent at the online version of the Australian daily newspaper The Age.  And sure, it’s their publication and web site… and if they want to exclude my perspective from the public conversation,  it is certainly their prerogative. It’s not the first time and I think it unlikely it will be the last. Nevertheless,  it is interesting … and I think very revealing… to look at the kind of commentary from their own readers they would prefer be denied a platform.

My unwanted remarks were in response to a column by the reliably vexatious feminist activist Clementine Ford in which she went after the critics of media personality and activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied (‘The hypocrisy that lies behind the reaction to seven words from Yassmin Abdel-Magied’)  . Yassmin had caused quite a kerfuffle recently when she used Australia’s national day of remembrance – a day dedicated to those who fought in the world wars – to indulge in a little self-aggrandizing virtue signalling about refugees via Twitter.

I didn’t address the predictably overblown backlash to Yassmin’s deliberate provocation. Instead, my comments focused on what I consider to be Clementine’s unjustified assumption that she occupies the moral high-ground in her sanctimonious judgement of Yasmin’s critics.

Here is my comment that the gatekeepers of The Age’s forum deemed undeserving of inclusion in the public discussion and debate. In my post I referenced another column by Clementine which had been published just a few weeks prior:

This moral indignation and accusations of hypocrisy are a bit rich coming from someone who used her platform in this publication a few weeks ago to target specific high school boys in Sydney for public ridicule after they made a pro-feminist video.

Not only did this adult woman express her open contempt for these kids from Sydney Boys High School and a shameless resentment for the fact they received kudos for their efforts… she suggested that threatening women with rape is much more in their character than making well-intentioned videos with positive messages about women:

“It’s better than the rape threats and abuse that schoolboys often seem to throw about the internet … but is it really an amazing project deserving of heartfelt praise and gratitude?” (Clementine Ford, March 16 2017, The Age)

vvv

As you can see in the screenshot above, there is no reason given for the decision by the overseers of the discussion board at the Age to designate a comment unworthy of inclusion. A post deemed unacceptable just ends up in the ‘rejected’ section of your ‘Masthead’ page a day or two after being submitted (the snippet in the screenshot of the other rejected comment is one I submitted in response to the previous Clementine Ford column I referenced and which inspired the video below).

Absent any declared justification for rejection, I am left to conjecture about their reasons for the rebuff.

It can’t be my use of language, since my comment is nothing other than an accurate description of Clementine’s argument using her own words which I quoted verbatim. Which leaves only one plausible explanation as far as I can tell: The Age feels obliged to protect the poor darling from having the weaknesses and inconsistencies of her perspective exposed.

Such valour! What chivalry! This instinct to shield the little lady from genuine critique of her ideas is… dare I say it… practically traditional! Even suggestive of old timey patriarchal values!

The Age is happy to let Clementine dish it out… but apparently they know she can’t take it in return. Either that, or they are well aware that Clementine is a hypocrite, a phony, an intellectual lightweight… that she is the embodiment of every cruel, bigoted, self-serving and intolerant character flaw that she and the rest of the principle-‘fluid’, allegedly ‘progressive’- Left loudly proclaim to oppose.

Ultimately, it just comes down to a good business decision on behalf of the editorial staff at  The Age. They recognise that it is in their interest to protect their property from effective scrutiny and critique.