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!’ #8: Stephen Colbert’s joke worse than homophobic… it wasn’t funny!

I have always been a big admirer of anyone who has  mastered the art of acerbic wit. The convergence of intelligence, sophistication, humour, critical insight, self-awareness, language skills and a precise comedic timing is damn impressive. People who wield this skill can expose bullshit, enlighten  and make you laugh out loud all at the same time…. often with a single,  impeccably well-observed and penetrating sentence.

The more famous maestros of the artform immediately spring to mind. Think of Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Winston Churchill or William F. Buckley in the world of politics and commentary. Of course there is Johnny Carson and Woody Allen from mainstream and late-night entertainment. John Lennon was famous for it. There is the genius of the Monty Python crew with their deliciously merciless skewering of the absurdity of the human condition itself.

One of the wonderful things about this talent is that some of its most gifted exponents are completely unknown, otherwise average people from every walk of life and background you can imagine. I’ve met several of them in my time… my own dear ol’ dad was one of the all-time greats.

So when I see bland purveyors of  contemporary ‘infotainment’ lionised by the public as comedic geniuses for smugly purging themselves of whatever adolescent, puerile inanities  happen to emerge from the black hole of narcissism that is the wellspring of their particular brand of creativity…. it bugs me.

Which leads me to my “Rebuttal of the Week” . It is inspired by the recent brouhaha ( or was it a fracas?) over hi-larious conformist,  politically Leftist shill Stephen Colbert’s homo-erotic fantasy about  Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

My exchange with commentator Jane C (below), came from her response to Washington Post columnist Craig Konnoth’s weird, social justice warrior-esque, politically correct admonishment of Colbert. Like a lot of people, Konnoth found Colbert’s joke contemptible…. but not because it was infantile, vulgar, self-consciously mean spirited and unfunny.

cv(Read: Craig Konnoth: Sorry, progressives. Gay jokes are never OK, even when you’re bashing Trump)

No, for Konnoth, Colbert’s crime was that he transgressed a sacrosanct edict of the religion of ‘progressive’-Leftism: Thou shalt not make a “gay joke”. For it has been ordained that gay jokes are “never okay”. This makes Colbert guilty of the sin of “homophobia”. And, as Konnoth reminds us, homophobia is just another form of misogyny.

Yes folks, I kid you not. Konnoth actually makes that argument in his column. Let’s take a moment to fully absorb what is happening here: We have a major American mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post (and also Canada’s National Post by reprinting the piece) promoting the notion that a particularly boorish joke about falatio is proof of an irrational ‘fear‘ of homosexuals… which is really just an expression of hatred of women.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should be mad at Stephen Colbert.

And they wonder why intelligent, reasonable adults are abandoning their lousy publications in droves.

The fact that morally superior ‘progressives’ like commentator Jane C. are fighting with morally superior ‘progressives’ like writer Craig Konnoth over who is most against homophobia and therefore the most morally superior is not only hilarious (ironically, unlike Colbert)…. it is yet another example of how the anti-rational, cognitively self-annihilating ideological foundation of the ‘progressive’-Left is causing the whole thing to collapse in upon itself ( see Progressive Left is Eating Itself Alive! ).

Here is Jane’s comment and my ‘Rebuttal of the Week!’:

Jane C: It’s a BRILLIANT monologue – super funny and it did exactly what he intended to – piss off the conservatives and those who are actually homophobic and thought that gay jokes are not ok, so here’s looking at you, writer of this article.

Going to Getugly  Going to Getugly:  Unfortunately Jane, we live in an era in which people’s context for what constitutes the zenith of wit and sophisticated late night TV humour stretches all the way back to the early days of Jimmy Kimmel.

That’s the only plausible explanation for how anyone could possibly mistake Colbert’s spewing of adolescent cheap shots designed to pander to the mundane, predictable prejudices of his comfortable, liberal, middle class audience as somehow worthy of the evaluation of “BRILLIANT”.

If you want to consider yourself some kind of aficionado of comedy… you may want to extend your exposure to the genre beyond the immediate era. If you do, you will notice that until very recently, comedy that was recognized as ‘BRILLIANT’ actually challenged and unsettled the assumptions of the comfortable, status-quo class. Now, it panders to it.

And even the most mainstream late night television hosts and their audiences could once distinguish between acerbic wit and infantile, crude vindictiveness.

Based on your comments, you clearly represent a distinct changing of the guard in this respect.

Progressive Left continues to eat itself alive!

In this video I look at how it was inevitable that an ideology based on the unquestionable credibility of infinitely finer and finer gradations of individual subjective absolute truths was going to implode under the weight of its own absurdity.

Quick thought: Carbon tax is based on a false premise, Part 2

nppp
coy-2

coyAndrew Coyne’s article: Liberals’ carbon price hardly a drastic measure

I’m astonished that Andrew Coyne would present such an atrociously anti-rational argument as this:

” But if you accept, even as a probability, that global warming is real and that it imposes costs of its own, potentially catastrophic, then the costs of action need to be reckoned against the costs of inaction. Put simply, the world cannot do nothing — nor can Canada, if it wishes to maintain its position as a member of the world community, avoid doing its part.”

This is exactly the problem we should expect from blurring the boundaries between what is supposed to be factual, ‘hard’ science… and the vague, subjective supposition, personal opinion realm of politics and social policy.

Coyne is actually making the argument that the implausible subjective belief that carbon taxes will have the effect of altering the temperature of the entire planet by exactly 2 degrees, 50 years from now and thus avert a future catastrophe that exists only as a conjecture… amounts to an obligation upon the sovereign nation of Canada to impose upon itself an onerous, extra layer of taxation to demonstrate our subordination to the preferences of an undemocratic, supra-national governing class.

What is going on here? Has everybody lost their minds?

Quick thought: Carbon tax is based on a false premise… but we’re doing it anyway.

nppp
npp
np

Read article at: Kelly McParland: Trudeau’s carbon plan means Canadians will pay more for a tax that will have very little impact

Rather than saying the tax will have ‘very little impact’…. let’s be more direct and say there is no evidence it will have any measurable effect on the climate or temperatures of the planet in the near or distant future whatsoever.
 
Therefore, the justification they are using for imposing this tax is blatantly false… and they know it. In fact, we ALL know it.
 
But we live in an era where the masses are happy to endorse the lies of the political class if they are marketed in a manner that strokes their ‘progressive’ egos and fulfils their priority of receiving social and moral validation.

Rebuttals of the week! #4: How do you drive ‘progressives’ crazy? Ask them to prove their point.

One thing that seems to catch ‘progressives’ completely off-guard is asking them to support their opinions and assertions. You often get the impression that the necessity of basing opinions on things you know to be… well, true – is just something that never occurred to them.  It’s as if expecting them to be able to prove their point is some kind of atrocious breach of ‘progressive’ etiquette or something – and all the language of compassion and tolerance is very quickly dropped when they are confronted with the fact that they really don’t know why they believe the things they espouse.

You will see in this exchange with ‘DE‘ an example of how quick ‘progressives’ are to get their backs up when you have the temerity to politely ask them to justify the definitive assertions.

The context for this exchange was a question in a survey distributed by Canadian MP Kellie Leitch to her supporters. The questions was, “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?”

The National Post published a column by Matt Gurney about the inevitable controversy that arose, called  : Is it unCanadian to worry that some would-be Canadians may be unCanadian?

Here was DE‘s take on the subject:

Doug EarlDE

 Canadian values change over time, and immigration has been one of the factors contributing to that change. Stagnant values, or the quest to somehow freeze the values of a country in time, only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others and it is usually the values of the dominant class that get so codified.

It was that first sentence in particular that caught my attention. It’s the kind of bland, generically ‘progressive’ platitude that is easy to agree with. But does it really mean anything? Is his assertion about the world connected to any actual knowledge or information? And if not, then why offer it as an opinion or hold it as a belief?

So I asked….

How has immigration “been one of the factors contributing to that change”?

“only leads to intolerance because it codifies one set of values over all others”
Are you suggesting that there are not values that are better than others?

Doug EarlDE

 Because new people bring new ideas and values to a situation and for a society to progress both sets of values must be reconciled. And yes there are values that are better than others, but which are which is subjective. Generally speaking, people who think their values are 100 per cent superior to everyone else’s have at least one glaring flaw in their value system–a gross and misplaced sense of their own moral superiority. That’s not a value that needs to be perpetuated. In fact, it’s a value that often leads to aggression, and, on a societal level, to war.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

That all sounds very nice …. but you didn’t answer the question. What ‘new ideas and values’ did Canada gain that it had lacked and which immigration brought and improved us?

Doug EarlDE

Obviously you feel that the continuous immigration to Canada over the past 400 or so years, including that of your own ancestors, has added nothing of value to the country. In your case, I’m afraid I am forced to agree.

Whoa! Where did that come from? Like I said, as is the case with most ‘progressives’, it didn’t take much for DE to drop the facade of tolerant, non-judgemental, compassionate pluralist and reveal the nasty, vindictive nature just below the surface.

And notice that he responds to a request for evidence by inventing an unflattering opinion for me that I have never expressed but which he asserts I “obviously feel”. He then attacks me for the opinion that he just made up and projected onto me.

It’s important to pause and think about that response and what it says about the character, the intellect and the reasoning skills of the person. It’s important because once you are aware of it, you will see that ‘progressives’ resort to this over and over again. And the purpose of ‘Rebuttals of the Week’! is to build a case that objectively demonstrates that people who are attracted to and who embrace ‘progressive’ concepts, ideals, politics and policies are inherently poor thinkers.

Here is how I responded to DE‘s ‘straw man’ argument. As you will see, he just kept digging himself deeper into the same hole:

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

What is obvious is that not only have you made an assertion that you can’t support… but one which you don’t actually believe. If you did believe it, you would have answered the question without hesitation the first time… let alone the second time. Of course, this is precisely why I posed the question: To highlight the fact that people such as yourself like to say things that make you feel very pluralistic and superior….but which have no connection to anything you actually know to be real. This is nothing but a self serving pose that you have adopted.

Doug EarlDE

Yeah, except there’s something you’re missing and that is that your question is so obviously that of a troll. You know as well as I do that immigrants from over 200 countries who have come here over the past 400 years have brought an almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country and that one of the foundational ideas of Canada is multiculturalism itself–to your great dismay, I’m sure. So if you want a list, troll, why don’t you make us a list of all the countries that have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution. Start with the country of your own ancestors, Underabridgeia.

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 I’m a ‘troll’ because you’re embarrassed to admit you were just trying to say something politically-correct sounding that you don’t really mean? You say things like “almost infinite multiplicity of ideas and values that are essential to the character of this country” …. but you can’t actually name one. And by the way…. multiculturalism is not an “idea or value” that immigrants brought here. It’s an idea that brought immigrants here. The fact that you’ve made a very transparent attempt to deflect from your inability to answer the question by putting the onus on me to ‘make a list’ to support a claim I never made just shows how desperate you are to salvage your credibility. Sadly, it has the opposite effect.

Doug EarlDE

That all sounds very nice…. but you didn’t answer the question. What countries have provided immigrants to this great country, but whose people you believe have made no contribution?

 

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly

 Really? You think doubling down on a straw man fallacy bolsters your credibility? You’ve had four opportunities now to select a single example from the “infinite multiplicity” you insist supports your claim. And all you’ve done for the last two posts is try and deflect from the fact that you have nothing to offer because your opinion isn’t based on having actually thought about it. Like most liberals/’progressives’ – you choose opinions you think will enhance your self-image rather than cultivating a point of view based on reasoned analysis, objectivity and critical thinking.

 

Doug EarlDE

Nope, that’s not it.

Going to Getugly Going to Getugly

Very convincing counterargument.

How to beat the ‘progressive-Left’ and ‘Rebuttals of the Week’!

There are basically two kinds of people. First, there are those who are intellectually courageous and free thinking. These are people who at some point in their lives have recognized just how susceptible we all are to allowing our mostly unconscious , primal desire for social validation to shape our perspective. These people understand how conformity to the value system of the tribe is reflexive, instinctual and seductive….and how only by cultivating a detached, critical and sceptically curious approach can we counteract this default reflex and  have any hope of  developing an appreciation for the world approximating something like truth.

Now consider the ‘progressives’. These are people who are either completely ignorant of these inherent, reality distorting impulses or for whom the promise of ego gratification and social acceptance is so irresistible  that any aspect of objective reality which presents a barrier to that indulgence is simply ignored or dismissed.maxresdefault (1)

This is the Achilles heel of all ‘progressive’/Left thinking. And targeting this undeniable and easily demonstrated blind-spot is the most effective way to confront those who espouse ‘progressive’ ideas. Not by attacking what they think…but how they think. Because the truth is that ultimately… they don’t think.  They merely adopt, internalise and repeat.

Well enough is enough. It’s time for thinking people to take back control from the weak minded, the emotionally self-indulgent, the intellectually immature and the flat-out, bat-shit crazy. It’s time for those who value reason, rationality, objectivity, critical thinking –  and who are capable of genuine self-reflection and self-awareness to reimpose control of the situation before it is too late. That is… if it’s not too late already.

My small contribution will be to post a selection of the interactions I’ve had with people who exemplify the flawed thinking style routinely practised by ‘progressives’, SJWs, Third Wave Feminists and their ilk. I’ll present this under the heading – ‘Rebuttals of the Week’!  Hopefully this can be instructive…. because an obvious pattern emerges when you collect examples of ‘progressive’ thinking in one place: It quickly becomes clear that people who share these opinions demonstrate identical flaws in their reasoning. And if we want to undermine their claim to moral, ethical and intellectual credibility…let alone supremacy – we need to hammer at  the ‘progressive’/Left’s inability to engage the critical thinking skills that are a requisite for generating a perspective that adequately reflects objective reality.

These people are not insightful. They don’t even care about insight or truth. Their only priority is projecting a persona that conforms to currently fashionable concepts of moral propriety.darwin-magellanA brief glance at history would reveal that every era and every society has had a mainstream concept of what should be considered ‘acceptable and good’ that was reinforced by the elite and the ruling class – and which only a small portion of courageous, free-thinking contrarians challenged and confronted. With the advantage of hindsight,   we now recognize that – almost without exception – it was the insightful outliers challenging the status quo who propelled society forward and overturned the corrupt structures that primarily benefited the elite.

Rosa Parks: an introvert who changed the world.

Galileo-sustermans

It’s Galileo and Copernicus challenging the status quo of the Catholic Church and ushering in the scientific revolution. It’s William Wilberforce forcing the establishment to face the immorality of the slave trade – leading to the abolishment of slavery in the West. It’s Charles Darwin. It’s Magellan and Columbus. Einstein and Freud. King and Parks. Picasso and Presley. And all of the unknown and unheralded individuals throughout history who resisted enormous social pressure to conform and obey.
4e2a32720af661fa786d0ebe332fd2b7

All of us have a choice: We can be part of that legacy of free-thinking individuals championing truth, clarity and transformation….. Or we can keep our heads down, parrot all of the popular memes, slogans and socially sanctioned opinions – demand nothing of ourselves other than that our values mimic those of our peers – and bask in the validation that comes with compliance and conformity with the herd.

Here is a sample of the interactions with ‘progressives’ that I’ll be including in the ‘Rebuttals of the Week!‘. The context of my debate with ‘S’ – who describes herself a “bleeding heart” and “leftie” – is UK columnist Brendan O’Neill’s recent article –We must have the freedom to hate: Hatred is an emotion, and the state has no business policing emotion. – and his appearance on the Australian panel show Q&A.

As is customary for tolerant, non-judgemental, deeply “compassionate” progressives – S’s initial comment is not a critique of O’Neill’s argument…. but a personal, harsh and definitive attack on his character:

Stacey NixonS… You may have the space to be hateful & small, if that is what you wish??? You do not have the right to make us be like you 💕

(You gotta love that she included the little love-hearts at the end. Adorable, right? It’s like she’s saying “You’re a thoroughly despicable, insignificant person – and the reason I’m entitled to judge you is because I’m so much better than you….. and I’m saying that with love“.  You see this blindness to hypocrisy and irony from ‘progressives’ over and over again. It’s a standard trait that you’ll notice time and again in other ‘Rebuttals of The Week’.)

Going to GetuglyGoing to Getugly With that statement you have perfectly demonstrated the primary motivation for those who support ‘progressive-Left’ policies…. it’s the desire to think of yourself as morally superior. So anything that feeds that desire is reflexively supported. It has nothing to do with truth, reason or the application of critical thinking skills.

Stacey NixonS…  Not morally superior, just no desire to compete. The truth is I am better than no one. The application of my skills is in listening, not talking. We seek enlightenment on different paths…but that is ok. You are interesting, I never understood those who separate fact from emotion – we would have some great chats!

Oh, we would have some great chats! That’s for sure. My full exchange with ‘S’ is in ‘Rebuttals of the Week!’#2.