“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.

Advertisements

Telling the most inclusive, tolerant and welcoming people in the history of human civilisation how uncommonly racist they are is going to backfire.

 

islaa

 “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.

Fake News: National media hypes bogus ‘hate crime’ story

cbc c

This was national headline news in Canada for three days. The Mayor of Toronto, the Premier of Ontario and even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau felt obliged to release official statements about it.

Even if this had been TRUE it would have been a minor… if ugly,  isolated incident.

But the CBC gave these people a national platform, hyped the story out of rational proportion and broadcast it repeatedly around the clock. It was the lead story on their flagship nightly news program The National! That’s how consumed the mainstream media in Canada is with demonstrating their ‘progressive’ bona fides and virtue signalling. Some random little girl lies to her mum and before anyone has bothered to activate a neuron or two…. our $1 billion a year, taxpayer extorting, state-run, multimedia news and information corporation has turned it into a national news event and an indictment of the character of Canadian society.   As mentioned above, even the Prime Minister jumped at the opportunity to get in on the act and virtue signal… thereby blowing the incident even further out of proportion.

And yet the same CBC and other mainstream media corporations keep telling us that THEY are the only sources of news and information that can be trusted…. and that it’s those grotty little alternative media outlets… which just happen to pose a threat to their own jobs and industry… who must be seen as having no credibility and expunged from the Internet for being purveyors of ‘fake news’.

The underlying problem here is more troubling and insidious than simply a lack of due diligence on behalf of professional journalists…. which is a serious problem in its own right. The incautious enthusiasm to believe and imbue this story with a significance far beyond anything such an isolated incident should merit exposes how the media has exchanged objective reporting for the promotion of narratives which reflect a ‘progressive’-Left worldview: “Of course a little Muslim girl was attacked by a man driven insane by his hatred and racism! That’s the inherently racist, Islamophobic, far-right, white male privileged, random hijab scissoring world we live in don’t ya know!”

‘Progressives’ will ignore the media’s role in turning what was literally a non event into national moral crisis and simply delete this from their consciousness. For these people, critical judgement is a faculty reserved exclusively for people and institutions with whom they disagree. And the next time the CBC or another mainstream media outlet frames a story in a way that just happens to mirror the assumptions and preoccupations fashionable among the Left or casually dehumanizes their enemies by labeling them ‘racist’…. they will be comforted by the affirmation while taking for granted that they are getting an unobstructed, unmediated window directly onto objective reality.

‘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.

 

Video: The Left Demonize People Who Can Think

New Going to Getugly video: Just as ‘progressive’-Left ideology manufactures a flattering generic identity for its adherents… it also manufactures a generic, dehumanizing identity for anyone who doesn’t conform to its worldview.

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!”

Rebuttals of the Week! #17: Feminist bigotry and logical fallacies.

ageee

Kerry S: Cue all the men explaining why the gender pay gap isn’t a thing

Going to Getugly: Kerry, care to provide some kind of rational explanation for why men replying is a problem for you?

Kerry S: Ok. I’ll bite. Men replying is not a problem, per se. It’s just that soooo many of them spout the same old line despite the longitudinal evidence proving otherwise. I didn’t answer you because clearly you are spoiling for a fight and it is clear to me that rational argument would be wasted. You have made up your mind.

Going to Getugly: We could go on with the battling snarky comments… but I’d rather attempt a genuine conversation. Let me do a quick review of what has occurred and get your response:

The Age has posted an article.

– People have responded to the article by expressing their perspective in the comment section.

– You have started off this little thread… not by addressing anything raised in the article or responding to criticism or concerns raised by commentators… but by expressing generalised condescension towards anyone of a particular gender who may express disagreement with the article’s premise.

– Another commentator, Kelly, joined in on the generalised condescension towards people based solely on their gender and not their arguments:

Kelly :  “I’m just here to laugh at their bitter tears and tantrums”

– You replied in agreement with her and complained about the number of people of that gender expressing their perspective here:

Kerry S: “Kelly Anne yup. Skimming across the replies. Nearly all men…”

I think you have to agree that what I have described above is completely accurate and factual.

Now, my understanding of credible adult-level reasoned discussion and debate has always been that attacking anything other than the argument of the other person reflects incompetent reasoning. It’s fallacious. It signals someone who has a fixed conclusion to which they are very attached and are determined to protect… but which they can’t rationally and objectively support or justify. That’s why they deflect to complaining about anything OTHER than the arguments… things like the gender, race or age of the person who doesn’t share their convictions. Other deflection tactics include things like declaring themselves too far above the level of the other person to deign to engage them in rational debate.

It seems clear that you don’t share that understanding of what qualifies as credible reasoned discussion and debate. I’m curious, on what basis do you justify rejecting these basic, well established and essentially universally acknowledged standards? And why would you believe that demonstrating your rejection of those standards is not open to valid criticism and doesn’t disqualify you as being regarded as an informed and serious thinker?


Guess what… Kerry S never responded. I wonder why?