In this video I discuss how feminists and the media in Australia used the tragic murder of Eurydice Dixon to promote divisive ideological narratives and to make the ‘story’ about themselves.
The subject of debate in this video is how people who are drawn to the ‘progressive’-Left present their desire for moral self-aggrandizement as caring about other people.
An old timey conservative gets elected Premier in Ontario… Canada’s largest province by population… home to the country’s biggest, richest and most important city…. my home town of Toronto… and the usual suspects lose their collective minds.
Some of us are old enough to remember when every election represented something other than the pivotal moment in human history when an enlightened society chose the path to ultimate Utopian fulfilment or the barbarians snatched power away from the sole possessors of ultimate truth to fulfill their goal of generating hell on Earth.
It used to be that your guy won and you were pleased or the other guy won and you thought… ‘Oh great. I have to put up with these jokers for the next four years.” That’s basically the way people thought about it.
Adults were so much more… adult at that time.
It wasn’t that long ago… but something has changed. And not for the better. We live in an era in which people mistake the indulgence in collective hysteria, sanctimony and emotionalism for insight and moral propriety.
The screenshot above is an actual post that appeared on my Facebook feed from a ‘friend’. The message is unequivocal: “You don’t share my political opinions and ideological convictions? Then everything else about you is irrelevant: You are unworthy of my friendship.”
And of course, all of the people who are so eager to equate not sharing their opinions on politics with being a despicable human being are the ‘progressive‘ folks who self-identify as the morally excellent, compassionate, preternaturally tolerant, loving, caring and enlightened class. But if you dare to not affirm the perfection of their opinions and ideological interpretations they won’t hesitate to assess your very humanity as inherently inferior to their own.
Tanya, below, is responding to the article in the Globe and Mail and the election of Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party. The premise of the thread was established by commentator Peter G who basically proposed that if you didn’t vote for the far Left Liberal Party who have been in power for 15 years (whose leader, Kathleen Wynne, Jordan Peterson called “the most dangerous woman in Canada”) or the even farther Left socialist NDP party… then you were endorsing the plans of an evil “millionaire” who wants to hurt the poor and destroy education.
Peter G: “The millionaire will go after social services, education, and the working poor. Say goodbye to the social contract in Ontario.”
This is despite the fact that the legacy of the Liberals’ time in government is a provincial debt of $320,000,000,000 with $12.3 billion a year just in interest payments alone. Ontario is the largest sub-sovereign holder of debt in the world. The province’s debt is larger than the GDP of 75 per cent of the world’s countries. There’s the disastrous handling of the electricity file in the province resulting in the highest rates on the North American continent. Ontario had the lowest median household income growth of all the provinces between 2007 and 2016. Only last year they promised three years of balanced budgets and then released a budget earlier this year that guaranteed 6 more years of deficit. The Liberal’s time in office was marked by numerous scandals, criminal charges, the imposition of divisive ideological social policies and multi-billion dollar boondoggles.
The NDP thinks they weren’t radical enough.
But none of that matters because they care, you see! The fact that the people who are hurt the most by their corruption, manipulations and incompetence are the very people they claim to care so much about is irrelevant. It’s about how it makes ‘progressive’ voters feel about themselves to be able to say ‘I support the politicians who really really care about people!’
Tanya: “I don’t have a problem with a country and its people taking care of the marginalized and less fortunate among them. It’s human, ethical and respectful.”
The point that Tanya was making here is that if you don’t agree with her political opinions it means that you want a country that is the opposite of human, ethical and respectful. So I responded:
Going to Getugly: “Except you people don’t actually care about “the marginalized and less fortunate”….because those are the people who are most hurt when the cost of living rises, when taxes increase, when the cost of electricity and heating go through the roof, when billions of tax dollars are squandered and when the economy eventually tanks.
If you cared about those people you would be livid at political parties who have created those pressures on poor people and who promise to add to the problem while pushing the province off a fiscal cliff. So spare us your pronouncements of your sense of your own moral superiority Tanya. What Leftists ‘care about’ is their own ego and being able to tell themselves how incredibly wonderful, enlightened and morally excellent they are. That’s why they mindlessly support everything that’s marketed on the front end as ‘progressive’ and compassionate and then are completely indifferent to the real world results of those policies on the back end when they are implemented.”
In this video I look at how ideologies of ‘identity’ like feminism are really just a means to justify the indulgence in self-serving interpretations and narratives.
Kathryn: There needs to be the question asked as to WHY women are not applying. And if they do apply, why are they not accepted or why do they not complete the various science based programs.
If it is because of the way they are treated, humiliated, told to get the sandwiches or coffee because they are the only girl in the study group, then something has to be done about it. There are still cases where women with full PhDs are entering the meeting room and being asked if they brought the coffee. Until MEN get it out of their system and treat all women as equal, this discussion has to be made.
Going to Getugly: Kathryn, you need to learn to distinguish between presenting cliché, fantasy scenarios to justify your self-serving conceptions and knowing something true based on objectively demonstrable reality. Let me help…. What you, feminists, Leftists and all people who don’t know how to think do is you start with the conclusion that appeals to your ego… and then you subjectively generate self-confirming scenarios that seem to you to be the kind of things that would probably be true if your conclusion was true. And that circular, internal, completely subjective process is what passes for adequate reasoning about the world to you, to feminists and to Leftists in general.
You need to teach yourself to not do that if you want to stop mistaking your subjective impressions and biases for what is really going on out here on the other side of your skull.
This is what people these days seem to be unwilling to grapple with… It isn’t supposed to matter if you agree with Faith Goldy’s opinions or politics. As a principled person, you are supposed to be outraged that this woman… an independent reporter… is being intimidated and attacked by masked, male thugs… in public… in Canada… and that the national media is making a conscious choice to exclude this incident from their narrative construction. Remember, this is an era in which two random guys in a third rate city in a foreign nation who are told they can’t use a bathroom in a Starbucks unless they buy a coffee is deemed to merit daily, national news coverage for at least two to three weeks in this country.
And yet an incident involving someone who has worked in the mainstream media and who is very well known in the alternative media, who is a Canadian and who is covering a major story that is happening in our own country to which that same mainstream media has paid only passing attention is deemed unworthy of serious coverage. This is despite employees of every single one of those mainstream outlets being present to capture reams of audio and video to present to their editors and producers at all of the mainstream media bunkers back in Toronto.
A lot of people in management in a bunch of different offices decided, “Naaaaa! This isn’t something we want the public to think about.”
This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that the mainstream media does not provide a window into objective reality. The media constructs narratives. That’s their job. And the only narrative that this generation of homogeneous, incompetent and useless Canadian mainstream journalists are comfortable promoting is the one about how anyone who protests this absurd transgression of this country’s right to control its own borders is a Nazi.
And don’t ya know…. Nazis’ deserve whatever they get.
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:
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’?
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.
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.