I guess all of the morally excellent folks figure Faith Goldy deserves it.

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.

Advertisements

Rebuttals of the Week #24: A ‘progressive’ argument: “Just ‘give up’ and tell me I’m right!”

Want to see how ‘progressives’ reason and debate? Want to see what happens when their absolute certainty about the universal truth and righteousness of the generic concepts they parrot is challenged with basic logic? Well have a look at my brief interaction with Lawlor, below, concerning the bizarre issue of race being a determining factor for hiring a professor to teach a course in history at university.

rezz

Lawlor: There may come a point when it will not matter but when we still operate a colonial state in Canada, this unfortunately aint it.

Going to Getugly: Is that point the moment when adults regain the capacity to distinguish between parroting ideological group-think and reason?

Lawlor: Yes, we have to break through the colonial group think. So what I meant was simply that when we, the descendants of European colonizers come to grips with our oppressive colonial relationship with Indigenous people and work with them to dismantle it, then we will be able to dispense with this kind of conversation.

Going to Getugly: Sorry Lawlor, when you parrot the generic ideological conceptions of “colonialism” you don’t get to pretend it’s everyone who is still thinking for themselves who are the group-thinkers.

Lawlor: We differ in our views. Colonialism is not discussed nearly enough, it seems to make people uncomfortable.

Going to Getugly: It doesn’t make anybody “uncomfortable”. The problem is that too many people want the ‘discussion’ to be restricted to their chosen ideological narrative.

Lawlor:  I disagree and agree with you. Facing up to our colonial, and thus oppressive relationships clearly makes many people uncomfortable, if not downright angry, I know this because I read A variety of papers and magazines and observing fb responses to the original post here. On the other hand I have to agree that we need to be prepared to move out of our ideological comfort zones. That’s why I read widely. I does however require us to deal with the issue, for example Canada’s colonial history and present, and not revert to a default, but perhaps comfortable, assumption that because I are someone else uses a term that they are “parroting”, etc.

Going to Getugly: This is precisely the problem Lawlor. What does emotional, guilt-laden language like “facing up to” mean? And what does the word “our” mean in this context? That use of language indicates that the judgments and conclusions have already been made… we’re all ‘oppressive colonialists’. So what is the point of having ‘discussions’ with people who hold your views on this?

This is a classic example of an ideologue’s concept of ‘discussing’ an issue. You take a very complex subject for which there are multiple valid perspectives…. and you say, “Let’s discuss it. But first, I insist that we dismiss all of that complexity and reduce the entire issue to the one perspective generated by my ideological commitments and which is designed to produce the interpretation and conclusions preferred by me and my fellow ideologues.”

And Lawlor, you can’t mimic the specific language of a particular social and political ideology and then take umbrage at having been identified as ‘parroting’.

Lawlor: ok, you won’t give up, I get it, and I do. Getting into an insult match is simply not worth my, or anyone else’s time.

Going to Getugly:  Right… so now a detailed critique of your argument is an “insult match” and the expectation of the person advocating ‘discussion’ is for anyone who disagrees with him to “give up”.

You could not have proved my point more effectively if you had been consciously trying to do so.

Rebuttals of the Week #23: Tackling the scourge of racism by holding a ‘What’s Wrong With White People’ conference.

wpriv

Things just keep getting worse.

So apparently we are at a stage in society where you can have a major conference at a publicly funded university in a major city to address the problem of white people. Yes folks, this will be an opportunity for the taxpayer supported, self-appointed arbiters of all that is moral and righteous… the ‘thought leaders’ who occupy the ‘social justice’ departments of our elite academic institutions… to tackle the scourge of racism by singling out a particular racial group and assigning blame to them for everything they don’t like about society.

What a great approach to changing things for the better! Why has no one tried it before?

If there is one thing that our moral and intellectual betters in academia absolutely excel at it’s the ability to pack a busload of self-confirming circular reasoning into catchy, two-word phrases. Terms like ‘social justice’ and ‘white privilege’ simply assume the truth of their own claim: Of course what we do is “social justice!” Of course what they do is “white privilege”! Weirdly, the specific metrics used to determine what makes something objectively ‘social justice’ and objectively ‘white privilege’ are always left pretty vague. My suspicion is that they rely on a rather simple formula: “If it is perceived to benefit anyone who thinks and/or looks like them it’s social justice. If it is perceived to benefit anyone who disagrees or doesn’t look like them it’s ‘white privilege’.

Uncomfortable truths is another one of those slippery slogans that streamlines  the fallacy of ‘begging the question’ to bumper-sticker efficiency. The ‘truth’ of whatever the slogan is referring to is simply proclaimed by the use of the slogan. No need to prove or demonstrate it. The slogan has already taken care of that for you.

Frankly, I don’t think it would ever occur to anyone who genuinely values “truth” or even understands what the word means to attach the adjective “uncomfortable” to it. “Uncomfortable” is a purely subjective experience arising from a negative emotional reaction. “Truth” is simply what is.  Your personal preferences and emotions are irrelevant to recognizing ‘truth’. That is to say… you don’t judge ‘truth’. You merely recognize it. So I find it very revealing that ‘progressive’ social-justicey types instinctively equate ‘truth’ with subjective preference.

Personally, I only care about true truth. All of your other qualifications and categories… good truth, bad truth, red truth, blue truth…. are a reflection of the inherent narcissism of the ‘progressive’ Left as far as I’m concerned.

My interaction with Shirley, below, illustrates how for some people truth is whatever justifies the satisfaction they feel from seeing someone they resent getting screwed. With my first comment to her I confront the blatant, glaring, neon-supernova of principle-free double standards that her support, as a person of colour, for the ‘Everything That’s Wrong With White People’ conference so self-evidently represents.

I conclude by demonstrating how the premise of  ‘white privilege’ is intellectually and ethically indefensible… and how anyone who endorses it is deserving of nothing but contempt from people of character, principle and good will.


Shirley: When the subject of one’s race is left open for discussion the results are a great research study. The replies to this post if not in Canada many would say this was America. Canada may me multicultural but not inclusive.

Going to Getugly:  Would you be happy to hear about a conference being held to discuss the inherent problem that people of your racial background pose to the proper functioning of society Shirley?

Shirley: It’s done every day a black man is arrested.
The term White Privilege was created by a white man remember that know your history

Going to Getugly: Are you telling me you don’t know the difference between an arrest and a conference Shirley? Or is that merely the transparent attempt to avoid honestly answering the question that it appears to be? The term and fallacious construct ‘white privilege’ was invented by academic and Leftist activist Peggy McIntosh… a woman… in 1989. You should practice a little more humility next time you feel the impulse to lecture someone else about ‘history’.

Shirley Davis: that’s class privilege.

White privilege means that you are born into the racial ‘norm’, another kind of privilege. A privilege where you can;

Turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of your race widely represented.
If you wish, you can arrange to be in the company of people of your race most of the time.
If you buy “flesh” coloured items like band-aids or stockings, they will more or less match your skin tone.
If you were able to use the original suite of emoji’s, the ‘thumbs up’ or ‘peace sign’ hand gestures represented your race.
You can easily can find picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and magazines featuring people of your race.

Going to Getugly: The “thumbs up” and “peace sign” is represented in my ‘race’. That’s the kind of inane issues that you need to reach for in order to justify your conclusion. I think you are doing a fine job proving just how devoid of merit and shallow this whole thing is.

So let’s review this… Our interaction started with me asking if you would be happy to hear about a conference being held to discuss the inherent problem people of your racial background pose to the proper functioning of society…. and you went out of your way to not provide an authentic response. And we both know why you avoided responding… it’s because if it was a conference addressing the problem presented by black people in society… you would instantly recognize the racist, intellectually and ethically despicable nature of such a conference. And we both know that if you were to be honest and acknowledged that… it would put you in the awkward position of being against it when the target is YOUR race but in favour of it when the target is someone else’s race. The double standard is self-evident.

And you and I both know that this would not only reveal you to be a hypocrite and devoid of principles… but someone who is actually perfectly comfortable with racial bigotry as long as it’s directed at people who you are happy to see targeted.

The fact that you know you are doing this and that, in fact, the only way anyone can possibly justify this is to lie about their real intentions and to pretend they are not indulging in a blatant double standard is itself proof positive that the premise does not stand up to objective intellectual or ethical scrutiny.

In other words, this is nothing but a means for people to indulge in their own bigotry by attempting to cloak it in pseudo intellectual gobbledygook.

You write: “that’s class privilege.”

No. Peggy McIntosh invented ‘white privilege’ in 1989. “Class privilege” was the earlier iteration of the same ideological stream… and that was Karl Marx who came up with that.

In other words… you don’t know what you’re talking about but you don’t have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge it… so you just make something up to try to get away with it.

No one should take your ideas seriously. Least of all you.

Canada’s largest newspaper now mainstreaming anti-white racism

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:


star


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’?

Nope.

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.

Nope.

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.

link: Every time is the right time to grapple with whiteness in Canada

 

Did Toronto Star deliberately downplay ISIS connection in Scarborough attack?

These days more than ever it seems your appreciation of reality will depend on which media you choose as your primary source of news and information.

Last Saturday, a self-proclaimed ISIS supporter allegedly screaming  ‘Allahu Akbar’ attacked people at a shopping mall in east end Toronto with a large knife she had concealed in her clothing and also with a golf club.

That is, unless you were reading the report of the incident on the Toronto Star web site. In which case, a random woman attacked people at the mall for no known reason whatsoever.

Here is how another local news outlet reported the incident, under the headline ‘Woman screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ charged in Toronto store attack: Sources’:

Toronto Sun: “Sources told the Toronto Sun that a woman, wearing an ISIS bandana, allegedly entered Cedarbrae Mall in Scarborough Saturday afternoon and then the Canadian Tire store, where she walked to the paint section.”

She allegedly ranted “Allahu Akbar” — God (Allah) is greater — before swinging a golf club at employees — at the same time of bloody terrorist attacks in London, sources said.”

Compare that with the report on the incident the Star provided under the caption ‘Toronto woman charged with assault at Scarborough mall’:

Toronto Star: “A Toronto woman is facing seven charges after two people were attacked Saturday in a Canadian Tire store at Cedarbrae Mall.”

The RCMP’s Toronto-based Integrated National Security Enforcement Team is working with Toronto police on the investigation, said Corp. Louise Savard.

Savard would not say why the INSET team is involved because the investigation is ongoing.

The specialized teams are aimed at tracking, deterring and disrupting terrorist groups or individuals who pose a threat to Canadian national security, the RCMP website says.”

Would not say why the anti-terrorist team is involved?

The incident was not reported in the media until Tuesday, when the alleged attacker appeared in court. Take a look at the stark differences in how the two Toronto news outlets reported the details of the woman’s bail hearing.

Toronto Sun: “Before Tuesday’s proceedings started, Justice of the Peace Alice Napier asked Rehab Dughmosh, 32, to identify herself in court ….. “ISIS — I pledge to the leader of the believers — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” blurted the woman through an interpreter.

Al-Baghdadi is the leader of the Sunni militant jihadist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and the Levant.

Now compare that with how the Toronto Star reported the hearing:

Toronto Star: “When asked to identify herself for the record, she instead made reference in Arabic to “the leader of the believers,” according to the court’s translator.

The rest of her statements were one-word answers to questions asked by the judge.” 

 What is going on here? 

Keep in mind that this incident occurred on the same day as the London bridge attack and was reported Tuesday, the day international media was reporting that a man attacked police with a hammer while yelling ‘this is for Syria’ at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

And yet the Toronto Star, Canada’s largest newspaper, appears to have gone out of its way to downplay the connection between this attack in Toronto and Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for the glaring differences between these two reports of the same disturbing incident. If so, it isn’t immediately obvious. Lacking such an explanation, it’s difficult not to see this as an example of a major mainstream media outlet deliberately constructing an inaccurate version of reality as opposed to objectively reporting the news.

You can read the original reports here:

Woman screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ charged in Toronto store attack: Sources; Toronto Sun

Toronto woman charged with assault at Scarborough mall; Toronto Star

 

 

Quick thought: The problem with the MSM

IT'S ALL AROUND YOU - Copy

The problem with the mainstream media is that it is populated with very conventional thinkers who have no interest in challenging the boundaries of established orthodoxy.

Of course, as people turn more and more to alternative sources for information and analysis, the remaining consumers of their product tend to be an older demographic of very conventional thinkers as well.

So they are stuck with catering to a loyal but dwindling clientele who are comfortably attached to the status quo and who expect their conventional worldview to be reflected back to them by the media they consume.

m