Mad Max, Amash, Massie and Paul: The North American political version of the Rat Pack. ***** I'm one of those rare Canadians who has been kicking around the back alleys of American libertarianism since 2003 after I discovered Reason magazine.
It was there the idea of the individual really crystallized for me as a former 'swing' voter despite (now looking back) my classical liberal tendencies. But that was kept in check by a fog of status quo narratives I wasn't aware of. Slowly I emerged all squint eyed bruised but not beaten.
On this road to my awakening, I made numerous American friends and have since been asked to be part of their political discussion groups. I'm privy to so many interesting points of views from an eclectic bunch of individuals. From former Marines to highly successful doctors to businessmen to writers to software experts and everyone in between. They give fascinating anecdotes about life on the Mexican-American border, to government IT tales, to explanations of gun culture as it is, to the inner-workings of the ACA.
Well-read, well-travelled; outgoing or misanthropic it doesn't matter as we come from all walks of life. But this much we all share. A passion for the sanctity of liberty we all feel is under duress at the moment in North America.
Be it free speech, gun rights or the simple values that drive us forward like personal responsibility and accountability. We value reason and facts over narratives.
I'm heartened, if not impressed, to see so many Canadians - like Jordan Peterson or various alt-media personalities - lending their voices on the patch to recovering the values we so cherish in our shared Western liberal heritage.
It's interesting it's Bernier carrying the 'classical liberal' torch. Bernier is from Quebec like me and I always felt there was a libertarian impulse present among Quebecers.
I'm from Montreal and while this province tends to be too socialistic and unions have too much power, Quebecers exhibit at its core what I believe to be a libertarian streak. It just needs a voice.
It’s not a coincidence Quebec was one of the first private clinic practitioners (along with Alberta) in Canada, that the MEI is from here and now unfortunately defunct libertarian publication Le Quebecois Libre.
A libertarian paper in Quebec? Voyons-donc!
The pulse was always there and no one could bring it to life. It just needed pricking and maybe Bernie is the right 'prick' to get spark that light!
The ultimate irony is Canada - not the United States. The spiritual home of human liberty - has the best shot at electing a libertarian. In America, Paul, Massie, and Amash are in Congress but are not likely to lead the GOP. Gary Johnson, despite his faults, made a valiant effort to push forward this agenda.
The time is right. I do not want North America to be what has become of the United Kingdom. That island meekly and embarrassingly has abandoned any self-dignity it once possessed with its preposterous assault on free speech and civil liberties. I don't want this civilization to rely on the government as a means to an end. I just don't. It's not healthy for the soul; the human spirit.
Sure the media will smear and protect the establishment but who cares? Damn the torpedoes!
Not to toot my own horn but I've been waiting around, writing and pleading on this blog for 14 years about Galiani and Bastiat and an endless amount of issues from a classical liberal perspective. I'm not the only one of course. There are many like me all lending their small voice if anything to just be heard and counted. I sensed that our public intellectuals and the quality of our ideas had become stale. All it did was defend a intellectual machine that worked for them and no one else. It was self-serving and hopelessly without a modern and enlightening message.
They had become lazy and pulled far too left for my taste.
I was aware of all the players and publications on this New Liberalism if you will and like to think I played my own small part in this potential Renaissance.
I preemptively apologize for this scattered rant. I just wanted to get these thoughts off before I skedaddle out of here.
You can just feel in your bones there's a whole lot of government over reach going on these days. From asinine anti-scientific plastic and straw bans, to cronyism in Quebec's day-care system (more on this in a minute), to over bearing fines, to the rise of anti-gun legislation that flatly contradicts the inalienable rights clearly enshrined in the Constitution. I cherry pick but a few because there are literally hundreds of these I come across per month across North America.
The only way for the average person to actually feel the pinch of what usually are counter-productive and misguided rules and regulations vulnerable to unintended consequences is if they're directly affected by it. For example, if you own a business or gun and have to deal with the stupidity of the bureaucracy.
Often, the bureaucracy is so confused it doesn't even know what's happening within or between their agencies.
It's maddening and frustrating to have to ping pong around the mazes always repeating from scratch a story you have to convey because there are so many departments.
Right there should be a red flag. Like the guy in Washington D.C. going around in a nap-sack enforcing the city's retarded straw ban. One, seriously dude, get a real fucken job. Two, I can't believe it's come to a point where emotions constantly triumph over reason. Three, stop copying the insanity of California! That is not a progressive state. That's what happens when you have a one-party system living in a myopic vortex of bad ideas. There's no mechanism in California whereby someone can say, 'hey man, all these things we're doing are left-wing narratives. Maybe we should slow down a little?'
And they tell us the bureaucracy isn't bloated? Would he be considered an 'essential service'?
Over fucken straws? Because a turtle had one stuck up his nose we have to ban it?
Oh, won't someone think of the kittens who get tangled up in plastic bags and choke!?!
Is this a joke?
If you support these sort of things you abdicate the notion of claiming to be 'for science'.
No you're not.
You're a pant-shitting, nannying control freak.
*****
With that rant out of the way a quick word on Quebec and the daycare industry. Last year the Liberal government passed I believe it was Bill 43 with new laws regulating the industry. Naturally, it wasn't all that friendly to private daycares (which was very disappointing given the government and the Minister at the time were very open to our plight and business friendly). But one thing that really got my cynic instincts going is the fact we have to jump on a website called La Place 0-5.
It's not a service I need or requested but the government counters they want to ensure 'standards' and 'access' and all that for people. As if they were incompetent baboons incapable of finding their way in life.
My business is largely word of mouth driven. I like it that way. It ensures a certain stability and quality but overall security to the children. Everyone knows each other and knows our reputation.
I built it with ZERO help of the Mandarins. I kept myself out of all the politics because it detracts from my work.
So we had to sign on.
But wait there's more to this story.
One day I get an email from them, which I generally ignore but I noticed it was a notice of payment. It's okay though. They gave me a....DISCOUNT!
Apparently, I owed them money for the service I didn't ask for but was forced to sign onto.
Immediately I thought 'who the fuck is running this crony racket?'
Well, it's been three months I've been trying to find out who these people are and how did they score this racket gig. How's this for transparency? No one could tell me. No one knows what this mystery site is. The association I pay to find these things out say the government isn't telling and the CFIB has yet to get back to me on this as they were unaware of this little nugget.
Right.
The government is there to 'partner' with us.
As of today, I have refused to pay them and have no idea what will become of this.
I want answers.
*****
I just completed registering my shot gun with Quebec's new long-gun laws.
It infuriates me that I had to do this.
One, it's my damn gun I inherited and don't think the government needs to know about it. Two, there is literally no reason for this over reach. None. Gun crime in Quebec and Canada is not on the rise. Moreover, they didn't learn from the Federal long-gun registry which was a financial and inefficient disaster. In their infinite wisdom they figured why not?
Outrageous.
Unfortunately, Canada doesn't have a 2nd Amendment and we're at the mercy of non-gun owners and their ignorance, the media and their natural opposition to gun rights, and the politicians too gutless to stand up for these rights.
I hope it ends here but I don't think it will be.
I felt dirty after filling it out.
*****
So far I have agued there is no science date or statistics to back up plastic bans or to create a long-gun registry.
*****
Thank God in America the impulse - however weak - for liberty is alive. At some point, the people have to say, 'enough of this shit'. If you don't push back it will continue to fester and grow like gangrene.
Since she announced she was going to run in 2020, Harris has been everywhere. And I fear people are once again buying into a narrative without focusing on the actual record and essence of the person.
By all accounts, Harris is f average intelligence with a canned speaking style and an opportunistic politician. She was a heavy handed DA who now claims she'll be 'progressive'. Worse, she actually claims she was a progressive prosecutor but her record indicates otherwise.
Then comes the news about her allegedly sleeping around to get into various prominent positions (phrasing!) that wasn't really denied by one Willie Brown - the guy who made it happen. More troubling are the sexual harassment allegations by interns. Oh, the irony after her cynical performance during the Kavanaugh hearings. Maybe she'll get a taste of her own medicine? A comeuppance of sorts? A man can dream, no?
How's that for feminism? And guess what? While they bash Gabbard, they back Harris.
You've seen the titles: Gabbard is not who you think she is!
And Harris is. You won't be getting those headlines regarding Harris's past record and behaviour because she's the 'chosen' one.
Before she even begins, her past behaviour are questionable. Yes, few politicians come in clean but when the information is available and clear, it's up to voters to think long and hard about what they'r doing. It's perhaps even a test to not vote along party lines and vote for someone who isn't so laughably corrupted.
Remember when people were over reacting after Trump's election saying idiotically immature things like 'what will we tell our children?' or 'our daughters?'
It always flips depending on what works for them.
With Clinton, it was 'just a blow job' or 'sex' you tight asses!
Then it flipped to - if Facebook is a good indicator - to the aforementioned daughter theatre. I suspect with Harris it will be some combination 'tight asses' and maybe she was raped because patriarchy or something. Who knows? It's hard to follow the mind of a progressive.
Let me continue . In 2004, Kerry had to be President because he was a decorated combat veteran and Dubya was a dodger but in 2008 McCain was a warmongering monster. Follow?
In 2008 we needed the fresh new ideas of a young outsider, but in 2016 we needed an experienced veteran politician, not an anti-establishment candidate with different ideas.
Swing! Whatever works best for them at the time.
Gee, I wonder if they feel the same in this instance. I doubt it because the root of such inane uttering isn't principled. It's just emotional outbursts.
She's already making bizarre noises. For example, the idea of doing away with private insurance (unfortunately moving America closer still to a - mediocre - Canadian system). By the way, just peruse around Reason magazine who has been covering her actual record.
It's unfortunate because the same thing happened in Canada. When Trudeau announced he'd run for office, the media glossed over his spectacular gaffes while citizens figged it was time for a change from Harper.
It was, to me, a massive miscalculation.
We now how have a situation where a country like Canada that depends on primary resources to drive large portions of its growth and wealth is being made subservient to dubious Green policies. Worse, traditional natural resource based employment is being demonized by this government. Never mind that the Liberal party of Canada has introduced legislation via Bills 16. 69 and 103 that sets the tone of a regressive-progressive illiberal existence. These are terrible laws that cut right to the heart of what it means to be Canadian: To be free. To not submit established, sound science to ideology. To be a people proud of its Western liberal heritage.
All these notions have been thwarted by the Trudeau Liberals I believe. Their behaviour is one of arrogance, hypocrisy, incompetence, deflection and sheer amateurism. Worse government I've seen yet in my lifetime.
In both Canada and the USA, the traditional 'liberal' parties have pulled further left still. It's why they embrace so many socialists ideals and ideas. You end up with illiberal tarts like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I rather enjoy whenever she says something spectacularly stupid that demands an immediate response the come back is 'they're obsessed with her' and 'they're afraid of us'!
No shit. What you propose and the rhetoric you use has not only been seen before - ahem see early 20th century socialism right up to Venezuela - and is by its nature tiresome Marxist stupidities but mixed in with abject ignorance about how the economy works and calls to tax the rich make it a toxic mix.
It has to be challenged. Maybe we should be so obsessed in wanting to preserve the sanctity - or whats left of it - of our collective liberal heritage.
All these people. Harris, Trudeau, AOC and everyone in between them, are illiberal.
I'm a little tired and can barely keep up anymore with all the news and stories I'm reading. I didn't even know what to title this post. Anyway....
Harper explains why Trump got elected:
I have to say, I'm happy and impressed at the amount of Canadians doing their parts in setting order in a disorderly world at the moment.
In the wider context of Western culture, we really need to rethink some things over. For example, here's a story about how Humberside police in the UK are investigating thought crime. They can, as an aside, go fuck themselves. Meanwhile, the same police turned a blind eye to horrific sex crimes against children. Such cowardice.
This is where a) we need to protect free speech and b) assert the biological and scientific fact there are only two genders. This is not 'hate crime'. If this is so, then we're in serious trouble.
Not to mention the issue of illegal immigration in the United States where too many people simply tolerate the breaking of laws. This is also not a good trend. And like defending (it really is amazing we're at this point) science is not hate, wanting to deal with illegal immigration does not equate to being anti-immigration as depicted too often on the left.
I also, as I free form here, want to ban the term 'our democracy is under attack' as Kmala Harris recently uttered. Harris, you know, the one who slept with a married man to get ahead and was anything but a progressive while serving as AG in California. Another cult of the personality is being created around someone. Remember when hysterical people screamed 'what am I gonna tell my daughters?' after Trump's election? I wonder if they're freaking out over Harris's immorality if not sleaziness. Will they wonder what they'll tell their daughters if she gets elected? Something tells me they won't.
To get back on the attack democracy trope. You mean like how the UK is ignoring and making a mockery of Brexit? Right. Because that's 'democracy' to deny the people their voice after a legal referendum.
The only people 'attacking democracy' are the ones who scream the most about it being under attack whenever things don't go their damn way. Just like the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump.
Preserving the sanctity of laws, respecting our shared culture and history and ensuring free speech remains in tact are some of the issues we need to once and for all take seriously.
Because from where I sit, we're not on a good path.
I've repeatedly argue here that to oppose the development of our natural resources is to be immoral.
It's immoral because this is a country that was built on natural resources and natural resources continue to be an integral part of our economy. Had we had the foresight and fortitude to diversify our economy perhaps we wouldn't be so reliant on it but the reality is we need this industry to help foster and drive our growth and wealth.
When you deny the right for Canadians to earn a living in such an industry is to indeed deny their inherent right to the 'pursuit of happiness' to borrow an American term. It's preposterous that politicians fooled by the false gods of environmentalism to take away jobs from not just Canadians but of all North Americans.
The forced drive to 'a green energy' world is a tricky if not downright tumultuous decision that could have lasting repercussions for Canada and the United States.
There's still room for primary resources in an economy.
Just how far can the left take this green plan?
Look at the fantastically illiberal, immoral and illogical Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
She truly is one of the most bizarre, ridiculous and illiterate politicians I've seen yet.
And people applause her!
It's not pertinent to the message in the video, but notice Colbert when he said, 'wow' after that tart repeated the tiresome '90% taxes under Eisenhower' trope. As if he didn't know about it.
What a shill and disingenuous moron to even interview this dangerous twit.
I loathe the Human Rights Tribunal we have in Canada.
They're essentially kangaroo courts run by unelected officials. It's communism by other means where people are hauled to explain themselves for exercising their rights to free speech.
Oh heavens no, a progressive and their own lies never get to go through such an evil process because a HRT is a progressive entity. Not a neural one. It's a weaponized political entity.
It's an outrage to even have this in our midst.
The day Alberta voted the NDP in I wondered, 'what the heck, of all provinces, were they thinking?' Why in the world would you ever give power to a progressive socialist party of parasites? Why? You're fricken oil and gas country. And as such, you have to keep that in mind and know who your friends are and progressives aren't your friends.
Texas is too is about to find out the hard way as more and more transplanted Californians - escaping the madness of California - invade. And like rag weed, they're importing the very same attitudes that sank California into Texas (and Colorado by the way). A model state so successful, people and businesses now flock to it.
Like how progressives destroyed Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit and make Massachusetts and New York bastions of 'woke' politics, they will do the same to Texas.
And when Texas falls, who will pick the mantle for those wanting to escape that state once the left sink their pathetic teeth into it?
Heaven forbid the Californians embrace their host and the blue print that made it successful. No, let's milk it and insist they be 'woke' like them.
Albertans need to be frank with themselves and never vote NDP again.
And now they're threatening Rebel Media with bull shit accusations.
Regardless of what you think of Rebel Media, see the picture here. It's an attack on the free press. If them, why not someone else? It's a terrible precedence and horrible road to go down.
You shouldn't consent to this. None of us should.
The key here is 'Trial in Absentia'. This is stuff straight out of Nazi Germany.
How about this Notley? You don't like criticism. How about just a plain fuck you?
Good enough?
*****
Canadians who think Trump is a threat to the press need to give themselves a shake. Nothing like this on this level happens in the USA. The Americans have us licked when it comes to freedom of speech and expression and how to defend it.
It's called the First Amendment.
Our Charter can't hold a diaper to their 1A.
We should be ashamed and embarrassed by Notley's antics.
There you have it. The Holy Trinity of all triggerings.
Boy (toxic masculinity): Check.
Catholics (regressive religious crazies): Check.
Maga Hat (Orange Man Bad): Check.
Add a smirk and presto! Instant hate!
And boy does hate and outrage sell these days.
Context and proof? Why? We've got all that we need to destroy the lives of these boys!
And let me be clear here. The boys at this rally were KIDS. 14 year-olds.
Fucken kids.
Kids that find themselves in the middle of the culture wars.
Before I go on, it's worth a couple of words to mention the 'smirk'. When Peter Strzok's disturbing smirk was noted progressives dismissed it. This despite he clearly was engaging in partisan activity within the FBI. But he was out to take down Trump so all was good.
Here, we have a kid in a MAGA hat who merely stared down some guy who got in his face. I have no idea why he didn't move - though he says it was to protect people from a racist group (which I buy by the way) - kids do, you know, kids things sometimes.
I have a 13 year-old. You can't expect them to behave the way you think they should or according to, worse, your political ideological motives or thoughts. Here, kids were betwixt professional Native activists and Black Israelites.
Perhaps people need to watch theThe Ox Bow Incidentto realize if they bought into the narrative they're part of the lynch mob.
By now, you've all heard about this Native guy banging his drums painted as a victim at the hands of racist white Catholics. Of course, as the evidence trickled in, more and more it was discovered Nathan Phillips' (all these morons need to grow the fuck up by the way. He got in the face of teenagers) account was, erm, suspect.
Shocking.
Reminds me of cowards like Shaun King constantly accusing white people for crimes they don't commit. Funny how this never has to account for his irresponsible actions on Twitter.
From King to CNN to Jessica Valenti. What a mess as so-called objective media outlets are quietly taking down their original stories, issuing corrections and in some cases apologies once the truth came out. Unfortunately, even The National Review and other conservatives jumped on these kids.
This is not a joke. When you're willing to string up kids based on a lie, there's s serious malaise in society. I can tell you it ain't with those students. But the damage is done. Just go into the comments section of The Washington Post or The Hill. Even with the corrections people stand with the original lie.
By the way, the predictability of who would go after these kids was to be expected. For example, Reza Aslan, Alyssa Milano and Kathy Griffin (she really needs to cut it out. First she holds the decapitated bloodied head of a human being and now she wants to ruin the life of a 14 year-old) responded exactly despicable usually do in these circumstances.
They want dox people over a stupid fucken hat and lie? What is wrong with them?
Can't they see for one bloody moment how dangerous this is?
To me, if anything, the kids acted with remarkable restraint since they probably had no idea what was happening. They didn't engage in violence like Antifa or BLM would. They managed around it as best as teenagers could.
Their parents and school should be proud of how they handled it. Much more mature than the idiot adults who tried to provoke them. Indeed, just who are the adults exactly again?
How can anyone give Phillips praise for his actions?
I don't.
I hope this dies down quickly because you don't want another situation like the Duke lacrosse scandal. Which is why it's essential the school backs their students up.
It's such a ridiculous story I feel dumb for even writing about it.
I figured out why - well, it's a theory - Trudeau keeps doing his public appearances despite not coming off looking that good in a few of them.
Aside from obviously being a bit of a narcissist (the rolled up sleeves shtick is insulting at this point) insisting on wanting to be "adored" by the people (ahem, like Castro), he does it to appear like he's an open and tolerant democrat.
It's a ruse to detract from what he actually does.
And to hide from his superficial world view.
He also comes off as defensive and a paternalist while he "lectures" people about why his vision of Canada is the correct one. He's insisting on imposing things on Canada he didn't campaign on and Canadians generally don't want.
Bill C-69, Bill C-16, the anti-Islamophobia law and his general overall actual actions (ie tax proposals that impact the middle class negatively. To say nothing of their poorly handled trade talks with the United States) are abomination against our personal civil liberties. Seems to me without liberty your democracy is nothing but a shell for authoritarianism.
And this is what Justin Trudeau is. An authoritarian ideologue.
If there is a group or groups that come closest to resembling Nazis it's Antifa and the leaders of the Women's march. In rhetoric, tactics and plain old action, this is who they are.
Anti-semitic, ideological, whack jobs filled with hate wallowing in the empty abyss known as identity politics.
Stay away from that shit.
Remember. It's all projection.
These are not good people.
And AOC (along with Omar and Tlaib) is dangerous. She willingly chose to support them knowing of their anti-semitism. This makes her spectacularly ignorant and stupid.
Let me be explicit: Ocasio-Cortez is a bigot in the classic far left mould. Bigoted and ignorant.
I maintain the belief that anyone who is offended by being asked to behave with common human decency has to question their own ideology. The advert doesn’t state that all men act in this way—a lot of men seem to have taken it as a personal attack. I’m a man, it doesn’t bother me
I'm trying very hard not to incite you guys. The commercial is less about lumping you together and more about men calling out other men who behave badly. That's @Gillette only point. Geesh.
Can we be honest here, guys? Who came up with "Boys will be boys?" It wasn't women! Even though we are guilty of perpetuating that nonsense. Your silence makes you complicit.
And there are plenty of these out there including Reason's Robby Soave and an assortment of 'woke' men like Matt Powell I mentioned in a previous post and other consultants like him.
Quick take on that. Sometimes I wonder if outrage sells and corporations understand how manipulating consumers pays off.
Nonetheless, there's a school of thought out there that argues if companies don't get involved and pick a side, they'll lose a consumer looking more and more to align with companies for purchases with their own values.
Personally, I think this is foolish. And we're seeing how foolish it can be. People in positions of influence peddling and consenting to this 'faux righteous' crap are the equivalent of historical propagandists of the past. 'What's the problem? This is necessary and if you won't consent you will lose and are part of the problem'.
To me, this kind of interpretation and acceptance of the ad is abhorrent.
The entire premise of the ad was 'toxic masculinity' as if it's an actual thing. But in reality, it's just a made up term with no real definition or hard data to back it up. It's a vague term that is neither here or there. It only makes sense to far left ideologues and the army of useful idiots who buy into critical theory nonsense.
The ones acting like 'what's the big deal' do actually make me wonder about their own manhood and how they perceive the world.
I do not see the ad as make a plea for men to 'do better' because the premise is indeed not enough men do right by according to the standards of the feminist who put this ad together. You have to be some kind of fool not to see a problem with Ana Kasparian's appearance in this. She's the last person I'd take advice from. TYT, in my view, are morally and intellectually deficient. So excuse me if I see a huge problem with Gillette fricken using her. She has to first improve her own image and vulgar and arrogant behaviour.
Again. It's a razor ad for men. What the heck does she have to do with razors?
"....Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings...."
"...The subject must be prevented from asserting his or her individuality and individual agency; better, the subject must be convinced that asserting individuality is yet another demonstration of denial and guilt. Need it be pointed out how ironic this is, given that kafkatrappers (other than old-fashioned religious authoritarians) generally claim to be against group stereotyping?"
"...There are, of course, other variants. Consider the model S: “Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression,…}, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt.” Again, the common theme here is that questioning the discourse that condemns you, condemns you..."
"...Having shown how manipulative and psychologically abusive the kafkatrap is, it may seem almost superfluous to observe that it is logically fallacious as well. The particular species of fallacy is sometimes called “panchreston”, an argument from which anything can be deduced because it is not falsifiable."
"....I hope it is clear by now that the particular flavor of thoughtcrime alleged is irrelevant to understanding the operation of kafkatraps and how to avoid being abused and manipulated by kafkatrappers. In times past the kafkatrapper was usually a religious zealot; today, he or she is just as likely to be advancing an ideology of racial, gender, sexual-minority, or economic grievance. Whatever your opinion of any of these causes in their ‘pure’ forms may be, there are reasons that the employment of kafkatrapping is a sure sign of corruption."
I think it applies here in this discussion particularly directed at those who claim 'those who have a problem with the ad, are part of the problem' and are 'probably guilty'. Or ask, 'why did this video get so much hate?" The corruption comes by way of control. Go back to the consultants. Of course they want you to submit to their perspectives. It permits them to control the narrative that indirectly controls people's behaviours.
****
This tactics is popular among "progressives". More like totalitarians at this point but anyway....The way it works is, and you've probably seen a lot of it without realizing it, they accuse a person of something they can't possibly defend themselves against.
For example, a negative like 'you're racist' or 'you're a Nazi'. The standard by which they make this accusation is lowered. So, in this way, you can make a legitimate assertion about, say, 'black on black crime' but it will be shut down as racist. More over, if someone would to concede this (highly unlikely) it would be blamed on some other vague and unprovable concept like 'white privilege'.
In this way it's very easy to accuse Trump, in the absence of actual proof, he's an anti-semite (magically, given his family is Jewish and his stance on Israel), or a racist. It comes in the assertion of 'dog whistles' like 'there were good people on both sides' and, in the case of his alleged misogyny "they let you grab them by the pussy'. Each, of course, without the respect of consulting the context to which they were said.
It's the worst kind of sophistry imaginable because it cuts right through the essence of a person's soul without a shred of evidence except for the bullet of another's perception all too willing to misrepresent you. The amount of logical fallacies since Trump's election leaves one spinning in dismay and shock at the stupidity of it all.
A form of Kafkatrpping is on display, I think, with the Gillette Ad. 'If you have a problem with the ad, then you're part of the problem'. As if no credible and valid argument can be constructed and mounted against the ad. Never mind the impossibility of even rebutting the charge. A person that says this is already signalling they're not willing to argue in good faith. The truth - their version thereof - is in the assertion.
This is what makes the ad - and the people who defend it - well, toxic.
Men are toxic. They need to do better. And if you challenge the two points, you're toxic.
No one thinks men are perfect but the ad failed to convey any compelling argument that men don't always strive to 'do better'.
The message, ergo, is bad. Not good. It's inherently dishonest and people where their moral and intellectual compass is properly calibrated saw right through it. Nothing comes good of a faulty premise.
Something the left has excelled at for over 100 years without much resistance.
*****
It's worth noting I'm hardly one for boycotts or hysterics. I even found the ad to be amusing in its arrogant stupidity and ignorance. I pitied the people who put it together and I pitied the culture at Gillette (P&G) that thought good of it (we meant good!) and I pity the 'cucks' (The 'My wife's boyfriend loves it!' joke encapsulates perfectly who the ad probably appealed to) who defend it.
*****
As noted here, why did Gillette choose the route they did?
As noted up top, corporations are probably trying to protect themselves from losing out consumers. The latest rage is to 'go woke'.
If there's one thing I've learned in my life it's that consultants generally miss the mark. They over inflate the zeitgeist and take it to mean a permanent trend.
I remember in the 1990s when I was in university professors saying Japanese style business techniques were going to take over American practices (because they all were anti-American for the most part) and that we should learn Japanese because it was inevitable.
I see the same BS here with the calls to 'go woke' or else.
The other aspect I'd like to quickly mention is one way to gauge whether an ad succeeds is the reaction it gets. Some say any publicity is good publicity but that probably works better for celebrities. I suppose some unwanted negative publicity (eg Volkswagen emissions scandal) can have a limited impact at best. However, a commercial specifically created in a way meant to send a message but eliciting a negative reaction. Can mean many things including they failed in their mission.
We're seeing this with the Gillette ad. They had a specific goal in mind (however faulty it was in its original thought) and got a negative reaction. The pushback has been not 'we failed' (think Hilary and Democrats not accepting the results of the 2016 election choosing instead to blame everything else including the winner) and the market has spoken but to double down and challenge the integrity of those who had the temerity to object.
This is where I took huge issue with the response. I'm the problem for pointing out the obvious misrepresentations in the video? In this way, my entire blog post would be dismissed as 'trolling'.
No, it's not okay because you believe the message is good you get to manipulate the process. That's utter left-wing 'ends justifies the means' horseshit. Rather than challenge my 'male hood' for rebutting, how about you actually present an argument against the criticism?
You failed to convey the message. Blaming people who criticizing for not 'understanding' is paternalistic rubbish. If your message was done in good faith people will respond according. Gillette was not. They were virtue signalling and people mocked it.
My free advice? Stay clear of damn politics. Don't become that chapter in a business or history book titled, 'What did they get wrong?' or 'how could they have been so foolish?' Don't be a case study of what not to do.
I may delve into this further in the future but for now it's worth just putting this up on the radar. Know the source of this stuff like you should know the source of where all this SJW nonsense stems from. In the political realm, pay close attention to the 'new Democrats' in the DNC and play close attention to their past and rhetoric. It's pulling to the left - and not in a good way. Be informed.
I digress.
As usual, I just consider my personal opinion, read both sides and decide. Once more, the 'unwoke' are far more compelling in their interpretations and opinions.
To the simpleton, the message is about 'do better'. To more nuanced and sophisticated, the ideological message was all too clear.
I particularly liked this message from Egard watches. As I noted in another post, why not focus on the realities, positives and facts of what men face?
I may just purchase one of their watches soon enough:
Horrible. Just a terrible party this bunch of regrettable "Liberals". Liberals goes in quotations because they're not liberal. The Liberal Party of Canada under this mistake of a leader are illiberal. They are ideologues first. They're ramming their damn vision of what constitutes Canadian values. They're a bad Gillette commercial. That's all they are. And the path their charting for Canada has to be take off its course. From Bill C-16 to the anti-Islamophobia laws to Bill C-69 and now the preposterous changes to section 253 of the Criminal Code regarding impaired driving:
"....It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension.
You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road."
“Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada,” said Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould in December.
“I believe these reforms will result in fewer road deaths and fewer Canadian families devastated by the effects of an impaired driver. This is one of the most significant changes to the laws related to impaired driving in more than 40 years and is another way that we are modernizing the criminal justice system.”
Tickle me skeptical. The other part of this is politicians drink - a lot. Will the cops go into their homes or pull them over? This I can't wait to see. There's potential for a major double-standard here.
It's Prohibition by other means.
I should be careful with this article. The government claims these powers will be restricted to the roadside and the fact defense lawyers are quoted makes me a tad queasy, still. I don't trust it. ****
And what exactly is our Senate good for? How useless are they?
Each time I see a Senator appointed I just see a cynical exercise in rewarding pals. If the Senate is just going to rubber stamp things and not protect Canadians from the tyranny of the government then it needs to be abolished. Worthless junk. Stop the bleeding. Fire Justin. Maybe we can salvage the country. Boot the bastards out.
Much is being made of Gillette's latest ad. Personally, if yo ask me, it's rather insulting and rests on the notion of 'toxic masculinity' which really isn't even a thing much like 'white privilege'. It's just a constructed generalization dreamed up by sociologists Marxists and has seeped into the mainstream.
What makes the ad all the more infuriating, aside from the disjointed logic, is the focus on white males as doing the bullying (as if bullying among girls isn't real. In fact, a case can be made it's worse) while taking care to make sure blacks are well portrayed.
It's all so paternalistic and cynical. Anyone with half a brain can see this for what it is.
If not, the fact Ana Kasparian from TYT is featured says a lot about the people who put this tripe together. Look her up on youtube. She's a peach. One may say a toxic muser of political issues. Why they settled on her is truly perplexing.
So for me, this attempt was an epic fail. Enough so for me to stop purchasing Gillette products. I know it's part of the Proctor & Gamble group but one need not expand it to its roster of products to make a point. The razors are enough. Calling for a boycott is not necessary. If people are annoyed they can do so privately and quietly to send a real message. If not, so be it. Besides, boycotts don't generally work.
But there's a bigger issue here. Why do corporations virtue signal?
Is it an attempt to jolt poor sales? Gillette allegedly has been struggling with new competitors but what kind of an incompetent board room signs off on such a commercial? 'Hey, you know the target market and demographic we desperately need? Yeh, let's make a commercial bashing them for being white males and that they need to do better since they're the source of bad things. That'll hook them in!' High fives all around.
Wouldn't surprise me if there was some of that.
My take nevertheless, is they do it because it's a hedge for them. They can show they're sensitive to the issues of the day (perceived or real) by claiming to engage in dialog with its consumers. They assume that a new breed of men are on the horizon and figure to cash in.
Except the whole notion of 'toxic masculinity' is a myth. Its source, when you trace it all down, to - hello - critical theory. Which in itself finds its origins in Marxism. The world is divided into the oppressors-oppressed calculus and it all flows from there. White men are the oppressors. Period.
Personally, I'm old fashioned and adhere to the philosophy to stick with what you know and do your jobs. One need only to listen to faux-righteous twits like Tim Cook to see it's a better play to focus on providing products your consumers need rather than lecture them about the issues in society - and how one group is more culpable than another. They haven't noticed yet the inherent contradiction of the message of 'let's be united' while at the same time bashing white, heterosexual males.
It's tangled web they should avoid.
But the trend of 'corporations with a conscience' is now an integral part of how a corporation operates now. They all display their 'values' on their website. You know, the ones where they try with a straight face to tell us they do business in a very dignified manner. All you need is one shit head salesman to debunk such gunk. And see if that salesperson is a top producer if the company fires them.
Again. Don't get into that shit.
It's okay to do what McDonald's does with the Ronald McDonald House. That's a tangible, noble project people actually need and can use.
No one needs to be lectured about 'toxic masculinity'. You leave yourself open to all sorts of fair criticism. For example, as I noted, what about female bullying? What about the obscene break down of the family and rise of single-parent households? What about the destruction of black families and black on black crime?
These are issues that can be demonstrated and backed up with facts.
Or, given Gillette sells to men, the real travesty of the treatment of men in family courts over custody battles and alimony?
That's real.
Or the fact men live less than women because we work harder and longer, taking greater risks and go to war on a far greater percentage than women? Men reach stress levels that literally kill them.
And the vast majority of us do it with respect and pride. We're not out there looking to fucking rape women. The vast majority aim to raise our kids properly and with dignity.
But there's no currency in any of this. A corporation isn't gonna win friends with those things. You can't, after all, win friends with salad.
When I listen to marketing men and 'woke' CEO's, I'm reminded why I'm glad I'm not in the corporate world. Some of the most facile and easily manipulated to social trends I met were in corporate board rooms. But hey, the CEO gets to fly around the world so he or she (or it) knows, right?
Yeah. No.
The truth is, corporations have little to lose in engaging in this. Take Nike with the Kaepernick campaign. It makes no difference to them Kap's assertions could be refuted, that they genuinely upset good people, that he were socks depicting cops as pigs or that he wore a Castro t-shirt. Or that he hangs out with despicable (anti-semites) individuals like Linda Sarsour.
Who cares about those things?
What matters is the hair, the fist pumping and that he (willingly) chose to end his career and then tried to make it look like racism was at play when he couldn't get a job. Maybe there was collusion I don't know but he's the author of a lot of what transpired. Image is greater than truth.
What matters is the zeitgeist and how corporations can capitalize on it. Let's call it 'virtue-coin'.
It's a calculated hedge and it's a smart play strictly speaking. Nike is willing to lose on Kap because they cam make it up elsewhere. They're too established to lose everything over one bad campaign. They know what they're doing and probably discounted any potential backlash into their actuarial assessments. Companies - small or big - do this sort of thing all the time. That is, make decisions independent of their bottom financial lines.
Just this week my niece asked me for a job. Although my business at the moment is in a precarious situation financially, I hired her (part-time for now) because she's family and that she should learn what it's like to run a business. If anything, it can help to inoculate her from divisive idiots like Tlaib, Sanders, Warren and Ocasio-Corrrrrtez and their anti-business screeds.
Same with Starbucks. Although, they're really getting stupid about it and makes one wonder what is going through their minds giving out needles in bathrooms. For now, this idiocy is restricted to the United States. My daughter goes to Starbucks because it's right next to her school but you bet you damn ass I'm watching them.
Her well-being is my concern and couldn't care less about their need to virtue signal on my time and at the risk of potentially hurting her.
Starbucks, incidentally, is off my list of places to go to. It's just too much.
Same goes for companies taking a laughable stance against Trump.
Just do your damn jobs and spare us the lectures.
And now Gillette has thrown its hat into the ring. Soon it'll blow over. What will come of it who knows?
I fully expect companies to continue to be 'activists' for the next little while.
But.
I reckon one day, the people studying our time are going to look back on this period as an embarrassment.
Not that the people who pimp this stuff - they truly see themselves as sparking progress - will ever admit it.
Alas, history will record the names. It'll be written in the wind.
One recent trend I find most incredible is the spin that conservatives are anti-semitic. Which is quite an astonishing assertion given it's a well-known, well-documented fact the left own this. From Jesse Jackson to Al Sharpton to Farrakhan we've seen this play out in public.
And this includes Obama I'm afraid. You don't spend twenty years in a Church listening to anti-semitic (and anti-American) screeds from a Reverend (and this goes for Michelle as well) and not believe it on some level.
The Democrats have some winners in their ranks.
Of course, there's the uber-ignorant (and immoral) AOC. Immoral because she subscribes to the "it's not a lie if you think you mean well" nonsense. Lying or deceiving or manipulating facts to get your way is an immoral act. That you *think* you're in the right makes it worse because it makes your a zealot and on your way to being a true totalitarian.
All is fair if for the 'greater good'.
More outlandish is the preposterous notion of Trump lies but when she is called out (aside from trotting the usual 'they're all haters' defense) she was just being clumsy and demands people see her version of the 'big picture'.
The ends justifying your means is the denial of morality.
AOC doesn't need 'facts' or the accuracy thereof. All she needs are her intentions.
It's a play on Plato's Noble lies (which I'm sure she has read) where Plato argues lies are necessary for leaders to get people to perform according to the ideals prescribed by them in order to have a stable society. Note here, AOC argues green energy policy is noble and therefore it doesn't matter what the facts say since it poses an existential threat. It then follows people must then fork over their liberties as well as their taxes to see this existential threat thwarted and then the earth be saved.
Another version of left-wingers justifying lies is Georges Sorel and 'Social myths' which are used to galvanize people into action. Think the rich are stealing from you.
Very scary woman this Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Blind ignorance and blinded righteousness is a toxic mix.
She also needs to slow down. I don't know where she gets this arrogance, but at 29 years-old she should be a student first and then preach to millions of people.
****
Then comes Rashida Tlaib. The woman who said 'we're gonna impeach the motherfucker' about Trump.
The Democrats and the left say they want to united people. Yet, in actuality, all they do is engage in divisive rhetoric.
On her Twitter account she says, 'People over profit' - whatever that means. And if you read 'Road to Serfdom' or are just a plain astute observer of left-wing socialist propaganda, it's just another way of telling people a 'planned existence' is the way to go.
The other thing I find most detestable is their anti-semitism.
And for the love of God, they absolutely are anti-semitic. They want to unite people and then pull this retarded shit:
A map of the world that is. With Israel blotted out.
Israel. The one normal, successful, democratic nation-state in a sea of morally bankrupted kleptocracies masking as civil countries. The Palestinians are a death cult (remember when those two young Jews nearly 20 years ago ended up in Ramallah only to be murdered in cold blood? Look below. That guy's hands are drenched in the fresh blood of the two he helped killed after storming a police station. The people below? Cheering. This is a culture?)
I reject they're 'desperate' and have no choice but to strap bombs to their kids. To me, such preposterous acts are indicative of a decaying cultural entity.
Mayhem is all they know. Pinning it all on the Jews is a bit of a joke. It's perhaps a twist or glitch of history and humanity they don't have a homeland. Imagine them with conventional bombs with consolidated power let alone nuclear?
Haven't done this in a while but watching some football, waiting around for the Eagles to take on the Bears and getting some work done and discovered this Jethro Tull gem.
