Our democracies and their liberal relics continue to move expeditiously towards the abyss. Critical thinking is now a pesky nuisance that undermines the cause of the collective. Constructive discourse was once the perfect mechanism to solve problems. But to give a fair hearing to an opposing viewpoint is now considered blasphemous.
As people continue to only interact with those who share their prejudices, the Orwellian tendency to strive towards uniformity decimates free thought. What goes with it is our ability, or even desire, to sharpen our thinking. The art of disagreement is the greatest casualty in these culture wars, not least because one side wants to sever our attachment to reason so it can uproot the patriarchy and effectuate our compliance with its worldview.
If you haven’t heard, words are violence and should be met with actual acts of violence, like spraying asubstance in someone’s face because their views don’t align with your dogmas. In case you didn’t know, criticizing a Congresswoman for her anti-Semitism and leniency toward Islamism is inciting violence. If you weren’t aware, free speech is a device by which the racist West continues to marginalize people. To respect the value of free speech, white people have to enjoy less. Because, as professional logic-chopper Noah Berlatsky tells us, “Defending the speech of white kids doesn’t necessarily protect the speech of marginalized people.” There is a war being waged on the English language. Racism no longer means what it has meant from time immemorial; it means whatever the laws of victimhood say it means. The point is, of course, you can’t be racist against white people.
We’re all human, and groupthink can permeate all sides, but given its domination of the culture and institutions, confronting the radical left should take priority.
What should behoove us to be forthright is the radicals’ ability to infiltrate administrative bodies and corporations since it proves that their fallacies aren’t isolated to a few quirky academic conferences and classrooms.
Moreover, since they can do this unchallenged, leftists are free to impose their idiotic delusions on the rest of us.
To understand groupthink, we could consult George Orwell’s 1984 as it appears to be a manual for our friends on the radical left. But we should also acquaint ourselves with Irving Janis, a psychologist who researched the phenomenon in the 1970s. He defines it as obsessive “concurrence-seeking” (agreement) that “becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.” Consequently, “all the members are amiable and seek complete concurrence on every important issue, with no bickering or conflict to spoil the cozy, “we-feeling” atmosphere.” Simply put, facts that hurt the cause or conflict with the “higher morality” must be suppressed.
According to Janis, eight symptoms signal the onset of groupthink. They are invulnerability, rationale, morality, stereotypes, pressure, self-censorship, unanimity, and mindguards. A combination of these is always detectable in any manifestation of the outrage machine and leftist stupidity.
A few of my professors were afflicted with just about every symptom. One of them, for example, was convinced of her unmatched morality and wasn’t timid in expressing her contempt for conservatives or anyone with a heterodox view. It was also apparent that the expectation was unanimous agreement, as she seemed to assume we were all raging leftists before even knowing what we thought. It was then the job of classmates to “mindguard” ideas as any dissent invited some insufferable browbeating. Mindguarding has proved efficient in maintaining the orthodoxy; recently, the social justice mob impelled the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University to rescind its invitation to Jordan Peterson for a fellowship. As Peterson rightly lamented, this will deprive students of an opportunity to learn about the West’s Christian heritage. However, intellectual rewards don’t matter if they impede the advancement of the phantasmic utopia.
The Lindsay Shepherd debacle demonstrated that the illusion of invulnerability pervades the academy as university faculties feel safe to make a mockery of higher education with little consequence.
As those stricken with groupthink refuse to accept there are legitimate views aside from theirs, they have minimal knowledge of what their opposition actually believes and think anyone who disagrees with them has a moral deficiency. Thus, their opponents are beyond the pale and don’t deserve honest engagement. Since ignorance is blissful, they think by identifying as a conservative or classical liberal—or anything to the right of Stalin— you must be indistinguishable from the worst political forces. Limited understanding of terminology results in Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, being labelled the “Alt-Right Sage Without the Rage” by the Economist.
These methods are justifiable to a narcissistic moralist incapable of rational thought. And among the most notorious of these methods is lying about what someone has said. The latest victim of this treatment is Roger Scruton. In an interview with the New Statesman’s George Eaton, Scruton’s views on things like China and Islam were edited to make him look racist, resulting in him getting sacked from a government position. Eaton then celebrated the outcome, as if he had just done the world a great service.
This is the idiocy that the current culture has wrought. Great men like Scruton—who once braved Communist despots to educate dissidents in underground schools—are publicly destroyed by a dim-witted left-wing writer whose only accomplishment is receiving applause from his fellow hacks.
What’s also distressing is that for every sign that the tide of groupthink is receding, something happens to show us it’s not going anywhere. For every Grievance Studies hoax, there’s a Mark Duplass-Ben Shapiro situation; for every civil dialogue, there’s a Joe Biden-Mike Pence kerfuffle.
It won’t stop unless a vigorous opposition is mounted against the conformity being promulgated by the self-proclaimed moral arbiters. If not, the crime of “bothsidesism” (yes, that’s an actual term), which is weighing both sides of the argument, will be considered a permanent sin. And this will continue to arouse the worst totalitarian impulses.
Suspected terrorist Ikar Mao has been given a peace bond after returning to Canada. Terrorism peace bonds are uncommon. According to Global, “Mao is currently the only person in Canada facing a terror peace bond application.”
While Mao was arrested only on suspicion, not any known and actual alleged activity, the bond was granted.
Mao has agreed to 19 bail conditions while living in the Guelph/Brampton, Ontario area pending a hearing on the issue.
Mao had an active account on Couchsurfing.com and managed to raise $20,000 in bail after his arrest.
He is currently wearing an ankle monitor and not permitted to contact anyone “who is involved in or supports terrorist activity as defined in the Criminal Code.”
A Teen Vogue article from October has re-surfaced online in the last couple of days.
The headline “10 Best Vibrators for Beginners: How to Pick Your First” has made jaws drop—including mine.
This is a magazine targeting teenagers. That basically means children: 13 and 14-year-olds. And let’s face it, there are probably 12-year-olds out there reading too.
The article starts off, “As young people, it’s important to learn what feels good for us and what doesn’t, and masturbation is nothing to shy away from. In fact, we should all be doing it!. .. plus, it releases endorphins that make us feel happier and less stressed.”
Not only is this article encouraging sexual activity, but the article is listed on the “Gift Guide 2019,” so now your kid can get her and her bestie $200 vibrators.
Apparently, Teen Vogue thinks kids should be using sex toys and that vibrators make great gifts for the holidays.
Encouraging teens to be sexual is sexualizing teenagers.
Even as I type I can’t help but cringe and feel weird just writing about how … well, weird it is.
Why would a teen need a list of 10 different types of vibrators?
As if she knows what she likes sexually. As if she is ready and comfortable enough to experiment sexually.
And really, I shouldn’t even be using female pronouns because Teen Vogue has an entire online section named Identity with many articles about sexual and gender identity like transgenderism and non-binarism.
This section also includes articles like, “How to Masturbate If You Have a Penis: 9 Tips and Techniques” and “Anal Sex: Safety, How to’s, Tips, and More.”
Teenagers are much more children than they are adults. Let children be children and teens be teens.
Let teens live in the awkward stage where their bodies grow and change and they start to get shy around the opposite sex.
Let teens be slightly uncomfortable in their own skin—like when you don’t know what to do with your arms when you’re just standing around.
It’s all a part of growing up. And everyone grows up in their own time, naturally.
Let teens be inexperienced and uncomfortable with their sexuality. After all, this isn’t activity we should take lightly—or should I say casually?
At some point, society stopped letting kids be kids. Progressives have forced kids to grow up so fast and bear the weight of the adult world on their small shoulders: kids like Greta Thunberg whose childhood was “stolen” from her and lives with fear and anger because adults made her believe the world will end in 12 years due to climate change, or James Younger whose mother manipulated him into thinking he was a girl and was almost pushed into making a huge, life-altering decision of transitioning.
Kids and teens shouldn’t be worried or involved in such mature and complicated issues like sex, masturbation, and sex toys.
Teen Vogue also has a Politics section which, you guessed it, is completely anti-conservative.
I remember reading magazines as a pre-teen and teenager. Whatever happened to articles about fun sleep-over ideas? Or quizzes to find out what kind of mystical forest creature you’d be?
I miss the old days when children were allowed to be children and not at risk of being coerced into a deeply politicized and sexualized world by cynical and malicious adults.
The Soviets had a term for their minions in the West who advocated for Communism and tried to tear down democratic capitalist nations:
They were “useful” in the sense of doing what the Communists wanted in pushing their message and sowing discord, and they were ‘idiots’ in the sense that they would obviously suffer if Communism had won, and wouldn’t be a part of the “new order.”
And now, the Western world is once again beset by “useful idiots.”
A recent report discussed how US activists initiated a plan in 2008 to crush the Alberta oilsands, and are apparently “claiming victory” as Canada is increasingly divided, the Alberta oil industry struggles, investment flees, projects are delayed, and the energy sector faces existential risk.
Of course, global emissions keep going up.
Because emissions in Communist China continue to surge, with China building loads of new coal plants, both within China and in other nations like Pakistan.
So, what have those foreign-funded activists accomplished?
They’re tearing apart Canada, a democratic nation which already has among the highest environmental standards, redirecting money towards ruthless states like Saudi Arabia, and giving Communist China cover for increasing their emissions as the Communist State builds up their economy, which in turn gives China the wealth to build up their military forces and impose their authoritarian will over a larger and larger section of the planet.
Great job guys…
It seems that this generation’s “useful idiots” are much more successful than the useful idiots of the past, as their effort to destabilize and weaken Western nations like Canada are actually working, while the power of the Communist State grows by the day.
And like the useful idiots used by the Soviets, those who do the bidding—even unwillingly—of Communist China will meet a similar fate if the Communists win.
Do you think China will listen to criticism of energy projects?
Do you think China will give activists any rights?
Do you think China will follow environmental regulations?
Of course not.
The fact is the world is increasingly locked in a battle of two world-views. The democratic capitalist nations vs authoritarian communist China. Anything that hurts one (like dividing Canada and crushing Alberta’s oil industry), benefits the other.
That’s why all freedom-loving Canadians must speak out against the foreign-funded activists seeking to weaken our country and must redirect attention to the true threat posed by Communist China under that country’s current leadership. We must stand up for Alberta’s energy industry, stand up for the interests of Canada, and stand against those who put everything we’ve built at risk.
U.S. Representative for California Eric Swalwell (Dem) appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews Monday, and apparently decided he would rip a loud toot mid-sentence, thinking that no one would hear it.
Though it looks doctored, the video is no hoax. The clip can also be seen as originally aired on MSNBC’s website, with Swalwell’s bomb clearly audible.
Swalwell, who has never audibly farted on MSNBC before, has not responded to TPM’s inquiry as to what he had for dinner that could have caused him to cut the cheese.
We will give Swalwell a one-percent benefit of the doubt, though. It is possible that it was an audio guy that ripped one, or perhaps an incredibly well-timed audio malfunction that sounded exactly like a fart. But until this is verifiable, we will have to assume the worst.
UPDATE: In a text message to BuzzFeed News, Swalwell denies ever farting, stating that it wasn’t him.
Obviously, though, Swalwell does not know that he who ‘denied it,’ did in fact ‘supply it.’