You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Politics’ tag.
The first of the manipulations, and the center of how it works, is the collectivization of the “LGBTQ2 community.”
This thing does not exist meaningfully. It’s not even a genuine coalition. Gay people, and so on, exist, but that acronym represents nothing but a lie.
However they spell the acronym, its purpose is to collectivize all of the people in certain descriptive demographics and to allow the radicals to speak for their entirety, making it appear like many “marginalized” people support Woke stuff when actually only few do.
That is, Queer Activism is being done in the names of a broad pseudo-coalition “community” denoted by the acronym, even though most individuals in that “community” aren’t represented by it and may even reject it outright. Queer Activists hide behind a synthetic coalition.
It bears repeating that throughout the Queer literature, it is stressed and stressed again that “Queer” is an oppositional political stance, not an identity at all. That proves, outside of the obvious rejection by people falsely claimed by the “community,” that it’s fake.
It also proves that the Queer Activists KNOW the “LGBTQ2 community” is an artificial construction that they’re manipulating to gain empathy and support they don’t deserve. Let that sink in. They KNOW it. They’re DOING IT ON PURPOSE, WILLFULLY. So here is the Liberal Party.
So this is the first huge manipulation here: making people believe in a broad “LGBTQ2 community” that doesn’t exist except as a manipulative pseudo-coalition that speaks for and hides behind sexual minorities so it can do destructive oppositional Queer Activism in its name.
The second huge manipulation here is the claim that anything resisting Queer Activism “harms” this “community.” First of all, no it doesn’t. It just doesn’t. Nobody is being “harmed” at all. That claim is the wail of a histrionic narcissist not getting his way.
Second of all, the community itself can’t be “harmed,” even if it existed (remember, it’s a fake pseudo-coalition ginned into existence by Queer Activists to hide behind). Only individuals can be harmed, and they could be treated individually rather than collectively if harmed.
This part of the manipulation twists the ethos but not the logic of civil rights into its inverse. The logic of civil rights is that no INDIVIDUAL should be harmed through discriminatory law or policy. It has nothing to do with groups or their rights, but this inverts that logic.
People have been led to think civil rights is about protecting groups (“protected classes”) when in reality “protected classes” refers to classifications under which all individuals are protected against discriminatory activity. Race, not specific races, is protected this way.
The third part of the manipulation is in the idea of “harm” itself. For Queer Theorists, not getting their way is “hate” and “harm.” They paint a picture of fringe cases where something bad happens as though they’re indicative of the population. They’re not.
They’re trying to claim that all members of a fictitious “community” are “harmed” so they can emotionally blackmail people into supporting radical agendas from within (Communist) Queer Theory, when in fact a few individuals have problems blamed on a system, rightly or wrongly.Their objective is to provide universal solutions that might be merited in a small number of individual cases by claiming “the community is harmed.” This is akin to doing universal screenings or treatments in medicine, which is strongly discouraged for good reasons.
Doing universal cancer screenings, for example, produces far more false positives than real positives and puts people into fear and onto courses of treatment that actually harm them when they don’t need them. This “community” stuff treats the whole community for a few bad cases.
It’s malpractice justified through collectivist empathy. The remedy is to install the praxis of Queer Activism everywhere so the few special cases don’t get missed and “harmed,” but Queer Activism harms everyone, and what you might hope it would be harms most people.
The reason they think this way is because Queer Theory posits that our true, essential nature is queer. Everybody is queer. It’s who we really are, and we have to be led BACK into realizing it because it’s socialized out of us by cisheteronormative society.
What this actually reveals about Queer Theory is that it’s a Gnostic or Hermetic cult (both, really). Our true nature is obscured from us, and we have to be led to remember it by escaping the evil forces obscuring it from us. We’re all “spiritually” queer but don’t realize it.
Since Rousseau and Marx, “spiritually” has meant collectively in society. Marxism is the belief that our true spiritual nature is “social(ist),” and we have to be re-socialized into realizing who we really are: a social species with the power to create itself and our world.
Queer Theory just posits that we’re all queer (abnormal and intrinsically opposed to limitations of normalcy), but we’ve been socialized to be “normal” instead. So denying Queer Activist praxis to ALL kids (and all people) “harms” them spiritually. That’s what they really mean.
We don’t have to put up with this emotional blackmail anymore, nor do we have to accept that a fringe of radical activists with demonstrable cult views gets to present itself as the “true” voice of a broad coalition that it holds out as tokens for empathy and support.
The Liberal Party of Canada is extinction bursting on the fear button. They quote one of the grifters on their payroll in attempt to smear the opposition.
Maybe quoting a male that is rabidly misogynistic for your attack ad isn’t a keen strategy? But of course, throwing Canadian women under the bus is nothing new for this government.
Our federal election cannot come to soon. I sorely need to see the activist Left out of power here in Canada.
We need to be able identify thought terminating cliches and deal with them appropriately. We need to encourage not suppress speech in society.
After thirty one years I’m pretty much done with the Canadian political left. The NDP is faux-activist driven and impotent while the Liberals are roughly the same as the Conservatives but delight in erasing females from Canadian society under the guise of ‘gender inclusiveness’ (gross!).
Let’s be honest the PPC are just a little too crazy around the edges to be a viable political force in Canada. However the Canadian Centrist party seems like a fairly sane and rational choice. This snippet from their website –
“There is no political party in Canada that has a balanced approach to critical issues faced by all Canadians today, and hence there is dire need of a political platform which provides Centrist, the most practical and pragmatic approach to problems faced by Canadians. Centrist Party’s vision is to provide transparent government leading to economic prosperity and strong united Canada.
All political parties in Canada either follow a right or left political ideology and they are quite divided in their approach toward economical and social issues. Liberal Party, NDP and Green Party are considered left wing parties. Conservative Party, and other Right wing parties use fear mongering, anti-minority and anti-indigenous rhetoric, whereas left- wing parties are against developing our natural resources and have become too much extremist in their approach to social issues”
So yeah, not bad. However there is another, still nascent party, waiting in the wings. The Centre Ice Conservatives this is part of their bit.
“We are a platform that intends to be a strong, bold and proud voice for the centre-right of Canada’s political spectrum.
Why are we doing this? Because we don’t want the centre to be marginalized and ignored any longer. And because our voice – your voice – firmly focused on the priorities of mainstream Canadians, is badly needed today. More than ever.
Why is that?
Because “woke” voices on the edges of the left and “populist” voices on the fringes of the right are sucking up all the oxygen in what passes for political debate in Canada. And Canada is worse off for it. These loud and fringe voices dominate Party politics, creating tribal divisions and fierce debates over issues mainly long-settled in the minds of most Canadians.
That leaves most of us in the middle scratching our heads, wondering “Who speaks for us?”.
It seems like the Canadian Centrist Party and the Centre Ice Party should get together and have a chat.
I was recently texted by my local NDP office with regards to getting a sign for the upcoming Alberta provincial election. This is how it went:
So no, you cannot count on my vote because you are participating in the erasure of females in our society. Allow me to provide a non-circular reality based definition of the word ‘woman’. A women is an adult human female.
Play stupid identity politics games, win stupid prizes.
Neo liberal capitalistic societies tend to promote narratives that reinforce their preferred system of rules and expectations. Examining counter examples and counter-narratives is a necessary task of those who not only want to change society, but also for those who wish to improve the societal conditions in which they exist. The assumption in question is the animal dominance idea. It goes like this:
“Mammals tend to have “alpha” animals – leaders. Doesn’t this prove that monarchies are more biologically normal that self-sacrificing or consensus-based or egalitarian democracies? [..] It turns that dominace-based political and economic systems are the exception, not the rule, in the arc of human history, and they have a nasty habit of imploding every century or so, so as a succession of European, African, South American, and Asian empires show.”
[…]
“The prevailing assumption has always been that because there are identifiable “alpha” members of animal groups – from alpha males amount gorillas to alpha females among wolves – these alpha members must also exercise despotic rules over the other in the tribe, pack, or community”
[…]
“Conradt and Roper discovered that democracy always trumps despotism, both over the short and the long term. When a single leader(despot) or small group of leaders (oligarchy) make the choices, the swings into extreme behaviour tend to be greater and more dangerous to the long term survival of the group. Because in a despotic model the overall needs of the entire group are measured only by the leader’s needs, wrong decisions would be made often enough to put the survival of the group at risk.”
“With democratic decision making, however, the overall knowledge and wisdom of the entire group, along with the needs of the entire group, come into play. The outcome is likely to harm anybody, and the group’s probability of survival is enhanced. ‘Democratic decisions are more beneficial primarily because they tend to produce less extreme decisions,’ they note in the abstract to their paper.
-Hartmann, Thom. Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture pp. 118 – 120
So, these biologists (see L. Conradt and T. J. Roper’s original article here) putting forward a set of assumptions that contradict the neoliberal “despotism is the way” set of ideas about how animals organize and work (and how it ‘naturally’ occurs in human affairs as well). The democratic impulse, at least according to this paper, is alive and moderately pervasive in the mammalian kingdoms (for a quick summary check out James Randerson in the New Scientist).
I’m quite happy with these results. But that is not to say that they are necessarily the correct interpretation of all the facts of the matter. Our species tendency to pick the fact and narratives that support our own preferences is the bigger lesson to be aware of. I urge my readership to look into both accounts and judge the facts for what they say, not what we wish to them to say.
However, if we continue with democratic animal narrative we can reasonably say something along the lines of what Thom Hartmann says in the closing paragraph of that chapter.
“Those who advocate a dog-eat-dog, “survival of the fittest at the expense of society as a whole” approach to economics and governance are advocating, essentially, for cancer in our body politic. They are ignoring the surrounding environment [see corporate ‘externalities’], which demands a balanced, homeostatic, and altruistic culture. On every continent in the world we find living cultures and cultural remnants that knew this well and that developed elaborate and successful ways to prevent sociopathic individuals whose obsession centred on acquiring wealth at the expense of others, keeping others from being successful at growing and metastasizing.”
-Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture p.125
I think that there is a fair chunk of evidence that we have let the anti-democratic factions exercise too much control and power in our society. The ruthless exploitation of people and the environment in the name of progress under capitalism reveals a tendency toward the despotic cancerous nature that has typified much of capitalistic theory and practice as of late. We need to be able to explore and understand different methods of organizing our societies and perhaps swinging the pendulum more toward a society that is more altruistic and more democratic in nature.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…