Rhetorical Martial Arts -- Part B: Tactic # 12 Claiming moral Highground, Virtue-signalling3/16/2019 Rhetorical Martial Arts, Part B: Tactic #12: Claiming moral high ground, Virtue signalling
Futurescapes21C, All rights reserved 2019 Posted March 29, 2019, rev. April 24, 2019 Introduction I don't "jump" to conclusions, I arrive at them slowly and often painfully, sometimes after decades of digging and reflection. One is that conservatives, traditionalists and the common sense majority have been beaten into submission and sidelined in the culture war by neoliberal activists and their political enablers. Dissenters or resisters, as we might refer to ourselves, have for the most part been waging ineffectual rear guard actions. While there are no doubt several reasons for this state of affairs, the most obvious has been an inability to counter the relentless bombardment of lies, weaponized language and deception. Let's face it; we have been losing the war of words. Given that dissenters now find themselves struggling to retain the basic right to express an alternative view, it's clear we have no choice. We must fight back. Our resistance begins with learning some rhetorical self-defence. In the process of countering the assault on things we hold dear, we can also elevate the calibre of political discourse. But we must first recognize the kinds of logical fallacies being brought against us daily. This week, I am examining tactic #12, Claiming moral high ground, virtue-signalling. Tactic #12: Claiming moral high ground, virtue-signalling "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak: and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws." -- John Adams "But when you do merciful deeds, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand does." (Matthew 6:3) The logic of situating a fortress on a mountainous slope or mountain top is obvious. For starters, it’s imposing, and for would-be invaders, intimidating. But the ultimate physical advantage is that high ground transforms gravity into an ally of its defenders and an enemy of attackers. With the advantage of superior positioning, defenders can mercilessly rain down arrows, fire, boiling oil, or some other deterrent on the heads of attackers. The latter meanwhile must struggle with the three-fold challenge of mounting an attack, ascending the slope and fortress walls, and protecting their forces from the deadly assault from above. The same can be said of strategically positioned political arguments. Political opponents gain a significant advantage by securing the (perceived) moral high ground. And like defenders of a physical fortress, our opponents can hurl scorn from on high down upon the heads of their enemies. Political leaders gain a further advantage in gilding their arrows/arguments with a veneer of high moral purpose, giving the impression that they are the product of (divine) inspiration. Arguments dressed as religious precepts and coming from the high priests of the political theology are likely to bypass critical thinking filters. Thus, like the fortress on the mountain top, they become unassailable. This puts the lonely dissenter or critic of political orthodoxy at an inherent disadvantage. While court jesters have had their place historically, emperors past and present have also been quick to summarily convict their critics of heresy or insolence. (In Canada, the charges are more likely to be "racism," "hatred" or "islamophobia" or "misgendering.") Clearly, owning the perceived moral high ground confers a significant power advantage to incumbents. But it can’t be taken for granted – the position of moral superiority, once assumed, must be continuously guarded against encroachment. So a strict regimen of daily virtue-signaling must be maintained. No political leader in my memory has relied more heavily on constructing a political fortress upon presumed moral highground and buttressing it with constant virtue-signaling than Justin Trudeau. Trudeau and his Liberal administration have tapped every possible avenue of virtue point accumulation with near daily claims of “standing up for” some member of the protected classes: members of the LGBT+, community, feminists, refugees/immigrants, Zionists, aboriginals, Muslims. And its stated commitment to "climate change action” provides the Liberals with another basis for moral exhibitionism. The Progressive virtue-manufacturing model is central to Trudeau’s political strategy, policy lens and personal brand. Journalist, Jonathan Kay, describes how from the outset Trudeau adopted a progressive identity, and, I would add, he wields it like a weapon. Trudeau's woke identity is something he brought into office from day one. He banned anyone with pro-life views from his caucus, then tried to force recipients of a Canadian summer-jobs fund (including Bible camps) to declare support for pro-choice dogma. When asked why he insisted on creating Ottawa's first gender-balanced cabinet, Trudeau declared, “because it’s 2015” (as if to suggest that anyone who didn't support affirmative action was a misogynist…"). Under the Trudeau government's bill C-16, pronoun misusage could become actionable under Canadian human-rights law. His government has introduced new environmental impact assessments that require project managers to impute "the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors" in their environmental analysis.(1) Some critics describe such zealotry as ideological possession. It may well be, but to the objective eye, it's also selective, superficial, self-serving, and ultimately, unsustainable. There's no shortage of examples. In January of 2017, Donald Trump imposed a "travel ban" on seven Muslim countries. On January 28, 2017 at 4.20 pm, Trudeau, seized the opportunity to burnish his star against a contrasting Trump policy backdrop and tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.“ Financial Post columnist, Diane Francis, described it as an example of “irresponsible” tweeting with serious consequences. "Before the tweet, border officials prevented 315 people a month from illegally crossing the border. Post-tweet in 2017, about 18,149 illegally crossed the border, then claimed asylum as refugees — even after entering illegally — and were allowed to stay, get welfare, education, housing, healthcare and work permits. By May 2018, the number of refugee cases pending has jumped to 54,906 from 18,348 in December 2016. That’s the population of Grande Prairie, Alberta or Granby, Quebec." The surge of refugees at a time of US policy uncertainty brought unprecedented pressure on Canada's porous borders, its immigration processing, and cities unprepared for the influx. Toronto’s mayor described the refugee housing situation in his city as a "crisis," and at least one Quebec politician called for a wall to stem the tide.(2) I have also heard Ottawa’s mayor’s lament that refugees in his city were living on the streets, and read that Manitoba’s premier called on the federal government to provided assistance to relieve the financial burden. There’s no mystery of course to the transactional, quid pro quo nature of such a moral highground ploy. This tweet brought new migrants into Canada and simultaneously positioned Mr. Trudeau as the friend of Canada’s growing immigrant population. The Liberals will in turn, expect their new fans to support them at the ballot box in the coming 2019 election. It's a time-tested cynical political play that ultimately amounts to corralling immigrant minorities to harvest their votes. A closer analysis of virtue signaling reveals its dual thrust. In short, it can be used to boost the virtue rating of the sender and weaponized to discredit an opponent at the same time. This is illustrated in a March 15 tweet from Liberal cabinet minster, Catherine Mckenna, following the mosque shooting in New Zealand. "I spoke to parents at Ottawa Main Mosque today whose kids are too scared to pray & go to school. Meanwhile Andrew Scheer has to be called out before he can call out Islamophobia. We all need to stand together against racism, hatred & violence of all kinds. All of us."(3) The first sentence is the play for virtue points essentially saying: "I'm compassionate and caring." The second is the weaponized portion intended to burn Andrew Scheer for his moral shabbiness. (the boiling oil dumped from the parapet of incumbent power.) And the third sentence affirms McKeena’s high-mindedness as she seemingly wants to bring people together. The essentially Orwellian Newspeak contradiction is inescapable, however, as she is condemning a political opponent (implying you should to) and simultaneously calling for unity. It's social media politics on the cheap and cheap politics. Here’s a March 27 tweet from the Liberal Party, again demonstrating the sweet and sour nature of a weaponized tweet. (As an aside, my grade nine English teacher would likely have red circled the second sentence as a “run on” sentence.) “Justin Trudeau and the Liberal team will always support women’s rights and equality. Every Canadian deserves a real and fair chance at success, and its time Andrew Scheer stopped putting politics before people.” #cdnpoll Translation: “We’re good and he’s bad.” I often quote a former director from my days working in a provincial agriculture department, a man who possessed the “gift" of satire. Big Dave once summed up the superficial bent of politics and opportunistic politicians with the old axiom: "If you can fake sincerity, you have it made." In the Post Truth Era, politics has been reduced to a science where image-making and optics are everything. Empathy, interest and concern are ingredients formulated and dispensed as needed on behalf of politicians by their PR and communications specialists. Faking sincerity is standard practice. The problem with moral exhibitionism is that it’s skin deep at best and its conscience more often than not, imaginary. That is, it exists solely in the mind of the claimant. A Swedish TV channel conducted an on-the-spot street test of authenticity in an unnamed city in Sweden. Interviewees were asked what they thought of the influx of refugees into the country and if Swedes should “rise to the occasion” and take refugees into their homes. They were also asked if they would personally consider doing so if the opportunity presented itself. The responses were consistently, “yes.” Once that was established, the interviewer called their bluff. He then introduced a man named Ali, and asked the interviewee if he or she had room for Ali in his/her home. The excuses ranged from lack of space, commitment to an existing renter and sick children to early morning meetings, busy schedules and leasing restrictions.(4) The exercise may offer some insight into the psychology of Swedes as it relates to their sense of immigration “responsibilities.” Lest we “cast the first stone,” however, my guess is that the perennial gap between affirming a general idea in principal, and as a collective responsibility on the one hand, and taking personal action on the other, is a human trait. Aah yes, humility is a uncomfortable virtue. The discerning shouldn't associate virtue with external appearances or social position. The wealthy and the powerful (the elite), their pretensions aside, aren't inherently more caring or benevolent. In fact, there may be a negative correlation between such advantages and empathetic behaviour. Dascher Keltner, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley, has studied the effects of wealth and power for decades. In one of his experiments, researchers observed drivers at a busy intersection. They found that people in expensive cars were four times more likely to cut off other drivers and ignore right-of-way laws. “It told us that there’s something about wealth and privilege that makes you feel like you’re above the law, that allows you to treat others like they don’t exist,” Keltner said. (5) One wonders if these same drivers were aware of the distain they exhibited toward fellow drivers or lived in a state of denial. The tenets of social justice or at least its applications are riddled with contradictions. Across the border, US-Democrats and Republicans were seemingly outraged by the practice of separating children from parents or guardians (some turn out to be traffickers) during the processing of refugees at the Southern US border.(6) My guess, however, is that support for abortion, a terminal form of parent-child separation accounting for roughly 300,000 unborn annually remains strong among many who protested border separation the loudest. Certainly, that loss to parents and humanity doesn't appear to be a subject of concern on the part of the current President of Planned Parenthood, who bragged on late night TV that she was President Trump's "nightmare."(7) While the subject of climate change is clearly beyond the scope of this essay, I can offer an easy test of the oft-stated Liberal commitment to “climate change action." Presumably advocates are deeply concerned about weather extremes and the associated costs and consequences to people and the planet. But how deep does the concern go? Are advocates sufficiently concerned to demand public disclosure and an investigation of the effects of the covert weather geo-engineering programs employed by the US, China and Russia for decades?(8)(9) No? Well, alrighty then. The shallow deceptiveness of do-it-yourself virtue constructs inherent in identity politics seems apparent, and yet millions remain faithful adherents. I have for some time speculated that this kind of observance is suggestive of a religious cult. Journalist, Shadi Hamid, writing in the Atlantic about outrage culture, makes a similar observation. “This is why identity politics can sometimes seem like a new sort of political theology. Belief and conviction are good things, but only if there’s something to believe in. Identity politics and the virtue-outbidding it necessitates often signal the absence of religion in search of religion—with followers mimicking its constituent elements: ritual, purity, atonement, and excommunication. In purely practical terms, moral posturing doesn’t usually change anyone’s mind, because people intuitively interpret it “as a form of jockeying for in-group status.” But it doesn’t need to change minds, nor is it necessarily supposed to. Its point is to transform politics into a question of purity.” (10) It falls to astute critics then to test the authenticity and expose the shallowness of politicians, their politics and their policy proposals where applicable. I’ll go farther in fact and argue that it's our civic duty. The underlying question is: Are they aimed at genuine policy solutions or winning the purity or virtue competition? We also are also obliged to expose the destructive outcomes of politic and policies essentially based on good intentions. History demonstrates just how often the politics of good intentions has led humanity down the road to hellish outcomes. For a cautionary highlighting of several of those occasions when the truth of the proverb was born out, see Ewan Morrison's article, "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions"(11). Sometimes, straightforward truth-telling is all it takes to penetrate the spell of human delusions. I am an ardent admirer of the young boy who, standing at his mom’s side, pointed out the nakedness of a vain Emperor parading in the public square in his imaginary new "clothes." HIs childish instinct spared the entire village the indignity and the insanity of pretending the emperor was dressed in finery just to satisfy an imperial delusion. I am similarly indebted to those who expose the hubris of today's naked emperors and their enablers in high places(12). Without them, it seems, we risk being forcibly immersed in a world of delusion and darkness. I doubt there has ever been a greater need for such heroes to emerge in the West than now. Diane Francis called out Trudeau's irresponsible "send me your troubled masses" tweet contending he should repair the damage it caused. In other writing, I have called attention to the inherent hypocrisy in Trudeau’s stance on immigration and its obvious contradictions. A simple test of the authenticity of his proclaimed concern for refugees is this: “Since the majority of immigrants are created by US-led regime change wars in the Middle East and beyond, what have you done to stop or at least impede Washington’s war machine? Did you stand up for Syrians under attack by mercenaries from 40 countries? What are you doing to protect Venezuela from a regime change coup? (Or, I see. You're supporting the coup?) And, “When will you tell the regime changers to abandon the provocative anti -Iran and anti-Russia war propaganda?” Critics of Trudeau’s handling of the SNC Lavalin affair have exposed the contradictions in his feminist posturing. Specifically, he flaunted his progressive virtue when appointing what were, presumably, “strong, independent” women to his cabinet. But when one such person, Attorney General Jody Wilson Raybould refused to grant SNC Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement, she alleges she was subjected to a lengthy pressure campaign and veiled threats from Trudeau, his Minister of Finance and numerous government officials.(13) Ultimately, Wilson Raybould was demoted to lesser role in the Trudeau government. In her analysis of Trudeau's conduct in the matter, Conservative MP, Michelle Rempel described Trudeau as a “fake feminist.”(14) Jonathan Kay described another apparent contradiction this way. “… it is impossible to reconcile Butts' attempt to discredit Wilson-Raybould's narrative wholesale without making nonsense of Trudeau's woke 2018 claim that "when women speak up, it is our duty to listen to them and to believe them." Irish journalist, Danielle Ryan sees a commonality in the façade of political correctness of Trudaeau and Macron. “But the Macrons and the Trudeaus of the world are monsters in disguise - and they are just as dangerous. They exhibit extreme arrogance, running around lecturing the world on right and wrong, claiming a position on the moral high-ground. It's all a bad joke.” (15) Licia Corbella, in a March 30 Calgary Herald article, offers more insight into what lies beneath the disguise and the moral posturing. She notes that the contents of the taped phone call between Wilson Raubould and former head of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick is proof positive that "the PM and many of the people around him have lied throughout this controversy. She (Wilson-Raybould) has proof. They have lies" (italic added).(16). Canadians have just seen the limits of PR-manufactured sincerity so popular with 21st century politicians. Sure, you can coat almost any surface with it, and it might look okay for awhile from a distance, but when the heat is on, it flakes off like cheap paint. And when it does, one is left with the uninspiring realization that ultimately, your PM and his officials bullied and lied for the basest of all political motives: to ensure their government would be returned to power. The intent of this piece was to dismantle one of the most powerful tactics employed by neoliberals in the current culture war; that of seizing the moral high ground and attacking from "above." The advantages conferred by this positioning and the protection it provides incumbents from the slings and arrows of political criticism are no doubt underestimated. There have been a lot of casualties among the citizenry. I suggest millions of Canadians have succumbed to the daily bombardment of smears --- "racist," "bigot," "hater," "xenophobe," "misogynist," "anti-immigrant" and other disparaging terms. And the significance of the loss of their participation in the political debate shouldn't be underestimated. This analysis has revealed a few other things. Resisters should now realize that the moral high ground smear attack is only fatal if we give credence to the charge by cowering and acting as if it's true when it isn't. It only succeeds if we hang our heads and retreat to fearful silence. It's time to stand up, re-engage and counter the assault. The best responses will expose the shallow, selective, self-serving and hypocritical nature of manufactured virtue. As the The SNC Lavalin case and others have demonstrated, the leaders of the current regime are mere mortals with feet of clay. And yet, they continue to parade before us in their imaginary finery soaking up the praise of their enthralled followers. And what about that imposing neoliberal political fortress of virtue towering above us? It turns out that it's nothing more than a mirage, every bit as illusory as the purity and the piety of its defenders. - Rod End notes 1. Justin Trudeau’s latest scandal shows the perils of ‘woke” governance, Jonathan Kay, Quillette, Signs of the Times, March 7, 2019 https://www.sott.net/article/408719-Justin-Trudeaus-latest-scandal-shows-us-the-perils-of-woke-governance 2. Trudeau's holier-than-thou tweet causes migrant crisis -- now he needs to fix what he started, Diane Francis, Financial Post, https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/trudeaus-holier-than-thou-tweet-causes-migrant-crisis-now-he-needs-to-fix-what-he-started 3. Horrible: In absolutely disgusting move, Mckenna Mckenna tries using aftermath of New Zealand mosque shooting to score political points against Andrew Scheer, Spencer Fernando, March 16, 2018. https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/03/16/horrible-in-absolutely-disgusting-move-catherine-mckenna-tries-using-new-zealand-mosque-shooting-to-score-political-points-against-andrew-scheer/ 4. Virtue signalling: Swedes say they should house and refugee, but refuse once given the opportunity, Signs of the Times, March 22, 2019 https://www.sott.net/article/409631-Virtue-signalling-Swedes-say-they-can-house-a-refugee-but-refuse-once-given-the-opportunity 5. Studies show the wealthy and powerful are more likely to lie, cheat and steal, Blacklisted News, March 25, 2019. https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/71789/studies-show-that-wealthy-and-powerful-more-likely-to-lie-cheat-and.html 6. Trump administration scrambles as outrage grows over border separations, The Guardian, June 19, 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/18/us-immigration-border-families-separated-children-kirstjen-nielsen 7. Planned Parenthood president brags that she's 'Trump's nightmare,' True Pundit, March 22, 2019 https://truepundit.com/planned-parenthood-president-brags-that-shes-trumps-nightmare/ 8. Geoengineering – a short history, FP, September 3, 2013 https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/03/geoengineering-a-short-history/ 9. With Operation Popeye, the US government made weather an instrument of war, Popular Science, March 20, 2019 https://www.popsci.com/operation-popeye-government-weather-vietnam-war 10. Bari Weiss and the Left-Wing fascination with taking offence, Shadi Hamid, February 17, 2018, outrage politics https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/bari-weiss-immigrants/553550/ 11. The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, Ewan Morrison, Psychology Today, April 15, 2019 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/word-less/201904/the-road-hell-is-paved-good-intentions 12. The Emperor's New Clothes, HC Anderson Centre, http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html 13. Wilson-Raybould says she got ‘veiled threats’ on SNC-Lavalin, BNN Bloomberg, February 27, 2019 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/wilson-raybould-says-she-got-veiled-threats-on-snc-lavalin-1.1220737 14. Michelle Rempel blasts Justin Trudeau as "fake feminist," Global News, February 25, 2019 https://globalnews.ca/video/4997228/michelle-rempel-slams-justin-trudeau-as-fake-feminist-2-2 15. Surprise! ‘Progressive hero’ Justin Trudeau is a fraud and a hypocrite, Danielle Ryan, RT, February 28, 2019 https://www.rt.com/op-ed/452696-trudeau-corruption-scandal-fraud/ 16. Corbella: Wilson-Raybould's version behind scandal is indisputable and nuclear, Calgary Herald, March 30, 2019, https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/corbella-wilson-rayboulds-version-behind-scandal-is-indisputable-and-nuclear
0 Comments
Copyright Futurescapes21C. All rights reserved. 2019.
Posted March 18, 2019. Introduction I don't "jump" to conclusions, I arrive at them slowly and often painfully, sometimes after decades of digging and reflection. One is that conservatives, traditionalists and the common sense majority have been beaten into submission and sidelined in the culture war by neoliberal activists and their political enablers. Dissenters or resisters, as we might refer to ourselves, have for the most part been waging ineffectual rear guard actions. While there are no doubt several reasons for this state of affairs, the most obvious has been an inability to counter the relentless bombardment of lies, weaponized language and deception. Let's face it; we have been losing the war of words. Given that dissenters now find themselves struggling to retain the basic right to express an alternative view, it's clear we have no choice. We must fight back. Our resistance begins with learning some rhetorical self-defence. In the process of countering the assault on things we hold dear, we can also elevate the calibre of political discourse. But we must first recognize the kinds of logical fallacies being brought against us daily. This week, I am examining tactic #11, The False Dichotomy or false choice. Tactic #11: The false dichotomy (false choice, dilemma, alternatives, excluded middle) Growing up on a grain farming and livestock enterprise in the fifties and sixties, I worked with livestock, cattle in particular, from childhood. By the age of 13, I had probably learned most of the basic techniques for effectively handling cattle, including how to round up a group of cows and herd them into a corral or a head stanchion for branding or medical treatment. It's a matter of learning cattle psychology. And some of that learning has sensitized me to the fact that humans we the people are being herded by the powers-that-be today. I instinctively know the feeling of being politically "driven" down a trail of someone else's choosing and "corralled" in a political construct. Sometimes it's obvious, a matter of the daily programming and prodding by corporate media arm-in-arm with Big Brother, and sometimes it's more subtle. But we can be certain that we are being herded, corralled and yes, branded metaphorically speaking. And the false dichotomy has proven to be one of the most useful tactics in the hands of our overseers. The false dichotomy typically takes the form of "either-or" choice between competing alternatives. Its devious nature stems from the fact that while only two choices are presented, a bigger array, often including much better alternatives, is excluded. In other instances, the structure of the choice may imply equivalence between two alternatives where none exists. If you say to your three year old, "If you clean up your plate, you can have either ice cream or a serving of cooked cabbage for dessert, you haven't really given them a choice -- even if he or she does like ice cream. A third variety of false choice would be a situation where two or more choices on offer aren't substantially different from each other. I do have a confession to make on the subject of parenting in this regard. When we were raising three young children, my wife I did employ versions of the false choice in order to keep things manageable. Imagine that it's 6:45 am and you have to get the kids ready for school, breakfasted and out of the house by 7:30. What do you do to avoid loss of precious time to protracted wardrobe selection by your 4 year old? You present the binary choice: "So, would like to wear your khaki shorts or your blue jeans to school today?" Now that was easy wan't it? Politicians often employ only a slightly more sophisticated version of the false dichotomy in order to nudge the populace down a particular (pre-ordained) path. And it works because we don't challenge the framing of the choice, or question the credibility of those in authority. But the results of the adult version of the false choice are so much more consequential. Nine days after the deadliest terrorist attach in US history, George W. Bush called for readiness on the part of the military and urged Americans to be patient and strong. As national leaders often do, he was speaking to both a domestic and foreign audience at the same time. He noted that many countries had offered sympathy and support to the US. The rest he said (Here it comes), face a choice. "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."(1) Perhaps it sounded like a no brainer to a traumatized populace -- "I'm sure not siding with the terrorists, so I guess I'm with 'us.'" Few could ever have imagined the catastrophic consequences of that choice. It committed us to an unending series of illegal, bloody and devastating regime change wars in the Middle East and Northern Africa.(2) Remarkably, it continues to this day with Syria the latest and Iran now clearly in the sights of the Washington Neocon-Military industrial Complex. Now, some at least understand the devious nature of the forced binary choice, particularly when in this case, the 9/11 incident used to provide the pretext for the so-called "War on Terror" was a false flag event.(3) So, we have a devious false choice based upon a deception used to secure consensus for a series of illegal wars resulting in the ugliest of war crimes. The false dichotomy tactic is also used to shape human behaviour in far more mundane matters. Back in 2012, Vic Toews, Justice Minister in the Steven Harper government, was seeking to push surveillance legislation through parliament that would allow the federal government to collect IP addresses, email addresses, mobile phone numbers and other identifying information on anyone who interested them without a warrant. Federal and provincial privacy commissioners objected, warning the government that this could constitute a violation of privacy rights. Toews countered with a false dichotomy, saying people "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers."(4) Suffice to say, his "my-way-or-you're-child-pornography-enablers" wasn't well received. What about "I'm with neither of the above." What these examples illustrate is that the false choice isn't benign -- it usually integrates a barb -- a smear. Being an enabler of terrorists or child pornographers is hardly a neutral choice -- like choosing between strawberry or chocolate ice cream. And that's what makes it a favourite of neoliberal culture warriors. The false choice-smear can be handily used to brand anyone with whom they disagree. It can incorporate a dog whistle invitation to their followers to treat the targets as socially undesirable. And that implies their views are unworthy of consideration. Essentially, the dissenters are thus sidelined and rendered voiceless. Mission accomplished. Hillary Clinton clearly likes the false dichotomy as evidenced by her attempt to corral and brand Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables." The implied "either-or" in this case was that either you are voting Democrat or you are socially repulsive -- politically unclean. It's a dismissive move and an invitation to her followers to condemn opponents. It also serves to check any Democrats who may have been tempted to stray. But it backfired, and Clinton was called on it. And like those situations where a coach overhears his team being trashed by opponents, Trump used the pejorative to rally his supporters. They turned the insult on its head, and began identifying as "the deplorables." There's another big picture false choice that bedevils US voters. It's the presumed political choice between Democrat and Republican. Scratch their respective surfaces and you find that both inevitably lead you to same establishment powers-that-be. It's cynically described as the "war party," an entity whose backers include global corporations, criminal "bankster" backers, the Neocon lobby and the military industrial complex -- also key beneficiaries. Despite its obvious Machiavellian nature, the false choice-smear remains a popular weapon in the hands of neoliberal leaders and their disciples. The underlying proposition behind its use in the on-going political struggle is simply, "If you don't agree with (my position), then by deduction, you are "bad." With its either-or, framing, there is only black and white, good versus bad -- no middle ground, no nuance and no room for give and take or compromise. Here are some current examples framed to include some of the most popular smears. Either you support Justin Trudeau's failing immigration policy and his plans to ramp up immigration rates and embrace the UN Migrant Compact or you are .....("anti-migrant,"anti-immigration" or "xenophobic.") Either you support anti-Russian sanctions and the "resurgent Russia" narrative or you are a ("Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge"). Either you support the US led-Canada-aided regime change campaign in Venezuela or you are (an enemy of the "people of Venezuela" and contributing to their starvation.) Either you supported the illegal regime change war conducted by the US and its Western and Middle Eastern allies against President Assad and Syria or you were (an "Assad Apologist," supporting a brutal dictator engaged in "butchering his own people") Either you support imposition of the Liberals' planned carbon tax to deal with that vaguest of all enemies, "climate change" or you are a (backward climate-denier irresponsibly ignoring the future of your grandchildren.) Either you as a political leader enthusiastically participate in Gay Pride celebrations on a regular basis or you are (unfit to lead, a "homophobe" or worse.) Either you embrace transgender activists' gender theory and its inclusion in the curriculum of grade school children or you are (a "hater" or "anti-transgender.") Either you remain silent about the many forms of political interference by AIPAC and the State of Israel in the politics of the United States or you are..(an "Anti-Semite"). I encountered a logic-defying false choice retort while writing this essay. It's author asserted that holding captured Canadian ISIS fighters in Syria accountable for their crimes constituted "hatred." The presumptive nature of such attacks gets even more twisted when one ventures into the abortion debate where opposition is construed as "murder." The irony is inescapable. It should be clear by now, that use of the false dichotomy is solely a debating, or more accurately, a bully tactic, nothing more. You can't exclude acres of middle ground and a range of possible choices and nuance and pretend that false choice smears lend anything to our political discourse. They are mindless attacks intended to stigmatize; the rhetorical equivalent of an incendiary device tossed into a crowded outdoor market. Culture war combatants trying to impose their faulty logic on the world are really trying to silence opposition and achieve narrative control. They reveal, in the process, a remarkable ignorance or at least a lack of appreciation for the best features of a liberal democracy, including the freedom to think and express oneself freely. It's time to make it clear to our opponents that that attempts to squelch those with an alternative points of view isn't going to go unchallenged. We aren't going to reciprocate with smears, however. We are going to call neoliberal champions of identity politics to engage in genine debate. At some level, seeking meaningful policy solutions to challenging social and political issues should be more rewarding than playing childish word games. And somewhere in the vast expanse between wildly posited "either" and "or's," we may even discover some common ground. End Notes 1. Bush: You're either "with us or with the terrorists' -- 2001-09-21, VOANews, October 27, 2009 https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-09-21-14-bush-66411197/549664.html 2. America's war on terror has cost the US nearly 6 trillion and killed roughly half a million people, and there's no end in sight, Business Insider, November 14, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/the-war-on-terror-has-cost-the-us-nearly-6-trillion-2018-11 3. 9/11 Finally the truth comes out, Global Research, Paul Craig Roberts, January 5, 2019 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-us-or-with-the-child-pornographers-doesnt-cut-it-mr-toews/article547530/ 4. On-line surveillance bill: critics are 'siding with the child pornographers', National Post, February 14, 2012 https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/online-surveillance-bill-critics-are-siding-with-child-pornographers-vic-toews Rhetorical Martial Arts Part B: Tactic #13 Appeal to False Authority
Futurescapes21C (c) All Rights Reserved 2019 Posted April 6, 2019, rev. April 20, 2019 Introduction I don't "jump" to conclusions, I arrive at them slowly and often painfully, sometimes after decades of digging and reflection. One is that conservatives, traditionalists and the common sense majority have been beaten into submission and sidelined in the culture war by neoliberal activists and their political enablers. Dissenters or resisters, as we might refer to ourselves, have for the most part been waging ineffectual rear guard actions. While there are no doubt several reasons for this state of affairs, the most obvious has been an inability to counter the relentless bombardment of lies, weaponized language and deception. Let's face it; we have been losing the war of words. Given that dissenters now find themselves struggling to retain the basic right to express an alternative view, it's clear we have no choice. We must fight back. Our resistance begins with learning some rhetorical self-defence. In the process of countering the assault on things we hold dear, we can also elevate the calibre of political discourse. But we must first recognize the kinds of logical fallacies being brought against us daily. This week, I am examining tactic #13, Appeal to false authority. Tactic #13: Appeal to False Authority It was just a hunch on my part that those smooth-talking individuals who sold miracle elixirs under the big top at the medicine shows of the 1800s prefaced their name with “Doc” or "Doctor" (Somebody). For a moment I wondered if I was being too cynical, so I checked the Wikipedia entry for Medicine Show, and it confirmed my hunch: “Each show was run by a man posing as a doctor who drew the crowd with a monologue.” The entry also noted that, “Most shows had their own patent medicine (these medicines were for the most part unpatented but took the name to sound official) (1). That's not one but two deceptions designed to enhance the sale of "snake oil." And while it may sound like an amateurish chapter from the past, I can assure you it isn't. The theft of authority and its abuse in order to sell credulous citizens snake oil in various forms has continued unabated since the days of the wild west shows. In the forties, medical doctors wearing white coats promoted their favourate brand of cigarettes to the public. Yup, according to a 1946 ad, “More doctors smoked Camels than any other brand.” So they must be good for you, right? As the author explains, while this was at a time before the negative effects of cigarettes were understood, “tobacco companies used doctors’ authority to make their claims about their cigarettes seem more legitimate. (Ironic eh?) (2) Today, advertisers leverage the trappings of the medical profession with actors posing as dentists or dental technicians in settings designed to look like dental offices in order to sell us a particular brand of toothpaste or electric toothbrush. It’s not just advertisers who hijack authority. We frequently hear about Job applicants who bolster their resumes with unearned degrees and imaginary achievements. Some go so far as fabricating their entire professional identity. (Remember the movie, based on a the life of Frank Abagnale, Catch me if you can, starring Leonardo de Caprio.(3) Combatants in the culture war aren't shy about using the fake authority tactic in order to advance a claim or crush opposition. Too often, political ideologues are guided by the simple rule, "The end justifies the means." And if the end is defeating the arguments of their opposition, then so be it. But why the fake authority trick? The simple answer is, “it works.” People in Western society at least, are generally inclined to trust others (without demanding proof). We're also conditioned from birth to be respectful of those in authority and obey. So it’s not surprising that the unscrupulous exploit those tendencies to their advantage. Often it only takes the mere mention of authority to achieve compliance. That's why today's telephone scammers tell the prospective victim that they are an inspector with the RCMP or an official with the Canada Revenue Agency and gullible citizens go running for their wallets and credit cards.(4) We live in what I call the Age of Deception and fakery abounds. So failure to develop a BS detector capable of alerting you to the fake authority ploy can be your ruin. It’s not just the authority of the medical profession that being hijacked and abused for personal or political gain. Our opponents (sometimes in ignorance and sometimes deliberately), may tap the authority of respected historic figures, sports or entertainment personalities, the media, academics, economists, religious figures, “science,” or "statistics." Or, in other circumstances, they may cite the authority of NASA, the CDC, the UN, the Federal Reserve Board or the Bank of Canada in order to impress or prevail in a political contest. I will simply say that none of the above should be granted a pass simply because of who or what they are. Each and every claim to the authority of these entities warrants scrutiny. Sometimes the fake authority cited is the nebulous "royal they” as in, “They say…” or the royal “we.” As I was writing this, I encountered a reader's discerning response to use of the royal "we" in an unproven and unsupported assertion regarding the incidence of “hate speech.” The statement was, “We’re seeing a lot of ignorant hate speech lately.” The reader summed up the tactic as follows: “(A) Time honoured NPL (NLP*) domination strategy of the fascist at heart.” (March 30, 2019) * Neurolinguistic programming. It depends on who made the statement of course, but there's a good chance in today's context is propaganda for unquestioning minds. The same scrutiny should be applied to other, similar unsupported assertions like: “We’re seeing a lot of “racism” lately. “We’re seeing a lot of Islamophobia lately.” “We’re seeing a lot of anti-semitism lately.” None of the above assertions should be taken at face value for a several reasons. First, we have no idea who "we" is. And second, we have no idea as to how much is "a lot" and how the incidence is defined or calculated. Information war activists intentionally use broad or contorted definitions of such things as “racism,” Anti-Semitism" and “islamophobia (a conflation of meanings at the best of times.) A second is that self-inflicted hoaxes in each of these categories are common.(5) Will Reilly, a Kentucky State associate professor challenges to popular notion of a surge in hate crimes in the US. Reilly observes: “Almost all of that surge is due to the simple fact that in 2017 the number of police departments reporting hate crimes to the FBI increased by 1,000,” says Reilly. “The surge narrative is pretty dishonest.” Reilly studied 409 hate crimes reported over the last five years that received media attention. “In major cases, almost all of them have been hoaxes,” ... “The number of hate crime hoaxes actually exceeds the number of convictions. The majority of these high-profile incidents never happened.”(6) There may be something darker behind this. If you hear government leaders repeatedly pushing the surge in "hate crimes" line, there's a good change that they have an ulterior motive. Such false "facts" can provide a convenient justification for political initiatives designed to further constrain free speech. (See the importance of using repetition in propaganda.)(7 ) On other occasions, authority is hijacked with generalized appeals to “research” pseudo science, and “statistics.” When it comes to the latter, the lament of British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli in the 18th century is noteworthy: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Disraeli seems to be saying that statistics can mislead us even more than outright lies.(8) Sometimes, it's a case of misinterpreting (for political purposes) what the research data is telling us. Professor, Janet Mertz and her co-researchers examined the number of male and female participants in the International Math Olympiad over the previous 20 years. Mertz found that about 95% of the top math students of virtually every country were male. She concludes however that "math performance differences between males and females were overwhelmingly due to culture rather biology, and that at the very high end, women had just as much math ability as men." Perhaps the fact that the Mertz's research was undertaken in an attempt to debunk a comment to the effect that men may be better at math than woman tells us something. (9) Sometimes it's a matter of statistical ignorance and in other cases it's deliberate. How many of us have been told that "women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns -- for doing the same work"? Here's what academic, Christina Hoff Summers has to say about this deception: "No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing." Summers attributes the refusal of these myths to die to, among other things, "advocates who depend upon 'Killer stats' to galvanize their cause and a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders." At some point, blissful or self-imposed ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse however.(10) That said, as one college professor explains in an essay in Quillette, academia produces an abundance of ignorant self-appointed experts and is contributed to the current situation wherein questioning the popular tenets of climate change theory is viewed as heresy. For the author, this runs counter to the role of the educator. "At yet another campus event intended to alert our students to the threat of climate change, the speaker, an earth-science faculty member, expressed at the outset his irritation at being challenged on occasion with skeptical questions when he had spent decades educating the public on this matter." (Translation, "Don't question me.") (11) For a case study in the abuse of “science” as a refuge for those with things to hide, see the Monsanto Papers.(12) Let's just say that there’s nothing “scientific” about:
Don't get me wrong, citing supporting evidence for an observation or an argument is perfectly legitimate. Researchers do it all the time. I often support my tweets and arguments with news stories, articles and reports on the subject of my tweet. And I recommend you do the same when you have access to supporting documentation or analysis. The problem lies in creating the appearance of authoritative support for your proposition when it's lacking. That's a cheap tactic. Today’s social justice warriors and their ANTIFA friends, however, don’t even trouble themselves with seeking support for their claims however. Their in-your-face profanity and accusatory style of combat doesn't reach the standard of civil debate. Nor does it demonstrate any appreciation for long-standing democratic freedoms afforded citizens under the law or the basic courtesies of political discourse. Leftist zealots assume the role of judge and jury and then toss those they convict of contrived crimes to social media mobs. It's precisely the opposite of the kind of open, rigorous and respectful civil debates we should be having at at turbulent time in our history. The job of the critic and discerning debater or culture war dissenter is to flag the abuse of authority, and where appropriate, counter the faulty assertion. There are a number of clues which discerning eyes and ears will detect. The tip-offs include: Vague generalizations and attributions: “scientists" or “studies show…” (which scientists? which studies?) “Inexplicable sudden departures from long-standing principles, practices” and understandings “Attempts to subordinate facts and evidence to emotion and personal opinion” with lots of hyperbole, hyperventilating and profanity Passive voice: “It’s been shown that….” (by whom?) Bold, screaming headline assertions followed by weak supporting text using conditional words like “may,” ”could,” or "potentially" Convenient turns of phrase like: “The science is settled,” or “scientists have spoken” (no it's not-- ever) Conflating correlation and causation and cherry picking of statistics Inappropriate extrapolation from a single narrow finding to a much wide set of subjects and applications A determination to scrub minority report findings Eagerness to villiainize critics or dissenters Robotic repetition of PR talking points irrespective of the questions posed Disinterest in serious investigation or scrutiny Other attempts to to spin bullshit into gold American Democrat House Representative, Tulsi Gabbard was treated to the latter courtesy of an MSNBC interview following the formers trip to Syria during the wr in that country. Interviewer Kasie Hunt: “There have been reports that the Russian apparatus that interfered in 2016 is potentially trying to help your campaign. Why do you think that is?” (Presumably, she is asking Gabbard to explain why she thinks the US election-disrupting Russians are now aiding her campaign.) Journalist, Caitlin Johnstone, in analyzing the exchange, notes that Hunt used an "obscene NBC smear piece which cited the discredited ... firm, New Knowledge, (in order) to paint Gabbard as a favorite of the Kremlin." Gabbard countered asserting that the article by New Knowledge had been thoroughly debunked, something journalist Caitlin Johnstone confirms. Interviewer Hunt, not yet satisfied that she had sufficiently damaged Gabbard's reputation, continued to defend the article as evidence of Gabbard's Russia connection. Gabbard again countered the accusation with the following tweet: "MSNBC defended @nbcnews fraudulent "report" which was based on a "discredited cyber security firm recently kicked off Facebook for unethical MEDDLING of a state election.” Shameful 'journalism.'" (13) Gabbard offers the appropriate response to those trying to smear her using false authority. Similarly, the discerning debater will force their accusers out into the open and their fake sources into the sunlight for public evaluation. In summation, neoliberal ideologues are working hard to impose their curated narratives on the mainstream. The most zealous have demonstrated that in the process, they are willing to subordinate common sense, reason, biology and long standing principles and practices. Critics must counter with well-supported arguments, clarity and equal intensity if they are to prevail. As the axiom of my parents generation goes, “Forewarned is forearmed.” You have been warned, and now you can anticipate and be prepared to counter the assault. I'll say it again. It's the Age of Deception. So, nurture your inner skeptic, keep your BS meter turned on "high" and never submit to appeals to false authority. -- Rod End notes: 1. Medicine Show, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_show 2. When cigarette companies used the authority of doctors to push cigarette smoking, History, September 13, 2018 https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement 3. Catch me if you can, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_Me_If_You_Can 4. A scam warning from Canada Revenue Agency, Consumer Protection BC https://www.consumerprotectionbc.ca/2014/03/a-scam-warning-from-canada-revenue-agency/ 5. Hate crime hoaxes are more common that you think, Quillette, February 22, 2019 https://quillette.com/2019/02/22/hate-crime-hoaxes-are-more-common-than-you-think/ 6. Finley: America's hate crime surge is a hoax, The Detroit News, April 6, 2019 https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2019/04/07/finley-americas-hate-crime-surge-hoax/3374192002/ 7. How liars create the "illusion of truth," BBC Future, October 26, 2016 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth 8. Lies, damned lies and statistics, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics 9. Meritocracy: Dangerous cancer statistics, The Unz Review, An Alternative Media Selection, March 16, 2013, http://www.unz.com/runz/meritocracy-dangerous-cancer-statistics/ 10. 6 Feminist myths that will not die, Time Magazine, http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/ 11. When a question of science brooks no dissent, Quillette, April 1, 2019 https://quillette.com/2019/04/01/academes-global-warming-echo-chamber/ 12. Monsanto Papers, Baum, Heland, Aristai, Goldman https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/ 13. Tulsi Gabbard is driving the MSM bat shit crazy, Medium, February 6, 2019, https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/tulsi-gabbard-is-driving-the-msm-bat-shit-crazy-e4c3bfc312a1 Rhetorical Martial Arts -- Part B: Tactic #10 The False Premise
Copyright Futurescapes21C. All rights reserved. 2019. Posted March 13, 2019, rev. March 14, 2019 Introduction I don't "jump" to conclusions; some take me decades of digging and reflection to reach. One is that conservatives, traditionalists and the common sense majority have been beaten into submission and sidelined in the culture war by neoliberal activists and their political enablers. Dissenters or resisters, as we might refer to ourselves, have for the most part been waging ineffectual rear guard actions. While there are no doubt several reasons for this state of affairs, the most obvious has been an inability to counter the relentless bombardment of lies, weaponized language and deception. Let's face it; we have been losing the war of words. Given that dissenters now find themselves struggling to retain the basic right to express an alternative view, it's clear we have no choice. We must fight back. Our counter action must begin by demanding of ourselves a higher calibre of political debate. Achieving that requires a basic understanding of the kinds of logical fallacies being brought against us. This week, I am examining tactic #10, The False Premise. Tactic #10: The False Premise An old and rather odious example of the false premise is the rhetorical question: "So when did you stop beating your spouse?" Anyone who attempts to respond is in a no-win situation. The example illustrates the “loaded” nature of statements containing a false premise. So, the best advice is handle arguments based on a false premise with care. One must first defuse “the bomb” hidden beneath the argument. One thing you can be certain of is that arguments or conclusions formulated on the basis of false premises are inevitably wrong. There’s simply no way that a sound conclusion can be deduced from a false premise or assumption. Here’s how a false premise misled one individual regarding his true identity. "An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." (1) What was the false premise that misled the cowboy? It was the belief that only cowboys spent their entire day thinking about women as he did. And now, having learned this was the inclination of the lesbian woman sitting next to him, the old cowboy mistakenly concluded that he must really be a lesbian. The challenge the false premise presents to the unwary is that assumptions are seldom identified as such up front. When someone is outlining their argument, they are unlikely to say, "I'm basing this on the idea that the sun revolves around the earth..." or "the earth is flat" or some other unsupported assumption. More often than not, the bases of an argument are implied or “understood” and the argument or assertion itself simply presented as fact. So, unfortunately, for this reason, false premises often go undetected, un-discussed and unchallenged. It’s up to the debater to unearth the unstated assumptions. Unscrupulous politicians often exploit the laziness or the ignorance of their constituents in this regard. Left unchallenged, politicians are free to fabricate entire policies based on a single, frail or false premises aligned with their political agendas. And from that point, their minions can hatch endless projects and programs (for taxpayers to fund). With periodic reinforcement to buttress the false premise, governments have been able to fabricate entire paradigms or encompassing narratives. Narratives are very powerful shapers of our perceptions and reality. As "rogue" journalist, Caitlin Johnstone points us, "narratives dominate our lives." She adds, ominously, "And, for that reason, people who are able to control those narratives are able to control us. And they do."(2). So, false premises, deliberately woven into official narratives are a means of control. Let’s examine some examples of erroneous arguments and root out the false premise underlying each. The appropriate response on the part of a critical-thinking opposition is the counter my former boss frequently used; "Based on what?" Argument: Placing NATO troops and armaments on Russia’s border is a necessary deterrent to Russian aggression. Based on what? False premise: Russia’s annexation of the Crimea was a clear signal to the West of a resurgent Russia with territorial expansion in mind. Reality: The Maidan Square massacre was an outcome of a US-led coup assisted on the ground by Ukraine's far right groups. The Crimea referendum and annexation was Putin's response to Western aggression. (3) (4) Argument: Foreign (US) intervention and replacement of President Maduro of Venezuela is urgent. Based on what? False Premise: Maduro’s socialism has reduced Venezuela to an economic basket case, so he must go. Reality: The US has been waging a covert economic and information war against Venezuela for years with a greedy eye on its massive oil and gas reserves.(5) (6) Argument: US missile attacks on Syria in 2018 were justifiable "punishment." Based on what? False premise: Assad was responsible for gas attacks on fellow Syrians Reality: The gas attacks originated with the US and Western allies and were facilitated on the ground by their propaganda assets and alleged war criminals, the so-called White Helmets.(7) Argument: Abortion is a hard won universal women's right and decision solely between a woman and her doctor. Based on what? False premise: Her body—her decision. (One of several equally specious premises.) Reality: The living fetus/unborn child that is killed in the abortion process is a distinctly different person from the mother, possessing a combination of both parents' DNA. So the generalization “her body” and presumed right to kill the unborn individual is wildly misleading. Argument: Additional legislative protections and measures are needed to protect Jewish minorities. Based on what? False (or at best unproven) premise. The world is witnessing a rising tide of anti-Semitism. Reality: No report of genuinely anti-Semitic acts has been presented that is verifiably free of cofounding distortions. One distortion is an expansive definition of anti-Semitism to include, among other things, criticism of Israel’s policies. A second is the large number of hoaxes or self-inflicted acts of anti-Semitism committed by Zionist activists and others in the Jewish community.(8) (9) Argument: It was essential for the Canadian parliament to adopt an "anti-Islamophobia" resolution in 2017. Based on what? False premise: There’s a pressing need to protect Muslims from hatred and racism. Reality: Islam is a religion not a race. And there’s no good reason to protect any belief system or ideology from critique (nor does any other religion in Canada have or seek such protection.) Furthermore, the freedom to criticize religious doctrine and practices doesn’t constitute “hatred.” It's a hallmark of a liberal democracy. In summation, in each of these cases, the viability of the argument hinges for the most part on a single false premise (in plain speak, "BS") the colloquial So the foundation of the above arguments and policy actions ranges from frail to illusory. Replace the false premises with verifiable truths, and the argument collapses like a house of cards. The big bad “Russia threat” narrative goes “poof” when confronted with the reality of a US-led Maidan coup, the trigger for Putin's counter regarding the Crimea. So, no, the NATO troops perched on Russia’s border aren’t protecting us. They are in fact, endangering us all given that from Russia’s viewpoint NATO's military posture in the region is at a minimum, provocative.(10) In conclusion, the effective critic or debater is discerning regarding the argument based on suspect premises. He or she wisely resists the temptation to attack the argument head on, attacking instead its soft underbelly -– the questionable assumption. Defeat it, and you will ensure the collapse of the entire argument given its faulty foundation. It's also a key to unlocking the matrix. -- Rod Note: In other articles, I have explored how the powers-that-be use a devious, albeit a more sophisticated strategy of “problem-reaction-solution” in order to manipulate the citizenry down the path of the former’s choosing. How does it work? Big brother first establishes the false premise as a problem (boogey man) and then, seemingly, in response to public reaction or concern, offers a pre-ordained solution to the fabricated problem. Homework: Explain why Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau periodically inflates the "fake news" and "hate speech" boogey men? End notes: 1. An argument from false premises, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises 2. Society is made up of narrative. Realizing this is awakening from the Matrix, Caitlin Johnstone, The Medium August 21, 2018 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/society-is-made-of-narrative-realizing-this-is-awakening-from-the-matrix-787c7e2539ae 3. US staged a coup in Ukraine: Here's why and how, Signs of the times, August 17, 2019, https://www.sott.net/article/393740-US-Staged-a-Coup-in-Ukraine-Heres-Why-and-How# 4. From ‘not us’ to ‘why hide it’: How Maidan denied its involvement in the 20th February 2014 snipers massacre and then admitted it, Sign of the Times, March 11, 2019 https://www.sott.net/article/408942-From-Not-Us-to-Why-Hide-It-How-Maidan-Denied-Its-Involvement-in-the-20-February-2014-Snipers-Massacre-and-Then-Admitted-It 5. Trump betrays MAGA with Venezuela, SOTT, January 25, 2019 https://www.sott.net/article/405793-Trump-betrays-MAGA-over-Venezuela 6. US repeatedly caught lying about Venezuela, yet Pompei accuses RT of ‘disinformation’, SOTT, March 19, 2019. https://www.sott.net/article/409038-US-repeatedly-caught-lying-about-Venezuela-yet-Pompeo-accuses-RT-of-disinformation 7. Intel Drop Updated: Trump, Bolton behind Syria chemical attacks confirmed, Veterans Today, April 8, 2018 https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/04/08/proof-intel-drop-trump-bolton-behind-syria-chemical-attacks-confirmed/ 8. American Jewish establishment stifles free speech to silence Zionism's critics, James Fetzer, February 28, 2019 https://jamesfetzer.org/2019/03/harretz-2016-american-jewish-establishment-stifles-free-speech-to-silence-zionisms-critics/ 9. Here's a list of 50 "hate crime" hoaxes in the Trump era, Daily Caller, February 18, 2019 https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/18/hoax-hate-crimes-list/ 10. NATO sends forces, missiles to Russia's border -- top security official (SOTT, March 15, 2019 https://www.sott.net/article/409176-NATO-sends-forces-missiles-to-Russias-borders-top-security-official Rhetorical Martial Arts: How to keep your cool, counter attacks, and make your case in the war of words (c) Futurescapes 21C All Rights Reserved 2019
Posted March 6, 2019 rev. March 12, April 25, 2019 Today, I am examining one of the most powerful ploys (logical fallacies) used by the neoliberals in the war on conservatives, traditionalists and common sense Canadians of all political stripes. Learn how to recognize it and call it out. -- Rod Tactic #9. Playing the victim (martyr, "poor me") In an earlier era, the folks in Hollywood touted, "There's no business like show business." Today, in a culture dominated by identity politics, I say, "There's no business like the victimhood business." Portraying oneself or one's group as a victim of injustice, oppressed or disadvantaged over others has likely been the most effective tactic yet in the culture war and the larger battle for political supremacy. The political left has made it a speciality and reduced it to a near-science. Once secured, history suggests that official victim status is often the gift that keeps on giving. And, because of the power and influence it confers, countless individuals and groups actively seek star victim status. My purpose here is not to debate whether any victim group warrants special status or treatment, but rather to demonstrate victimhood dynamics, the problems inherent in a victimhood culture and why it must be challenged in the context of the culture war and wider political power struggles. I first witnessed how the victim card was played while working as a young agrologist for a provincial department of agriculture on the Canadian Prairies in the eighties and nineties. Employees of provincial departments of agriculture, along with ag producer associations and the Minister of Agriculture collaborated in advocating for the industry. Consistent portrayals of farmers as financially disadvantaged and use of sympathetic language in the media like "the plight of the farmer" were important in maintaining the victim status of the ag production sector during that period. Coordinated ag advocacy persuaded the federal government to transfer billions of dollars to farm sector over the course of the 1980's and 1990's in the form of various programs and grants. By the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, the "poor farmer" industry identity became unsustainable and farmers were nudged toward becoming less reliant on government. In the bigger scheme of things, farmers were far from the first or only group to play the victim card. Over the course of the last 50 years, certain industries, Zionists/Israel, blacks, aboriginals, members of the LGBT+ movement, women, the small business sector, and even provincial governments have to varying degrees, reaped the bounties of a flourishing victimhood culture. Recently, two new groups have achieved government-approved victimhood status -- immigrants and Muslims (living in the West*). Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaffer refers to those enjoying special protection under the law as "protected classes."(1) Victimhood has its rewards. The benefits of membership in protected classes vary with the group of course. The prizes include: elevated socio-political status; special protection under the law; privileged access to natural resources; lowered job and university entrance standards; preferential tax rates; long term operational funding and other perks; lump sum cash compensation and public apologies for past wrongs; protection from public criticism; and even a "get out of jail free" card when caught engaging in criminal behaviour (including what some allege are crimes against humanity.) Unsurprisingly, the gods of a victimhood culture play relentlessly on the insatiable guilt complex of white liberal society. While temporary appeasement may be purchased, it's never enough. I recently read that the students of a major US university now have the option of dedicating a portion of their tuition to paying reparations somehow linked to the fact that the university sits on land once owned by a slave owner. The benefits of membership in a victim group or protected class are so enticing that members of some victim groups engage in self- victimization. Essentially they covertly stage what appears, to an unsuspecting public, to be be an attack on their own group. Such false flags amount to giving your victimhood status a booster shot drawing fresh public attention and sympathy for their group or cause. Zionist activists might, for example, scrawl Nazi graffiti on headstones in Jewish cemeteries or make bomb threats.(2) Cases of this nature have occurred in the US, Europe and Canada. For what appears to be the latest example of hate hoaxary in Canada, see: "Hate-crime attack on cafe staged, Winnipeg Police say, after owners charged with mischief."(3) In today's political environment, it seems that the insult of "anti-semite" is slung at opponents with reckless abandon.(4) But the secret is out. In a video interview, a former Israeli politician candidly informs her interviewer that the "anti-semite" charge levied at those who challenge Israeli policies is a standard diversionary "trick."(5) The victimhood claim by black actor, Jussie Smollett appears to be a classic example of self-victimization. Smollett claims he was attacked in any alley by two white men who placed a noose around his neck and shouted: "This is MAGA country."(6) The Chicago police think otherwise and have charged him with felony disorderly misconduct.(7) False flag crimes are far more common that you might think. One source reports 50 hate crime hoaxes since Trump's election.(8) And there are knowable motivations for self-victimization by members of protected classes.(9) Other victim card plays are more mundane, but no less calculated or damaging. I will return to the Cathy Newman (Channel 4 BBC) interview with Jordan Peterson. The premise of most of Newman's interview and the majority of her questions were grounded in assumed female victimhood. But when Peterson refuted the idea that a transgender "right" to not be offended trumps free speech and left her litany of feminist grievances lying shredded on the floor, she is stymied to the point of embarrassment.(10) The BBC, however, rather than encourage thoughtful discussion regarding the points surfaced by the Peterson interview, counters with further implied claims of victimhood. The Corporation declared that the reaction of Peterson's nasty followers was such that security protection for Newman became necessary.(11) This unleashed a flood of angry criticism of Peterson. While no evidence for the claim was provided, the public harassment of Peterson and the threats to his person are demonstrably real. The BBC thus revealed it is more committed to preserving the feminist victimhood narrative than it is to meaningful discussion and debate. The feminist construct of intersectionality adds a new additive dynamic to victimhood status. Essentially, the more victim categories one can claim, the higher one's victim status or oppression index. A tongue in cheek website index allows one to calculate their oppression score. A black, Jewish LGBT+ member will score higher and thus be accorded higher societal status and greater influence than a white, Christian woman.(12) And the former would rank far above a white, Christian male, a group relegated to the lowest rung of the social hierarchy.(13) A cursory glance reveals several problems inherent in victimhood culture. First, its divisive nature pits one group against another. And those that fall outside the official victim category, become, in effect, second class citizens. Last year, a friend who once had the job of locating job opportunities for handicapped job seekers in the City of Ottawa complained to me that he had found considerably more attention and resources were available to immigrants than his clients. He's probably right in terms of which group possesses relatively greater political star power.(14) Second, those groups that have secured tenure as official victims risk the debilitating effects of learned helplessness and perpetual dependency.(15) Third, discerning analysts have called out what they describe as "the soft bigotry of low expectations."(16) Fourth, and even more insidious, is the propensity for the oppressed, in time, to become oppressors. This appears to be precisely the trajectory of transgender zealots. The Saker reports on their latest assault on democratic freedoms: “In Britain, there will be new rules for schools, according to which the lessons about gays and trans will be mandatory for children at five years old. Prior to this, parents had the right to free their children from these lessons. From now on it will be illegal.” (17) It's reached the point where even members of the transgender community are calling out transgender abuses of the rights of others.(18) Finally, the egregious role of the government and its self-interest should also be apparent in this political game. The relationship with approved victim groups is basically transactional in nature. Governments that confer special status on a particular segment of the population or group look to its favoured identity groups for support at the ballot box. In the context of the culture war, it's time to expose the role of government in creating and nurturing special interest/victim groups. Ultimately, governments must be held to account for the costly and corrosive outcomes of victimhood politics. This includes the squandering of public resources, the criminality of vote-buying by other means, inequitable impacts, and unseemly social divisions. In a debating context, it's time to expose the self-serving nature of victimhood arguments. Since official victimhood is treated as a given, the first reaction by the political left when challenged will be wide-eyed disbelief tinged with outrage. Who would dare to question for example, the "right" of: women to kill their unborn children, the "right" of Zionist Israel to "defend itself" (even using live ammunition against unarmed protestors) (19) ; the "right" of transgender activists to impose their ideology on young school children, or the "right" of Islam to be shielded from critique by anti-"Islamophobia" dictate? The short answer is only the courageous. The radical left's implied message to would-be critics is that official victims and their political positions must never be questioned or challenged. Its leading lights would have us believe that this is the right of the political "untouchables." I contend that in a vibrant democratic society, there are no such free passes and no one gets immunity. Each one is free of course to make his or her case, and every argument in turn is tested in the cauldron of public debate to stand or fall on its merits. In such a society, reason prevails over polished political illusion. Truth and transparency are standard requirements of public policy. The responsibilities accompanying citizenship are assigned as much importance as claims for rights. Calls for special treatment of particular groups are scrutinized for evidence of quid pro quo abuse of the public trust. And anything that would would impair a society's unending quest to know what is right, what is true and what is good must be unceremoniously plucked like weeds invading a garden. And that of course includes logical fallacies. * Unlike Muslims living in the West, those in several Middle Eastern and North African countries remain the targets of the fake "war on terror" and regime change wars led by US Neocons and their allies. End Notes 1. Weaponized language -- Operation Classified, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaffer, YouTube, February 27, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oftcqkfMqR4 2. Were two people responsible for virtually all anti-Semtic incidents after the (US) election? https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/22/dennis-prager/were-two-people-responsible-virtually-all-anti-sem/ 3. Hate-crime attack on cafe staged, Winnipeg police say, after owners charged with mischief, CBC News, April 24, 2019, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/bermax-winnipeg-antisemitic-arrest-1.5109224 4. In Hungary and Poland, Jews accuse their own communal leaders of playing the anti-semitism card to avoid scrutiny, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 1, 2019 https://www.jta.org/2019/03/01/global/in-hungary-and-poland-jews-accuse-their-own-communal-leaders-of-playing-the-anti-semitism-card-to-avoid-scrutiny 5. "Anti-semitic," it's a trick. We always use it. YouTube, June 26, 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE 6. Jussie Smollett alleges two masked men beat him, yelled slurs and wrapped a noose around his neck. https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack 7. Jussie Smollett charged with felony disorderly conduct, prosecutors say, Chicago Sun Times, February 20, 2019 https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/empire-actor-jussie-smollett-suspect-criminal-investigation-chicago-police-department/ 8. Here's a list of 50 "hate crime" hoaxes in the Trump era, Daily Caller, February 18, 2019 https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/18/hoax-hate-crimes-list/ 9. Four reasons why hate-crime hoaxers do what they do (Blacklisted News, February 25, 2019 https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/71271/4-reasons-why-hatecrime-hoaxers-do-what-they.html 10. Here's to sanity and free speech: A Canadian academic destroys Channel 4 newsreader, The Express, January 25, 2019 https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/909719/Jordan-Peterson-free-speech-destroys-cathy-newman-channel-4 11. Banning people like Jordan Peterson for causing offence, that's the way to dystopia, The Guardian, January 17, 2018) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/21/banning-jordan-peterson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech 12. Intersectionality score calculator https://intersectionalityscore.com/?from=g_keywords&keyword=anti-semitism&adposition=1t1&source=google&device=c&ad=2 13. Police forces discriminated against white heterosexual male, tribunal rules, The Independent, February 23, 2019 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-white-heterosexual-male-discrimination-job-cheshire-matthew-furlong-a8793331.html 14. Needed: a national employment policy for Canada's immigrant population, Montreal Gazette, February 25, 2019, https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/khan-needed-a-national-employment-policy-for-canadas-immigrant-population 15. Learned helplessness, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness 16. The soft bigotry of low expectations, Urban dictionary, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soft%20bigotry%20of%20low%20expectations 17. LGBT goes on the attack, The Saker, March 1, 2019 https://thesaker.is/lgbt-goes-on-the-attack/ 18. Gender politics isn't a fact, it's a feeling and quite frankly, barking mad, SOTT, February 18, 2019 https://www.sott.net/article/407513-Gender-politics-isnt-fact-its-a-feeling-and-quite-frankly-barking-mad 19. UN reports finds Israel intentionally shot children, journalists,and the disabled during Gaza protests SOTT, March 9, 2019. https://www.sott.net/article/408828-UN-report-finds-Israel-intentionally-shot-children-journalists-the-disabled-during-Gaza-protests Rhetorical Martial Arts: How to keep your cool, counter attacks, and advance you position in the war of words (c) Futurescapes 21C All Rights Reserved 2019
Tactic #8: Red Herring Posted March 1, 2019, rev. March 2. In Part A, I outlined a rationale for a course in Rhetorical Martial Arts (c) and seven of the most common logical fallacies employed by political tacticians including our opponents in the culture war. They are: Ad hominem; Smears, slur; Lies, deception; Conflation; Contortion; Straw man; and Psychological projection. Note: Over the course of the last month and a half, I drafted Part B covering the next eight most common logical fallacies. To my chagrin, it looks like the piece accidentally went down the edit hole. Today, I begin again with a look at the first of these additional eight popular rhetorical tactics. Picture a castle or fortress under bombardment by an attacker. Over time, as the catapult reigns down tons of rock, it begins to open up breaks in the fortress wall. Conservatives and common sense Canadians have been under daily bombardment in the war of words for decades. Their opponent is very clear regarding the intended effect on resisters and their positions. It is to: disparage, degrade, defame, demean, debase, deflect, defuse, damage, destroy, distort, distract, discredit, dissemble, deflate, displace and disperse. 8.0 Red Herring In a debating context, a red herring is introduced by one party in order to throw an opponent off course and deflect audience attention, thus blunting the impact of the latter's argument. The red herring may be appealing, but is, nonetheless, an irrelevant issue. According to one source, the history of the term relates to the use of fish in training tracking dogs, wherein a puppy's ability to track a fox or badger was tested by dragging a herring across the trail. If the puppy got distracted or confused by the scent of the herring, it clearly required more training. (1) It's a bit like the magician or illusionist who uses a series of flourishes with his left hand in to distract the audience's attention from his manipulation of a prop with his right hand. Culture war combatants often employ tactics similar to those of magicians as deception is central to their success. Essentially however, use of the red herring ploy is an attempt to seize control and elevate a particular agenda or initiative over that of an opponent. Earlier this year, Trump wanted to talk about funding for a southern border wall. Democrats countered with an attempt to shift the focus of public attention to the DREAM Act (development, education and relief for alien minors) and affected youth, referred to as DREAMers. (2) The more recent Venezuelan crisis has surfaced a red herring or two. A favourite used by Neocon regime change supporters is "socialism." We're supposed to consent to the Washington regime change operation being conducted against Venezuela presumably because socialism is bad. And presumably Washington is concerned with helping the oppressed and starving people of Venezuela achieve a better life. (If you believe that, then you haven't learned the lessons of Iraq, Libya and Syria very well). The issue isn't the virtues or failures of socialism. The central issue is the right of a sovereignty nation to manage its own affairs without the threat of outside intervention. I suggest that the more emotion-laden the "distracter" is, the more effective a red herring it is likely to be. You might be in the midst of an intense debate regarding the problems inherent in Trudeau's plan to significantly boost the number of immigrants allowed annually into Canada. You're laying out the points one by one -- our over-burdened social services infrastructure (education, health care,) a crisis level lack of housing and new demands on law enforcement, and so forth. Your opponent interjects, "But you just can't ignore all those people Trump is turning away. That's inhumane." You pause for a second. It's juicy and its tempting, but you sniff a red herring. If you go for the juicy fish, you know that you will lose your focus and any chance of securing agreement regarding your point. You also will have allowed your opponent to divert the attention of your audience. You continue, "As I was saying, there are several indicators telling us that Canada lacks sufficient infrastructure capacity for increased numbers of immigrants at this time. And the real problem is that Mr. Trudeau hasn't yet been willing to talk to Canadians openly about it." Congratulations. You have averted the trap of the red herring. If you opponent suddenly resorts to the standard Social Justice Warrior insult like "racist," "anti-immigrant," or "xenophobe," it tells you something. First, it tells you that you have hit a nerve, and your opponent has no response to your argument. And, second, it is clear that your opponent is looking for an exit and a way to end the conversation. See Part A, Number 6. "The Smear or slur." On Friday, March 1, the Liberal government came under intensive media attention regarding it's handling of alleged corruption on the part of the Montreal engineering firm, SNC Lavalin. (3) (4) The discomfort of government became obvious. I predict that the demand for red herring is about to increase. Update March 4: Trudeau has selected his herring. See March 3, 201 Globe and Mail: Trudeau will attempt to change the channel on SNC-Lavalin, focus on climate plan. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-trudeau-to-change-channel-from-snc-lavalin-focus-on-climate-plan/ End Notes: 1. Red Herring; Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring 2. Trump seeks 25 billion for border wall, offers 'Dreamer' citizenship, Reuters, January 24, 2019 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-whitehouse-idUSKBN1FD2UU 3. Christie Blanchford: Wednesday sounded and felt like the death knell for the Conservative Government, National Post, February 27, 2019 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-today-sounded-and-felt-like-a-death-knell-for-the-liberal-government 4. Rex Murphy: The Trudeau virtuecrats come tumbling down, The National Post, March 1, 2019, https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-trudeau-virtuecrats-come-tumbling-down Assuming the role of the "adult in the room" -- A Canadian foreign policy aspiration for 20193/1/2019 ASSUMING THE ROLE OF THE "ADULT IN THE ROOM": A CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY ASPIRATION FOR 2019
MY DAILY SCAN TURNED UP AN ANALYSIS OF THE LIKELY DIRECTION OF AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY IN 2019 BY ROSTISLAV ISHCHENKO ENTITLED: "WHAT AWAITS AMERICA IN 2019?" GIVEN CANADA'S STATUS AS A VASSAL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE AND THE SUBORDINATION OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY TO THAT OF THE US, I WONDERED IF IT MIGHT SUGGEST WHERE THIS COUNTRY IS HEADED IN THE COMING YEAR. ISHCHENKO'S ANALYSIS PROVIDES A USEFUL PLATFORM FOR ENVISIONING A RESPONSIBLE ROLE FOR CANADA IN AN ERA OF FOREIGN POLICY DELUSION AND LAWLESSNESS. HTTPS://THESAKER.IS/WHAT-AWAITS-AMERICA-IN-2019/ IN SHORT, ISCHENKO SUGGESTS THAT AMERICA WILL PLAY THE ROLE OF SPOILER IN 2019. THE GOAL OF US FOREIGN POLICY WILL BE RESTORING AMERICA’S GLOBAL HEGEMONY EVEN AS ITS FAILED STRATEGY LEADS TO CONTINUED LOSS OF INFLUENCE. HAVING LOST THE BATTLE FOR GLOBAL HEGEMONY, US FOREIGN POLICY MAKERS (PERHAPS EVEN UNCONSCIOUSLY) WILL ENACT A POLICY OF OBSTRUCTION IN PURSUIT OF A STALEMATE. THUS, THE US WILL ENGAGE IN ACTIONS INTENDED TO SLOW THE RISE OF CHINA, THWART THE GROWTH OF RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND SABOTAGE THE STRENGTHENING OF RUSSIA-EUROPE TIES, GOING SO FAR AS TO ACTIVELY PURSUE THE DISMANTLING OF THE EU. THE POLICY'S IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE CHARACTERIZED BY FAILING REAR GUARD ACTIONS. THIS ANALYSIS RESONATES FOR ME. ANALYSTS HAVE WARNED THAT A DECLINING EMPIRE IS LIKELY TO THRASH ABOUT DANGEROUSLY LIKE A WOUNDED DRAGON AS THE END APPROACHES, AND WE HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN ERRATIC THRASHING ABOUT IN RECENT YEARS. AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT A WOUNDED DRAGON TO DO, THE US HAS RESORTED TO EXAGGERATING, OR MORE ACCURATELY, FABRICATING ITS VICTORIES, AS IN THE CASE OF THE DEFEAT OF ISIS IN SYRIA. (IT WAS ESSENTIALLY RUSSIA THAT DID THE JOB.) CANADA'S "ME TOO" ANTI RUSSIA STANCE IS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SPOILER ROLE. IT’S CONSISTED OF AN UNPRODUCTIVE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STAND-OFF SUSTAINED BY AN ONGOING CAMPAIGN TO DEMONIZE RUSSIA AND ITS LEADER. YES, CANADA HAS BEEN PLAYING THE LOSING GAME OF "SPOILER" ALONG WITH THE US. BUT THE REST OF THE WORLD IS MOVING ON. IRONICALLY, THE OUTCOME OF THE POLICY IS THAT IT HAS HAD PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE EFFECT OF THAT INTENDED, INCREASING RUSSIA’S SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, BOLSTERING ITS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND RESILIENCY AND FOSTERING STRENGTHENED ALLIANCES WITH IRAN, SYRIA AND CHINA. RUSSIA'S CONFIDENCE IN IT'S MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC CAPABILITIES HAS NO DOUBT GROWN IN THE WAKE OF ITS DEFEAT OF ISIS IN SYRIA AND ITS MODERATING TURKEY-SYRIA- IRAN TENSIONS. THIS HAS PERSUADED SOME COUNTRIES LIKE LIBYA TO SEEK RUSSIA’S HELP IS RESOLVING INTERNAL CONFLICTS GIVEN ITS APPARENTLY SUPERIOR DIPLOMATIC SKILLS. AS SUGGESTED EARLIER, THE WOUNDED DRAGON, IN PURSUIT OF A STALEMATE IN THE BATTLE FOR GLOBAL HEGEMONY, WILL BE INTENT ON INCITING CONFLICTS AND DISRUPTING RELATIONSHIPS. THAT WILL BE LABELLED "THREATS." AS A RESULT, RUSSIA WILL BE FORCED TO PLAY WHAT I CALL THE ROLE OF THE “ADULT IN THE ROOM” IN 2019, EXTINGUISHING FIRES AND RESTORING STABILITY IN THE WAKE OF THE DRAGON'S DESTRUCTIVE THRASHING. THE DANGEROUS DOCTRINE OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, IT SEEMS, SERVES AS NOTHING MORE THAN A SEDATIVE FOR AN EASILY ENTHRALLED AMERICAN PUBLIC AND CONVENIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPERIAL OVER-REACH. THIS OF COURSE, RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE CANADA COULD PLAY IN A CONTEXT OF CONTINUING FOREIGN POLICY DISTEMPER, MY HOPE IS THAT CANADA WOULD POSITION ITSELF AS AN ADDITIONAL “ADULT IN THE ROOM,” RESPONSIBLY SEEKING TO DISSUADE THE DRAGON FROM FURTHER ACTING OUT, SOME "DRAGON-WHISPERING" IF YOU WILL. IN CONCRETE TERMS, THIS WORK WOULD INCLUDE CALLING FOR AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF NATO’S DESTRUCTIVE PERFORMANCE DURING THE COURSE OF THE SO CALLED “WAR ON TERROR,” A MISNOMER FROM THE OUTSET (SEE LIBYA) AND ITS PROVOCATIVE STAND-OFF WITH RUSSIA. THE LATTER IS OF COURSE, UNSUSTAINABLE -- RESTING ON THE FALSE FLAG DECEPTION OF THE WEST'S MAIDAN SQUARE UKRAINE COUP. BESIDES, THERE’S LIKELY A GOOD DEAL MORE TO BE GAINED THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP WITH RUSSIA BASED ON A REALISTIC ACCEPTANCE OF THE EMERGING MUILTI-POLAR GLOBAL MODEL. HOW EXACTLY DOES A CONTINUATION OF THE CURRENT ANTI-RUSSIA POSTURING AND ECONOMIC WARFARE SERVE CANADA'S INTERESTS? SUCH A POLICY WOULD OF COURSE BE LABELLED "DANGEROUS"-- SOMETHING AMOUNTING TO "HERESY" BY THOSE PUSHING THE CURRENT COLD WAR 2.0 PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN. AT THAT POINT, WE CONTRARIANS WILL POINT OUT TO CRITICS THAT HISTORY FREQUENTLY DEMONSTRATES THAT TODAY'S HERESY BECOMES TOMORROW'S CONVENTIONAL WISDOM. AND WE WILL ALSO REMIND THEM THAT THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. IT'S WHAT RESPONSIBLE ADULTS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. - ROD (DEC 9, REV DEC 10, 13/19) |
RodFreedom Resources Archives
January 2021
Categories
|
RSS Feed