I absolutely loved this post --- with two minor exceptions, which were (1) the author's characterization of "the left" and his (2) ideas as to, quote, "What can be done?"
I loved the cartoons which one might say "dehumanized" truckers who went to Ottawa. I especially loved the young woman who was calling a young man and certain peace officers "fff-ing scum" when she and her feminist group were attempting to "shut down" a men's rights philosophy professor at some public talk. [Link to Stage 5, "Feminist deplatforming of Warren Farrell. 2012"]
Farrell, if I correctly recall, was a philosophy professor at my Alma Mater, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, to which I returned (B. Sc. in Medical Lab Science; 1971) in the late 1980s for a short stint (1.5 years) in "his" philosophy section of the Arts Faculty. I never had him for a professor, but it was apparent from his writing, that he had experienced a nasty divorce, arguably because his philosophical acumen at the University had not helped him prevail in the local divorce court! That failure, possibly --- also arguably --- turned him into an avowed men's rights activist. But I digress.
(1) However when our author --- wait a minute a man's name is important --- I mean, when Zachary Strong, wrote that "the average leftist" is, quote: "... incredibly insecure and possibly suffering from various forms of mental illness as a result of industrialization and corrupt psychological doctrine.", he simply dismissed his opponents with 2 sophomoric "ad hominems", which some of us know to be one of the simplest fallacies of major/material logic.
In Mr. Strong's link to requote "corrupt psychological doctrine" he mentioned Thomas Kuhn, describing him as a quote "physicist and philosopher". But Kuhn described himself as a "historian of science", while others described him as a "Marxist", although I can't find any sources to corroborate that recalled (badly? mistakenly?) "Marxist" thesis today (and I've looked. But I clearly recall being "wowed", many years ago, by an honest accurate "Marxist", who clearly wasn't a self-avowed liar, in aid of the revolution, like Comrade Lenin ). At any rate no one would describe Kuhn as either "insecure" or "possibly suffering from ... mental illness."! At minimum (whether or not my "Marxist" recollection is in error), ad hominems are not refutations.
(2) As to the "What can be done?" question we have:
STRONG: (i)" ... addressing the threat of far-left activism will require sophisticated methods derived from the kinds of deradicalization techniques typically associated with the rehabilitation of Islamic extremists and cult members. Seeking to debate leftists or defeat them politically, which contributes to the “us versus them” dynamic that the ideology thrives off of, has proven to be ineffective and only worsens the problem."
REBUTTAL: But Mr. Strong, you have forgotten #10 of your own Genocide Watch thesis, concerning the 10 STAGES of Genocide, per your provided link. That 10th Stage is, quote: "10. DENIAL is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres." etc. etc.
Thus people like yourself and Hymie Rubenstein, who apparently disagrees with your "cherry-picked examples" (See Comments), are simple "un-cherry-picked" examples of the denial of genocide in residential schools. You, Mr. Strong, Mr. Rubenstein and even myself are fine examples of DENIERS and, hence [From your link to the 10 Stages] our denials are, requote "sure indicator(s)" of a "further genocidal massacre" by denialists from "the right". Or in Rubenstein's comment our denials could be simple examples of: "The genocidal Mindset of the Canadian Right", according to your own authority and Rubenstein's comment. It is no accident that people like Niigan Sinclair [Murray Sinclair's son.] are calling people like us "Deniers". Leftists can read the 10 Stages of Genocide as well as you and they would certainly "cherry pick" the #10 denial Stage in you, myself and Rubenstein.
In sum, you have to debate with a person on their own grounds or else "run them through with your sword" which was Louis the 9th's take on both Logic and Politics in the 13th Century --- the age of Thomas Aquinas and the rebirth of Aristotelianism --- according to G. K. Chesterton. If you have actually understood Kuhn's Structure, then you should know that even though you think that "Leftists" need to be "deprogrammed" as something "to do", they think that you, myself and Rubenstein need to go into psychiatric detention in some version of a Gulag because we (the left and the right) have Kuhnian "incommensurate paradigms".
In short, you either debate or you fight. Logical debate is what stopped medieval fighting and turned the fighting into rational debate and then rational discourse. In the hypocritical words of Abelard (of Abelard and Heloise fame) he gave up the "life of a knight" to become a priest and "follow the tourney grounds of dialectic". [Philosophy in the Middle Ages 2nd Edition; Hyman and Walsh; Hackett Publishing 1973 pg. 165.] In other words, Abelard was an 11th century "draft dodger" because the Crusades were on "full tilt" at the time. He preferred arguing to fighting as a knight. His choice. But your "choice" seems to be psychiatry for "the other guy". That won't work because our enemies are securing the Academy, while psychiatrists and psychologists, from that very same Academy, "think" that everybody (with themselves as general exceptions) is crazy. They'll take patients from either "the left" or "the right". Think again, my friend.
Finally (and don't forget I really liked your piece and do not think that your examples were "cherry picked", but you did "non-pick" Stage 10) you wrote, quote:
STRONG: "Their rhetoric and behavior must be not seen as intentionally malicious, but as a natural consequence of life circumstances which cause them to lash out at others."
TO THE CONTRARY: Their behaviour IS absolutely malicious and intentionally provocative and is not a "natural consequence of life circumstances". Their behaviour simply follows from the Marxist doctrine (which is not "natural") that the class struggle will result in either (1) a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or (2) in the common ruin of the contending classes. [Communist Manifesto pg. 1. pgph. 2]. And those Marxist dialectical choices will be because of a quote " ... now hidden, now open fight, a FIGHT that each time ended ... " (Marx and Engels; in the 2 above-mentioned dialectical choices, from the same cited paragraph of their Manifesto).
One of your examples clearly proved that those kids against the Professor were looking for a fight. They tried to provoke fights with solitary males who were looking to hear from someone who might be taking their "side" in the so-called "culture wars", or with the police. Whether it is Marx's "class struggles" or Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) both the "left" and the "right" will fight unless the right learns enough logic to do some serious debating on the left's ground.
As to "Oh Susanna's" post in the comments as to quote "Leftists" being "physically soft and cowardly", she should look at that little girl Leftist calling both a much bigger young man and very much larger peace officers "fff-ing scum". That wasn't cowardice or "soft" on her part. That was fearless disgust and she was "lean and mean". She reminds me of the little lady in the show called "The killing Fields" who liked to put plastic bags over the heads of prisoners who had their hands tied behind their backs. That sort of disgust may lead to killing, unless these new "soft young men", who are beginning to flirt with the right, learn how to either argue or to tell people like her:
"One more time with that talk and I'll punch your lights out and happily plead guilty to assaulting your ugly mouth." Or, alternatively, and argumentatively: " 'Fff-ing Scum', you say. I only "fff" ladies with prettier faces and nicer speech patterns than what's coming out of your ugly face.", which is an argument on her ground. I did the "punch thing" with an older girl when I was 7 years old. I warned her twice and then punched her twice [She was about a foot taller than I was.] and she bawled like a baby. I felt terrible and ran away --- and never did such a terrible thing again --- except to boys who were bigger than myself and doing the same sort of things as during the anti-professor protest.
When I became too old to physically fight with anyone, I learned some logic from one of Jack Maritain's students. Modern Logic won't do it. We do not speak in "atomic sentences", as modern so-called sentential logic "teaches". Aristotle's logic has both the subjects and the predicates of sentences as the basic variables. Modern logic is OK for Artificial Intelligence and computer programs. But humans think using subjects and predicates as their "thought variables". Computers don't think, so they don't need subject and predicate variables. The logical operators will do for them.
Excellent post. As a culture I don't think we are inclined to genocidal violence, but we do see what Rod Dreher calls "soft totalitarianism": cancellation, deplatforming, denying job and educational opportunities, and even denying fundamental rights like travel as we saw during the shameful covid response. Leftists may be physically soft and cowardly but they will use every means at their disposal short of (usually) violence to shut up those with views they feel threatened by.
Apart from the lip-service prominence of the left in many Canadian institutions, much of this shaky piece full of cherry-picked examples could have been titled "The genocidal Mindset of the Canadian Right" using the same shaky thinking and supported by unrepresentative sour cherries.
The amino acids of genocide might be percolating within Canada but the risk of an actual genocide occurring here stalls at Step #5. The most serious threat of a CDN genocide IMO lies with those who think they are the victims of past and ongoing genocides. Genocides have a history of being prophylactic; getting them before they get you. Himmler in 1938 speaking to SS officers: "If we are the loser in the struggle which will decide this, not even a reservation of Germans will remain."
I absolutely loved this post --- with two minor exceptions, which were (1) the author's characterization of "the left" and his (2) ideas as to, quote, "What can be done?"
I loved the cartoons which one might say "dehumanized" truckers who went to Ottawa. I especially loved the young woman who was calling a young man and certain peace officers "fff-ing scum" when she and her feminist group were attempting to "shut down" a men's rights philosophy professor at some public talk. [Link to Stage 5, "Feminist deplatforming of Warren Farrell. 2012"]
Farrell, if I correctly recall, was a philosophy professor at my Alma Mater, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, to which I returned (B. Sc. in Medical Lab Science; 1971) in the late 1980s for a short stint (1.5 years) in "his" philosophy section of the Arts Faculty. I never had him for a professor, but it was apparent from his writing, that he had experienced a nasty divorce, arguably because his philosophical acumen at the University had not helped him prevail in the local divorce court! That failure, possibly --- also arguably --- turned him into an avowed men's rights activist. But I digress.
(1) However when our author --- wait a minute a man's name is important --- I mean, when Zachary Strong, wrote that "the average leftist" is, quote: "... incredibly insecure and possibly suffering from various forms of mental illness as a result of industrialization and corrupt psychological doctrine.", he simply dismissed his opponents with 2 sophomoric "ad hominems", which some of us know to be one of the simplest fallacies of major/material logic.
In Mr. Strong's link to requote "corrupt psychological doctrine" he mentioned Thomas Kuhn, describing him as a quote "physicist and philosopher". But Kuhn described himself as a "historian of science", while others described him as a "Marxist", although I can't find any sources to corroborate that recalled (badly? mistakenly?) "Marxist" thesis today (and I've looked. But I clearly recall being "wowed", many years ago, by an honest accurate "Marxist", who clearly wasn't a self-avowed liar, in aid of the revolution, like Comrade Lenin ). At any rate no one would describe Kuhn as either "insecure" or "possibly suffering from ... mental illness."! At minimum (whether or not my "Marxist" recollection is in error), ad hominems are not refutations.
(2) As to the "What can be done?" question we have:
STRONG: (i)" ... addressing the threat of far-left activism will require sophisticated methods derived from the kinds of deradicalization techniques typically associated with the rehabilitation of Islamic extremists and cult members. Seeking to debate leftists or defeat them politically, which contributes to the “us versus them” dynamic that the ideology thrives off of, has proven to be ineffective and only worsens the problem."
REBUTTAL: But Mr. Strong, you have forgotten #10 of your own Genocide Watch thesis, concerning the 10 STAGES of Genocide, per your provided link. That 10th Stage is, quote: "10. DENIAL is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres." etc. etc.
Thus people like yourself and Hymie Rubenstein, who apparently disagrees with your "cherry-picked examples" (See Comments), are simple "un-cherry-picked" examples of the denial of genocide in residential schools. You, Mr. Strong, Mr. Rubenstein and even myself are fine examples of DENIERS and, hence [From your link to the 10 Stages] our denials are, requote "sure indicator(s)" of a "further genocidal massacre" by denialists from "the right". Or in Rubenstein's comment our denials could be simple examples of: "The genocidal Mindset of the Canadian Right", according to your own authority and Rubenstein's comment. It is no accident that people like Niigan Sinclair [Murray Sinclair's son.] are calling people like us "Deniers". Leftists can read the 10 Stages of Genocide as well as you and they would certainly "cherry pick" the #10 denial Stage in you, myself and Rubenstein.
In sum, you have to debate with a person on their own grounds or else "run them through with your sword" which was Louis the 9th's take on both Logic and Politics in the 13th Century --- the age of Thomas Aquinas and the rebirth of Aristotelianism --- according to G. K. Chesterton. If you have actually understood Kuhn's Structure, then you should know that even though you think that "Leftists" need to be "deprogrammed" as something "to do", they think that you, myself and Rubenstein need to go into psychiatric detention in some version of a Gulag because we (the left and the right) have Kuhnian "incommensurate paradigms".
In short, you either debate or you fight. Logical debate is what stopped medieval fighting and turned the fighting into rational debate and then rational discourse. In the hypocritical words of Abelard (of Abelard and Heloise fame) he gave up the "life of a knight" to become a priest and "follow the tourney grounds of dialectic". [Philosophy in the Middle Ages 2nd Edition; Hyman and Walsh; Hackett Publishing 1973 pg. 165.] In other words, Abelard was an 11th century "draft dodger" because the Crusades were on "full tilt" at the time. He preferred arguing to fighting as a knight. His choice. But your "choice" seems to be psychiatry for "the other guy". That won't work because our enemies are securing the Academy, while psychiatrists and psychologists, from that very same Academy, "think" that everybody (with themselves as general exceptions) is crazy. They'll take patients from either "the left" or "the right". Think again, my friend.
Finally (and don't forget I really liked your piece and do not think that your examples were "cherry picked", but you did "non-pick" Stage 10) you wrote, quote:
STRONG: "Their rhetoric and behavior must be not seen as intentionally malicious, but as a natural consequence of life circumstances which cause them to lash out at others."
TO THE CONTRARY: Their behaviour IS absolutely malicious and intentionally provocative and is not a "natural consequence of life circumstances". Their behaviour simply follows from the Marxist doctrine (which is not "natural") that the class struggle will result in either (1) a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or (2) in the common ruin of the contending classes. [Communist Manifesto pg. 1. pgph. 2]. And those Marxist dialectical choices will be because of a quote " ... now hidden, now open fight, a FIGHT that each time ended ... " (Marx and Engels; in the 2 above-mentioned dialectical choices, from the same cited paragraph of their Manifesto).
One of your examples clearly proved that those kids against the Professor were looking for a fight. They tried to provoke fights with solitary males who were looking to hear from someone who might be taking their "side" in the so-called "culture wars", or with the police. Whether it is Marx's "class struggles" or Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) both the "left" and the "right" will fight unless the right learns enough logic to do some serious debating on the left's ground.
As to "Oh Susanna's" post in the comments as to quote "Leftists" being "physically soft and cowardly", she should look at that little girl Leftist calling both a much bigger young man and very much larger peace officers "fff-ing scum". That wasn't cowardice or "soft" on her part. That was fearless disgust and she was "lean and mean". She reminds me of the little lady in the show called "The killing Fields" who liked to put plastic bags over the heads of prisoners who had their hands tied behind their backs. That sort of disgust may lead to killing, unless these new "soft young men", who are beginning to flirt with the right, learn how to either argue or to tell people like her:
"One more time with that talk and I'll punch your lights out and happily plead guilty to assaulting your ugly mouth." Or, alternatively, and argumentatively: " 'Fff-ing Scum', you say. I only "fff" ladies with prettier faces and nicer speech patterns than what's coming out of your ugly face.", which is an argument on her ground. I did the "punch thing" with an older girl when I was 7 years old. I warned her twice and then punched her twice [She was about a foot taller than I was.] and she bawled like a baby. I felt terrible and ran away --- and never did such a terrible thing again --- except to boys who were bigger than myself and doing the same sort of things as during the anti-professor protest.
When I became too old to physically fight with anyone, I learned some logic from one of Jack Maritain's students. Modern Logic won't do it. We do not speak in "atomic sentences", as modern so-called sentential logic "teaches". Aristotle's logic has both the subjects and the predicates of sentences as the basic variables. Modern logic is OK for Artificial Intelligence and computer programs. But humans think using subjects and predicates as their "thought variables". Computers don't think, so they don't need subject and predicate variables. The logical operators will do for them.
Kevin
Excellent post. As a culture I don't think we are inclined to genocidal violence, but we do see what Rod Dreher calls "soft totalitarianism": cancellation, deplatforming, denying job and educational opportunities, and even denying fundamental rights like travel as we saw during the shameful covid response. Leftists may be physically soft and cowardly but they will use every means at their disposal short of (usually) violence to shut up those with views they feel threatened by.
Apart from the lip-service prominence of the left in many Canadian institutions, much of this shaky piece full of cherry-picked examples could have been titled "The genocidal Mindset of the Canadian Right" using the same shaky thinking and supported by unrepresentative sour cherries.
The amino acids of genocide might be percolating within Canada but the risk of an actual genocide occurring here stalls at Step #5. The most serious threat of a CDN genocide IMO lies with those who think they are the victims of past and ongoing genocides. Genocides have a history of being prophylactic; getting them before they get you. Himmler in 1938 speaking to SS officers: "If we are the loser in the struggle which will decide this, not even a reservation of Germans will remain."
Thank you for this very insightful article.
Brilliant article! Thank you. You summarized everything that is in my "racism" file on my computer, and made the situation very clear.