Mediaboss Marketing

The question sounds abstract and clich at first: do we have free will? If you look at the academic side of the question, what you will see is a long bibliography that seems only relevant to nerdy interests. However, the question has permeated public debates and leftist campaigns.

Feminists sometimes speak as if women have no agency. Women are all victims because muh patriarchy is choosing for them. Porn actresses, according to at least a bunch of harpies, do not choose: even though they sign their contracts and do everything by themselves, they are used by the porn industry.

Likewise, muh minorities would perform badly because they would have internalized some floating racism that stifles their abilitiesdoesnt matter that this far-fetched theory was never proven or that blacks have been constantly found to be more self-confident than whites, not less.

Outside of leftist abuse and whitemaleophobic baiting, the question of whether we have a free will faculty or if we are the end result of smaller, impersonal mind processes where our personality dissolves has tremendous implications on what we do. Studies found that not believing in free will tended to stimulate cheating and numb patience.

The ancient Greeks believed we had an internal sovereign calledegemonikon. To free it, we would have to meditate on our passions, beliefs, desires and so on as to free the internal sovereign from them: knowing what determines us and of options allows to be less determined.

No stupid fears like the fear of being rejected, no delusions like equality, no laziness considered too natural for us to work well. Instead, an enhanced and cleansed self, able to become what he is. This is the Greeks gnothi seauthon (know thyself) in a nutshell.

Conservative intellectual Thomas Sowell famously argued that liberals were unconstrained minds, with less predetermined beliefs, than conservatives. Liberals would believe more in change, conservatives more in immutability. This has been true to a certain extent, and liberals rushed to use it: change or hope means that leftism wins, both in fashion and reality, over a timid, hesitating, fearful and most importantly uncool conservatism.

However, since Sowells time of glory, things have considerably evolved. Today liberals and their RINO cuck allies are the most constrained and constraining camp ever. They are the ones who want to lock everyone up into their mad world of gender, white genocide, balkanized West, mandatory worship of a hallucinated progress, trigger warning, land whale supremacy and every monstrous stuff that makes up the liberal pantheon.

Liberal qualities have turned on their heads, and what liberals believe about themselves is either false or liable to so many exceptions it becomes window dressing.

The same libs who proudly claim they believe in equality love to think how their mean IQ is higher than the conservative voters. They believe they are more creative and more intellectual, that is, more prone to bookishness and theorization. They will routinely talk of love, justice, universality, we, humanity. They claim to be open-minded, progressive, tolerant, and fancy themselves as fairer and less authorian. Is that true?

Not one bit.

This may be the most dishonest statement the leftists ever made up.Every individual of normal constitution is capable of both love and hatred. Couples of passions are a standard part of human nature. But somehow liberals managed to confuse the apparently positive aspect of love with being right, then managed to present themselves as the side of universal love. But by doing so they didnt even care about stigmatizing the other political side as representing universal hatred.

Liberals do not love more than others. White liberals who feel guilt because theyre white and male, and virtue-signal as to compensate, suffer from a psychological issue. White guilt is a pathology, a mental virus that corrupts self-esteem and destroys the memories of all the good things the West gave to the world. Liberals do not love minoritiesthey need them to clean their shit for a smaller wage than white proles. Liberals are not free of hatredthey hate the patriarchy, they despise conservatives, they hate us.

The only thing a liberal truly loves is his (or her) ego, comfort, and own pleasures. Which is why liberals tend to be hedonistic and coward. The love they claim is just a mask for self-complacency.

Obey me. For love. Or youre a Nazi!

This is what many of them said when they ushered Obama in power. They said so even when they despised the browbeaten, blue pills fed, loser men. Boomers who voted Obama said so while chastising millennials as losers. As we learned the hard way, when they win, we lose.

And many of those on the liberal train end up losing as well, for example when youre black and youre forced into an identity of perpetual aggrieved victim dependent on the State instead of being taught to manage your own goddamn life, or when youre an upper middle class feminist and you end up raped and killed by the dark-skinned masses you always supported.

The we want a world without losers crowd always vote themselves in power, vote their own advantages, and do so at the expense of untold people. Just like using an ECA stack while lobbying for the prohibition of smart drugs. Doublethink at its finest.

Leftism has always been a particular group identity. From the eighteenth century philosophers to the younger upper middle class feminist of now, leftism has its codes, references, events and even saints. In truth, humanity only exists in a biological sense: one is human because one is a homo sapiens. Beyond that, the Earth has always been covered with different identities. The Left pretends to be different, but leftists have always been parts of societies or of the world. Which makes them as non-universal as any other identity.

Bourgeois bohemians love to talk about culture as their particular thing. They love to gloat about openness from the comfort of their flats or houses in a so-called glamour neighbourhood. Even when leftism was more akin to communism, said movement worked because it gave a purpose and a sense to the life of its members. That is, a particular purpose. No purpose is interesting or worthy when it ceases to be particular, identitarian, and thus different from the rest of humanity.

Leftism is an identitarianism. A cancer that developed from the West while chastising it. No wonder why the feminists fish and bicycle motto is intrinsically antisocial: leftisms universality is a joke. And it is intolerant at our identitarianism.

Any group has common beliefs. Any group has prejudices. This is normaland this is what leftists love to say they went beyond erroneously. Ive often seen pompous students going at great lengths on their 50 shades of leftism or gender whereas talking of the far right as if people outside of the left were an homogeneous block. Those who speak like this know nothing of our side: even the Alt-Right is rather a big tent than an edifice.

Likewise, when the libs r smarter rule, which may be true if and only if certain conditions apply, becomes heralded as obvious, it is a prejudicean excessive generalization that denies exceptions.

If you compare the mean IQ of a group of academics and the mean IQ of a group of plant workers, chances are, the former have a higher mean IQ. But does that mean that the academics are better human beings? That they are necessarily right? Does that mean that other high IQs who agree with plant workers should be ruled out as irrelevant?

The smarter Left myth is only true to the extent that the Left has taken over the institutions, only allowed its own inside, then used the institutions authority to claim smartness. Yes, thats the very same people who pretend that race IQ measurements, which do not differ from class IQ measurements, are racists and invalid.

Leftists who have a high IQ use it to craft theories, narratives, and other misleading impressions to force and manipulate. Their pseudo-creativity is a smokescreen to mask the giant prison where they want to force societyand their own inability to get out of the matrix.

As everyone who ventured outside of cultural Marxism knows, no one on Earth is as bossy and domineering as the tolerant Left. Forced equality and communism were not tolerant projects. Forcing anal marriage, gender madness, mass immigration, white guilt, land whale/HR supremacy, banning words and reshaping whole identities through mass indoctrination is definitely not tolerant. No one else pretends to love the Other while being so intolerant at the political Other. At bottom, a leftist is a political xenophobic.

However, the Left has been crafty (or dishonest) enough to say that its intolerance would end intolerance, just like the communist genocidal mania would end all genocides, the freemason-propelled WW1 would end all wars, etc. Now it can safely be said that all these hopes were illusions, as Leftism always needs new targets to protest and harass. The only true hope for anything better lies in the death of cultural Marxism.

Antiracist fraudster Franz Boas was wrong. Sigmund Freuds theory of Oedipus was wrong and likely build to hide a Jewish propensity for incest by blaming it on the children. Minority identities did not even exist before they were wholly constructed (organized) by Alinskyite figures who took all their inspiration in Marxism. Now these groups are like cancerous tumors, having no function yet stealing from a society they did not built. Margaret Mead was a fraud. Feminist founders had deep issues. And so on.

Leftism is all about manipulating the human psyche while making you indignant (or ashamed, depending on which role the narrative-crafters attribute to you) about being oppressed. Many of us were fed blue pills since our youngest infancy.

More often than not, we were taught everything would be possible, to be thrown into a world where everything is blocked, taught to be respectful when this made us cowards, taught to be cultivated when this is just made us more conditioned, taught to believe in equality because this is what the cultivated, successful individual do, and so on.

Cultural Marxism is not based on knowledge. It is based on sophisticated make-believe. Know the difference.

Read Next: If Leftist Ideology Is Correct, Why Are Liberals Using Dirty And Violent Tactics?

View post:
Liberals Do Not Know Themselves Return Of Kings

Wednesdays parliamentary outrage du jour was an online summer job posting from Dogwood, a B.C. environmental group. The successful applicant will help (Dogwoods) organizing network stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project, and she will make $15 an hour thanks to the generosity of the Canadian taxpayer. The Canada Summer Jobs Program distributes funds to all manner of not-for-profits and small businesses, with local MPs two New Democrats and one Liberal, in this case deciding which applicants are most deserving.

It careered into the public spotlight only recently when the Liberals found that MPs, including one of their own, had been signing off on funding for anti-abortion groups, including at least one known for displaying grisly photos of aborted fetuses. A womans absolute right to manage her own pregnancy is central to Liberal policy. It made perfect sense that they would want to close the tap. And for the same reason, it would have made sense for the Liberals to cut off an organization like Dogwood. Trudeau and his deputies swear blind that Kinder Morgan must and shall be completed, but it faces many significant obstacles not least activists like those in Dogwoods employ. Why would the government pay them?

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer was in high dudgeon about it on Wednesday. If the Prime Minister claims to be trying to build public support for this pipeline, perhaps he can explain to the House why his government gave a grant to an environmental lobby group that specifically used those funds to hire an activist to protest against the Trans Mountain pipeline, he said in Question Period. Does the Prime Minister not realize that paying groups to protest against these projects is exactly part of the problem?

Trudeau had two comebacks. One, that Dogwood got funding under the Conservative government as well. A fair point, certainly: tactically, if anything, it was weirder for the Conservatives not to object than for the Liberals, who can (or could) reasonably hope some Dogwood supporters might vote for them. And two, that unlike apparently the leader of the official opposition, we believe in free speech.

I dont even know what to call that. I would call it chutzpah, but even after weeks upon weeks of controversy, Im not convinced the Liberals and their most ardent supporters actually understand why people object so strenuously to the way they have handled the anti-abortion carve-out to the Summer Jobs Program.

The most logical way to ensure that government money isnt spent advocating for or against a government policy is to stipulate that it not be so spent. Tick this box to affirm that your summer employee will not participate in any anti-abortion/anti-pipeline/anti-whatever activities. Easy peasy. Instead bureaucrats somehow came up with this: an applicant organization has to attest that both the job and my organizations core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights.

This unambiguously shifts the focus from behaviour (protesting a pipeline, parading around photos of aborted fetuses) to belief. A government is on much shakier ground when it discriminates based on belief; indeed, if anything is a value underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of religion certainly is. Yet Liberals seemed utterly baffled as more and more religious organizations, notably Bible camps, refused to tick the box not because they had anything to do with anti-abortion advocacy but because their core mandates are to reflect their religious beliefs in all that they do, and their religious beliefs include the sanctity of human life in utero.

If Team Trudeau really cant wrap its mind around the nature of devout religious faith, despite an obvious imperative to do so, then perhaps this Dogwood episode can ram it through their skulls. You dont need to be religious to understand. Just flip it around. Imagine the Conservative government had decided to nix summer jobs funding for anti-pipeline advocacy (not much of a stretch), or to throw a rare bone to its social-conservative wing and refuse to fund pro-choice advocacy. It would have been well within their rights, but people would have howled.

Now imagine they had asked every progressive-minded summer camp to attest, say, that its important to get Albertas natural resources to tidewater, or that there is no Charter right to abortion. The howling would have rather increased, no?

Email: cselley@nationalpost.com | Twitter:

Read the original post:
Chris Selley: Liberals still dont get why people are so ...

OTTAWA The Liberals are torn. Theyd like to live up to their own lofty rhetoric about building a shining beacon on Parliament Hill.

But theyd prefer not to be constrained in any way by the inconvenient logistics of Parliament.

The governments latest attempt to circumvent the scrutiny of the House of Commons is a streamlining of the budgetary process that would limit Parliament to vote just once on all the spending measures in the recent budget.

Its the budgetary equivalent of the kind of omnibus bill the Liberals said they would never introduce.

The vote would give Treasury Board president Scott Brison unprecedented discretion over $7 billion, on the promise that the House will be informed about all the messy details at a later date.

Brison has promised to overhaul the estimates process to align it with the federal budget, with the aim of speeding up spending approvals and improving scrutiny.

But while the move may achieve the first goal, the ability of MPs to question government spending will be much reduced.

Pierre Poilivre is the classic example of a political poacher turned game-keeper the Conservative finance critic knows every artful dodge in the book because he was part of a government that pioneered most of them.

If this becomes nothing more than a $7-billion slush fund that a board of politicians can play with in an election year, then therell be hell to pay in Parliament, Poilivre predicted.

He knows of what he speaks.

The Conservatives introduced a $3-billion emergency fund in 2009 in order to dole out money at the governments discretion to tackle the recession.

The circumstances then were precarious enough to justify drastic measures, and the Conservatives argued the fund was crucial to ensure money flowed quickly into the economy.

But, even then, parliamentarians were on guard in defence of the public finances.

The NDPs Tom Mulcair accused the Conservatives of using the same methods the Liberals used in the sponsorship scandal creating a slush fund that was exempt from parliamentary oversight.

Those fears were not entirely misplaced. While no laws were broken, there were instances of pork-barrelling, most notoriously the gazebo built in the conspicuously inland Muskoka riding of then-Treasury Board president Tony Clement, using funds earmarked for border infrastructure.

There would appear to be a less pressing need to reduce parliamentary oversight in the current case.

Jean-Luc Ferland, Brisons senior communications adviser, said the new initiative is designed to speed up the process and provide Canadians with more timely access to the programs they need.

Maybe so, but Brison is likely to face a united opposition when he goes to the House to gain approval for the $7 billion.

The government says the money will be used exclusively for the initiatives announced in an annex of last Februarys budget.

For greater transparency, allocations and remaining balances will be reported online monthly and in the next available estimates, said Ferland. By establishing this clear link between the budget and the Main Estimates, the government is making it easier for parliamentarians and Canadians to follow the money.

The Liberals are saying, in essence, trust us well behave ourselves this time.

That is unlikely to wash with the opposition.

Daniel Blaikie, the NDPs Treasury Board critic, said the Liberal proposal is a step backward.

Despite all the talk, the Liberals see Parliament as a real nuisance, he said. There have been several motions designed to circumvent Parliament and this is another instance of that.

The Liberals are saying, in essence, 'trust us we'll behave ourselves this time'

To be fair to Brison, there is a problem here that is crying out for a solution. Items announced in the budget traditionally take months to go through Treasury Boards approval process. The theory is that by harmonizing the budget and the estimates, that process can be expedited.

But the price is likely to be a reduced flow of information to MPs. A Parliamentary Budget Office study released last year found nearly one third of all budget measures need more or less funding in reality than was indicated in the budget document.

So MPs will be asked to vote based on a single line explanation in the budget document for example, $1.9 billion over the next five years on enabling digital services to Canadians secure in the knowledge that there is a good chance that number bears no resemblance to reality.

The basis of the Westminster system is ministers seeking the prior sanction of Parliament by outlining to legislators what they intend to spend the money on. Its a slow process, and its not always done well. It is, for example, absurd that the governments spending plans sometimes come out before the budget. That disconnect means it is difficult for legislators to hold the government to account.

Most MPs would require a Sherpa guide, four men of stout heart and the blessing of the Almighty to mount an expedition required to comprehend these figures, said former NDP MP Pat Martin and he was chair of the Government Operations committee.

But at least in days past, ministers were obliged to provide Parliament with details on operating and capital budgets, program plans and targets, before gaining its approval.

There was a legal obligation that is entirely absent from Brisons new procedure, whatever its good intentions.

It is the most important job of any MP to make sure taxpayers are getting value for money from their government. The governments budget implementation vote will make that more difficult.

I predict another ignominious government climb-down in the coming weeks.

With files from Marie Danielle Smith

Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter:

See the rest here:
John Ivison: Expect another humiliating climb-down by ...

When Mr. Obama remarked, behind closed doors, during the presidential campaign in 2008, that Rust Belt voters get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who arent like them, it mattered not so much because he said it but because so many listeners figured that he was only saying what liberals were really thinking.

These are the sorts of events conservatives think of when they sometimes say, Obama caused Trump. Many liberals might interpret that phrase to mean that Americas first black president brought out the worst in some people. In this view, not only might liberals be unable to avoid provoking bigots, its not clear they should even try. After all, should they not have nominated and elected Mr. Obama? Should they regret doing the right thing just because it provoked the worst instincts in some people?

This is a limited view of the situation. Even if liberals think their opponents are backward, they dont have to gratuitously drive people away, including voters who cast ballots once or even twice for Mr. Obama before supporting Mr. Trump in 2016.

Champions of inclusion can watch what they say and explain what theyre doing without presuming to regulate what words come out of other peoples mouths. Campus activists can allow invited visitors to speak and then, after that event, hold a teach-in discussing what they disagree with. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that states had to allow same-sex marriage, the fight, in some quarters, turned to pizza places unwilling to cater such weddings. Maybe dont pick that fight?

People determined to stand against racism can raise concerns about groups that espouse hate and problems like the racial achievement gap in schools without smearing huge numbers of Americans, many of whom might otherwise be Democrats by temperament.

Liberals can act as if theyre not so certain and maybe actually not be so certain that bigotry motivates people who disagree with them on issues like immigration. Without sacrificing their principles, liberals can come across as more respectful of others. Self-righteousness is rarely attractive, and even more rarely rewarded.

Self-righteousness can also get things wrong. Especially with the possibility of Mr. Trumps re-election, many liberals seem primed to write off nearly half the country as irredeemable. Admittedly, the president doesnt make it easy. As a candidate, Mr. Trump made derogatory comments about Mexicans, and as president described some African countries with a vulgar epithet. But it is an unjustified leap to conclude that anyone who supports him in any way is racist, just as it would be a leap to say that anyone who supported Hillary Clinton was racist because she once made veiled references to superpredators.

Read more:
Opinion | Liberals, Youre Not as Smart as You Think - The ...

Lets imagine the following statements were part of a public opinion poll. How many people would agree to these assertions:

1. Were concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

2. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories stories that just arent true, without checking facts first.

3. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people thinkThis is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

This is precisely what the left-wing media would say about Fox News. But these statements arent part of a poll. They are part of a script that Sinclair Broadcasting sent to its stations across America. In a 60-second promo, the local anchors in each market read the script, and the Trump-hating media gave birth to a large cow. Clearly, Fox News wasnt the target. They were.

Lets add some more Sinclair copy, and wonder why this is offensive to liberals: At [station], its our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand truth is neither politically left nor right. Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever. But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair, please reach out to us...

The Left would certainly embrace factual reporting as the foundation of our credibility, and yada yada. What they found offensive is that a new entity not as enlightened as they could profess this belief.

What of the second part, about Sinclair inviting criticism from their audience? No wonder the Left doesnt like it. Virtually all of them have cancelled their ombudsmen. Networks arent in the habit of offering corrections. Accountability is not their bag.

Sinclair has long aired conservative commentary on its local stations, and the liberal media hate that, too. MSNBCs Joe Scarborough shamelessly lectured it was like the days of Pravda in the Soviet Union: A national broadcasting system that is shoving propaganda down local anchor's throats, he stated hysterically, straight from the pen of somebody whos a Trump acolyte is really, really chilling.

Chilling? This man appears daily on a national broadcasting system pushing propaganda. A network whose motto in the Obama years was Lean Forward (which sounded like Mao Zedongs Great Leap Forward) passing judgment on propaganda is why networks like Sinclair have emerged.

On HBO, John Oliver denounced Sinclair anchors reading a script as sounding like members of a brainwashed cult. So exactly how do anchors of news or entertainment shows across the country deliver their reports? Oliver doesnt have a script? The HBO denunciations of a brainwashed cult are especially hilarious, since they produce Democratic propaganda films like last years fly-on-the-wall documentary on Obamas supposed foreign-policy geniuses called The Final Year.

Now remember that most of these Sinclair stations are affiliates of ABC, CBS, and NBC. So liberals object to a 60-second promo but see nothing wrong with 60 Minutes promoting Trumps alleged porn-star lover or the forthcoming prime-time George Stephanopoulos interview hour with James Comey on these very same stations. One-sided news is the best kind of news for most of the broadcast day....as long as your news skews to the left

Read the rest here:
Bozell & Graham Column: The Knee-Jerk Liberals Spit at ...