Things are changing folks. And not for the better.
This op ed by national columnist Vicky Mochama was published in the Toronto Star this week:
The Star is the biggest newspaper in Canada. It has always been known as a decidedly Left-of-centre publication. But as the extreme far Left has come to dominate Leftist thinking in general, the Star has kept pace and has moved to reflect those extremes. By presenting radical ideological concepts in the most mainstream, ubiquitous platform imaginable… they are attempting to shift the public’s perception of these extreme ideas and to normalize them.
The Star has truly ‘jumped the shark’ this time. Publishing articles in a still widely read mainstream newspaper that promote the concept of ‘whiteness‘ as a social ill that society has failed to ‘grapple with’ is signalling that racist ideology of the far Left and the collective demonisation of white people is perfectly normal and acceptable.
It’s actually quite shocking to see the same intellectually barren and contemptible ideas that were once confined to loony, hyper-partisan web sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed now presented as credible mainstream editorial content.
If that wasn’t bad enough… these types of far-Left ideological screeds are almost always terribly written. How these people manage to write for a living is a complete mystery. For example, Mochama uses a 2017 mass shooting by Alexandre Bissonnette at a Mosque in Quebec in which six people were killed… an almost unheard of category of crime in Canada… as evidence of the scourge of ‘whiteness’. She writes:
“His crime is exceptional; he, however, is not. Bissonnette is as Canadian as the good old hockey game.”
Mochama makes no attempt to reconcile the contradiction in characterizing Bissonnette’s actions as ‘exceptional’…. in other words, anomalous in relation to the behavior of every other Canadian… while insisting that he simultaneously personifies the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian.
The explanation for her indifference to the logical incoherence of her reasoning is obvious: she is far less concerned with making logical sense as she is with conveying her feelings of animus and contempt for white people. The goal is not to communicate a rational insight or to say something objectively true. It is strictly to let you know that she personally makes an equivalence between this despicable mass murderer and white Canadians in general.
Does Mochama ever get around to connecting any of these disparate dots to show how a crazy gunman, white people as a race and Canadian society come together to support the gaseous concept of ‘whiteness’?
Nope.
She just carries on… stream of consciousness style… presenting what appear to be random, fanciful interpretations which she feels no urge to justify or connect to anything objectively real. To be honest, it’s more like reading the personal journal of someone whose purpose for writing is merely to disgorge the flurry of subjective impressions running through her head rather than making coherent, reasoned arguments.
For instance, she says that because Bissonnette is white, “his murderous anger was given the benefit of the doubt. The guns he killed with were purchased legally without a hint of an obstacle. His whiteness provided cover for a deeply dangerous violence.”
You’re probably asking yourself….what the hell is that supposed to mean? “Because he is white, his murderous anger was given the benefit of the doubt.” Really? How do you quantify that? “His whiteness provided cover for a deeply dangerous violence.” It did? How does that work?
Perhaps you are giving Mochama the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she must have elaborated and clarified how these intangible premises relate to something that can be objectively evaluated or demonstrated.
Nope.
Mochama just carried on with a completely different set of premises, personal impressions and tenuous connections between things that are not obviously related.
You may think I’m being unfair and selecting bits from her column out of context to emphasize the incoherence of her thesis. I can assure you that I’m not. I will provide a link below to the original article for you to judge for yourself. Be prepared… it’s a very irritating read.
Comments