In an age of delusion, I aim to provide Christians with the tools needed to counter the enemy's lies. Postmodernism, Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Inclusiveness, Equity, WOKE, Net-Zero Carbon are all variations on a Neo-Marxist theme. Namely the belief that life is a zero-sum game, a Malthusian nightmare where resources are so finite that the state must redistribute them. This channel is dedicated to providing you with the meat of the Word of God sorely lacking in Christian circles today.
It was while living in Norway that I first learned
about the agenda of the radical left. The Postmodern left has hidden its soul
crushing agenda behind feel good virtue signalling. It was then that I first
began to understand that we were headed toward the utter collapse of the post
WWII vision for humanity. This vision has failed for the simple reason that it blended
Neo-Marxism with fascism. Postwar globalism depends on central planning and
regulation of the economy where industry is only permitted to produce what the unelected
global order deems to be viable and “sustainable”. This despite the complete
failure of their green agenda which they have promoted with religious zeal. We
live under government regulated media since the 4th Estate has become the
propaganda tool of unelected kleptocrats used to promote their dystopian vision
for humanity. Within this post war global order, we see elements of Marxism and
Fascism blended into the bastard child of the two ideologies we spent much of
the 20th Century fighting. My very real fear is that we are so far
into the complete adoption of these ideas and the resultant failures of mass
immigration that we cannot turn the tide. Unvetted immigration has had one
primary goal, to kill off through attrition and age anyone who remembers what it
was like to have even a modicum of individual liberty. Most fundamentally due
to censorship it has become virtually impossible for the free market of ideas to
offer an alternative narrative. The West has become what the Islamists refer to
as “a woman to be mounted”. This is why the left allies themselves with radical
political Islam since both are illiberal, authoritarian, and anti-Christian. Both
seek to destroy what little remains of the very concept of what it means to be
a Christian Westerner. In a very real way Hitler, Stalin, and Mao won the
ideological battle, and as a result the West has lost much of its freedom. This
attack on our foundational values started in our treasonous universities who
have for decades taught pure ideological poison to our kids at the taxpayers’
expense! So, thank you, Norway, for opening my eyes while labelling me as a
Neo-Nazi for taking an active interest in my wife's culture while doing my best
to learn how to speak Norwegian in my 60’s!
It was in Norway where I developed a strongly critical
perspective of our current global political and social trends. In the decade
since my return to Canada I have seen my worst fears come to fruition under the
Liberal Party of Canada which has exceeded the socialist mind-meld I
encountered while in Norway. Canada has become the manifestation of a Star Trek
episode where the Borg captured the crew members to turn them into machines. The
following criticisms touch on a complex set of interconnected political,
economic, and social anxieties. So, I will attempt to identify and summarize my
concerns as they relate to political philosophy and current events.
Core Themes of
Concern
The central thesis of my
message revolves around my conviction that a powerful, authoritarian
global agenda is being implemented, systematically dismantling the
foundations of Western civilization.
Political and
Economic Control
Critique of Post-WWII Vision: I reject the established post-World
War II global order, viewing its foundations as inherently flawed and
rooted in "Neo-Marxism conflated with a Fascist economy"
Centralized Regulation: I am deeply concerned over the
blending of state regulation and industry, where production is
dictated by what the unelected "global order deems to be viable and
'sustainable'," pointing to the failure of the "green
agenda."
Propaganda and Media Control: I see the media ("the 4th
Estate") as compromised and acting as a "propaganda
tool" for unelected globalist powers.
Hybrid Authoritarianism: I argue that the current system is
an "illegitimate bastard child" that draws on
elements of both Marxism and Fascism to create a new form
of totalitarianism.
Social and Cultural
Downfall
Erosion of Liberty: Individual liberty is being
systematically eroded.
Impact of Immigration:Mass immigration is a
policy with the primary purpose of causing cultural attrition to eliminate
those who remember a freer society.
Decline of Western Values: I assert that the combination of
these authoritarian ideas has suppressed the "free market of
ideas" and the "Christian morality" which
I credit as being the primary foundation for Western liberty.
The Role of Education: I blame the Western Academy for
teaching our youth " ideological poison" that has
led to our cultural decline.
Perceived Global
Alliance
Authoritarian Coalition: I am deeply concerned between an illiberal
alliance of the powerful global forces and radical political Islam,
based on their shared foundation of being illiberal and
authoritarian while seeking to destroy Christianity and our
Western identity.
What I experienced in
Norway, was personally frustrating due to the false labels that were being applied
to me. This experience served as a catalyst for solidifying my views about the postwar
Postmodern Cultural Relativist agenda. Let me be clear, I feel a deep sense of
betrayal accompanied by a profound sense of worry about the future of freedom
and Western identity. Moreover, these thoughts do not include what I witnessed the
senior management of the Norwegian Defence Department, and the Foreign Affairs
Department do to my wife which must remain a topic for another blog. Suffice it
to say, no good deed she did ever went unpunished. Particularly if it brought
to public attention the gross inefficiencies of the Norwegian bureaucracy to properly
address the needs of the Norwegian taxpayer.
My conclusions:
After WWII the West was foolish enough to attempt to wage a kinetic war against what it viewed as its ideological enemies when the real war was occurring on the intellectual front. Our leaders ought to have addressed the ideological capture of our schools, universities, and our institutions of government. Soldiers are not trained to fight ideologies. The fight against ideological possession ought to have been left to our systems of governance and education but instead these institutions have indoctrinated our kids into the very ideologies that we once fought with the physical weapons of war. Said weapons are useless in fighting toxic ideology but the military-industrial complex in league with the Postwar global order still demanded their pound of flesh. The flesh of our young whom they have sent to die needlessly when the real fight ought to have been waged here at home to reclaim our institutions as servants of the people not slaves to some unelected globalist gang of plutocrats and kleptocrats.
Postmodern Cultural
Relativism has eroded our common cultural narratives and shared values thereby
undermining the cohesive identity and consistent principles that historically
have defined Canadian governance. This shift has fragmented societal cohesion, complicated
policymaking, and ultimately challenges the foundations of our national unity.
This in short explains why Canada feels so broken under our current governing
plutocratic elite.
Our government long
ago broke faith with its citizens, yet we have continued to vote for this
tyranny! So why is this happening to us? It is happening because it appeals to
Canadians' sense of empathy for the little guy, yet instead of protecting the
downtrodden the valid emotion of empathy has been weaponized by the radical
left. By stealth they have taken the long march through our institutions to
capture them from within. As a result, our natural inclination to be empathetic
has been weaponized to destroy the very nature of Canadian parliamentary
democracy. God save us from the kleptocracy that captured our government!
This touches on some
complex and deeply debated ideas around cultural identity, governance, and
political theory. I want to unpack the concepts of Postmodern Cultural
Relativism, Critical Theory, and Cultural Marxism in a clear
and honest way.
Here's a brief
overview of the key ideological concepts:
Postmodern Cultural
Relativism
This is the idea that values, norms, and
truths are not universal but are instead shaped by cultural context.
Postmodernism often challenges grand narratives and fixed truths, promoting
skepticism toward institutions and traditional authority. Cultural relativism
within this framework suggests that no single culture's values are inherently
superior to another's. This flies in the face of Cultural Marxist Critical
Race, Gender, and Climate Catastrophizing Theory which are in fact “grand
narratives”.
Critical Theory
A type of grand
narrative originating from the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century,
Critical Theory seeks to critique and change society by examining power
structures, ideologies, and social injustices. It often focuses on how societal
institutions perpetuate inequality and aims to empower marginalized groups.
Most importantly Critical Theory is a method of examining Marxism since Marxist
ideas constantly evolve. The obvious reason for this is that Marxism itself
doesn’t work in a practical sense hence the need for it to constantly adjust its
core premises. However, the one thing which remains consistent is its loathing
for free market capitalism.
Cultural Marxism
Some claim this term
is controversial and often misused, but is it? Originally it referred to the
application of Marxist ideas to cultural analysis—looking at how culture can
reinforce class structures. However, in recent years, "Cultural
Marxism" has been used in political rhetoric to describe perceived leftist
influence in institutions. The reason for this assumption has come from the
writings of renowned leftists who themselves stated that they would take the
long march through our institutions to capture them from within. The long march
through the institutions (German: der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen) is
a slogan coined by socialist student activist Rudi Dutschke around 1967 to
describe his strategy to create radical change in government (particularly West
Germany) by becoming part of it. The phrase "long march" is a
reference to the physical Long March of the Chinese communist army. Nevertheless,
many scholars argue that this usage is misleading and conflates different
intellectual traditions even though I will use the left’s own language to prove
otherwise.
How They Interact:
Postmodernism undermines universal narratives, which
can weaken shared cultural foundations.
Critical Theory critiques existing power structures,
including those within culture, education, and governance.
Even though Postmodernism denies the
existence of a grand narrative the new left nevertheless combines these
frameworks into a grand narrative that challenges traditional institutions
and values, which has tremendous destabilizing affects though the left argues
that destabilization is necessary for social progress. Now that is quite
an assertion.How can destroying
civil society promote civility when these radical leftist ideologies
advocate for violent protests and civil disobedience?
Let us do a deeper
dive into how these ideas have influenced Canadian institutions or policymaking
and explore alternative perspectives on national unity and governance. So here
is a comprehensive breakdown of how Postmodern Cultural Relativism, Critical
Theory, and Cultural Marxism have influenced Canadian governance,
institutions, and national identity—and how these ideas interact with each
other.
🔍 1. Postmodern Cultural Relativism in Canadian
Governance
Postmodernism
challenges the idea of universal truths and promotes the view that values are
culturally constructed. In Canada, this has manifested through:
Multiculturalism Policy: Since 1971, Canada has embraced
multiculturalism, allowing diverse cultural groups to maintain their
traditions while participating in mainstream society. This policy has
helped redefine Canadian national identity as inclusive and pluralistic[1].
Governance Impacts: While multiculturalism has fostered
integration and reduced anti-immigrant backlash, critics like myself argue
it has also led to fragmented identities and weakened shared civic values,
complicating policy-making and national cohesion[2]. Especially given the fact that we are currently
witnessing aggressive anti-Semitism here in Canada which is accompanied by
violent radical Islamic protests .
🧠 2. Critical Theory’s Influence on Canadian
Institutions
Critical Theory,
especially in its educational form (Critical Pedagogy), has gained traction in
Canadian schools and universities:
Education: Ontario’s Ministry of Education has
increasingly adopted Critical Theory language, focusing on identity,
power, and systemic oppression. Critics argue this shift undermines
traditional literacy and numeracy goals, and may erode civic unity[3].
Libraries and Higher Education: Institutions like the CFLA-FCAB have
embraced Critical Theory to address moral panics and promote inclusivity,
though this has sparked debates about neutrality and ideological bias[4]. Many renowned professors such as Dr. Gad
Saad and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson have been sounding a warning for decades
that our universities have become institutions for radical Neo-Marxist
indoctrination.
Design and Curriculum: Canadian universities are using Critical
Instructional Design to embed social justice into learning environments,
especially in Indigenous education and health programs[5]. This even though injustices remain at an
all time high with open and violent outburst against both Jews and
Christians. Synagogues are attacked and Churches have been burnt, yet our radical
leftist government refuses to address these problems effectively while
merely doubling down on its failed Neo-Marxist policies.
🧩 3. Cultural Marxism: Contested Concept and
Canadian Context
The term
"Cultural Marxism" is claimed to be highly controversial despite this
is a term invented by the left. It astounds me how the left becomes enraged
when we throw their own words back at them:
Origins and Usage: It refers to the idea that Marxist
principles have shifted from economic class struggle to cultural
institutions. Critics claim this has led to ideological capture of
education and media[6].
Academic Debate: Scholars argue that while
Marxist-inspired critiques of culture exist (e.g., Gramsci, Frankfurt
School), the term "Cultural Marxism" is often poorly understood.
This is true for the simple reason that leftist rhetoric is often
incomprehensible and deliberately arcane.
Policy and Identity: Some view multiculturalism and
progressive education as vehicles for disseminating Cultural Marxist
ideas, while others see them as necessary for equity and inclusion[8]. The fact remains that none of the left’s
stated goals are being achieved, in fact the outcome of their policies has
resulted in the diametric opposite of their favourite word, “progressism”.
🇨🇦 4. National Unity and Cultural Identity in
Canada
Canada’s identity has (de)evolved
through multiculturalism, failed reconciliation efforts, and debates over what
constitutes shared values:
Multiculturalism vs. Unity: While multiculturalism is claimed to be
a source of pride, it hasn’t translated into support for reconciliation
with Indigenous peoples. That problem, despite all claims, has proven to be
unsolvable using the government’s so-called progressive policies. Collective
multicultural ideals in shaping civic engagement has also destroyed the
very idea of the sovereign and autonomous individual [9].
Cultural Institutions: Institutions like CBC/Radio-Canada were
created to foster national unity, but their role is increasingly
politicized, especially in elections. In fact, they have become the Canadian
government’s version of Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft
(RRG) or Reich Broadcasting Corporation, which
was used extensively for Nazi propaganda after 1933. Overseen by Joseph
Goebbels's Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, the
RRG's broadcasts were controlled and used to indoctrinate the German public
and promote Nazi ideology.That is precisely what the CBC has
become, the propaganda mouthpiece of the PMO![10].
Identity Crisis: Some argue Canada lacks a cohesive
identity beyond “not being the U.S.” and needs a clearer vision rooted in
shared values like fairness and resilience and I second this argument but
would go further! We literally no longer know who we are. [11].
And frankly we no
longer know who we are because we no longer know who God is. Without the Grand
Narrative provided by Christianity the entire enchilada comes toppling down. We
can see this with brutal clarity today.
2 Chronicles 7:14
King James Version
14 If my people, which are called by my name,
shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked
ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal
their land.
One of the major premises of Marxism is that history must
be viewed through the lens of an unending economic struggle. This reductionism
omits all other relevant factors affecting how history unfolds. Yet I often read
where conservatives have used a similar argument of "follow the
money". I need to remind you that the hardest thing to do is to think for oneself.
Nevertheless, I highly recommend that you should at least try. We must avoid
oversimplifying multivariate complex problems. You will find that things aren't
as black and white as they might otherwise appear.
The single most fascinating factor affecting how history
unfolds isn't merely economic, it's due to belief systems. Ideological
possession accounts for the most profound and heinous acts of murderous
insanity ever perpetrated by man. It is important to highlight the tension between economic
determinism and ideological influence in shaping history. Marxism’s emphasis on
material conditions and class struggle offers a simplistic ideological lens which
ignores the rich tapestry of human motivations, especially when belief systems
and ideologies drive people to act in ways that defy logic.
The conservatives who say
“follow the money” are mirroring the Marxist analysis in its suspicion of
hidden economic motives, but like Marx and Engels they fall into the fallacy of
reductionism. Especially when they ignore the psychological, cultural, and
spiritual dimensions of human behaviour. Therefore, the concept of Ideological
possession is especially compelling. History is full of examples where
belief systems—religious, political, racial, or nationalistic—have led to not
only extraordinary achievements but also unspeakable atrocities. From the
Crusades to the Holocaust, from Mao’s Cultural Revolution to the Rwandan
genocide, it’s clear that ideas can be far more dangerous than mere physical weapons
when they turn into dogma.
Thinking for oneself, as I
have stated, is hard. It requires:
·Intellectual humility:
recognizing the limits of any single framework.
·Curiosity:
exploring multiple perspectives.
·Courage:
questioning one's own assumptions and tribal loyalties.
·Identifying Ideological
Possession —where individuals or groups have become
rigidly and unquestioningly committed to an ideology. These groups have played
a role in some of history’s most tragic events. Here are several examples where
ideological possession contributed to mass murder or genocide:
Historical Examples of
Ideological Possession Leading to Mass Murder
c.Mechanism:
Forced evacuations, executions of intellectuals, and dismantling of urban
society.
4.Rwanda (1994)
a.Ideology:
Ethnic supremacy (Hutu Power).
b.Event:
Rwandan Genocide — ~800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu killed in 100 days.
c.Mechanism:
State-sponsored hate propaganda, militia mobilization, and ethnic scapegoating.
5.China under Mao Zedong (1950s–1970s)
a.Ideology:
Maoist communism, anti-capitalism.
b.Event:
Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution — tens of millions died from famine,
purges, and persecution.
c.Mechanism:
Radical social engineering, suppression of dissent, and ideological
indoctrination.
6.Bosnian War (1992–1995)
a.Ideology:
Ethno-nationalism.
b.Event:
Srebrenica massacre and ethnic cleansing.
c.Mechanism:
Nationalist propaganda, militarization, and targeting of ethnic groups.
These events show how
ideological possession can override empathy, reason, and moral judgment, often
leading to the dehumanization of others and justification of violence.Let’s look at religious
ideological possession—where individuals or groups become rigidly and violently
committed to a religious worldview—has, tragically, led to persecution,
torture, and murder throughout history. Here are some well-documented examples:
Examples of Religious Ideological Possession Leading
to the Violent repression of all dissent:
The Spanish
Inquisition (1478–1834)
Religion:
Catholicism.
Targeted: Jews,
Muslims, Protestants, and alleged heretics.
Actions: Torture,
forced conversions, executions.
Ideological
Driver: Purity of the Catholic faith and suppression of heresy.
The
Crusades (1096–1291)
Religion:
Christianity (Roman Catholicism).
Targeted: Muslims,
Jews, and Eastern Christians.
Actions:
Massacres during military campaigns, including the sack of Jerusalem.
Ideological
Driver: Reclaiming the Holy Land and defending Christendom.
Thirty
Years’ War (1618–1648)
Religion: Catholic
vs. Protestant Christianity.
Targeted:
Civilians and soldiers on both sides.
Actions:
Widespread slaughter, famine, and destruction across Europe.
Ideological
Driver: Religious supremacy and political control.
Witch Hunts
in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America (15th–18th centuries)
Religion:
Predominantly Christian (Catholic and Protestant).
Targeted: Women
(mostly), accused of witchcraft.
Actions: Torture,
burning at the stake, hanging.
Ideological
Driver: Fear of the devil, heresy, and moral panic.
Ideological
Driver: Religious nationalism and sectarian division.
ISIS and
Religious Extremism (2010s–present)
Religion: Radical
interpretation of Islam.
Targeted: Yazidis,
Christians, Shia Muslims, and others.
Actions:
Genocide, beheadings, sexual slavery.
Ideological
Driver: Apocalyptic jihadism and theocratic absolutism.
These examples show how religious beliefs, when fused
with absolutism and intolerance, become a powerful and dangerous force for
dehumanizing all who dare to challenge their accepted narrative. Now it is
extremely important to distinguish between faith as a personal or communal
practice and ideological possession, which often involves
dehumanizing others and justifying violence. But why do such toxic ideas hold such power
over the human psyche, especially today in our divided world and one that
resonates strongly in today’s polarized world?
The persistence and power of toxic ideologies, especially
now, can be traced to a convergence of psychological vulnerabilities, technological
amplification, and sociopolitical conditions. Here's a breakdown of
why they hold such sway and one that resonates strongly in today’s polarized
world. The persistence and power of toxic ideologies, especially now, can be
traced to a convergence of psychological vulnerabilities, technological
amplification, and sociopolitical conditions. Here's a breakdown of
why they hold such sway:
1. Psychological Vulnerability: The Need for Meaning
and Control
In times of
uncertainty, economic stress, or cultural upheaval,
people often feel powerless or disoriented.
Toxic
ideologies offer simple narratives: clear enemies, moral clarity,
and a sense of purpose.
They reduce
complexity to black-and-white thinking, which is psychologically
comforting—even if dangerously misleading.
This is why
I am witnessing many of my neighbours in this highly integrated community
walking with their smartphones speaking to one another in their own
languages often angrily or listening to podcast streaming in Punjabi or
Arabic that frankly sound decidedly unpleasant.
My wife
refers to this phenomenon as their need for constant calibration against
one another’s mojo.
2. Tribalism and Identity Politics
Humans are
wired for group loyalty. Belonging to a group once meant survival.
Today, that
instinct can be hijacked by ideologies that define identity in opposition
to others—us vs. them.
Once
identity is fused with belief, disagreement feels like a personal
attack, making dialogue nearly impossible.
3. The Internet and Algorithmic Amplification
Social
media platforms reward outrage, certainty, and extremes—not
nuance or empathy.
Algorithms
create echo chambers where people are only exposed to views that
reinforce their own.
This
accelerates radicalization and isolates individuals from moderating
influences.
4. Loss of Shared Truth and Trust
In a world
flooded with misinformation, conspiracy theories, and distrust in
institutions, people turn to alternative narratives that feel more
emotionally satisfying.
Toxic
ideologies often present themselves as “hidden truths” that only
the enlightened few can see—creating a seductive sense of superiority.
5. Cultural and Economic Dislocation
Globalization,
automation, and cultural shifts have left many feeling displaced or
left behind.
Ideologies
that promise a return to a “golden age” or a pure identity
can be incredibly appealing in such contexts.
6. Charismatic Leaders and Manipulation
Throughout
history and today, manipulative leaders have exploited fear,
resentment, and identity to consolidate power.
They often
use religious, nationalist, or moral language to
cloak their agendas in righteousness.
So Why Now?
Because we are in a moment of global transition—technologically,
environmentally, and culturally. These transitions create anxiety, and
anxiety seeks resolution. Toxic ideologies offer certainty without
reflection, belonging without compassion, and action without
wisdom.
So, What Now?
When we weave this web of conflicting ideologies
against the backdrop of the atheism of our political leaders who fulfill the
following quote- “When people are no longer able to believe in anything,
they’ll believe in anything.” — G.K. Chesterton (paraphrased) Therefore I need
to leave you with the opposite of ideological possession, namely personal
revelation. We cannot know Christ on behalf of others. Each of us must have an
inner revelation of Him where a transformation of the heart replaces all
external forms of ideological possession. Let me read to you Paul’s famous
warning to the believers where Paul offers us a solution to ideological
possession.
Hebrews 13 - King James Version
1 Let brotherly love continue.
2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby
some have entertained angels unawares.
3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them;
and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:
but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be
content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee,
nor forsake thee.
6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and
I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have
spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of
their conversation.
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday,
and today, and for ever.
9 Be not carried about with divers
and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established
with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been
occupied therein.
What happens when the ideologically possessed on both sides of the
debate share the same unreasoned tactics?
What do both sides of the
left versus right discussion share? The use of logical fallacies! Particularly
the one best known as red herring. Because of this I have grown heartily
sick and tired of attempting to reason with people who obviously do not
understand the rules of debate. Since I expect this of the left, I find it
truly concerning that people who claim to believe in individual liberty use
their enemy’s tactics!
What is a “Red Herring
Fallacy”?
A red herring is a
diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing
arguments rather than addressing them. It introduces an irrelevant topic into
the discussion to distract from the original issue.
Example:
·Topic: "We
need to address government overreach."
·Red Herring Response:
"But what about the economy? People are struggling to find jobs."
While the economy is
important, it doesn't address the argument about autocratic government rather
it shifts the focus.
Related Fallacies:
Depending on how the shift is
used, it might also resemble:
·Straw Man –
misrepresenting the original argument to make it easier to attack.
·Ad Hominem –
attacking the person instead of the argument.
·Whataboutism – a
subtype of red herring where someone responds to an accusation or difficult
question by making a counter-accusation or bringing up a different issue. This
obvious obfuscation really cheeses my buns since no reasonable response is most
often successful in returning the conversation back to the original topic.
So let me help you with identifying this fallacy in a specific example
or conversation:
A judge would throw any such argument out of the
case if a lawyer was to pull any of these tricks. In a courtroom setting,
logical fallacies such as red herring arguments, straw man arguments,
or whataboutism would be quickly dismissed by a judge, especially if
used by a lawyer to deflect from the actual legal issues at hand. Judges are
trained to focus strictly on the relevant facts and applicable law. If a
lawyer tries to distract from the core issue by introducing unrelated topics or
emotional appeals, it would:
·Undermine their credibility,
·Be objected to by opposing counsel,
·And harm their case.
In legal terms, this kind of
tactic would be seen as irrelevant argumentation or improper rebuttal
and would be challenged under the rules of evidence and procedure. So, let us
explore how these fallacies show up in legal arguments or debates in a broader
context while looking at examples. So, how do logical fallacies—especially red
herrings and related tactics—appear in legal arguments, and how would
judges typically respond to
them?
🔍 Real-World Example: Red Herring in Court
Case Scenario: Imagine a criminal trial where
the defendant is accused of embezzling funds from a company.
Defence Argument (Red
Herring):
“My client has donated
thousands to charity and volunteers every weekend. Clearly, they are a good
person.”
Why It’s a Fallacy: This argument introduces
irrelevant information (charitable behaviour) to distract from the actual
charge of embezzlement. While character evidence can sometimes be admissible,
it doesn’t address whether the crime occurred.
The Judge’s Likely Response: The judge would likely sustain
an objection to this line of reasoning if it’s not directly relevant to the
facts of the case or be admissible under rules of evidence. The focus must
remain on whether the defendant committed the crime.
⚖️ Other Common Fallacies in
Legal Arguments
1. Straw Man
·Example: “The
prosecution wants you to believe my client is a monster.”
·Reality: The
prosecution may simply be arguing that the defendant committed a specific illegal
act.
·Judge’s Response: May
allow it briefly as rhetoric, it weakens credibility if it misrepresents the
opposing argument.
2. Ad Hominem
·Example: “The
witness is just a bitter ex-employee, so nothing they say should be trusted.”
·Fallacy:
Attacking the person instead of the substance of their testimony.
·Judge’s Response: May
allow limited character questioning, but not as a substitute for factual
rebuttal.
3. Appeal to Emotion
·Example: “Imagine
how devastated the citizens must have felt during otherwise peaceful protests.”
·Fallacy: Trying
to sway the jury with emotion rather than evidence.
·Judge’s Response: May
caution the attorney if it becomes manipulative or prejudicial.
🧠 Why Judges Reject These Tactics
Judges are bound by:
·Rules of Evidence (e.g.,
relevance, hearsay, character evidence)
·Procedural
Fairness
·Precedent
and Legal Standards
Fallacious reasoning
undermines the integrity of the legal process and can lead to:
·Objections
being sustained
·Evidence
being excluded
·Jury
instructions to disregard certain statements
So let us examine how these fallacies are handled and explore how to
spot them in political or media debates.
How to spot logical fallacies in everyday conversations, media,
and debates—and how to argue effectively without falling into them!
🔍 How to Spot Logical
Fallacies
Let us review common fallacies and
how they show up in everyday examples:
1. Red Herring
Clue: The person
changes the subject to something unrelated.
Example: “We shouldn’t
worry about governmental overspending when there are people who don’t have
jobs.”
Spot It: Ask yourself—Does
this address the original issue directly?
2. Straw Man
Clue: Someone
oversimplifies or misrepresents your argument.
Example: “If you do not want
the health care system to increase its spending you don’t want people to
have ready access to proper health care!” Ignoring the fact that wasted
funding has failed to increase the efficiency of health care expenditures.
Spot It: Compare what was
said to what was being argued.
3. Ad Hominem
Clue: Attacking the
person instead of the idea.
Example: “Because you’re
white you do not understand minority issues”.
Spot It: Is the criticism
about the ethnic identity of the person or the argument?
4. Appeal to Emotion
Clue: Using fear, pity,
or flattery to persuade.
Example: “If you don’t
vote for me social welfare projects are doomed.”
Spot It: Is the argument
based on facts or feelings?
5. Whataboutism
Clue: Responding to
criticism with a different issue.
Example: “You say our
policy is flawed, but what about your party’s mistakes?”
Spot It: Is this a
deflection rather than a rebuttal?
🧠 How to Argue
Effectively Without Fallacies
Here are some strategies
to keep your arguments strong and logical:
✅ 1. Stay on Topic
Always respond directly to the point being made.
If you need to shift topics, explain why it’s
relevant.
✅ 2. Steelman Instead of Strawman
Present the strongest version of your opponent’s
argument before responding.
This shows respect and strengthens your
credibility.
✅ 3. Use Evidence
Support claims with data, examples, or expert
opinions.
Avoid relying solely on anecdotes or emotional
appeals.
✅ 4. Acknowledge Complexity
Avoid oversimplifying issues.
Recognize nuance and admit when there are
multiple sides.
✅ 5. Stay Respectful
Focus on ideas, not personalities.
Avoid sarcasm or insults—they weaken your
position.
And if you cannot manage
to discuss topics with me respectfully, you will have provided me with
permission to use all the tools of reasoned debate at my disposal to
demonstrate that you are an unreasoned fool! Let me be crystal clear, I am not
saying that I am smarter or better informed than any of you. Therefore, I
simply cannot imagine how this could be possible. What I have shared here is
common knowledge available for all to consider. So, I beg of you, please do not
prove to me that I am either better informed or smarter than you since if this
is true, we are all well and truly screwed beyond repair! This is better known
as FUBAR!
