Monday, October 20, 2025

The failure of the post WWII liberal vision for global stability

 


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.

 

 

 

Saturday, October 18, 2025

The two great evils of Postmodernism and Critical Theory

 


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.

 


References

[1] academic.oup.com

[2] link.springer.com

[3] www.researchgate.net

[4] safs.ca

[5] link.springer.com

[6] safs.ca

[7] theconversation.com

[8] www.erudit.org

[9] www.tandfonline.com

[10] www.cbc.ca

[11] manusharma.ca

 

 

Tuesday, October 14, 2025

Ideological possession is stronger than gravity

 


Ideological possession is stronger than gravity:

 

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

1.     Nazi Germany (1933–1945)

a.     Ideology: Racial purity, anti-Semitism, Aryan supremacy.

b.     Event: The Holocaust — systematic extermination of 6 million Jews, along with millions of others (Roma, disabled individuals, political dissidents).

c.     Mechanism: State propaganda, pseudoscientific racial theories, and totalitarian control.

2.     Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin (1920s–1950s)

a.     Ideology: Marxist-Leninist communism, class struggle.

b.     Event: The Great Purge, Holodomor (Ukrainian famine), Gulag system.

c.     Mechanism: Elimination of perceived “enemies of the state,” forced collectivization, and suppression of dissent.

3.     Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979)

a.     Ideology: Agrarian socialism, anti-intellectualism.

b.     Event: Cambodian genocide — ~2 million deaths.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Partition of India (1947)
    • Religion: Hinduism and Islam.
    • Targeted: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs.
    • Actions: Communal riots, massacres, forced migrations.
    • Ideological Driver: Religious nationalism and sectarian division.
  6. 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.

Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

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.

So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

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.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.

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.

 

 

 

 

Sunday, October 12, 2025

"Whataboutisms" and other logical fallacies

 


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!

 

 

The failure of the post WWII liberal vision for global stability

  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 ...