Anthony Watts unsurprisingly emphasized Trudeau's comments around 24:10 in the full video above where the Canadian prime minister mentions two apparently equivalent things that can't be defended – female genital mutilation and climate skepticism (which is of course described by the verb "deny").
But I found a much larger portion of the speech sort of shocking. The Canadian prime minister may be an extreme example but he is not too extreme. He may also be considered a rather typical textbook example of the moral degeneration of the Western societies.
At the beginning, he is being introduced and it's being explained why he was going to be given a fraudulent doctorate. It's because he is a staunch feminist and one of the most "progressive" leaders, the "lady" shamelessly admits – she literally brags. He imposes gender quotas, increases the taxes for high-earners, signs farcical agreements to support the climate hysteria, and provides easy money for the "refugees" (for the illegal immigrants).
I am sorry but it's disgusting to distribute degrees for such purely ideological and skewed achievements and if the NYU is telling someone that their approach to the degrees is better than the approach of Nazi Germany or the USSR, they're just lying. And I think that if there were some visibly courageous, ethical alumni at NYU who would start to throw pounds of tomatoes and eggs at these far left clowns abusing their power (there weren't apparently no decent people among the alumni – only spineless scum is completing such schools these days and be ready to face such people as judges and attorneys in the courts), they would face similar harassment as we did during communism.
Trudeau's first sentence is in French. He continues by mentioning some links between NYU and UBC and his staff etc., greets some Canadians at NYU specifically. He adds some hype about NYU and the New York City. OK, almost every speaker says things like that.
The specific content begins. He wants to recommend something to the alumni. The first thing that he admires is that a fifth of the students are international. There's nothing to admire about it, however. The New York City is a rather global city and it's normal to meet foreigners in similar places. There are schools with fewer foreigners, there are schools with more foreigners. None of these types of schools is "better" than others because students can't be considered better just because they are foreigners or they are not foreigners. Also, a fifth of the students are the first college students in their families. Again, this is a random number, it can be higher or lower, and it has both advantages and disadvantages.
Trudeau claims that the people are diverse in every possible way. Well, one of the key aspects in which they're clearly not diverse is their politics and personality. There's no one who could visibly challenge far left-wing, deceitful rubbish by speakers such as Trudeau (and similar instructors). These people don't care about the intellectual diversity – a mass of brain-dead obedient parrots repeating these "progressive" clichés is the optimum for them as long as they are suntanned to different extents.
When he was a student, he and his life-long friends traveled a lot, and it was important. He had to say something like that in French, too. It was a life-forming experience because people spoke different languages than his own. Holy cow. If this is the deepest lesson for someone – that people speak different languages – he is incredibly shallow, indeed. What the hell is so amazing about speaking different languages? It's just some codes. Some people say "language", others say "jazyk". What's the big deal?
He says that people are afraid of their beloved ones' tourism – I don't think so – also because they're afraid of the possible transformation of those who visit places with fundamentally different beliefs. Well, Trudeau has apparently only visited places that worship his standard politically correct ideology because he hasn't learned a damn thing.
He basically confirms these comments of mine in the following sentence in which he says that the whole world must act together and eliminate the "tribal mindset". But the Western values in the old-fashioned sense are also counted as the "tribal mindset" – and every decent person agrees that it's unacceptable to allow this "tribal mindset" to be eliminated. On top of that, if you visit another place where everyone worships the same globalist, politically correct ideology, you simply can't learn anything new yet important there.
His whole logic is self-contradictory. On one hand, he promotes the identity politics as much as he can – which is by far the most important example of this "tribalism" that we see in the contemporary world. On the other hand, he says that the tribalism should be eliminated. OK, which way does it go? It clearly can't be both. But you know what he wants to achieve by these contradictions, don't you? He wants to do all this identity politics and criminalize all the people who point out that it's an example of the "tribal mindset". He wants to do some disgusting things – and he wants to be uncriticizable at the same moment. That's what his contradiction actually means. Sorry, you will be criticized.
At 14:20, he actually says that the diversity should include the diversity of beliefs. The alumni should listen to people with different beliefs. The alumni are told to be leaders, brave leaders. This kitschy and cowardly Canadian politician who always goes with the wind claims that no leaders in the past have been brave enough. It's surreal.
OK, Trudeau claims that one has to be brave to be open-minded to other perspectives. After over 5 minutes of worshiping open-mindedness towards different opinions and beliefs, he makes it clear that he doesn't mean it at all. "Let me be very clear," he says, "this is not an endorsement of moral relativism."
Female genital mutilation and climate denial are wrong, we hear around 24:20!
Comrade Trudeau, your open-mindedness clearly doesn't allow anyone from the 50% of folks in the Western civilization who realize that the climate hysteria is just pseudoscientific gibberish. You have emitted tons of big words about the respect for different opinions but you are classifying people like Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer – and you're a piece of worthless stinky šit and a crackpot in comparison – like the equivalents of some savages such as the Muslims who cut human vaginas into pieces. The feces in your skulls aren't refined enough to understand that your idiotic group think about the climate hysteria could be untrue and the distinguished climate skeptics' – superior people's – wisdom could be the truth, are you?
However, you're not really brave by saying these outrageous things, comrade Trudeau. You're not brave because there isn't a single powerful enough politician in contemporary Canada who would work on placing you on an electric chair where you would fit much more nicely than in the chair of a prime minister. Because there aren't any powerful people with this kind of decency left in Canada, you're just an offensive arrogant lying coward.
So of course, he made me angry by the identification of vagina mutilation and climate skepticism. But what he said right afterwards has shocked me as well – and maybe even more so. And that's why I chose the title that I chose. He said:
But here is the question. Do you want to win an argument and feel how superior you are or do you actually want to change the behaviors and beliefs? [...] Jefferson Davis wanted to win a debate while Abraham Lincoln wanted to win the war. [...] So do you want to win the argument or change the world?Wait a minute. Let us look a bit closely what is actually going on here.
The Canadian clown is clearly demagogically using Davis and Lincoln as tools to push the listeners' opinions in a certain way. How can these two leaders from the history be used as tools? I think that the only possible strategy is self-evident: He assumes that almost all the listeners have pre-existing negative opinions about Jefferson Davis and pre-existing positive opinions about Abraham Lincoln.
So he wants to associate Davis with something he wants the listeners to dislike; and associate Lincoln with something he wants them to like.
Well, that would clearly not work with me because for years, I have been approximately indifferent and even my recent pre-existing opinions about the two men would lean towards considering Jefferson Davis as a better man than Abraham Lincoln. But the Americans from the Southern states aren't among those that may be included in the "diverse" NYU community – unless those Southerners who piss on all their ancestors' graves, of course. The history is written by the winners and to some extent, the Southerners became the 2nd class citizens of the U.S.
But let's forget that there are old-fashioned Southerners or people like your humble correspondent and let's accept the assumption that he has obviously made – that "everyone" agrees that Davis was evil and sucked while Lincoln was great. What is the purpose of talking about these two men? By the association of Davis and Lincoln with their goals, Trudeau wants you to conclude:
It's right to want to win the war. It's wrong to want to win the debate.You know, the desire to win the debate – that is attributed to Jefferson Davis – often has one very good reason. The people with this desire just care about the truth and they want others to see the truth. They want the truth to be capable of defending itself and show it's really the truth if it is. And this passion for the truth is exactly what Trudeau obviously wants to spit upon by his childish story about Davis and Lincoln.
In effect, he is saying:
Do you want to be one of the losers who care about the truth? I do things in a more clever way. I wanted the good salary and status of the Canadian prime minister so I decided to win the war. I noticed that it's enough to be a shallow handsome boy and the female retired pedophiles will give me enough votes to achieve that goal. Screw the fudged up truth.This is clearly what is at stake.
In practice, it's important to win the war and everyone wanted and wants to win the war – including Jefferson Davis who wasn't lucky or strong enough. But some people also care about something that transcends the narrow pragmatism of power. They care about values and they care about the truth. As the story indicates (and I am no Civil War expert so I can't really tell you whether it's justified), Jefferson Davis did care about them – but shallow pieces of šit such as Mr Trudeau don't. That's the real difference between Jefferson Davis (at least the idealized one) and the likes of Justin Trudeau.
So sorry to say but every man of honor would choose the attitude described as Jefferson Davis' attitude – the view that there has to be something real, some real beef that may be defended in a debate, that we actually fight for. It's not enough to win the war at any cost; the fight has to have a grander purpose. And even those who lose a war may be and often are the moral winners. And that also matters.
Thank God, his speech ended a minute later. I couldn't have survived additional 5 minutes. Instead, we got a modern remake of Nancy Sinatra's "New York" and similar tunes.
At any rate, this superficial Trudeau šithead has made me so upset that I had to listen to the confederate anthem twice to calm down a little bit. ;-)
We may say that another Civil War is underway and the "even more North (which includes current Democrats and 'mainstream' Canadians, not to mention the politically correct junk spreading from the European Union)" is winning – by using somewhat different tools than 150+ years ago. We mustn't allow it. I have never had clear pro-Confederacy sentiments but the likes of Trudeau have done the best possible job to gradually turn me into a fan of the C.S.A.