Justin Trudeau’s Pattern of Calling Those Who Disagree With Him Racist
Executive Summary
- Justin Trudeau has a pattern of calling people racists without evidence, and as a way to keep from presenting evidence for his policies and views.
Introduction
It is instructive to analyze the debate pattern of individuals, as people rely upon the same tactics. By watching one or two debates it is not so clear as to what tactics a person uses, and how their mind works. However, after reviewing a number of them, particularly over a number of years, patterns begin to emerge.
I did this with Justin Trudeau and found come concerning patterns.
Attempting to Shut Down Speech of the Trucker Convoy by Smearing Them as Racists
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had no interest in debating the evidence for the covid vaccine mandates for truckers (where are none). Therefore Trudeau decided instead to smear the truckers as racists.
The accusation that the truck drivers and farmers were racists was very odd. Trudeau also said that the truckers had “unacceptable views,” but he did not say which ones. However, the more I looked into Trudeau’s previous statements, the more a pattern emerged regarding accusing others of racism.
Justin Trudeau’s Pattern of Calling Those That Disagree With Him Racists
This woman questions him about the money required to support refugees. Instead of debating the topic, Trudeau again decides the best argument would be to attack the woman and call her a racist personally.
Trudeau then told the woman that she had “no place in Canada.” This does not appear to comport with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom. Trudeau has a problem with anyone disagreeing with him and believes a) he has the right as Prime Minister to attack anyone as a response to a question personally, and b) that he can tell Canadians that disagree with him that it is time that they leave Canada.
This is quite shocking. I can’t recall a country leader telling its citizens that they disagree with him they have no place in the country. This is the type of thing a king would say to his subjects, not a Prime Minister who the people supposedly elect. However, Trudeau repeatedly says this about and to people with who he disagrees. One gets the impression that Trudeau would like to be able to expel Canadians that he does not like. And it is also clear that most of the Canadians Trudeau would like to expel are the Canadians that have lived in Canada for generations. Trudeau could for instance begin a program where Canadians who hold “unacceptable views” are made to leave Canada as there is “no place for them.”
Trudeau Can Ascertain That a Person is Racist Within One Minute of Debating With Someone?
Finally, Trudeau barely spoke to the woman before calling her a racist. How does he know she is a racist? She was bringing up the point about finances required to support refugees, and that is quite a leap to the conclusion that the person is a racist.
Furthermore, let us say she is a racist. What does it have to do with answering the question about the costs of supporting refugees?
The answer to all of this is that Justin Trudeau never needs any evidence to conclude that someone is a racist. Calling people racists is one of Justin Trudeau’s primary argumentative techniques. If you disagree with Trudeau, you are already very close to being called a racist.
This video is from 2017. When asked about the pushback from Canadians who are not on board with the huge amounts of not only immigration but not white immigration into Canada, Trudeau does not address their concerns but instead calls them a “small angry, frustrated minority group of racists.” He then says something else that he uses again against the 2022 Freedom Convoy, which is a small minority. During the 2022 Freedom Convoy, he called people that held the views of those in convoy as “fringe.” This was easily contradicted by a large number of people in the convoy, and second the international support for the convoy.
The convoy has been huge, and added agricultural equipment when the farmers joined. And one must include those that supported that driving equipment. This is not some small fringe. Trudeau has a pattern of making claims that do not fit. These members of the convoy received tens of millions of donations from those that support them. Is that firing as well?
Anyone Who Disagrees With Trudeau is Part of a Dangerous Fringe Minority?
- In many cases, if a person or group disagrees with Trudeau, they are both a small minority and a group of racists.
- Trudeau does not realize this, but continually denigrating those that disagree with him, categorizing them as fringe, and personally attacking them is extremely anti-free speech behavior.
What this shows is that at a fundamental level Trudeau disagrees with the rights of Canadians to have freedom of speech, if they have views that oppose his.
When Trudeau thinks of freedom of speech, he means the freedom of those who agree with him to have speech.
Should Trudeau Be Personally Attacking Every Person Who Disagrees With Him?
If you agree with Trudeau, you won’t be called a racist. However, should every person who debates Trudeau have to run the risk of being called a racist? That seems quite immoral on the part of Trudeau and it makes is appear as if he either cannot defend his views and must continually rely on personal attacks.
And this is why I think it is important to have Trudeau’s pattern of using this underhanded tactic exposed. The following exchange should seem typical between two Canadians, Gwendolyn, and Steve.
Gwendolyn:
Trudeau just called me a racist
Steve:
So you disagreed with him then?
How the Most Racially Sensitive Man in the World Became Obsessed With Black Face
What makes Trudeau’s knee-jerk accusations of racism against opponents amusing is that Trudeau is the only head of state I am aware of who has a history of repeatedly wearing blackface in costume parties.
I don’t think this is evidence that Trudeau is a racist. If a black person wears white makeup, is that racist? Comedians David Chappell and Eddie Murphy have done this, and I thought it was funny. If I am not offended when the situation is reversed, why are non-whites offended?
This is a classic skit with Eddie Murphy. No one thought Eddie Murphy was racist for wearing white make-up for this skit.
Furthermore, I would never accuse Justin Trudeau of racism to score points against him because I focus on the content of what people say and do, not ancillary topics in order to perform a personal attack.
However, I will say that Trudeau’s serial accusations of racism against opponents when combined with his past costuming decisions seem odd.
Trudeau’s Thought Control
Trudeau’s obsession with controlling the thoughts of others extends into making terminology completely gender-neutral. He needed to correct a woman who used “mankind,” and told her that “we use the term peoplekind.”
Trudeau did not realize this, but his correction on the use of the term mankind is based on ignorance. This shows that Trudeau is substituting WOKE concepts for actual thinking. I looked up the term peoplekind, and it is not an accepted word. Therefore, Trudeau is correcting someone into using a word that does not exist. I was able to find a humorous definition of the word, which Trudeau literally brought into existence.
An idiotic description mentioned by the imbecile PM Justin Trudeau who interrupted a woman asking a serious question using the word ” mankind”
Justdim informed her the correct word to be used was “peoplekind” as it was gender neutral. Justin immediately became the butt of many jokes;laughed at on talk shows and was ridiculed world wide. – Urban Dictionary
Observe two things about this incident. The first is Trudeau’s high degree of confidence that he was right. Second, he was completely wrong, and this means that he “guessed” that peoplekind was a word. Third is that he believes he should be policing the words used by those who speak to him in public.
Trudeau is Always Right — Even When He is Wrong
After it was explained to him that peoplekind was not a word, rather than owning up to his error, he stated that he was just making a joke. However, at no time during his interaction on his word correction did he imply it was a joke. And the young WOKE audience he was speaking to seemed very enthused that the Prime Minister had signaled to them in such a WOKE fashion.
This shows that Trudeau lack’s the confidence to admit when he is wrong.
Conclusions Regarding Trudeau’s Psychological Profile From His Debate History
Trudeau debates as a person who lacks confidence and looks for ways to cheat and exit debates the easiest way possible. He has a highly confrontational approach to debate but appears to be unwilling to do the work to understand topics. This is mental laziness. And as with George W Bush, this normally is an indicator of a lack of curiosity.
Another item that interacts with this is that Trudeau does not fundamentally believe that anyone has a right to an opinion that is not the same as Trudeau’s. This explains why Trudeau has such a focus on describing all views that are not identical to his as being fringe or minority.
Trudeau is a Better Fit For Being an Unaccountable Corporate Executive Than an Elected Politician
Trudeau’s psychological profile does not fit with a democratically elected official. Trudeau would be better suited to manage a family-run business where he would have to interact with voters or have to adjust his thinking.
Trudeau Lack of Evidence For His Beliefs
As for what Trudeau believes, it is not clear that he ever put in the initial mental effort to research the topics that he so fiercely defends. Trudeau repeatedly uses concepts and terms that are WOKE but dishonest. Trudeau has called the fact that people had to see a Swastica or Confederate flag as “violence.” This is the phrasing of the brainless left and is part of Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory declares that it is irrational and that rational debate is a white construct, which is covered in the article Critical Race Theory Shows the How Diversity Means Anti White Ideas. Critical Race Theory (CRT) asserts that everything is simply about power. CRT further proposes a double standard where non-whites have freedom of speech, but whites do not.
This is explained in the following quotation.
CRT scholars have critiqued many of the assumptions that they believe constitute the ideology of the (US) First Amendment. For example, instead of helping to achieve healthy and robust debate, the First Amendment actually serves to preserve the inequities of the status quo; there can be no such thing as an objective or content neutral interpretation in law in general or of the First Amendment in particular; some speech should be viewed in terms of the harm it causes, rather than all speech being valued on the basis of it being speech; and there is no “equality” in “freedom” of speech.
In general, these scholars argue that there is no societal value in protecting speech that targets already oppressed groups. They also question the logic of using the First Amendment to protect speech that not only has no social value, but also is socially and psychologically damaging to minority groups. – MTSU
It is the strategy of CRT to make assertions that are often not true, and when questioned to call the person who disagrees a name, either a sexist or a racist, etc… Under CRT, any oppressed minority (that is non-white) can make any false assertion they wish, and a white person’s contradiction of a false assertion is then categorized as hate speech.
Trudeau has incorporated CRT into the Canadian government. See the following quotation.
It turns out that in 2021, Canada’s Liberal government quietly interjected CRT into federal government training materials.
Within government-authorized materials on racism, the term “whiteness” is defined as “specific dimensions of racism that serves to elevate white people over people of colour.”
In the meantime, politicians like Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh inform Canadians that “systemic racism” against racialized citizens forms the core of our society. – CapforCanada
CRT is about making baseless claims, under the assumption that rational thought is white, and that all assertions are simply made to gain power. Therefore, you don’t say something is a white supremacist because it is, but because it allows you to stigmatize something, and gain power. Having to look at a swastika or Confederate flag is not violence (it’s just looking at a flag), but you say that it is because it allows you to stigmatize a sea of people (the vast majority who have Canadian flags).
Symbols = Violence?
The movie Downfall is filled with not only swasticas but full German military uniforms and actors pretending to be Nazis. If Trudeau’s statement is correct, then merely watching Downfall equals violence. The Confederate flag is displayed both in movies and all through the US South. Again, if Trudeau is correct, there are many millions of cases of violence every day in the US South as people are exposed to the Confederate flag.
According to Trudeau’s logic, the official violence statistics in the US are much higher than the official numbers as every observation of a Confederate flag is another violent incident. Following this logic, all movies with swasticas or Confederate flags, and all swasticas or Confederate flags, even if they are in museums should be destroyed.
There are only two types of individuals who say such obviously false things.
- The Twit: One is people who are very easily led. They repeat that observing an offensive flag = violence.
- The Unethical Opportunist: The second type of person is someone who does not care what is true and will use whatever he or she can to try to support his position, rather than relying upon evidence. This is generally referred to as “pearl-clutching,” and it is dishonest.
Canadians should be extremely concerned that Trudeau is influenced by CRT. this embrace of CRT means the following.
- Trudeau has rejected logical argumentation and has adopted the CRT philosophy that rationality is only for whites (Trudeau has worn so much blackface he has forgotten he is white).
- Followers of CRT only say things to gain power and have no concern for what is true.
- Trudeau is unconcerned with presenting evidence.
- CRT opposes freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Justin Trudeau has a strong disdain for freedom of speech. This conclusion is obvious from analyzing how Trudeau debates people.
Trudeau has two basic modes in his debate.
- The first is to robotically state his assertions, but without explanation, and without worrying if his assertion is true.
- His second mode is to personally attack the person he is debating, and his favorite personal attack is that the person he is debating is a racist. And furthermore, the racist only represents a “fringe” or “tiny minority” of opinion in Canada.
These are the method of debate approved by CRT.
This is how Trudeau undermines his adversaries. This approach is fundamentally anti-freedom of speech mentality. CRT is itself opposed to all speech that disagrees with CRT and is in complete opposition to the foundations of Western civilization.
Canadians should know that their Prime Minister deeply opposes freedom of speech. If you disagree with Trudeau you will be called a racist, you will be called fringe, and you do not have a place in Canada.
US Establishment Democratic Media Humiliates Itself on the Freedom Convoy
What follows are several videos that show how the US democratic aligned media has presented the fictitious story promoted by Trudeau that all of those in the Freedom Convoy are fringe white supremacists and racists.
And this coverage.