Leaderboard

Classical liberals, that is. The author makes a reasonable case that classical liberalism is basically today's conservatism minus the social conservatism. Also that the Liberals are not the least bit liberal but are actually illiberal. So what is a liberal, really? “Libertas” is Latin for liberty and “Liberal” shares the same root (“liber”). In the political realm, liberalism originally (or classically) denoted holding a philosophy based upon the concept of individual freedom. Hence “classical liberalism” is a set of beliefs that has at its root a conviction that the purpose of civilized society is to provide for the liberty of the individual. “Don’t tell me what to do” is the liberal mantra. Real liberals believe that people should largely control their own lives — that they should be free to say what they think, to have sex with and marry whom they please, to worship as they wish, to buy and sell what they want, to be responsible for themselves and to leave other people alone. The modern version of liberalism means essentially the opposite. It embraces an expansive welfare state, extensive regulation of individual behaviour and speech, redistribution of wealth, unequal application of the law in pursuit of equality of outcome and myriad other managerial policies. Those who now call themselves Liberals in the political realm are now illiberal in their sensibilities and aspirations. Governments supervise, subsidize and control virtually every aspect of modern life: markets and financial systems, public schools and universities, health care, media, food production, energy production, telecom services, the professions and even speech. Our courts do not believe in equal application of the law. We are eroding the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process. We have abandoned even the expectation that laws will be written, clear and understandable to all. Instead citizens are subject to the arbitrary discretion of government agencies that pursue their own agendas. Identity politics reign and the surveillance state steadily expands. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-the-liberals-arent-liberals-anymore-but-the-conservatives-can-and-must-be

I was thinking the other day, as I watched the first 'news' item on my local TV news, about advocacy journalism. The first, most important item of the day was a long piece about a group which gives presents to refugee kids and makes them aware of Santa Claus and how delighted these kids are to be here. This was followed by a piece on the food bank about how grateful people are to get free food. Meanwhile in the Globe, there's a long, long piece of advocacy journalism on the 'plight' of Muslim women in Quebec, where they're no longer allowed to wear their religious outfits if they want to work for the government. And the local paper has responded (apparently) to the growing number of people who like to write 'diversity is our strength' after crime pieces which are mainly about newcomers by removing the names of those accused from the stories. Mustn't let people get the wrong idea, after all, even if it's, well, factual. There is a lot of hand-wringing. mostly by the Left, about why alternative sources of news have drawn more and more people away from the 'mainstream press'. And I would suggest the reason is advocacy journalism. This is something the media has indulged in for some time, but it's gotten worse and worse as the ideological beliefs of the media have moved further left. Once it's known you have an agenda, and start pushing themes to change people's minds, people begin to lose trust in everything you say, and wonder what you're NOT saying. This is not an idea which has evidently occurred to the Left, whose response is invariably to try to either ban those alternative sources, or pay government money to the existing ones so they can outspend the alternatives, or at at least control what the alternative sources of news say. William Watson: CBC's The National brings Canadians all the news that's woke The New York Times claims it provides “all the news that’s fit to print.” The National produces “all the news that fits in the very narrow ideological spectrum of downtown-urban wokeness.” There are four essential components to The National these days: something climate, something anti-Trump, something Lefty-heroic, and something Indigenous. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-cbcs-the-national-brings-canadians-all-the-news-thats-woke

Not all of us are infatuated with an organization as deeply corrupt and incompetent as the UN. An organization which sees nothing wrong with putting Zimbabwe and Venezuela on their human rights commission.

Just how many Canadians do you think have even watched a gay pride parade? I mean, how deep do your illusions run? Do you think like 90%? 80%? I haven't seen any polls but I rather doubt more than 10% of Canadians have ever gone anywhere near a pride parade. But deeply observant Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Jews are okay, right? People who won't set foot outside the door without the proper religious items and headgear, who pray many times a day. They don't let religion colour their views of the world at all, right?

1. As far as I know from the years on this forum I have never read anyone except you who claimed to be a white nationalist conservative. I call your opinions out as white Christian Identity supremacist ideology on this forum no one else's.. I am specific to challenge your words. I have never called anyone else out for the same views because I have never read any and if I do I will call them out too. Your exercise of reinventing yourself to be part of a larger group and trying to couch your true believes using the sanitized term "white nationalist conservative" only shows you are afraid to admit what you really stand for and invent a larger category to hide in due to your insecurity and need to try make your opinions seem wide spread on this forum and synonymous with conservatism to try legitimize them. 2. Your reference to "money lenders", and resurrect the blood libel doctrine to justify hating all Jews speaks for itself and shows you are in fact engaging in Christian Identity white supremacist ideology. To that I say you don't represent Christians or their doctrines, you in fact expropriate Christianity to justify hating not just Jews but other Christians who don't agree with your version of Christianity and/or anyone of colour, gays, women, anyone you define as inferior to you. 3. You again show a dim-witted ,conflicted and contradictory cognitive process devoid of basic reasoning, i.e., if as you claim money changers are white supremacists, then necessarily you are a Jew. I think the only thing to be said when reading your comments is that are couched, passive aggressive, contradictory and conflicted showing you have unresolved issues with your own sense of self when communicating. 4. Finally, as for my address, your current state as evidenced in your words, indicates you wouldn't be able to find it no matter what directions you are given.

Israeli gov doesn't literally want to murder all Palestinians. Can't say the same for Palestinian govs.

So North Korea, and a bunch of terrorist have the moral high ground here is that what your saying....and I agree that the US is not always the white knight in all cases, but as long as they are being forced to be worlds policemen thats were my moral compass is parked, unless Canada intends to stand up and make a difference …. how did that work out in Rwanda when Gen Dallaire begged for action.....oh wait our government sat by and watched hundreds of thousands get cut down with machetes .. where was our moral compass that day, we were sitting on it thats where...Canadians like to point fingers, they need to have someone to blame...and yet when we peel back a few layers we are just as bad as everyone else...

You can point to what ever policy you want, It does not mean that the moral high ground is following north Korea , and the terrorist state of Palestine, the majority of the west is following a different path..

Canada has no party that is dedicated to real-time, auditable, verifiable and accountable transparency. Institute that and everything changes - something that's never been done anywhere in human experience. So...turn the Telescreens around. How freakin' hard can it be? "Just don't let it happen" Orwell replied when asked how to prevent totalitarianism. Anyone want to start a Transparency Party and promise to saturate the spaces governments and lobbyists inhabit? That's where the problem is and by even a cursory look at human regard for governance around the planet it doesn't seem what ideology governments subscribe to - all appear to be suffering decaying worsening levels of regard. My guess is we'll hit rock bottom experience an interregnum and....rinse and repeat.

Can we settle this little pissing match and agree that Justin Trudeau is an asshole . . . . ?

The United States pays for 22% - 25% of the UN's budget, depending on the program. Want more balance? Pay more than the Americans.