Zeitgeist

Certainly any claim that JT is Castro’s son is pure speculation. It’s just hugely coincidental that Justin looks like Castro, appears to be a leftist wannabe dictator, visited Castro on his deathbed, and his mom serenaded Castro and her marriage to Pierre Trudeau dissolved not long afterwards.

I agree that this is the tough reality of being a relatively small country: We lack the economy of scale that would allow more companies and competition, so if we insist on having our major players in communications, energy, and more be made in Canada with head offices here, we’re always going to be propping up a couple of companies using regulation and protection. I just wonder if there are ways to bring in competitors and opportunities from outside Canada as long as they maintain certain high level operations. I don’t see the value in propping up companies like Bell and Rogers when they’re so entrenched and dominant already. At least let foreign companies compete for business, as long as they play by the same rules as other domestic companies.

Yes, and I would say that the only way back to serious wealth, productivity, and upward mobility is for a radical reduction in red tape, taxes, and government bureaucracy. What is the value of maintaining monopolies and duopolies that overcharge customers for cell phones, internet, cable, energy, etc.? The lack of competition and suppliers caused by our regulations and regulators like the CRTC is stifling our economy. The top-town climate action plans and environmental assessment endless consultations (with the elders???) is laughably ridiculous. China is 3 D printing infrastructure and manufacturing our goods with dirty coal as we wring our hands over gender pronouns and the patriarchy. Canada has become a clownish fop on the world stage. We can’t even spend allocated money for planned military equipment procurements. We’ve created a useless massive overpaid government managerial class that doesn’t know how to do anything except hire consultants.

Well that’s been the moral hazard of cheap credit. The federal Liberals cashed in all the chips of previous responsible governments then borrowed big from the casino to up the ante. Now the next generation is saddled with greater debt servicing charges, which means they’ll have less money for all the services that the socialists borrowed money to implement. It’s all about winning votes today and leaving the mess for others to clean up. Poilievre calls it a dumpster fire, which it is.

Financial and moral profligacy, overbearing laws and regulations, higher taxes, anti-democratic policies, and divisive rhetoric. Woke lunacy and the green scam.

Well isn’t it interesting that we didn’t have as many of these problems when our taxes were lower, our government was smaller, our public spending was lower, and our government borrowed less? What it tells me is that an overbearing socialist tax and spend government has created a financially unsustainable declining economy. I also see a lack of moral authority as part of the problem, because our political leadership refuses to take a responsible stand on basic values like being against hard drug use, euthanizing the vulnerable, being soft on crime, not letting MLA’s follow their conscience, not allowing parents to parent, etc. What’s also clear is that Canada’s debt levels are high and have significantly worsened under the stakeholder socialists.

For measuring the success of a society I would look at metrics like GDP per capita, productivity, purchasing power, real wages adjusted for inflation, human development index, and quality of life For example, you can make a ton of money, but if it doesn’t buy you much, that’s a problem. If you’re sitting in traffic for 2.5 hours a day, that detracts from quality of life. If your housing costs eat up too much of your income, that’s a problem. If too much of your income services healthcare and other essentials, that’s a problem. Bottom line: After paying my taxes and for all my essentials (housing, health, commuting, etc.) what disposable income do I have? How much can I save? Am I upwardly mobile? Are there opportunities? Do I have access to quality education? Quality healthcare and other services? Amenities like sports stadiums, golf, etc.? Can I afford those Leafs tickets once in a while? Is the infrastructure in good shape or tatters? My general takeaway is that we’re overtaxed on energy costs, our commutes and transit are substandard, our cost of living is too high, our wages are growing tepidly Our essential services like healthcare have declined in quality in terms of waits and access to diagnostics. Basically life became more expensive and has declined or stagnated in terms of quality of live over the past several years We had a nice moment in the mid 2000’s to early 2010’s when our dollar was strong, our taxes declining, our tax credits up, and our infrastructure expanding, without the insanely rapid immigration and overwhelmed services that we see today. Basic services like getting a passport are a pain in the ass today I avoid hospitals now because I know I can’t get out in less than 4 hours no matter how minor the ailment. The roads are clogged Wages can’t keep up with inflation My kids can’t afford homes If I want to eat out, I have to decide whether I want to pay for that $20 burger, fries and drink for everyone in my family How often am I splurging now as compared to even 5 years ago? I think there’s an undeniable financial and quality of life squeeze for most Canadians today.

All this was predicted and is entirely the result of DEI indoctrination. Canadians are naive. They need to understand that giving into the demands of special interest groups only leads to more demands. It’s not about fairness either. Ask the thousands of slaves the Northwest Coast natives imported from the South. Oh wait they’re all dead. This will never end. These groups have free land and don’t pay taxes, yet taxpayers pay for their health, education, and much infrastructure. Many of the West Coast tribes are rolling in resources and cash. British Columbians are silly.

Social conservatism is about values. Some people have many of them and others don’t. Some people want values for their kids and society; others are profligate and don’t care — well until they’re robbed or killed or mistreated. Hitler wasn’t religious. He was interested in the occult. The most prevalent fascism today is on the left, among stakeholder capitalists. Hitler and Mussolini are nothing like Mike Johnson, the most influential social conservative today. He's basically a decent normal guy. He’s very tolerant too. https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-johnson-speech-hudson-institute-gop-national-defense-russia-china-nato-b237609c

So juvenile. You like libertine values and handouts but don’t understand why overspending leads to the fiscal conservatism you hate or why the dubious values you like create family breakdown and social problems. If you haven’t figured it out at your age, you probably won’t.

How does one make the stupid leap of logic that social conservatives are fascists?

“Judge not lest ye be judged”

I agree that Jesus didn’t condemn Mary Magdelin. He also said, “Now go and sin no more.” He recognized the act of prostitution as a sin. There’s a big difference between condemnation and affirmation. That’s where we’re missing the point in our inclusivity-obsessed culture. Loving a person isn’t the same thing as supporting a person’s choices.

Be careful there: Some Jews supported Jesus’s crucifixion. Jesus was Jewish, as were many of the first Christians. Also, the Romans flipped the switch of approving the crucifixion, as they were in charge of Judea. Many of the first Christians were also Roman. Some Canadians are Christian; some are not. We have to be careful not to generalize to entire peoples. Moral choices are made by individuals.

The guidance is not to judge the person but to try to adhere to moral teachings and seek forgiveness when one falls short, to “sin no more.” I think the difficulty is that there doesn’t seem to be much regard for Biblical morality, only legal morality, and Pope Francis’s message of mercy can feel like a pass for whatever one can legally get away with. I think the challenge for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, though I can see it in other faiths perhaps too, is trying to maintain religious morality in the face of secular pressures, especially as recently-enshrined human rights can actually tear away at longstanding religious rights and even women’s and parental rights. It would be facile and reckless to simply say, well too bad, submit to gender ideology and the new rainbow symbolism, which seems to shift annually. Most people can’t even explain its meaning.

Well Paul’s letters are significant scripture. The Old Testament refers to Sodom and Gomorrah. We hear about the orgies and excesses of failed civilizations and how it played out for the Israelites when they stopped following the Covenant. I would be careful because the Bible says quite a bit on this topic, and it’s clearly against homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Jude 1:7 ~ Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Romans 1:26-28 ~ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Mark 10:6-9 ~ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV - Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1 Corinthians 7:2 - But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Medical ethicists predicted this risk. Canada is going beyond assisting suicide to pressuring the sick to let the state kill them. https://apple.news/A7kAf0c2tStiTjUEH6UO3jQ

Yes Protestants overthrew one form of authority, but we always have to contend with secular laws and authority. I don’t know how this gets resolved either. We talk about separation of church and state, yet we vote and act with conscience. I would say that any state that demands you violate your conscience and beliefs in order to live and have the same rights as other citizens is a bridge too far. Trudeau did that when he required all student applicants to federal jobs to be pro choice and he required the same of all Liberal Party members. That’s when I knew he was a terrible undemocratic PM, and that’s before the attempted tyranny during the pandemic. Well he really continues to run a woke tyranny. Hopefully people are realizing they don’t have to accept it. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/03/justin-trudeaus-woke-canada-serves-as-a-chilling-warning-of/

Yes and no. It’s the refinement and improvement of Old Testament teachings. It’s revolutionary against the excesses of state authority and it’s the elevation of the spiritual order. It affirms the highest moral authority, which transcends both state and the letter of the law. The Spirit over the letter. The Saviour over the condemnation of the Pharisees. Nevertheless, we still pay the tax collector, rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

You reveal your leftist bonifides or denial because you fail to call out the dangerous central planning overreach of the current elites who wear the mantle of progressivism. ESG and stakeholder capitalism are tearing at the fabric of capitalism and basic democratic principles like subsidiarity, free speech, and self-determination. Basically the partnership between corporations and government that used to be associated with right wing fascism has been turned upside down and wears progressive garb. It’s simply impossible to be anti-growth and run a growth-driven corporation, and in fact trying to be both at once is extremely self-destructive. Yes we have corporate ethics, but generally governments in the past understood that they could impose some reasonable regulations and laws on businesses. Now we have the false and impossible game of corporations trying to look like something that they are not, because they’ve been pushed by our overreaching governments beyond what is reasonable. It’s the lapse into state run enterprises, which is what we see in China. To say that our corporations and governments are run by UN and WEF ideologues is far from conspiracy theory. It’s the state of business in Canada today.

The issue for social conservatives is always about not throwing the baby out with the bath water when making “improvements”. It’s basically about the importance of wisdom, because not all that is shiny and new has value, and in fact, there’s a great deal of fool’s gold for sale. We have to be very careful not to conduct social experiments wherein the risks outweigh potential promised benefits. I only came to these conclusions in recent years when I began to feel that the world in which my friends and family are living and working feels worse than it did not that many years ago. I check myself continually to see if this is about age and generational differences, and I chalk some of my misgivings up to that, but certainly not all of them. I think we’re shooting ourselves in the feet on some of the matters that seemed like progress to most people not long ago: drug liberalization, MAID, gender ideology, carbon taxes, extreme government borrowing and spending, etc. We’re seeing the confusion grow as living standards, free speech, and healthy guidance decline.

Who are these people you keep lumping me and others with when you say, “You people”? Painting everyone you disagree with with the same brush and assuming that they all have the same views on every issue is ignorant.

The assumption that social conservatives are fascists is unsubstantiated, misleading, and stupid.

This is an excellent article about how stakeholder capitalism is destroying capitalism and opportunity in Canada: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/corporate-canada-betrayed-capitalism-now-it-has-been-betrayed

I think the problem here is that either we agree that ethnic/cultural/racial background can be included for the perps of any crime or we don’t. Reporting race only when white or only when brown is the issue. I think it’s certainly pertinent when trying to find an aggressor based on physical description. But what also goes with that is the probability that racial data of crimes committed will be reported, and I think we have to accept that, whether or not people like what the data illustrates. We do know that there is also plenty of data used to justify why some groups do more crime than others, such as income and education levels. I think we have to live with that data as well. Data can be interpreted in different ways. My biggest concern is when assumptions and opinions about data are presented as facts, which isn’t to say that some opinions aren’t better and more compelling than others. Some interpretations are very compelling.