Five of swords

Because a lot of people wouldn't like it

I can't believe political discussions have reverted to taxes. For a few years there it was actually interesting.

It's funny, you know, if it helps spread lawlessness when you tell people the truth about their situation and how the country works.

That's what fascists said and nothing was wrong with it.

If people don't see a fire or smell any smoke there is zero chance of a stampede. They will just decide you are yet another crazy person like they see every day.

The thing I always found funny about that meme about it not being legal to yell fire in a crowded theater is that actually it is legal, lol

Lol...this simply is not an argument. You are just crying about the definition of a word. Okay well...earth is a place. Anyway...following your logic we could not speak about the climate of Malaysia because there are multiple locations in Malaysia, lol. But it is more semantics you are upset about and not any logic at all. You are just asserting that the climate isn't changing. Well, the definition of the word climate is unrelated to whether the average global temperature is increasing. And it is quite possible to be able to predict the global temperature is increasing while not knowing if it will rain in Lagos in exactly 30 days...there is no contradiction. Maybe local and very temporary weather is more difficult to predict. I'm not even a climate change enjoyer and I don't think it is a real issue.. but your 'argument' is just terrible.

So people are confused about what the republican platform is and your response is 'we will talk about it and have the best ideas'...which really isn't an answer. And today you can't really brag about being the party of free speech considering how much you support the suppression of speech critical of jews and Israel.

Lol...you are trying so hard to troll me into giving you information about myself. Seethe on.

Yeah. Not only do corporations not need good managers...literally every corporate manager with no exception is totally incompetent. If you feel personally attacked by that the sorry.

Why are you changing the subject toSyria? Lol...Assad managed to maintain control of that country despite the us efforts to assist isis in making Syria also uninhabitable. Israelaid was an ngo that was central to the project of relocating Syrians to europe..and for the most part it was done with excuses about them being good for business somehow. But Syria still has food and water and hospitals and electricity, making it quite different from gaza, of course. The only similarity it has is that Israel wanted to destroy the country, so it is interesting that you even brought it up. We already know...and even Angela merkell herself admitted, that millions of the migrants to Europe during that mass immigration crisis were not even Syrian, despite pretending to be...and many were not even the age they pretended to be as the Swedish dentist pointed out (and was thrown in prison for). The reality is that Syrians did not all have to flee Syria, so they didn't. The excuses for mass immigration were simply wrong...so this is a silly comparison. Unlike Syria, Israel actually could potentially empty out gaza (although they are kinda losing to hamas right now)...and all those people will be shipped to the west. Many to Canada? Sure, why not? But it is funny how you are changing the subject from already changing the subject. What do you think of my analysis for the reason to make antisemitism illegal? That was the heart of the issue, remember?

So...use some common sense. Israel is bombing all the hospitals in gaza, cutting off electricity and water and food delivery...bro, they want gaza to be unlivable. Arabs will be forced to leave, and yeah..the think tanks and politicians and media are already signaling that they should accept massive numbers of palestinians to live in their country. I don't think anyone is breaking down what exact number goes to what country...but a million to canada? Why not? Who would really bother to object to that? That is the correct realpolitik strategy for Israel and if some random diaspora jews don't like it then oh well, they can always move to Israel. The correct reverence for jews is basically summed up by that scene from the sopranos. 'Schlomo gets whatever he wants'. Cause they were victims of Hitler and/or because God chose them and/or they are so smart and funny. Pick your reason. Doesnt matter as long as jews get whatever they want and are shielded from 'antisemitism' (criticism of jews, especially politically motivated criticism).

Just no. This is a dishonest framing of the issue, and it dissapoints me because I can tell from your posts that you are psychologically capable of being honest, unlike most people. Very simple objective reasoning: harassment and threats is a thing that people actually do. And I believe it is supposed to be illegal, and illegal regardless of the motives. For example, I am sure that every day there are white people who are harassed because of the belief that white people invented genocide, slavery, wealth inequality, or stole the technology of space travel from sub saharan Egyptians. There is no word for that particular motive for harassment, and pretty much nobody cares about it (including white people). But hating white people, like antisemitism, is a state of mind. And anyone is allowed to just sit there and hate white people and no laws are broken, so long as no violent act occurs (and even if one does, there wouldn't be a hate crime charge if and only if the motivation was hatred of white people) So we aren't discussing harassment. The discussion is antisenitism...which is a state of mind. And also the subject of immigration was introduced. So let me explain what is really happening here. Real talk. The truth is that Israel doesn't want palestinians to be in gaza anymore...because their proximity is a security risk. But they alsobelieve it would be too politically and diplomatically expensive to kill then all. They also don't want palestinians in some place like Egypt, because there would still be proximity and they might influence Egyptian politics. So really, Israel would really love palestinians to be relocated to Canada. Canada is a convenient dumping ground for israel...just as they dumped all those Ethiopian 'jews' here. Real talk. What blackbird is really worried about is that a million palestinians will be relocated to canada...and many of them will have a chip on their shoulder for the harm hews did to them. For sure, this might easily result in some increase in violent conflicts, but I don't think blackbird is worried about that per se. The real issue is that the influx of these people might shift the cultural fabric of Canada, and result in people who lack the proper amount of reverence for jews. In fact, they might be shoved into the same box as whites as evil colonialists and racists. That cultural shift is what blackbird hopes to avoid by imposing draconian policies on the observed state of mind of immigrants. But this is a futile display because the fact of the matter is that the Palestinians will be coming here, regardless of what Canadians think about it. And they will be hating jews regardless of how legal it is to hate jews.

So it should be illegal to criticize jews in canada?

Nobody respects their manager. And really there aren't many good managers. Corporations don't need good managers. What corporations like is monopoly control, so they don't have to worry about this stuff

Greece and Venezuela are examples of countries that still exist...

Lol I love how you say all this nonsense...and like...mention Greece and Venezuela....two countries that still exist in fact...and struggle with poverty far more than current day Canadians. And it just never dawns on you that you are bonkers.

Lol...if you are fair you are not going to be managing a major corporation for long.

You are totally bonkers lol. There has never been any country in any time in history where some of its people did not have to struggle to survive. Poverty has always existed. Poverty has never destroyed a country. Countries are destroyed by foreign invasion and internal revolutions which replace the elite. Perhaps there is one example of a civilization, thr Minoan civilization, which was destroyed by a volcano. That is about the only exception I can think of, and such things are very rare.

I don't see you saying anything which suggests canada is about to be destroyed, lol. So a lot of people are facing economic hardship. Why should I give a rat's fart about those people? The bottom line is that without mass immigration, Canada might continue to be a majority white country. That is unthinkable to our elite. If there are growing pains involved with this transformation, then oh well. It isn't going to destroy canada. Canada is doing a fine job performing its one job, which is a genocidal project against white people.

Well you are being hysterical, then. Market vacillarions will not destroy Canada. In fact there are winners with elevated housing costs. You should have invested in rental property 20 years ago...then you would be doing quite well. Besides, it is a bit silly to blame this entirely on immigration. There are also foreign investors such as China who have bought up huge swaths of real estate.

Well...in your op you suggested immigration will destroy Canada. No, it will simply change canada. Canada used to be a white country. Soon, it will not be a white country. Probably, thanks to immigration, we can look forward to a future where there will be no white people in canada at all. Is that what you mean by 'destroying canada'? Or is it just a change? Perhaps a change that many people welcome...

Sounds like you are just afraid of change.

Actual national socialist throught leaders such as Francis Parker yockey basically defined the difference between socialism and capitalism as a state of mind. Socialists focus on what is good for a group while capitalists focus on the individual and conflict/competition. Certainly the 25 point platform of the national socialists would be called socialist by any normal person, although definitions of socialism seem to be slippery. But he insisted it was the responsibility of the state to provide all people with a decent quality of life and opportunity, that all major corporations would be controlled by the state, education for gifted students would be free, etc. A distinction was made in their party between industry and finance. What seemed like the greatest offense in national socialism was people making money simply because they have money...and a lot of the socialist attitude was that everyone had to work in order to make money...nobody was 'exempt' from working simply because they were rich. Since industry does in fact produce tangible stuff, they were far more tolerant of it. A major effort was made for land reform, because charging rent is another way to make money without production. But the practical consideration of needing junker support complicated the issue, and became the major reason for the divorce between Hitler and the Strasser brothers. Regardless, Hitler did manage to incentivize homesteads over large farms. Anyway, I'm not sure how you define socialism. But accorsiung to many of the more typical definitions, the national socialists should be considered a lot more socialist than communists were, especially because they wanted autarky

Historically what people considered perhaps the most important 'right' in the US constitution was freedom of association. In fact, that is what tocquiville remarked as perhaps the most important power relation concept in the usa in his book 'democracy in America'. But that right was officially eliminated in the 1968 Civil rights bill. And I don't see how anything in the constitution could be considered relevant since then. In fact, if you think about it, 1865 might mark the end of constitutional rights...along with the southern states being forced to sign under duress who is allowed to be a citizen. Whether or not you have some emotional reaction to 'racism' and how evil it is,it cannot be denied that in an abstract way thr illegality of ravism...of a humans personal preferences...and state enforcement of that attitude...marks a total abrogated of how we historically understood our 'constitutional rights' were.