kraychik

9/11 TRUTHER, PROMINENT DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE IN MISSOURI “My question was, ‘What’s the reason not a single Jew was killed on that day,’" Alam said, maintaining that his inquiries are based on facts, rather than a bias against Jewish people. "Was there a single Jew killed on that day?" “Why [was] 9/11 was a official holidy [sic] for all jewish [sic] people worked in the the [sic] WTC?” Alam asked in an Internet discussion titled, “Was 9/11 a conspiracy??” “I have 100 percent doubts. It doesn’t add up,” he said. “My bottom line is the plane is not solely responsible for destroying the whole building.” Those are just a few kernels of wisdom from Rabbi (ironic first name, in a sense) Alam. There's a great photo of this Jew-hating socialist on this site: MISSOURI DEMOCRAT SAYS NO JEWS DIED IN 9/11 ATTACKS

I will look for the data later, I cannot recall the number off the top of my head.

So-called "affirmative action" policies, notions of "group rights" (i.e. Quebec as a distinct society over other distinct societies in Canada, "women's rights", "gay right" and other such nonsense), so-called "hate-speech" legislation, and the desire to homogenize people against their will (the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, Islamist countries, and so forth). Unjustifiable discrimination is a staple of leftist ideology.

So it is your contention that the contemporary right is composed of anarchists who want an abolition of government? What you're doing is erecting a strawman argument through insinuation. Your first quote is also intentionally taken out of context, which is clear considering the first link in Google that matches it is from a Marxist website. Here is the full quote in context: It is in the age of shepherds, in the second period of society, that the inequality of fortune first begins to take place, and introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation: and it seems to do this naturally, and even independent of the consideration of that necessity. The consideration of that necessity comes no doubt afterwards to contribute very much to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. The very first line of this chapter provides the necessary context that your quote intentionally omits in order to portray Smith as a socialist. Here it is: The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires, too, very different degrees of expence in the different periods of society. In other words, Smith is articulating differences between periods of time in human history. Your out of context quote, however, implies that this is something Smith saw in a timeless manner.

Considering this is a thread about the CBC and I was also referncing Jian Gomeshi, I thought it was clear that I was speaking about Stroumboulopoulos' career with the CBC, which is primarily his work with The Hour. I am not a leftist, I do not resent successful people. I enjoy seeing people succeed. The politics of envy and jealousy are not a part of political DNA. In the case of Stroumboulopoulos, I just wish he'd make a living in the private sector, and not bleed the taxpayer for content that wouldn't survive without political masterminds funding it.

Wanting control of the education of one's child isn't akin to censorship. Most parents also don't want pornography in schools, is that now "censorship"? I don't think you understand what freedom of speech and expression actually entails. As far you fearing your own words, you drew a parallel between Christian conservatism and the Muslim Brotherhood. I quoted you, which was done with honest and accurate paraphrasing, and it upset you. It was a textbook example of what we're talking about. You're not alone either, at least one other leftist has hinted that he wants me censored. Lack of respect for freedom of speech and expression has always been a staple of the left: Hitler, Castro, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Stalin, and lesser much leftists like Pierre Trudeau with the Human Rights Act of 1977. And, it's even in this forum.

Since the state already has taken over much of the education industry, it stands to reason that various groups want their education funded as well (in line with the message of freedom articulated by folks like Adam Smith). It's entirely compatible with the classical liberalism of Adam Smith in the context of the current educational system, which is primarily state-run. In other words, considering the state has already hijacked most of the education system, what Republicans have been trying to do for many years now is to introduce market elements in the existing system. You are not providing the full context of this story, which is unsurprising.

Centralisation can mean more than simply mass nationalisation of industries. High levels of regulation and taxation are another form of centralisation of control. This was certainly the case in Nazi Germany. You don't need to abolish private property like a pure Marxist to centralise an economy, you can do so with regulation that strangles the market and prevents new entrants from coming in (for example, today's CRTC preventing foreign companies from competing in the telecommunications industry in Canada is a form of centralisation). Another broad measurement for quantifying the degree of centralisation of the economy is to look at government spending as a share of GDP. At its peak, I think over 60% of Nazi Germany's economy was composed of government spending, but I will look for specific details later. I really can't recall off the top of my head. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Nazi Germany didn't have a heavily regulated and taxed economy, as per leftist ideology.

Actually, the contemporary right is all about implementing a greater degree of Adam Smith's teachings. Have a conversation with a conservative, like myself, and you'll see that we're all about increased (classical) liberalism in the market. We want more freedom in our markets, whereas leftists like yourself want more management and centralised control.

So you derailed the the thread, I challenged and wrecked your false assertions, and now you're criticising me for being off-topic? That's rich.

Consider the fact that you complained the administration of this site to have my signature altered because I accurately paraphrased a comment of yours from another thread which drew an absurd parallel between the Taliban and Christian conservatism in the USA. The beautiful irony of this is that you, as a leftist on this board, have already demonstrated your lack of respect for free and honest discourse. You don't want your own words to be seen in context.

I am absolutely sure that is why. There is no question that leftists have much less respect for freedom of speech and expression than conservatives. Is is natural, given their lack of respect for the individual. It's true in politics and it's true on the internet.

The Hour would not survive in the private sector. More broadly, George Stroumboulopoulos could not survive in the private sector as a political commentator or newsperson.

George Stroumboulopoulos' political shows would not survive in the private sector. His show The Hour only exists due to the federal government's underwriting of the CBC with taxpayer money. I should have clarified that.

I'm not going to go around this circle with you any more. I've clearly articulated the ideological parallels between the contemporary left and ideologies like communism and Nazism. I've explained how centralisation of control in both the economic and social spheres are values that are virtually exclusive to the left. I've explained how the only immunity a society can have to such tyranny is through a greater respect for the sovereignty of the individual. I've also explained how advocating on behalf of a greater degree of individual sovereignty and a rolling back of the state's encroachment on our economic and social liberties almost exclusively comes from the right. The narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology has been broken, and it's been exposed as a facet of dishonest leftist historical revisionism to imply that there is a parallel on the right to communism. You then accuse me of trolling when it is you that is insulting me while hinting that you wish for me to be silenced. Thank you for exposing the mentality of the left.

My mistake, I missed the second "not".

As I've already said, classical liberalism, as manifested by folks like John Locke and Adam Smith, have nothing to do with contemporary liberalism in the sense of the term liberalism is utilized today in common discourse. In many ways, classical liberalism is antithetical to contemporary liberalism. I guess classical liberalism has been "translated" in the same sense as Obama's position on same-sex marriage has "evolved". Your socialist ideology has nothing to do with John Locke or Adam Smith, and uncomfortable for you as it may be, has far more in common with Nazism and communism.

This absolutely mirrors my experiences. I have been blocked, "unfriended", ignored, and banned from websites and "social media" websites because of my conservatism. There is absolutely no question that the left is far more likely than the right to behave in such a matter, and this is also reflected in leftist politics. Consider moves to curb freedom of speech, they are virtually exclusively leftist policies. Whether it is disastrous "hate speech" regulation or the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", attacks on freedom of speech and expression are virtually exclusively leftist, and this makes sense considering their subscription to the fantasy of "group rights".

This is a consequence of leftist policies that are "post-nationalistic" and "post-patriotism. In other words, this ambiguously-defined national identity is what you get with "multiculturalism". When all else fails, however, the Canadian left can always define itself as "not American".

This is a perfect example of the left's intolerance of the truth. At the very least, I am providing a dissenting point of view from the dominant (and false) leftist narrative of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology. If you don't want to engage me, you don't have to. There's also a red x in the top right of your internet browser window that you're welcome to use if this conversation frustrates you. Or, you can stay true to your ideological set of values and wish for the truth dissenting viewpoints to be stricken from the record while deriding me as a "troll". It is completely par for the course for the calls for censorship in a political discussion forum to be emanating from the left.

Interestingly, and I just noticed this, your very signature reveals the violent revolutionary narrative that is at the core of your ideology. Contemporary leftism in most of its manifestations is sympathetic to the use of violence to implement its agenda when there is a lack of popular support. That quote of yours is just oozing Marxism, yet you stated in an earlier thread that you are strongly opposed to communism (despite your attempt in that very thread to defend communism from its parallels with Nazism)

Yes. This is virtually without exception. I've already explained this. Such a system can only be supported by those that support the supremacy of the collective over the sovereignty of the individual. This is exclusively leftist in origin, considering the primary philosophical divide between today's right and today's left is this very issue. Individualism vs. statism is the primary bone of contention between the right and the left. No, I'm just charatcerizing Nazism as what it is: a leftist ideology. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've already addressed this nonsense argument. Conflicts between various leftist groups does not contradict my statement that they belong to the same ideological family of the left.

Classical liberalism has nothing to do with the contemporary left. I am using the term leftism in the contemporary pop-culture sense, not in the academic sense. If we are to use academic and classical definitions of liberalism compared to the term as it is used today in common discourse, we will see that they are virtually opposites of one another.

Who are the founders of the contemporary right's ideology? John Locke? Adam Smith? Looks like we're in much better company. We emphasize freedom of the individual, and you emphasize the opposite.