Our new Syrian refugee immigrants.

[taxme]

20 hours ago, Rue said:

You ask the question because you pose the Jewish stereotype that Jews are not loyal to the country they live in. It goes along with your other stereotype that Jews, a.k.a., Zionist elitists control the media, world, Canada ,etc.

 

Yes. I support the concept of Zionism, However me personally I do not practice it myself because I am a Canadian first and foremost. I was born in Canada. It has given me all the rights, freedoms and privileges my ancestors could only dream of.

The topic was not about me it was about Syrian refugees. You couldn't resist turning it into a Jew thing and Israel thing. Lol.

Now why do I support Syrian refugees? Not because they are Syrian. Not because they are Muslims, but because they are people who had no control of the world that collapsed on them and need humanitarian assistance. I  hope many can go on to good lives and contribute positively. The ones that can't make it and struggle I hope they find their way too. Refugees are people who escape turmoil. I have no reason to add to their pain. Having come from people who fled to Canada to evade turmoil I will never forget that and turn on others seeking the same refuge my family and others did when they came here. I just would like it done without using refugees as photo-op props.

I hope all refugees like immigrants who come to Canada to put Canada first, and I think the vast majority of us do,  We know what Canada means to us.

As we speak more people will die in Syria and all over the world through no fault of their own. I know Canada can not save everyone. There are limits.

I just hope though whether our government is Conservative or Liberal or whatever, we remember those who need are help.

I believe all our leaders regardless of political party, specifically, Louis St. Laurent Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Clark, Mulroney,Chretiens, Harper and now Trudeau who I can't stand tries and are trying  their best to balance their heavy responsibilities. I also believe Canada's refugee  policy today is as a direct response to a time when McKenzie King sent Jews back to Nazi Germany to die referring to all Jews as vermin and is also in response to a time when our immigration policies were quite bigoted towards many people. I believe we now are trying to rebalance that. Some say we gave gone too far some not far enough. I think we have to balance humanitarian concerns for those in need with state security issues and I think our governments are dealing with that and in many respects that balancing act  transcends partisan politics.

6 million of my people were massacred across Europe. Then with no where to go they had no choice but to flee to Israel. One gentile called Elenor Roosevelt stood up for my people at the end of the war and holocaust when the entire UN turned its back on us. Because of her single handedly taking on the UN and the US, Israel came about. Its a refugee country. A country created to rescue Jews from both Christian and Muslim states. It was created where it was because this is where we originated from and have always lived.

I believe Liberals whatever that means can be as bigoted if not more bigoted than Conservatives, what-ever that means. I also believe the words Liberal and Conservative, left and right are thrown about on this forum with accompanying stereotypes of what that means, I too have got caught up in that using the term trendy leftist. In regards to Syrian refugees, its not and has never been a right or left issue.It is an issue about how to balance state security concerns with capacity to bring in hose in need and to make sure we don't set them up to failure, crime, suicide, etc.

The stats that have been kept on refugees have shown so far that most end up paying more back into society than they take. Whether that will change I do not know and no one knows. Yes its true the government claims to have spend $348 million on Syrian refugees and it may end up as high as 2 billion according to some. There is a lot of controversy over the actual cost. The other thing that remains to be seen is how many of these refugees will end up with jobs and paying back into the system and generating through their spending jobs and infrastructure for others.

Those are issues you have not discussed because as you stated you are here to assert on behalf of the white race.

You also want more refugees from  "Caucasian" nations. Lol. Yes sir Mountain Jews, Georgians, Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, etc.

Man just think of the bbq's you can have with your neighbours. Wow I had no idea you cared about so many peoples.

I was just thinking. I wonder if a Mountain Jew would drink Mountain Dew. That might cause some confusion.

d'joo want a Mountain Dew Mountain Jew

no not Tat

yah I know you are not Tat djoo want a Mountain Jew

no not Tat

what a Chamalal.

 

 

The white British people came from Britain to North America to get away from the oppression of the ruling monarchy elite rule and tyranny. It's not only Jews and non-whites that lived under oppression and wanted to escape from it. I guess it would probably be safe to say that the British were once refugees also. 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

The world didn't have a problem working to get rid of apartheid. The world could get together and get rid of the dear leader communist dictator. 

What is your suggestion? Did the world attack South Africa? Short of military assault, I would say the world has done everything possible against North Korea.

[cannuck]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What is your suggestion? Did the world attack South Africa? Short of military assault, I would say the world has done everything possible against North Korea.

Yeah, China has been real hard on him.

[taxme]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

What is your suggestion? Did the world attack South Africa? Short of military assault, I would say the world has done everything possible against North Korea.

The world did everything that it could to get rid of apartheid, and it is gone. Then why is North Korea still around if the world has done everything it could possibly do to get rid of him. It is obvious that they didn't try hard enough like they did with South Africa. My suggestion? Give him an ultimatim. Surrender or be prepared to be boarded. Surround his country with NATO, and force China to not give NK any kind of back up or support. If he is willing to take on NATO then bomb the hell out of him. Kimmy boy won't last too long. Bullies normally back off when one stands up to them. What would you suggest be done with this tyrant?  

[taxme]

8 hours ago, taxme said:

The white British people came from Britain to North America to get away from the oppression of the ruling monarchy elite rule and tyranny. It's not only Jews and non-whites that lived under oppression and wanted to escape from it. I guess it would probably be safe to say that the British were once refugees also. 

I like how you said that Roosevelt stood up for your people? Jews I would assume, right? So, why then do you have a problem with me standing up for my gentile Caucasian people?  You call me a white supremacist all the time for doing so. There is something wrong with this picture that you have painted here.  

[H10]

On 1/16/2017 at 0:34 AM, taxme said:

The world did everything that it could to get rid of apartheid, and it is gone. Then why is North Korea still around if the world has done everything it could possibly do to get rid of him. It is obvious that they didn't try hard enough like they did with South Africa. My suggestion? Give him an ultimatim. Surrender or be prepared to be boarded. Surround his country with NATO, and force China to not give NK any kind of back up or support. If he is willing to take on NATO then bomb the hell out of him. Kimmy boy won't last too long. Bullies normally back off when one stands up to them. What would you suggest be done with this tyrant?  

Which world?  USA and Reagan were firmly behind Apartheid South Africa and propped it up with 30,000 US special forces that they denied sending to go fight the frontline wars.  Apartheid ended because 16 african countries with soviet union and cuban help, had helped to arm the ANC to overthrow the apartheid dictatorship.  They lost in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Namibia and got scared they were going to all get killed so they negotiated a surrender agreement, releasing Nelson Mendela and giving Namibia independence.

[taxme]

On 1/17/2017 at 9:51 AM, hernanday said:

Which world?  USA and Reagan were firmly behind Apartheid South Africa and propped it up with 30,000 US special forces that they denied sending to go fight the frontline wars.  Apartheid ended because 16 african countries with soviet union and cuban help, had helped to arm the ANC to overthrow the apartheid dictatorship.  They lost in Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Namibia and got scared they were going to all get killed so they negotiated a surrender agreement, releasing Nelson Mendela and giving Namibia independence.

Aw bull. They got scared so they surrendered. Apartheid didn't end because of the Soviet Union or Cuba. It ended because of all the sanctions and boycotts that were done by countries like Canada, USA, Europe, Australia, and so many more to try and end apartheid. The communist ANC was backed by western countries to destroy white apartheid.

Since the end of apartheid, 70,000 white people murdered after apartheid was abolished. Some progress, eh?  

[H10]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

Aw bull. They got scared so they surrendered. Apartheid didn't end because of the Soviet Union or Cuba. It ended because of all the sanctions and boycotts that were done by countries like Canada, USA, Europe, Australia, and so many more to try and end apartheid. The communist ANC was backed by western countries to destroy white apartheid.

Since the end of apartheid, 70,000 white people murdered after apartheid was abolished. Some progress, eh?  

South Africa I vaguely aware that Canada even exist, Canada had no influence, do you think the apartheid government cares what some flag waver on the street does in Canada? No.  They got scared they were going to get killed and lose all their wealth.  Apartheid ended when apartheid south africa lost a series of wars known as the frontline wars.  The sanctions did hurt their economy that the us congress passed and reagan tried to block.  ANC was not back by western countries, us sent 30,000 soldiers to defend apartheid. 140,000 people were being murdered when apartheid was in place, even the whites where fleeing it, the white apartheid dictatorship was killing off large numbers of whites.

[taxme]

On 1/19/2017 at 6:55 AM, hernanday said:

South Africa I vaguely aware that Canada even exist, Canada had no influence, do you think the apartheid government cares what some flag waver on the street does in Canada? No.  They got scared they were going to get killed and lose all their wealth.  Apartheid ended when apartheid south africa lost a series of wars known as the frontline wars.  The sanctions did hurt their economy that the us congress passed and reagan tried to block.  ANC was not back by western countries, us sent 30,000 soldiers to defend apartheid. 140,000 people were being murdered when apartheid was in place, even the whites where fleeing it, the white apartheid dictatorship was killing off large numbers of whites.

The only thing that I can recall that Canada did as far as I know was to stop selling South African wine on their shelves. I will agree with you on one thing you said, and that is that Canada has no influence anywhere in the world. We are an insignificant country on the world scene. The only people that like Canada are the ones that are now coming from the third world who know that Canada is a place for freebies. That is the reputation that our fake and phony politically correct multicultural politicians have given the rest of the world. 

 

[H10]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

The only thing that I can recall that Canada did as far as I know was to stop selling South African wine on their shelves. I will agree with you on one thing you said, and that is that Canada has no influence anywhere in the world. We are an insignificant country on the world scene. The only people that like Canada are the ones that are now coming from the third world who know that Canada is a place for freebies. That is the reputation that our fake and phony politically correct multicultural politicians have given the rest of the world. 

 

Well I agree with this. And alot of them 3rd worlders are seeing they are getting got.  They come here with their lifesavings from india or china, are told they need a canadian degree to be competitive and when they spend all the money they ever made in a real job overseas they still can't get hired.  Jokes on them.

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎15 at 3:33 PM, taxme said:

The white British people came from Britain to North America to get away from the oppression of the ruling monarchy elite rule and tyranny. It's not only Jews and non-whites that lived under oppression and wanted to escape from it. I guess it would probably be safe to say that the British were once refugees also. 

People came to this country from all over the world seeking a better way of life. Some case escaping war or direct discrimination. others famine, poverty, earthquakes, draughts. People have come for many reasons. This blanket definition you give  so called white British people is like everything else you state a crock. To start with many people who came to Canada from England if that is what you mean were loyalists to the ruling monarchy. The fact you are ignorant of the very history you claim as your own speaks for itself.

English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish immigrants came to Canada for a wide range of reasons. To lump them all as escaping oppression from the ruling monarchy is ignorant and I would suggest a rather transparent attempt by you to make a back handed racist reference to suggest your so called British white people who came to Canada are no different than other immigrants so you paint them as the same.

Interestingly for someone so bent out in trying to make them the same your whole agenda is to engage in a ridiculous attempt to create a white race in Canada which you claim is in need of your defence. What is it now in addition to white, British...lol of course, your white activism appears to only apply to whites as you call them who fit within your definition of desireable Canadians....you advocate for a Jew, a Muslim with white skin...you....lol...nope...but better still if that white person was Italian, Bulgarian, Slovakian, Turk, Azerberjani, etc., hey now you be an advocate on their behalf...sure

Listen up Taxme, everyone but everyone who is non native, came to this country for the same reasons, to see a better life, period.

Your trying to divide Canadians into simplistic, and I would say mentally deficient categories of skin complexion and not so subtle references to British to suggest you advocate for whites is simply a semantic couching of the exercise you engage in which is very simply to express resentment for anyone you do not think suits your narrow, rigid definition of a white person.

Your not so subtle stereotyping came out long ago. The semantics and couching of your exercise by referring to yourself as toothpaste, a whitening activist, is hilarious.

The last thing any person who is low in melanin needs is you advocating for them especially so called British white Canadians whatever the phack that is.

Hey you want to start with refugees from the United Kingdom and Ireland, start with the Irish. I now that may be hard for you but try.

Also its never to  late to finish high school and study Canadian and British history. You see when Canada started its people referred to themselves as United Empire Loyalists. These people were loyal to then King George. They were not refugees from Britain.

While its true many English who came here would be at the low end of their society seeking to improve their lot in life starting over in Canada it did not mean they were not loyl to the Crown.

Zippity doo dazippity day, another response, out your way.

 

Regards,

Rue, loyal to the Queen but will never accept Camilla Parker Bowels in any capacity in relation to Canada

loyal to Prince Charles

very loyal to the Royal Corgis

[Rue]

15 hours ago, hernanday said:

Well I agree with this. And alot of them 3rd worlders are seeing they are getting got.  They come here with their lifesavings from india or china, are told they need a canadian degree to be competitive and when they spend all the money they ever made in a real job overseas they still can't get hired.  Jokes on them.

 

The vast majority of people who have and will come to this country have a hard time and will have to work hard and overcome serious obstacles and pay their dues and they will not  whine like you do above  and paint themselves as victims demanding or expecting privileges. That is a stereotype Taxme is claiming to try incite resentment against new Canadians  and now you now  propagate by feeding into and stereotyping new Canadians as victims.

Taxme calls them non whites. You call them  Third Worlders. How nice. How quaint. How convenient the labels.

Lol from the tone of your elitist, privileged, self-entitled whining I doubt you have a clue where the third world is.  I doubt youève ever ventured forth from Scarborough. No Mississauga is not third world.

Of course you agree with Taxme.  Ebony and ivory living in  perfect harmony. Super Mario brothers.

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Rue

[H10]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

 

The vast majority of people who have and will come to this country have a hard time and will have to work hard and overcome serious obstacles and pay their dues and they will not  whine like you do above  and paint themselves as victims demanding or expecting privileges. That is a stereotype Taxme is claiming to try incite resentment against new Canadians  and now you now  propagate by feeding into and stereotyping new Canadians as victims.

Taxme calls them non whites. You call them  Third Worlders. How nice. How quaint. How convenient the labels.

Lol from the tone of your elitist, privileged, self-entitled whining I doubt you have a clue where the third world is.  I doubt youève ever ventured forth from Scarborough. No Mississauga is not third world.

Of course you agree with Taxme.  Ebony and ivory living in  perfect harmony. Super Mario brothers.

 

Well, we found something to unite around, hate of the elites.

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎21 at 2:52 PM, hernanday said:

Well, we found something to unite around, hate of the elites.

I do not hate people simply because they may be elite. Some elitists I admire for doing great things. The term "elitist" I must admit is a generalized term.

Some people in its category do bad things, others have done good things, some both.

I say the same thing about refugees and immigrants and anyone else you or I choose to put in a category.

That is my point.

I am saying not all immigrants and refugees simply because they are not "white British" are evil or suspect. However there are "white British" or caramel non British or whatever immigrants or refugees that could prove to be a problem in Canadian society in that as we speak they are setting up schools and communities to separate from mainstream society and insulate themselves from assimilation. I am worried about that not helping build a cohesive Canada.

I don't believe in segregation. I don't like the idea of Muslim schools and community networks that exclude non Muslims anymore than I do black ones, Jewish ones, Christian ones and so on.

I can understand someone saying, have a curriculum in public schools that is reflective of multiple values not just some. I get that. My problem is I don't agree with saying a black person can't function in a white school and can only function in a  black school. They've done that with gays. Before that this is why we had "boys" schools and "girls" schools to segregate the sexes.

Without changing the topic I think to build a healthy society we need people coming here who want to be Canadian first and that means being willing to struggle to adjust to certain values and not demand exemption from them.

I am speaking as a minority whose name makes me a visible one. I do not want special treatment I don't want a quota system guaranteeing me a job because of my minority status. That is me speaking and that is because my minority people never ever had a government protect us other than the government of Israel.

I understand it was created in Israel as a direct response to protect Jews who never were helped by governments anywhere else.

In my case they tried to deport my mother for one reason only-she was a Jew. That was wrong. That said my father and mother never asked the government to help them.

Neither did all their immigrant and WASP fellow Canadians. They all came and struggled. Blacks in Canada struggled and they never had help from the government.

Today we need a level playing field that is fair but doesn't invert racism or invert bias and allow it as a solution to countering past injustices.

We need to focus on the here and now and how we get all Canadians to produce and achieve and be the best they are best on common values and first and foremost merit.

Those are sugary words I know. Putting them into actual practice is not easy. Never has been.

We are going to continue ot debate how to do it and that debate at times will bring up the issue as to what is the ideal Canadian, what are ideal Canadian values.

All I know is we can't be everything to everyone, but we can't go the other extreme and fear everyone because they might have a big nose.

[H10]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

Today we need a level playing field that is fair but doesn't invert racism or invert bias and allow it as a solution to countering past injustices.

What would that consist of in your mind.  How do you have a "fair" field when one group of Canadians are living on millions of acres of land stolen from another group and off of the slave labor of a third group?

8 minutes ago, Rue said:

Without changing the topic I think to build a healthy society we need people coming here who want to be Canadian first and that means being willing to struggle to adjust to certain values and not demand exemption from them.

What the heck does that even mean, Canadian first, we have an entire province who is Quebec first and wants to separate. They are not Canada first, they are Quebec first, you think all those native indian groups complaining are Canada first, or the 10% of Canadians living abroad are Canada first?  Whose values are we going to adjust to?  Who is going to be exempt?  Which group is going to claim to be the real Canadians?  Alot of native indians and original canadians who have been here before canada was even a country have different cultures and values than the anglos and francophones who are different culturally from each other.  Albertans and Ontarians don't even share values, Alberta is right wing, BC is super left win and ontario is moderately left wing.

 

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

. However there are "white British" or caramel non British or whatever immigrants or refugees that could prove to be a problem in Canadian society in that as we speak they are setting up schools and communities to separate from mainstream society and insulate themselves from assimilation. I am worried about that not helping build a cohesive Canada.

 

The problem you have is Canada is not a melting pot but a cultural mosaic, the government promoted Canada as such.  They said you could move to Canada, live in your own ethnic enclave (little italy, little jamaica, little india, little chinatown, little poletown, jewtown, latin district and french quarter) and not integrate.  You are trying to close the door after the horses ran through. We have a long history of protestant schools, catholic schools, french, roman, english, etc ethnic-religious type schooling, it is too late to tell people to not separate themselves because this is just what people were told by the government to do.  Are you going to tell the jews in toronto they have to disperse throughout the city and no more synagogue?  Who is the one who is going to tell the chinese in markham too chinese, stop living so near each other?

 

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

I don't believe in segregation. I don't like the idea of Muslim schools and community networks that exclude non Muslims anymore than I do black ones, Jewish ones, Christian ones and so on

Yeah well its part of society, you need to adjust from your foreign culture to Canadian culture and get use to the cultural networks of Canada.  Are you going to shut down sons of norrway?  Are you going to defund catholic schools, and watch as the french and italian catholics fight you tooth and nail.  Who are you to say where another tax payer's property tax dollars should go.

7 minutes ago, Rue said:

I can understand someone saying, have a curriculum in public schools that is reflective of multiple values not just some. I get that. My problem is I don't agree with saying a black person can't function in a white school and can only function in a  black school. They've done that with gays. Before that this is why we had "boys" schools and "girls" schools to segregate the sexes.

What if white racist behaviour is preventing that child from functioning in that school?  What if the white teacher goal is to prevent that original child from functioning in the white school to try to get rid of them?  We still have boys and girls schools.

 

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, hernanday said:

How do you have a "fair" field when one group of Canadians are living on millions of acres of land stolen from another group and off of the slave labor of a third group?

The problem you have is Canada is not a melting pot but a cultural mosaic, the government promoted Canada as such. 

Yeah well its part of society, you need to adjust from your foreign culture to Canadian culture and get use to the cultural networks of Canada. 

What if white racist behaviour is preventing that child from functioning in that school?  What if the white teacher goal is to prevent that original child from functioning in the white school to try to get rid of them?  We still have boys and girls schools.

 

I will address the above comments from you I extracted from your last post.

 

In regards to 1, your restatement of the situation is inaccurate. In fact millions of Canadians are not living on millions of acres of land stolen from natives. Natives don't eve claim that. What they claim is they have legal rights that supercede  other people's rights on certain lands, not all lands of Canada. Secondly in native law, no one claims to own land they claim to have access to share land. The land is seen as part of a living organism that humans can share but never own nor can we control-what we can do is work in cooperation with the rules of nature and the soil for our benefit as long as it does not harm the earth.If it harms the earth then we break basic laws and create disrmony that can only be remedied by undoing the harm by ceasing to engage in the actions that do the harm.

I do not live on land stolen from natives. I live on land that was once shared by natives. The laws I live under that create a legal fiction in fact say I have a better right to live and occupy the land from interference of all others except the bank I owe a mortgage on or the Queen who is said to own the land.

The Queen's legal ownership of the land is titular. She is a titular head of state for the government which can sieze the land either federallyu, provincially or municipally at anytime.

As for native rights. their rights flow directly from the Magna Carta act signed with King John which in 1867 when Canada was created were recognized as existing and would remain existing and run paralegal and equal to any federal laws and in fact superior to any provincial laws.

If some native council were to declare the land I live on to be part of a land stated in a treaty to belong o a native council, and they could prove this, the land could be taken away from me and I might not even get any compensation. That is how the law works.

The fact is the federal government and for that matter provincial governments have broken numerous treaties over land access and who has a superior right to use it and these cases are in court or remain to go to court. The Supreme Court of Canada has already stated these treaty rights have to be compensated for, The only issue is how much to b e paid to councils, not whether they should be paid to councils when proven.

The actual majority of land disputes deal with uninhabited land. The vast majority of Canada lives on a condensed strip along the US border and most of Canada remains quite empty of population where most land claims are.

That all said, when something is unfair, we use the law to address the inequities. The law moves slowly but it has moved. It has moved very slowly for native peoples but it does move. So the answer to your question is you go to court and you sue because the existing legal system recognizes remedies for the lack of fairness and will implement them.

In regards to your next comment that is accurate. I have a partial not total problem with the non melting pot theory. I think if you promote multi-culturalism too extremely, it prevents people from ever being fully Canadian and lets them remain unassimilated to a greater Canadian identity. I believe there is a way to be proud of one's ethnicity or religion without subordinating Canadian identity as inferior to that pride.

I agree with your next statement for that very reason. Any culture I choose to embrace I have to be willing to fit it within a greater Canadian value context which I personally do. I only speak for me. I do not believe personally I have to demand all other Canadians think like me, celebrate my culture, ethnicity or religion. All I ask is they do  not discriminate against me for having it. I ask no special favours. I see no need for anyone to subordinate their Canadian values to an y I might have. I  have no Jewish values that demand a Canadian agree with me, like me. think like me.  Openly state hatreful terms to encourage crimes or violence against me, yes I think that should be enforced by criminal law.

No I do not think Christians should have to recognize Hanukah at Christmas time and no I do not feel they force Christmas on me. That's me. I speak for me. If a non Jew asks me about my ethnicity I explain. If they don't I don't shove it in their face and flaunt it. I am what I am. I have no need to march in parades about it. That's me. I speak for m e.

Some people like group displays. Me I don't like groups. I don't like following anyone. I prefer the classic Conservative approach to defining identity on an individual basis when possible, I believe the group collective of Jewish people is necessary for protection against political oppression. In regards to Jewish religion, while it states it is to be practiced through a collective of people and not as individuals, I prefer to engage in such faith on an individual basis similar to the way Taoists practice their discipline or Buddhists their discipline. I see it as a disciplined meditative process of emptying the mind of noise and practicing what the Buddhists call mindfulness. I doubt you understand that.

You don't have to.

One last thing. I  hear you say white racist behaviour may be preventing a non white child from functioning in school. Yes and some parents take out the word white before racist and put instead the word black. Some take out the word white racist and put Muslim, Gay, feminist, or any other word and claim it prevents their child not just non white children by the way of functioning in schools.

I have been brought in to mediate disputes between parents and school boards in the past over such issues. You have parents engage din narrow perspectives where they approach an issue as to how it effects their children no one else's. You have other parents that choose to approach an issue as to how it effects only the particular interest group they have placed their child in.

So shool boards have to deal with parents representing perspectives based on disability, race, religious, gender, gender identity, ethnic, political, philosophical issues.

Every parent believes their concerns are the most important.

The school board and its trustees deal with angry parents. Its a microcosm of how Canada deals with 12 provinces all demanding diferent things at the same time, and how at the federal level not only does the federal government have to deal with the provinces and territorial governments but the native people's collective and French and English  language interests and all kinds of ethnic, religious, and other interest group persepectives.

To answer your question, in a democracy its about meeting all the raging differences and opinions head on and constantly engaging in a balancing act seeking compromises, give and takes, constantly adjusting to try do the right thing and fair thing realizing it is impossible to be correct or fair or perfect but such concepts are things to consgtantly strive for even if they are not absolutely achievable.

It means creating a political dynamic that allows continuous debate, consensus building, the comings and goings of alliances, changing agreements as to the moral and ethical values of the day.

Some people when they can't get their interests served, leave. They pull up stakes and separate and form their own communities. They choose to detach and isolate That is not building society, its devolving away from society. There is a pendulum of movement of interest groups joing and disassociating from the society at large at any given time.

There is no utopia. There is no perfect absolute society. What we have is a society in a constant state of mutation, flux and change.

So to answer you, its simply to understand sometimes a storm comes, sometimes its sunny and calm but a society is both, not one or the other but both.

Me I like that. If it was always rainy its depressing. If its always sunny it becomes a desert which also like constant rain can drive a man crazy.

The key is finding a balance between the two not thinking you can only be one of the two.

In politics extremists get caught up in black and white inflexible definitions unable to see anything but ONE possibility FROM TWO. I am saying maybe its time to embrace a perspective that does not see only  ONE POSSIBILITY  FROM  TWO but MANY POSSIBILITIES  FROM AN INFINITE SUPPLY OF POSSIBILITIES.

A mind that can see unlimited possibilities is flexible in which methods it can use to address issues and I would suggest far more efficient and likely to resolve issues as compared to a rigid mind that can only see one possibility, one opinion, one thought.

The ideal politician is a healer. The ideal healer is a juggler able to exist and balance on many levels and dimensions at the same time.

 

[H10]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Me I don't like groups. I don't like following anyone. I prefer the classic Conservative approach to defining identity on an individual basis when possible, I believe the group collective of Jewish people is necessary for protection against political oppression. In regards to Jewish religion, while it states it is to be practiced through a collective of people and not as individuals, I prefer to engage in such faith on an individual basis similar to the way Taoists practice their discipline or Buddhists their discipline. I see it as a disciplined meditative process of emptying the mind of noise and practicing what the Buddhists call mindfulness. I doubt you understand that.

Classic conservativism is racism, sexism and anti-jewism.  You claim you don't like groups, but you like groups for your own kind (jews).  So you want your own kind to operate in a group for group benefit, just not others.  You claim you want everyone to leave their group and disassociate from groups, but an exception should be made for jews of course.  But what about all the other groups who face political oppression?  I guess they should just be left vulnerable eh?  This is a double standard and complete hypocrisy.  Jews have their own jew only temples, jew only buildings, jew only schools, but if anyone dear want some for their self who is not jew, RAYYYYYYCISSSS

 

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

One last thing. I  hear you say white racist behaviour may be preventing a non white child from functioning in school. Yes and some parents take out the word white before racist and put instead the word black. Some take out the word white racist and put Muslim, Gay, feminist, or any other word and claim it prevents their child not just non white children by the way of functioning in schools.

You could not hear me say that because I did not say that, I asked you a hypothetical question, what if white racism teachers were occuring, and then you quickly diverted the discussion to gays, feminist, muslims, whites, but ironically left out jews.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

It means creating a political dynamic that allows continuous debate, consensus building, the comings and goings of alliances, changing agreements as to the moral and ethical values of the day.

Some people when they can't get their interests served, leave. They pull up stakes and separate and form their own communities. They choose to detach and isolate That is not building society, its devolving away from society. There is a pendulum of movement of interest groups joing and disassociating from the society at large at any given time.

There is no utopia. There is no perfect absolute society. What we have is a society in a constant state of mutation, flux and change.

If one person wants to kill jews, and another doesn't want to kill jews, how do you possible consensus build in such an environment?

Why wouldn't a jew leave from a place where he is being targetted or any other race?  Alot of white people don't want to build a society with non-whites, they do not want non-whites around except as menial labors in a marginal existence. You know, just kind of around some where, but not near them.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

In regards to 1, your restatement of the situation is inaccurate. In fact millions of Canadians are not living on millions of acres of land stolen from natives. Natives don't eve claim that. What they claim is they have legal rights that supercede  other people's rights on certain lands, not all lands of Canada. Secondly in native law, no one claims to own land they claim to have access to share land. The land is seen as part of a living organism that humans can share but never own nor can we control-what we can do is work in cooperation with the rules of nature and the soil for our benefit as long as it does not harm the earth.If it harms the earth then we break basic laws and create disrmony that can only be remedied by undoing the harm by ceasing to engage in the actions that do the harm.

 

You did not read the statement accurately. Try again.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

So the answer to your question is you go to court and you sue because the existing legal system recognizes remedies for the lack of fairness and will implement them.

Well that would only work if the court system was set up in a melanintorious manner where one got justice based on concepts of what is right and proper.  I don't think the people who stole land are going to allow you to sue to get it back, kinds of defeats the purpose of land stealing.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I think if you promote multi-culturalism too extremely, it prevents people from ever being fully Canadian and lets them remain unassimilated to a greater Canadian identity. I believe there is a way to be proud of one's ethnicity or religion without subordinating Canadian identity as inferior to that pride.

 

Multiculturalism is part of the Canadian identity, assimilating to what and to who, whose identity do you want us to assimilate to? 

[Rue]

6 hours ago, hernanday said:

 

If one person wants to kill jews, and another doesn't want to kill jews, how do you possible consensus build in such an environment?

Why wouldn't a jew leave from a place where he is being targetted or any other race?  Alot of white people don't want to build a society with non-whites, they do not want non-whites around except as menial labors in a marginal existence. You know, just kind of around some where, but not near them.

 

 

Multiculturalism is part of the Canadian identity, assimilating to what and to who, whose identity do you want us to assimilate to? 

You stated, " Classic conservativism is racism, sexism and anti-jewism." No not true  at all. That is not the philosophy of Edmund Burke at all. It would take a long set of responses to you to explain what traditional conservatism is. To try make it simple, conservatism emphasizes things begin and end with individual choices and so ultimately the responsibility for making decisions rests on the individual which is  why it believes in limited government intervention, free markets, individual liberty. That is classical conservatism, no more, no less. Classic Liberalism as per Jeremy Bentham on the other hand emphasizes the belief it is governments not individuals that should solve problems and initiate decisions individuals should then follow. This is precisely why extreme conservatism turns into anarchism and in an American version of it when it gets extreme, its loosely called Libertarianism which has followers who believe in no government at all.  Liberalism on the other hand when it becomes extreme can become either communist or fascist depending on the type of extreme government intervention.

Today Conservatives are labelled as right wingers who are fundamental Christians, Republicans, monarchists, people who want old fashioned traditions. That is  a false stereotype because that also describes many Liberals. Liberalism is falsely stereotyped as people who are tolerant of people of all faiths and cultures and progressive in thought. In fact today's Liberals are rigid and fascistic in thought and are more likely to stereotype minorities than conservatives. This is precisely why Trudeau uses refugees as props and places tokens in his cabinet, i.e., a black man as Immigration Minister but not in say Finance.  It was a blatantly tokenist move. Oh look an immigrant in the Immigration Ministry. That is patronizing. That is racist. Placing say the person he did in the Justice Ministry was not. She made be aboriginal and a woman but she is qualified and those two catregories didnt factor into her appointment her legal abilities did.

They want government to impose politically correct definitions which assume everyone must think using the same terms and definitions.

Look you need to try read Burke and Bentham, Hobbes, something by William F, Buckley. That would make it clear what the difference is and what classic Liberalism and Conservatism is. (the problem is you have made it clear you won't because they are white philosophers). 

Next you mistated and misrepresented what I  have stated and said  and I quote, " You ( Rue) claim you don't like groups, but you like groups for your own kind (jews).  So you want your own kind to operate in a group for group benefit, just not others. "

Your comment is completely inaccurate and illogical. I stated I do not like groups of any kind including Jewish ones that  tell me what to do or how to think. . I could not have stated that more clearly. I believe and I stated it as clear as was possible, that my concept of being a Jew is on an individual spiritual level, and for me it begins and ends there and that is consistent with conservative beliefs.

I believe Zionism, the belief that Jews needed to create a national state as a method to protect us from extinction i.e., another holocaust, oppression by others, was and remains an existential necessity and is one of the few beliefs I have on a NON religious level where redefining Jews as a political national identity is a necessity in this world if we are to continue to exist. . However it does not mean I prefer Jews to non Jews. That is rubbish. You assume that. The belief I have that the state of Israel as a national entity is necessary is the belief we need  to protect Jews from extinction not based on the belief that Jews are better than anyone else. In fact I do not get along with Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox Jews at all. My beliefs clash with theirs. In fact I can't stand any Rabbiah telling me anything.

In fact whether someone is a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a gay, a this a that, is not why I like or hate them-I decide on an individual basis whether I get along or do not get along with them. I don't assign them group characteristics, label them with these characteristics then have that determine my preference or beliefs. In fact I spend all my posts challenging such beliefs and group labelling.IIn fact often my preferences come down to very simple things like- do they have bad body odour, bad breath, do they burp or fart all the time, do they brush their teeth, are they dirty, do they hate animals. I can be compassionate with the mentally ill on the streets yes but no I am no saint and if stuck in a room with a person of body odour issues, no I do not like them. I hate certain smells.  I never claimed to like or dislike people. I argue I do not dislike or like them based on assigning them stereotypes of a group. I take them one on one.

I particularly hate people who hate animals and abuse animals. I don't much like people with really bad body odour ok?  Their religion or political nationality has little to do with that. Let me be very honest. All my beliefs go out the window with child molesters. I spent years putting some in jail. It is at the point I can not be in a room with them. I would be irrational now. I hate all of them on an individual and group basis ok? I smeer them all. I do not think however for a second I should be the one now in charge of what to do with them. I am sane enough to know I am not capable of being unbias about them. I do not want a mob ripping them from limb to limb on one level of thought, but on another, I do. I an't hey more honest then that.

Now you asked me what do I want you to assimilate to.One level nothing. Not at all. I ideally respect you on an individual level as who you were born into. So In your case probably nothing at most levels. I don't think its my right or business to tell you what to think or be. However if your beliefs demand imposing on me or other, then I will challenge you. If you assume all people of a category you create are the same, I will challenge that labelling process as irrational.

 On another level, yes I think we should all be  willing to assimilate to greater Canadian values and that  is a rhetorical comment  for discussion purposes and a point that says, while I believe in defining myself as an individual, I know the government can not always accommodate me as an individual and I have to make compromises as to what it can accommodate with my individual rights. I gave you specific examples where  I do not believe the government or Canadian society has to accommodate my religious beliefs in public displays. I do believe it is expected of me if I remain a Canadian citizen, to  not expect the government to adapt my religion's Orthodox tendencies, i.e., segregating swimming pools and schools. I couldn't be more clear.

I also believe for example and most Muslims do, that they can not come hear and expect to have four wives. I also think and its my personal opinion that wearing traditional garb such as head coverings, Fur Hats, black robes, growing beards, are all antiquated practices. I don't want them entrenched as Canadian values we all must adhere to. Do I think Siekhs should cut their beards and not wear turbans in the RCMP, yes if that is the uniform standard for all. Then I believe it applies to all. If on the other hand the RCMP says it can accommodate beardsa nd turbans, then I argue it can not say no to aboriginals, Muslims, Orthodox Jews and where does the accommodation end? In theory its tolerant to say accommodate but how far will it go until it becomes absurd? I said it before during a citizenship ceremony I think everyone must show their face.

Those are my beliefs. See there are things I think we should be willing to do for a greater Canadian vision. I don't think it fair we accommodate only some. I also think as Taxme does which is to disguise that argument as being unfair to whites is intellectually dishonest. Its not just unfair to whites, its unfair to everyone.

There has to be at a certain point someone saying enough already what values are untouchable and all of us must accept. That is not unfair to ask of us. Compared to say China or Russia we have it easy. Let's get real. No one is asking us to goose step. In this country if you can't accept  women are equal to men, gays have the same rights as straights, people if they want to go to public school should keep their specific religious beliefs for outside school then I say get real. You want to detach from public schools I can't stop you. All I know is as a Jew the time for me to learn about by heritage and language and religion was in my private time, not at school. I get that. Most ethnic types do. We aint stupid. Was our curriculum Eurocentric of course it was. It sure as hell was. So it has to be modernized and up-dated but pulling black kids away from white kids is not the way to do it. How will segregation achieve that? Blacks have to stand and state their beliefs and put them in their rightful place, not in a segregated place, but in a public place. How the hell do you expect the very people you call racist to respect you when you run from them?

Sheeyit man, I grew up with Irish. They taught me never run, stand your friggin ground and if need be take a punch because that short term pain is in the long run the way the guy punching you becomes your friend. Sometimes it aint easy.

I had my share of being spit on and fights. We all did. I learned from others who were NOT Jewish they got treated the same way and that is a lesson no segregation can teach.

Now someone said what about Catholic schools. Well its true Ontario is one of the few province's left with the public Catholic definition which is a contradiction. a Public school like government has to separate church from state.

Its a throw back to a constitutional bias in favour of Catholics who are still the majority in this country. So one one level its antiquated and outmoded....but  me personally I have no real problem with I\it because non Catholics can go to Catholic public schools and Catholic services will not be imposed on them. Hell as a Jew I would send my kid today if they were young enough to a French public school and had it been Catholic it would not have bothered me. I would never segregate my kids from blacks, gays, women, Catholics, anyone. I have no fear of Christianity or non Jews. This is Canada. I embrace Christianity as having a major role in Canadian culture and laws as I do aboriginal customs.

Yes I believe sex education like religion should be placed in curriculum in a neutral manner and I do not think anyone Muslim, Catholic should be excluded from sex education but it should be done in a way that is neutral to values of whether one should be married or not or whether being gay is correct or not. No I do not think Muslims or anyone else should walk out of public school when they can't have their way with the curriculum. Either you attend or get out and have your own school, you can't get both. I say the exact thing about all religions and mine.

I believe all religions and cultures should be taught in comparative courses that treat them all as equally valid.

That is classic conservatism. It tries to balance traditional values with neutrality. I studied Christian Theology and tend to know more about it than most Christians. It doesn't make me less of a Jew, in fact it has made me able to see how much we have in common. Yes I studied Islam. I challenge much of it as I do passages in the Old and New Testament for the very same reasons.

I will say one other thing. As much as I detest segregation. I also think in certain instances, where a person has certain physical or mental limitations it is unfair to that person to mainstream them and force them into an environment and pretend they can be accommodated.

Its one thing to accommodate a child in a wheel chair or with cerebral palsy. Their minds work, They can flourish in school. However its cruel to take severely mentally disabled children or children with certain kinds of autism and force them into mainstream schools which can't accommodate them and set them up for pain and failure.

I also think it is unfair to ask children to serve as translators for other children or be emotional caretakers of other children. That sounds quaint and tolerant but that is a role for adults not children and we are dumping to much responsibility on our children for other children.

So I do admit I can contradict myself on these topics yes but not in the way you stated. My beliefs are based on balancing individual and group needs not seeing one as more important or less important than the other. I belief both have to be accommodated in a juggling act and sometimes we go to the group and other times to the individual and sometimes in between.

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Rue

[H10]

13 hours ago, Rue said:

You stated, " Classic conservativism is racism, sexism and anti-jewism." No not true  at all. That is not the philosophy of Edmund Burke at all. It would take a long set of responses to you to explain what traditional conservatism is. To try make it simple, conservatism emphasizes things begin and end with individual choices and so ultimately the responsibility for making decisions rests on the individual which is  why it believes in limited government intervention, free markets, individual liberty. That is classical conservatism, no more, no less. Classic Liberalism as per Jeremy Bentham on the other hand emphasizes the belief it is governments not individuals that should solve problems and initiate decisions individuals should then follow. This is precisely why extreme conservatism turns into anarchism and in an American version of it when it gets extreme, its loosely called Libertarianism which has followers who believe in no government at all.  Liberalism on the other hand when it becomes extreme can become either communist or fascist depending on the type of extreme government intervention.

Today Conservatives are labelled as right wingers who are fundamental Christians, Republicans, monarchists, people who want old fashioned traditions. That is  a false stereotype because that also describes many Liberals. Liberalism is falsely stereotyped as people who are tolerant of people of all faiths and cultures and progressive in thought. In fact today's Liberals are rigid and fascistic in thought and are more likely to stereotype minorities than conservatives. This is precisely why Trudeau uses refugees as props and places tokens in his cabinet, i.e., a black man as Immigration Minister but not in say Finance.  It was a blatantly tokenist move. Oh look an immigrant in the Immigration Ministry. That is patronizing. That is racist. Placing say the person he did in the Justice Ministry was not. She made be aboriginal and a woman but she is qualified and those two catregories didnt factor into her appointment her legal abilities did.

Pure PC drivel.  Classical conservativism is simply a pc way of saying I'm racist, sexist, homo-hating but too coward to say it openly.  conservativism means to conserve and to keep and to hold on to the past.  What is the past in these western societies?  White christian male patriarchy homo hating and jew killing.

Trudeau appointed an original man as immigration minister because he was a lawyer, a refugee and an immigrant, it is you who are too foolish to see it, it was Harper who appointed white males as white tokens to fulfill a pink quota to keep the government looking like snow.

13 hours ago, Rue said:

Your comment is completely inaccurate and illogical. I stated I do not like groups of any kind including Jewish ones that  tell me what to do or how to think. . I could not have stated that more clearly. I believe and I stated it as clear as was possible, that my concept of being a Jew is on an individual spiritual level, and for me it begins and ends there and that is consistent with conservative beliefs.

But you also states jews should be in groups, but no one else should.

 

Quote

I believe the group collective of Jewish people is necessary

Bad memory you have there?

13 hours ago, Rue said:

However it does not mean I prefer Jews to non Jews. That is rubbish. You assume that. The belief I have that the state of Israel as a national entity is necessary is the belief we need  to protect Jews from extinction

 

Actually it does, because you believe in a special treatment for jews of getting to be in groups where others should just be individuals.

13 hours ago, Rue said:

In fact whether someone is a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a gay, a this a that, is not why I like or hate them-I decide on an individual basis whether I get along or do not get along with them. I don't assign them group characteristics, label them with these characteristics then have that determine my preference or beliefs.

This is patently false, because you already said jews should have their own state, where they stick together as a group, this means you feel jews are safer around jews than non-jews, specifically muslims and Christians and other groups.  You  do not view all people equally when you are saying you need a special country for your entire race, forget safe space, you want a safe country!

 

13 hours ago, Rue said:

 On another level, yes I think we should all be  willing to assimilate to greater Canadian values and that  is a rhetorical comment  for discussion purposes and a point that says, while I believe in defining myself as an individual, I know the government can not always accommodate me as an individual and I have to make compromises as to what it can accommodate with my individual rights. I gave you specific examples where 

What are Canadian values?

 

13 hours ago, Rue said:

I also believe for example and most Muslims do, that they can not come hear and expect to have four wives.

Doesn't Canada recognize foreign polygamist marriages?

 

13 hours ago, Rue said:

I said it before during a citizenship ceremony I think everyone must show their face.

What about people who are children of citizens or born citizens and don't have to show their face?

 

13 hours ago, Rue said:

Was our curriculum Eurocentric of course it was. It sure as hell was. So it has to be modernized and up-dated but pulling black kids away from white kids is not the way to do it. How will segregation achieve that? Blacks have to stand and state their beliefs and put them in their rightful place, not in a segregated place, but in a public place. How the hell do you expect the very people you call racist to respect you when you run from them?

The problem is not just the curriculum, it is a broader culture of white racism, white supremacy, the inability to lay blame on teachers or principals and administrators or even fire them.  You speak about original children as if they are property of pink people.  "Pulling them away".  They don't want to be around pink people who are racist against them who are pushing them out the schools.  You are using loaded words like segregation.  Segregation is a forced separation of races in a political system, it has nothing to do with people voluntarily choosing to aggregate themselves.  Interestingly enough, you never said the jewish state was segregating from arabs, christians and white people.  You said it was necessary to protect jews from being under attack, and jews have their own schools in their jewish state, but if original people want just a school (not an entire state) you then claim it is segregation?

jews having an entire country full of schools  = not segregation

originals having a school = segregation?

It is obvious you have a preference toward jews in groups but not other ethics. Isn't it the jews who are accused of israeli apartheid?

How do you expect the people you don't want jews to integrate with to respect you when you run from them?

You can not force original children into schools of pink people. If they don't want to be around you, there is nothing you can do about it.  You want to use original people as a come up, because it doesn't benefit them it benefits YOU, you are being selfish because you just want them around for your benefit.  You don't care what benefits them.  You are trying to push a failed forced social integrationist policy that doesn't benefit original people and has never worked anywhere with any group.

 

No group of non-white peoples have ever been successfully forceable assimilated in the modern world, from native indians in canada, usa, down to argentina and brazil, to maori in new zealand, and aborignes in australia and a host of other groups across europe and the middle east.  Why you would continue to push a known failed policy one could only conclude is that you want the policy to fail.  Which is precisely my point, you want to force a failed policy on original people to ensure their failure.