Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 So no, I am not "erasing peoples". It's the Liberal Party of Canada and associated CBC propaganda arm which is doing that; Post National State Orwellian contradiction; no story of a people at all. I am simply rallying to my colours, as I am both sworn and want to do.
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: The United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement (UKUSSA) is the story of my people. The central narrative of my people's history to this day, 0333 Zulu. My people arrived here at Halifax Harbour in 1757, to practice, uphold and defend Scottish Enlightenment led classical liberal limited government conservatism by way of the British Crown in North America. Then when the American Republic came to our aid in our darkest hour to climb cliffs at Pointe du Hoc, we joined their Empire of Liberty and have stood shoulder to shoulder with them ever since. Any people who ain't down for that; ain't my people. Don’t worry. History has proven the strength of the alliance, though Agent Orange has fucked with it. Russian operative? Manchurean candidate? Or just plain reckless narcissist? 1
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 Political Disruptor to bait the Coastal Elites and associated Inside the Beltway Cucks into overreach to their undoing, to stave off an Canadianized nanny socialist welfare gulag in America. 1
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Political Disruptor to bait the Coastal Elites and associated Inside the Beltway Cucks into overreach to their undoing, to stave off an Canadianized nanny socialist welfare gulag in America. Love the sound of a Canadianized America. Wonder what if...
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: Love the sound of a Canadianized America. Wonder what if... That would mean civil war, these Ameribolshies don't know what they're messing with, in the end we're trying to save them from themselves as well, as if the try to Canadianize the First and Second Amendments, all heck is going to break loose, to include blowing back on them explosively.
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: That would mean civil war, these Ameribolshies don't know what they're messing with, in the end we're trying to save them from themselves as well, as if the try to Canadianize the First and Second Amendments, all heck is going to break loose, to include blowing back on them explosively. The 2nd Amendment is the divide for sure. We want nothing to do with it because we know it’s a one way ticket to a more dangerous society. Even if the majority of Americans wanted rid of their 2nd Amendment, I think it’s probably past the point of no return. Now the message seems to be, “Arm yourself for your own protection because the state can’t protect you.” Of course we know that the mere presence of so many guns presents too many opportunities for fatal abuse of privilege. Edited January 15, 2019 by Zeitgeist
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 15, 2019 Author Report Posted January 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: The 2nd Amendment is the divide for sure. We want nothing to do with it because we know it’s a one way ticket to a more dangerous society. Even if the majority of Americans wanted to rid of their 2nd Amendment, I think it’s probably past the point of no return. Now the message seems to be, “Arm yourself for your own protection because the state can’t protect you.” Of course we know that the mere presence of so many guns presents too many opportunities for fatal abuse of privilege. Do you have any idea how many firearms exist in Canada ? Economics trumps Virtue.
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: Do you have any idea how many firearms exist in Canada ? Yes but they’re mostly in the countryside and mostly for hunting. Handguns do exist and I think all levels of government need to tighten up the rules. On that I’m more liberal than conservative.
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: The 2nd Amendment is the divide for sure. We want nothing to do with it because we know it’s a one way ticket to a more dangerous society. Even if the majority of Americans wanted rid of their 2nd Amendment, I think it’s probably past the point of no return. Now the message seems to be, “Arm yourself for your own protection because the state can’t protect you.” Of course we know that the mere presence of so many guns presents too many opportunities for fatal abuse of privilege. The two are inseparable, the Second Amendment is to defend the First Amendment, as armed individual sovereigns within militias with states rights against a tyrannical crown.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 15, 2019 Author Report Posted January 15, 2019 Just now, Zeitgeist said: Yes but they’re mostly in the countryside and mostly for hunting. Handguns do exist and I think all levels of government need to tighten up the rules. On that I’m more liberal than conservative. Canada has over 10,000,000 firearms in private possession...without any Charter Right to gun ownership. "Nothing to do with it" my ass.... Economics trumps Virtue.
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: The two are inseparable, the Second Amendment is to defend the First Amendment, as armed individual sovereigns within militias with states rights against a tyrannical crown. You do realize this is the 21st century? If the state wants to take down its citizens and throw the people into FEMA camps, it will do so spectacularly, Waco style. The notion of a militia opposing a resurgent anti-republican royal army is quaint. The US government’s international power over life and death will be challenged by no militia. The 2nd Amendment now is used by people to protect themselves from other citizens. 1
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 Just now, Zeitgeist said: You do realize this is the 21st century? If the state wants to take down its citizens and throw the people into FEMA camps, it will do so spectacularly, Waco style. The notion of a militia opposing a resurgent anti-republican royal army is quaint. The US government’s international power over life and death will be challenged by no militia. The 2nd Amendment now is used by people to protect themselves from other citizens. There's no actual threat to constitution, the SCOTUS will shoot the lefties down, but the lefties ceaselessly and hysterically agitating against the American Religion itself, is beginning to and will continue to incite a racial holy war, not with tanks tho, we're well into 21st Century 5th Generation Information Warfare now.
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: There's no actual threat to constitution, the SCOTUS will shoot the lefties down, but the lefties ceaselessly and hysterically agitating against the American Religion itself, is beginning to and will continue to incite a racial holy war, not with tanks tho, we're well into 21st Century 5th Generation Information Warfare now. I’m all for the war of ideas, as long as data about the results of policies is carefully and scientifically analyzed. We need truthful reporting and responsible studies. We’ve seen how even factual data can be chosen selectively and interpreted to support particular political perspectives. That’s why I think there’s a certain inevitability to turning to algorithms. We have to sort out important common human values and ensure that technology serves humanity, not the reverse. Edited January 15, 2019 by Zeitgeist 1
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 The ideas of the internationalist left are fundamentally incompatible with the American republic and associated religion.
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: The ideas of the internationalist left are fundamentally incompatible with the American republic and associated religion. Nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. More important are people and human development. That’s not a left vs right thing. The important work is done by people from different political stripes and countries working together to improve society. Think of medical technology, the improvement of crop yields, advances in building technology, work conditions, so many things that are helping everyone. Countries are social contracts set up by people to serve their common interests/values. That’s why we shouldn’t worry about other governments except in the case of clear oppression. Even then we have to be careful. That’s why we’re all stick handling around countries like China, but China’s actions are being closely watched everywhere. Businesses and countries are reconsidering whether China can be trusted. China better clean up her act. Other countries can provide cheap imports. Edited January 15, 2019 by Zeitgeist 1
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 53 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Do you have any idea how many firearms exist in Canada ? Canadians, like all gun grabbers, focus on the guns and miss the point, which is that Canada is a quaint bourgeois monarchy which doesn't have to kill to eat, while America is a revolutionary republic which does not have any higher authority to appeal to save it. This shapes the ideological underpinnings of these two states into diametrically opposed views of use of force to include lethal, in defence of self kin and country.
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. indeed, which is why I remain a free thinking individual autonomous from even my state never mind the international order. Whereas you are the totalitarian scoundrel invoking Canadian Confederation Eskimo Communism as a rubric to declaim me as "treasonous!" merely for asserting my constitutional right to personal liberty and individual freedom. Edited January 15, 2019 by Dougie93
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: indeed, which is why I remain a free thinking individual autonomous from even my state never mind the international order. Whereas you are the totalitarian scoundrel invoking Canadian Confederation Eskimo Communism as a rubric to declaim me as "treasonous!" merely for asserting my constitutional right to personal liberty and individual freedom. No, when I say treasonous I’m using your own military and state definitions, if you are Canadian, which I doubt. Your duty in the military is to defend the country, including the integrity of its laws, borders, foreign policy, etc. You don’t get to modify it, soldier.
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) I'm retired and as such no longer subject to a chain of command. As a private citizen I answer to none but that which I choose to uphold, which is again, the Empire of Liberty, House of Windsor arm. In terms of advocating for the Clarity Act, troops have a constitutional right to that as well, so long as they are not on duty. When I was in the army I was still indoctrinated into Eskimo Communism, but it was the corruption of the chain of command itself which led me to disavow it. That being said, I fulfilled the contract of unlimited liability and then turned in my kit, at which point it wasn't my problem anymore. Edited January 15, 2019 by Dougie93
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: Nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. More important are people and human development. That’s not a left vs right thing. The important work is done by people from different political stripes and countries working together to improve society. Think of medical technology, the improvement of crop yields, advances in building technology, work conditions, so many things that are helping everyone. Countries are social contracts set up by people to serve their common interests/values. That’s why we shouldn’t worry about other governments except in the case of clear oppression. Even then we have to be careful. That’s why we’re all stick handling around countries like China, but China’s actions are being closely watched everywhere. Businesses and countries are reconsidering whether China can be trusted. China better clean up her act. Other countries can provide cheap imports. It's absolutely a left right thing, because those of us in the right reject any contract which we have not read and then signed of our free will. Only a Canadian communist uses the term "social contract". "Social contract" is anathema to critical thinking conservatives, because it is a fallacy wherein the Eskimo Commies keep demanding more, and when you ask to see where it is written in the contract, they switch to another Eskie Commie fallacy, because there is no contract. We all know how the Social Contract circular fallacy works, it starts with the evangelical NDP Temperance Lady and associated public sector union arm, then the cynical Liberal Party of Canada elites take it as a rubric, and that rubric is used to confiscate taxes, which then get diverted by the entrenched Interest of bribing people to cling to failed state Confederation. . . . . . wherein through porkbarelling the money ends up in the pockets of the Military and Prison industrial complexes, because really, Canadian do gooder welfare-ism is a police state and gulag. Edited January 15, 2019 by Dougie93
Zeitgeist Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 6 hours ago, Dougie93 said: It's absolutely a left right thing, because those of us in the right reject any contract which we have not read and then signed of our free will. Only a Canadian communist uses the term "social contract". "Social contract" is anathema to critical thinking conservatives, because it is a fallacy wherein the Eskimo Commies keep demanding more, and when you ask to see where it is written in the contract, they switch to another Eskie Commie fallacy, because there is no contract. We all know how the Social Contract circular fallacy works, it starts with the evangelical NDP Temperance Lady and associated public sector union arm, then the cynical Liberal Party of Canada elites take it as a rubric, and that rubric is used to confiscate taxes, which then get diverted by the entrenched Interest of bribing people to cling to failed state Confederation. . . . . . wherein through porkbarelling the money ends up in the pockets of the Military and Prison industrial complexes, because really, Canadian do gooder welfare-ism is a police state and gulag. Police state? Gulag? Prison? Social contract is an old term from Rousseau and I believe J.S. Mill. It relates to how how government is formed and predates Marxism.
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: Police state? Gulag? Prison? Social contract is an old term from Rousseau and I believe J.S. Mill. It relates to how how government is formed and predates Marxism. Which has since been adopted as rubric to justify confiscation and associated do gooder welfare-ism, due to failed state Confederation resulting in a military and prison industrial complex run nanny socialist welfare gulag, wherein work is bullshit and jobs are jails, and everything else is just jail if you lose that work.
Rue Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Dougie93 said: Whereas you are the totalitarian scoundrel invoking Canadian Confederation Eskimo Communism as a rubric to declaim me as "treasonous!" merely for asserting my constitutional right to personal liberty and individual freedom. Eskimo communist....I agree with Z but I never joined the party. Walruses look like Nietzche not just Stalin. Edited January 15, 2019 by Rue
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) Eskimo Communism is a particular brand of Canadian communism, wherein once you have pointed out that; keep the French in - keep the Americans out - keep the Indians down, is not only a failed state, but not even a good basis for a state to start off with, and is as a result dysfunctional and fundamentally corrupt. And so we should get out The lefties will go to the last resort of "what would happen to the Eskimos?!" as their final rubric for running a nanny socialist welfare gulag. Basically saving the Eskimos is the only purpose to Canada now. It's not even doing a good job of that. Edited January 15, 2019 by Dougie93
Dougie93 Posted January 15, 2019 Report Posted January 15, 2019 In the end classically liberal limited government conservatism under the British Crown in North America is a sound purpose for a state. Unfortunately that is not the purpose of Canada. The purpose of Canada is; Keep the French In, Keep the Americans Out, and Keep the Indians Down. And that is not a good basis for a state, because that is a British Imperial legacy project, which not only failed, but as with all things British Imperial, is actually tyrannical.
Recommended Posts