Jump to content

Is Canada becoming a Communist state?


Recommended Posts

On 5/14/2021 at 8:57 PM, Right To Left said:

My poiint on earlier generations of American leftists is that they were mostly deliberately or unintentionally coopted by malevolent forces, and whichever way it was, the end results were the same. Any movements they started up or pushed along, could not go very far before either collapsing or folding back into conventional liberal Democrat politics.


Regarding Chomsky, my criticisms of him are that: first, he's an anarchist, not a practical socialist who might have some useful ideas on how to establish a socialist government. Anarchists, like the western Trotskyist followers are mainly impractical dreamers who live and work in academia, not on a factory floor/let alone a farm anywhere doing hard, blue collar work. So, the problem is that someone working in academia (though I can't say it's the same for the new breed of adjunct professors) are able to live easier lives and can ponder all of the ills of society without having to be part of a real struggle.

As for Chomps:

Actually, Manufacturing Consent was primarily authored by Edward Herman, with assistance by Noam Chomsky!  But, Chomsky has had his name associated with the book, and he gets all the credit today...mostly because of the gift of longevity. 

First of all, why would the American Empire murder Chomsky when he was a largely ineffective, but somewhat useful tool for their purposes? Read this editorial Chomsky wrote for The Nation a little over 31 years ago about the collapse of 'Bolshevism' and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, and though I was not all that educated about these matters at the time, university intellectuals like him were supposed to know what was going on and what the stakes were! Failure to discern how the much wealthier US imperial forces were using the collapse of communism and about to rush in and try to plunder and devour assets in Eastern Europe..and Russia also if the buffoon Yeltsin hadn't died and an extreme nationalist like Putin took power, had left evidence all over about what was going to happen, and it wasn't going to be Chomsky's airy fairy dreams of " revival of libertarian socialist and radical democratic ideals "  

If Chomsky can be forgiven for conflating the harms that can be caused by ruthless capitalist oppression and socialist authoritarianism, it was still well known at the start of the 80's, that the Soviet Union had been outmaneuvered by the rising monetary and military power of capitalist authorities in Washington and Europe. Just as they allowed their Muslim theocrat fascists on the Arabian Peninsula to spawn Jihadi mercenaries to attack Arab governments that had fallen into disfavor in the west, the lingering Nazis and homegrown fascists who were simmering and waiting for their chances for revenge behind the Iron Curtain, were also being encouraged by Washington and NATO to step forward and take over government in Poland, Hungary, the Baltic States, Romania, and Bulgaria. East Germany was carved up and gifted to West German bankers and foreign business, but Neonazi fascists have their primary base of support in the former DDR and with the demise of Merkel, are set to take over as the dominant party when the next German elections are held. 

So, Chomsky couldn't see this possibility of a rightwing backlash after the fall of the Soviet Union? His blathering "both sides do it" rhetoric sure hasn't held the test of time! Once the Soviet Union had collapsed in upon itself and it appeared that Mao's China was following a similar transition from communism to pure, unadulterated capitalism, then we started seeing the true face of capitalist empire! 

And now, Russia is resisting the western alliance tryiing to overrun their country with a nationalist, but still capitalist government, which wouldn't have a chance of survival except for their huge wealth of resources and remaining military power to make any attempts of foreign invasion prohibitive. While China has been trying to run a hybrid communist/capitalist power, which is largely run by capitalist forces, except for being barred from rising up the chain of command in the military and the Communist Party rulership. It will be a hard task to keep money power from taking control as it has over here, but as it stands, at least China and Russia right now, represent an oppositional force to the global empire that wants to control everything!

In the final analysis, he was either an idiot or a traitor, and I don't care which it is!

 

I tried googling up the article you mention, was unable to find anything by Chomsky on thenation.com before 1999.

If I equated "saying or doing something I disagree with" with "being an idiot or a traitor" I would not be able to collaborate with anyone. 

FWIW Neoliberalism was well entrenched in the West well before the Berlin Wall fell.  The fall of the Soviet Union did not cause the West to swing to the right, that swing was already well underway.

Agreed that there are problems with American imperialism.  I've learned that "opposing a bad thing" is not the same as "being a good thing."  I suspect if we traded American hegemony for Russian or Chinese hegeomny we would end up with buyer's remorse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, GrittyLeftist said:

Worth remembering that before Capitalism, we had Feudalism.  I don't think there are any reasonable adults who want Feudalism back, so if we're getting rid of Capitalism we'd better have something tangible and effective to replace it.  At this point in time I don't know what that would be.

 

And that is why I see anarchism and anarchists as, at best, only good for ideology and rhetoric - and at worst, deliberately subversive forces, who have been proven in the past to have deliberately worked on behalf of and been paid by the worst capitalists out there and recruited by the CIA, FBI and other agents of evil, to sow confusion and divide working people looking for direction and relief, into hostile factions fighting with each other about race, gender, sexual orientation or how much or whether to work with capitalists! It's happened in the past and it certainly is still happening today!

Quote

While FDR was bringing in the New Deal, Bennett was all about laissez-faire economics - he thought that if the government helped Canadians, they would , and by the time Bennet brought in his version of the New Deal it was 1935 and people viewed it as too little, too late.  As a result, Canadians suffered a longer, deeper depression than Americans.  Useful googles for anyone interested in this period of history include 'the on-to-Ottawa trek', the 'Bennett buggy" and Section 98 - Wikipedia.  Pierre Berton's "The Great Depression" is very good, if sometimes depressing.  

 

Well, by the historical timeline, FDR didn't take over as president until the middle of March, 1933, while RB Bennett was out in 1935, and replaced by FDR Canadian equivalent- MacKenzie King, who got the credit for turning the Canadian economy around. So, Bennett wasn't a contemporary of Roosevelt for very long!

And there were two distinct 'new deals' brought in by Roosevelt in the US, with the first intended to sort out and reform the financial mess left by Wall Street bankers, so that people could trust putting their savings in bank accounts again. After a wave of bank failures, banks were starved for deposits, and people with money to save, were buying gold....which FDR outlawed and that stuck for several decades until Nixon unpegged the USD from a gold standard in 1973.

It took a little while to get the public works projects funded and slowly up and running...back in that bygone era when economists and money experts actually believed that money should have intrinsic value! So, I was surprised to learn recently that one of Roosevelt's less publicized actions in his first term was to cut the Army and Navy budgets, so that money could be set aside for the PWA, rural electrification and relief programs for farmers who lost their land. Imagine anyone in Washington even suggesting cutting the misnamed "defense" budgets today for any reason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is another example of your ideology being tied into a mobius strip.  The governments who put strong limits on foreign money coming in are interventionist, like N. Korea, which you claim to dislike.

Actually I remember Trudeau Sr.'s foreign ownership controls were quite strong as he was 'concerned' about American money coming in.  This is the guy who put in wage and price controls.

So, yeah, it's pretty much impossible to figure out where you stand as your compass doesn't run North/South/East/West.  I think you're just a guy who doesn't like Trudeau, and doesn't understand things.  That's my best guess, anyway.  And there's nothing wrong with that - but there are people on this thread you can learn from.

And that's why Conservatives here/and Republicans to our south, can't seem to take a clear stand on any actual domestic policy issues! They are just against whatever the Liberals or Democrats are doing, and tack their sailboats to the right of whatever the stated liberal position is. And that is why accusations of socialism and communism are so ridiculous today!

We either get pure, 100 proof sink-or-swim capitalism, or the same thing with a few benefits thrown on for those at rock bottom! That's likely most of the reason why so many working people in the overtaxed middle aim their guns at liberals and leftists, rather than the people who have been their biggest burdens and causes of misery - the billionaires and their upper class professional helpers! And what we don't get is anything trying to put the money back into public programs that have been gutted or slowly starved for funding over the years!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, GrittyLeftist said:

I tried googling up the article you mention, was unable to find anything by Chomsky on thenation.com before 1999.

If I equated "saying or doing something I disagree with" with "being an idiot or a traitor" I would not be able to collaborate with anyone. 

FWIW Neoliberalism was well entrenched in the West well before the Berlin Wall fell.  The fall of the Soviet Union did not cause the West to swing to the right, that swing was already well underway.

Agreed that there are problems with American imperialism.  I've learned that "opposing a bad thing" is not the same as "being a good thing."  I suspect if we traded American hegemony for Russian or Chinese hegeomny we would end up with buyer's remorse.

I don't! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, blackbird said:

You are obsessed with the imperfect world and think somehow with some sort of Marxist ideology man can create a utopia.  Well, it's not going to happen that way.  The Bible has the answers.  First man rebelled against God and became fallen and corrupt with a sinful nature.  That's why the world is imperfect and always had wars, crime, and corruption.  This will continue and in fact, get worse until the Lord returns.  We are experiencing a pandemic but this may be just sign of things to come that may be worse.  According to the book of Revelation, large portions of the population may die.  There could be nuclear war.  That is easy to see since the superpowers are working very hard in building their military capability with the most advanced weapons they can.  There is cyber war, there is economic war.  There is ideological war with agents and dupes spreading misinformation and propaganda.  We live in an open society where freedom provides an easy target for the enemies of freedom.  There may be biological war and we may even be in it now.   Meanwhile our time on earth is limited and God tells us to be converted to his Son and be saved.  That is the way out of this mess.

Oh, and if it wasn't for people like me buying goods through Amazon, those slaves might not even have a job.  They might be far worse off living on social assistance and food banks.  Support Amazon and help a slave!

So, Perfect World by that description means a return to societies like we had prior to the beginnings of agricultural patriarchies in the ME 4000 years ago, which have been sanctified by the equally most aggressive and exploitive religious traditions. 

And, as Marx and Engels noted 150 years ago, after capitalism had become entrenched in Europe and Europe's colonies, replacing the older, less competitive feudal systems as it spread, the promises of a better world made by the first generations of industrial capitalists in the 1790's were proven to be a nightmare as soon as the leaders of the French Revolution started chopping everyone's heads off after they had cleared through the royal family and the aristocrats, and made a mockery of the liberte, egalite, fraternite slogan that the revolutionaries marched on Paris with at the start of the revolution! 

Amazing how it was Robespierre and the Jacobins who ordered the abolition of the Catholic Church, all of its priest and an end to other forms of Christianity...which hardly existed in France after previous purges by the Catholic rulers, and yet, here you and other rightwing Christians are, worshiping and lauding the very economic system that represents the opposite of Christian moral and social principles, along with the extreme wealthy exploiters as the people who Christians should respect and venerate as modern day heroes!  We live in an upside down world today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: the whole "Women in the forces sub-thread:"

Advances in science have rendered physical strength less important for building and destroying.  Some of you will have heard the stories of Paul Bunyan or John Henry - these are stories of the decline of the importance of male strength.  The giant strapping lumberjack is outproduced by a mousy suit wearing city dude with a chainsaw; the working class hero dies trying to keep up with a steam powered rock drilling machine.  Not to say that soldiers don't need muscle power, but do want to say that a woman can do lots of jobs in construction and destruction either just as well as a man, or nearly as well as a man.  Hard to see why, for instance, snipers or pilots couldn't get by with below-average strength.  Also, for every 10 people in the military, only 1 of them sees actual combat.  This sounds incredible, but it turns out that the job of getting the soldier where they need to be, with the things they need to have, before the enemy gets there, requires many more hours of work.  Can you be a quartermaster with below average strength?  A code breaker?  A logistics officer?  Here's a military saying - amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.  If we got a generational talent at logistics, would we disqualify that talent if it had a vagina? 

The other argument historically raised against women in the forces is that women are where babies come from.  There have been societies that sent their women to fight, but none have existed for many hundreds of years to the best of my knowledge.  The problem has to do with the fact that, eventually, you are going to suffer losses.  Say you lose 9 out of 10 men in a battle.  That 1 survivor can fertilize many women.  However, say you lose 9 out of 10 women in a battle.  Your next generation of soldiers will be pretty small.

This argument doesn't really hold water anymore - basically, there is no shortage of humans, and we aren't talking about sending *all* of the women in Canada to fight, only the ones who *want* to.

Finally, to the very revealing comments that some have made about how "women in the army is feminism's fault" and "what do you think will happen if you tempt all those poor hapless men?"  Anyone who thinks there isn't a rape culture in the military, feel free to re-read these past few pages.  Personally I found it very concerning.

People are responsible for their own actions.  If a person is tempted by something they know is illegal and/or unethical, it is their responsibility to resist temptation.  Period.  We would not excuse a thief for stealing unattended valuables, no matter how tempted they were.  The idea that "if you put men and women together the men won't be able to help themselves," is rapist-enabling tripe.  When we desegregated the work force, we encountered problems with sexual harassment in the workplace.  With time, education, and changes to how these institutions operate, we have made some progress there.  No reason we can't do similarly for the armed forces.  

Suppose, though, that you are a man who genuinely doesn't know what is ok in your workplace.  Here are some popular sayings you may have heard to help you out.  "Don't dip your pen in company ink."  "Don't say something to a woman at work that you would not want a man to say to you in prison."  "Rape is illegal."  "No means no."

Last of all, the idea that "if it weren't for all these feminists, we wouldn't even have this problem."  We like to talk about freedom in the West.  Look back over the past few pages of this thread and you will see many posters complaining that the government is taking away their freedom.  If the government tells women they can't join the army, the government is taking away those women's freedom.  Do we value freedom, or do we only value OUR freedom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, myata said:

Note that little of that is the fault of the capitalist individually though. If they show great compassion to their workers, pay them decent salaries and benefits they would likely be undercut by someone else making more profit attracting more of (our) pension fund capital and so on. That is, already happened we see those who survived and surviving in the given environment.

A capitalist in a market system is no different from an animal in the jungle. No catch, grow too weak fail. Stronger competition, less food suffer. Adapt and succeed or be slow and perish.

And so, the first question any serious Utopia builder should ask themselves is, how to create a social environment where prosperity and success can be shared if not equally, than equitably? Where redistribution of wealth does not negate the incentive to succeed? Who could create such environment and how. And it's by far not so easy as to nationalize factories and in place of imperfect market system create another dictatorship.

The only part I can agree with you on here is that individually we have no real power and are forced to cooperate with a capitalist system, even to a limited degree, if we can't live on a desert island or some uninhabited territory today, where our governments and economic systems haven't reached yet....if any such places actually still exist!

I would say that, from a Marxist perspective, I feel an obligation to only buy essentials...or what I believe to be essentials, cause sometimes the boundaries are easily smeared.

For example, up until a little less than 3 years ago, I hadn't owned a cell phone since my original 20 lb Motorola 1990 vintage was stolen from my car after it was broken into back in year 2000. It was a 2nd hand phone I picked up for $20 along with a couple of bikes at an annual police auction of bikes and other stolen properties that went unclaimed by any legitimate owners.

At the time, my wife and I were already planning to move so I could be close to work....close enough not to need to drive to work every day and pay to keep two cars on the road! So, I just went without a phone...as did my wife, until one day when I was out on my bike in the middle of nowhere on a farm road on the Niagara Peninsula, I blew my 2nd and last innertube and had to walk my bike to civilization....which took at least two hours and had everybody worried that something had happened to me. I noticed also that every new store or plaza being built wasn't bothering to include payphones either.

So, if you don't have a cell, you got no way of getting any messages or calling home if you need to!  So, I forked out for a couple of the cheapest phones available for us, and I reject all of the idiotic offers to increase my data limits.....because I never use up all of my data on the original plan!

So, I had to make a compromise with the modern world that tries to keep pushing more and more surveillance tech on us....but that was only grudgingly! I'm just a little more with it than the average tradiitional Mennonite who still dresses in blue and black like 300 years ago!

And, long story short...if I have to go back to using the very convenient and horribly exploitative Amazon Borg, I'll do it, BUT only if I have no other choice! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Right To Left said:

It took a little while to get the public works projects funded and slowly up and running...back in that bygone era when economists and money experts actually believed that money should have intrinsic value! So, I was surprised to learn recently that one of Roosevelt's less publicized actions in his first term was to cut the Army and Navy budgets, so that money could be set aside for the PWA, rural electrification and relief programs for farmers who lost their land. Imagine anyone in Washington even suggesting cutting the misnamed "defense" budgets today for any reason!

 

Actually, FDR programs were challenged at many levels and he admired Italy's Mussolini and his ability to "get things done" with fascist aplomb.   In 1935, the U.S. National Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.   New Deal social programs benefits were denied to many groups, land was seized, and American citizens were interned during WW2.

As for cutting U.S. defense budgets, Obama and the Congress cut spending starting in 2011 as part of a federal budget deal that required "sequestration".   Even today, U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in many decades.

 

Dear Pentagon: It's Not How Big Your Budget Is. It's How You Use It. –  Foreign Policy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I disagree, the truth is Plato's Republic, it all goes around on a cycle

but there is no convincing Progressives

so I simply wait for their regime to collapse under its own contradictions

in the meantime, I am wealthy

and thus largely unaffected by the pestilence of Socialism, as it really just harms the poor

Well much as I love Socrates, Plato’s Republic is a bit of a dictatorship.  Our democratic system is better, though it’s sliding perilously close to collectivization and redistribution of wealth based on race (e. g. “reparations” to people of colour and Indigenous people, mostly from people who have no relationship to slave owners or “colonizers”) as well as the poll tax on existence misleadingly referred to as carbon tax.  Green Marxists have infiltrated the governments of liberal democracies and are implementing fascism in the name of science and human progress.  It’s actually theft and the trampling of human freedom.  The naive are rushing to implement the program to “save the planet” and be equitable.  It’s anti-equality and anti-human.   

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well much as I love Socrates, Plato’s Republic is a bit of a dictatorship.  Our democratic system is better, though it’s sliding perilously close to collectivization and redistribution of wealth based on race (e. g. “reparations” to people of colour and Indigenous people, mostly from people who have no relationship to slave owners or “colonizers”) as well as the poll tax on existence misleadingly referred to as carbon tax.  Green Marxists have infiltrated the governments of liberal democracies and are implementing fascism in the name of science and human progress.  It’s actually theft and the trampling of human freedom.  The naive are rushing to implement the program to “save the planet” and be equitable.  It’s anti-equality and anti-human.   

four dimensional simulation, merely a childhood, for the soul making machines that we are

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrittyLeftist said:

RE: the whole "Women in the forces sub-thread:"

Advances in science have rendered physical strength less important for building and destroying.  Some of you will have heard the stories of Paul Bunyan or John Henry - these are stories of the decline of the importance of male strength.  The giant strapping lumberjack is outproduced by a mousy suit wearing city dude with a chainsaw; the working class hero dies trying to keep up with a steam powered rock drilling machine.  Not to say that soldiers don't need muscle power, but do want to say that a woman can do lots of jobs in construction and destruction either just as well as a man, or nearly as well as a man.  Hard to see why, for instance, snipers or pilots couldn't get by with below-average strength.  Also, for every 10 people in the military, only 1 of them sees actual combat.  This sounds incredible, but it turns out that the job of getting the soldier where they need to be, with the things they need to have, before the enemy gets there, requires many more hours of work.  Can you be a quartermaster with below average strength?  A code breaker?  A logistics officer?  Here's a military saying - amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.  If we got a generational talent at logistics, would we disqualify that talent if it had a vagina? 

The other argument historically raised against women in the forces is that women are where babies come from.  There have been societies that sent their women to fight, but none have existed for many hundreds of years to the best of my knowledge.  The problem has to do with the fact that, eventually, you are going to suffer losses.  Say you lose 9 out of 10 men in a battle.  That 1 survivor can fertilize many women.  However, say you lose 9 out of 10 women in a battle.  Your next generation of soldiers will be pretty small.

This argument doesn't really hold water anymore - basically, there is no shortage of humans, and we aren't talking about sending *all* of the women in Canada to fight, only the ones who *want* to.

Finally, to the very revealing comments that some have made about how "women in the army is feminism's fault" and "what do you think will happen if you tempt all those poor hapless men?"  Anyone who thinks there isn't a rape culture in the military, feel free to re-read these past few pages.  Personally I found it very concerning.

People are responsible for their own actions.  If a person is tempted by something they know is illegal and/or unethical, it is their responsibility to resist temptation.  Period.  We would not excuse a thief for stealing unattended valuables, no matter how tempted they were.  The idea that "if you put men and women together the men won't be able to help themselves," is rapist-enabling tripe.  When we desegregated the work force, we encountered problems with sexual harassment in the workplace.  With time, education, and changes to how these institutions operate, we have made some progress there.  No reason we can't do similarly for the armed forces.  

Suppose, though, that you are a man who genuinely doesn't know what is ok in your workplace.  Here are some popular sayings you may have heard to help you out.  "Don't dip your pen in company ink."  "Don't say something to a woman at work that you would not want a man to say to you in prison."  "Rape is illegal."  "No means no."

Last of all, the idea that "if it weren't for all these feminists, we wouldn't even have this problem."  We like to talk about freedom in the West.  Look back over the past few pages of this thread and you will see many posters complaining that the government is taking away their freedom.  If the government tells women they can't join the army, the government is taking away those women's freedom.  Do we value freedom, or do we only value OUR freedom?

That’s unrealistic wishful thinking.  When the shit hits the fan and a homeland is being invaded, biological truth takes over: Women and children are protected in the safest part of the realm as the men (and some rare female Amazons) hack each other to death.  Yes a certain amount of warfare is conducted remotely from the sky in modern warfare, but at some point the troops must invade or hold the fort.  No quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 10:06 AM, Zeitgeist said:

You’re right.  We are shifting from a policy focused on protecting the vulnerable from death and keeping the hospitalization and death rates to a level in keeping with other major illnesses to an absolutist policy of no freedom without eradicating Covid and Covid illness, which of course is impossible.  Destroying businesses, mental health, socialization, education, and freedom of movement to meet an extreme standard of safety is unjustifiable.

End the mass hysteria and the tyranny of the public health technocrats.  

This isn't exactly the right topic but on the substance I tend to agree. Let the vaccination be where the public draws the line. From here we go back to normal life; and our bureaucracy to its job description that is to develop and implement effective and efficient solutions to keep environments with higher risk safe and get paid for good execution of the job not for playing minor monarchs and deities in the absurd pantomime.

Or I'm seriously afraid there will be no end. Covid may not go away anytime soon and it's just too easy to stamp and mandate selflessly and heroically under the aura of public saviors than to do the job that is right there, in the job description, simply and effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, myata said:

This isn't exactly the right topic but on the substance I tend to agree. Let the vaccination be where the public draws the line. From here we go back to normal life; and our bureaucracy to its job description that is to develop and implement effective and efficient solutions to keep environments with higher risk safe and get paid for good execution of the job not for playing minor monarchs and deities in the absurd pantomime.

Or I'm seriously afraid there will be no end. Covid may not go away anytime soon and it's just too easy to stamp and mandate selflessly and heroically under the aura of public saviors than to do the job that is right there, in the job description, simply and effectively.

At a certain point soon in the vaccination campaign, much fewer people will get sick from Covid or present any symptoms due to vaccine antibody protection from serious infection and reduced spread.  When hospitalization and death rates are comparable to the flu and other common illnesses. the pandemic is over.  Covid will persist and cause illness but very few deaths or hospitalizations.  Vaccines will be universally available to ages 12 and up in a month.  Most restrictions should end shortly afterwards.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well much as I love Socrates, Plato’s Republic is a bit of a dictatorship.  Our democratic system is better, though it’s sliding perilously close to collectivization and redistribution of wealth based on race (e. g. “reparations” to people of colour and Indigenous people, mostly from people who have no relationship to slave owners or “colonizers”) as well as the poll tax on existence misleadingly referred to as carbon tax.  Green Marxists have infiltrated the governments of liberal democracies and are implementing fascism in the name of science and human progress.  It’s actually theft and the trampling of human freedom.  The naive are rushing to implement the program to “save the planet” and be equitable.  It’s anti-equality and anti-human.   

Suppose your family used to have a plot of land and it was taken from you illegally several generations ago.  When your family had it, it was forested, had a lake, and had some mineral deposits.  There was game in the forest and fish in the lake.  The people who stole it from them cut down the forest, mined out the minerals, and dumped all the tailings into the lake.  Now there is no lumber, there are no minerals, there is no game, there are no fish, the land is polluted and the lake is toxic.  Suppose you proved, in a Canadian court of law, the truth of all of this.  In theory, you could sue for the value of the land, the value of the lumber, the value of the minerals, the value of the game, the value of the fish, and the cost of the environmental cleanup.  

Royal Proclamation of 1763 - Wikipedia

TLDR, according to Canadian law, both past and present, the only way to take sovereignty from indigenous peoples is through treaties negotiated by the Crown.  This means that, according to Canadian law, nearly all of BC and Quebec and most of the Maritimes and territories are not part of Canada.  This was the law from back when we were British North America, it was explicitly kept as part of the Constitution in 1982, and continues to be the law today.  When people talk about "unceded land," what they mean is "land stolen by Canada but we don't want to actually say that it was stolen because then Canada would have to answer to its own laws for that theft and Canada would also have to give that land back and that would be really awkward because Canada isn't done pillaging it yet."

Arguing over whether America owes reparation's is a moral argument - slavery was legal in America and, according to American law, no laws were broken by making them slaves.  By contrast, whatever Canada owes is a legal argument, because according to Canadian law, those lands were never part of Canada, and Canada has chosen to ignore its own laws in this manner for every moment of its existence.

It's darkly hilarious to me that, when a Canadian fails to obey a law, Canada calls that Canadian a "criminal," and yet no Canadian has ever been as criminal as Canada is.  After all, even the worst Canadian was not actively breaking the law *right this second* for most of his life - the same cannot be said of Canada. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s unrealistic wishful thinking.  When the shit hits the fan and a homeland is being invaded, biological truth takes over: Women and children are protected in the safest part of the realm as the men (and some rare female Amazons) hack each other to death.  Yes a certain amount of warfare is conducted remotely from the sky in modern warfare, but at some point the troops must invade or hold the fort.  No quarter.

You forget that we live in the present.  The next war isn't going to be "defend the homeland from an invading force."  It will be "somebody pushed a button that did something unspeakable, hopefully enough humans survive to do anything more than envy the dead."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

Suppose your family used to have a plot of land and it was taken from you illegally several generations ago.  When your family had it, it was forested, had a lake, and had some mineral deposits.  There was game in the forest and fish in the lake.  The people who stole it from them cut down the forest, mined out the minerals, and dumped all the tailings into the lake.  Now there is no lumber, there are no minerals, there is no game, there are no fish, the land is polluted and the lake is toxic.  Suppose you proved, in a Canadian court of law, the truth of all of this.  In theory, you could sue for the value of the land, the value of the lumber, the value of the minerals, the value of the game, the value of the fish, and the cost of the environmental cleanup.  

Royal Proclamation of 1763 - Wikipedia

TLDR, according to Canadian law, both past and present, the only way to take sovereignty from indigenous peoples is through treaties negotiated by the Crown.  This means that, according to Canadian law, nearly all of BC and Quebec and most of the Maritimes and territories are not part of Canada.  This was the law from back when we were British North America, it was explicitly kept as part of the Constitution in 1982, and continues to be the law today.  When people talk about "unceded land," what they mean is "land stolen by Canada but we don't want to actually say that it was stolen because then Canada would have to answer to its own laws for that theft and Canada would also have to give that land back and that would be really awkward because Canada isn't done pillaging it yet."

Arguing over whether America owes reparation's is a moral argument - slavery was legal in America and, according to American law, no laws were broken by making them slaves.  By contrast, whatever Canada owes is a legal argument, because according to Canadian law, those lands were never part of Canada, and Canada has chosen to ignore its own laws in this manner for every moment of its existence.

It's darkly hilarious to me that, when a Canadian fails to obey a law, Canada calls that Canadian a "criminal," and yet no Canadian has ever been as criminal as Canada is.  After all, even the worst Canadian was not actively breaking the law *right this second* for most of his life - the same cannot be said of Canada. 

You’re making a lot of assumptions, such as that there was one people continuously occupying said lands and using it as property, which in most cases simply isn’t true.  For example the Ottawas pushed out the Indigenous peoples of parts of southern Ontario.  Six Nations pushed out the Hurons, etc.  The very notion of property didn’t exist in much of pre-contact Canada.  The hunter-gatherer and fishing tribes such as the Algonquin were on the move.  Six Nations set up temporary farming settlements that were abandoned once the land’s nutrients were depleted.  Now we have grandfathered in free land (reserves) for which the residents receive health care and education at taxpayer expense.  They also receive free higher education.  Yet many Indigenous don’t want to abandon the Indian Act or have private title to their property, which would allow them to sell it, make money from the sale, and use it for whatever they want.  It’s a strange form of two-tier citizenship that requires outside help for reserve infrastructure.  Some reserves are successful at using their resources and functioning more independently.  Some aren’t economically viable, which leads to all sorts of social problems for the residents.  It’s a broken system that should never have been implemented.

Yet when Sir John A said that money shouldn’t be thrown at Indigenous to provide food and shelter because of the moral hazard of dependency it would create,  this is referenced as genocidal colonialism, much like residential schools, which were the first and only public education available to people from remote reserves.  It’s complicated but your argument is clearly the victim narrative used to sell the idea of reparations, including making people who immigrated to Canada long after colonization and their descendants (in other words most taxpaying Canadians alive today) foot the bill to pay money to people who already have free land and pay little tax.  What about the land that belonged to the Loyalists who fled the US during the American Revolution?   Can their great great great grandchildren reclaim land left behind in the US?   Can the Brits return New France to France?  Last I checked Quebeckers are charting their own course and can leave Canada at any time.  Indigenous can live with the same rights and freedoms as non-Indigenous, including the joy of paying income and land taxes or they can enjoy the freebies of Indigenous status or they can do both.  Nunavut is a self-governed Indigenous territory.  Who is taking what from whom?

People can argue that territories belong to them based on claims of continuous ancestral occupation without treaty, but they have to prove it in court.  Don’t worry, the courts are stacked with bleeding heart liberals, so taxpayers will fork over more money.

 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

You forget that we live in the present.  The next war isn't going to be "defend the homeland from an invading force."  It will be "somebody pushed a button that did something unspeakable, hopefully enough humans survive to do anything more than envy the dead."  

Actually most modern wars are still fairly conventional.  Yes there’s more air power and drone strikes, but war/peace-making isn’t a unisex hair studio.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Talking about creating an energy efficient economy with emphasis on inclusion, diversity (LGBTQ), anti racism, developing a green workforce, creating more opportunity for marginalized, blah blah blah.

What is wrong with those as goals, exactly?  Should they be talking about maintaining/creating an inefficient economy, one that destroys our earth while excluding some people based on sexual orientation, ignoring or encouraging racism, and creating less opportunity for marginalized people?  Is that what you would prefer as their goals?

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

the usual suspects in the way are obviously the white, conservative, straight Canadians. 

And there you are, conservative Christian, likely white (but maybe not), objecting to the gov talking about an efficient economy that won't destroy our environment, where everyone has a job - including LGBTQ+ and marginalized people, where racism isn't an issue.

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

This is pure government social engineering and vote pandering

If "social engineering" leads to an efficient government where everyone gets a job, I don't mind.  Would you? 

And if the Conservatives were talking about this, would you dismiss it as "vote pandering"?

Edited by dialamah
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

If "social engineering" leads to an efficient government where everyone gets a job, I don't mind.  Would you?

Well if I were to hazard a guess, you have proven his point precisely.  ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

What is wrong with those as goals, exactly?  Should they be talking about maintaining/creating an inefficient economy, one that destroys our earth while excluding some people based on sexual orientation, ignoring or encouraging racism, and creating less opportunity for marginalized people?  Is that what you would prefer as their goals?

And there you are, conservative Christian, likely white (but maybe not), objecting to the gov talking about an efficient economy that won't destroy our environment, where everyone has a job - including LGBTQ+ and marginalized people, where racism isn't an issue.

If "social engineering" leads to an efficient government where everyone gets a job, I don't mind.  Would you? 

And if the Conservatives were talking about this, would you dismiss it as "vote pandering"?

There are no real jobs for people in an economy with government policy that doesn’t address real challenges, like innovation, research and development, efficiency, productivity, and quality of life across a range of metrics.  There is only welfare through theft from capable people who actually do things in creepy redistribution equity identity politics programs.  It’s called theft to make winners out of people who contribute less and to make losers out of those who contribute more.  It’s a watered down version of Pol Pot’s imprisonment and murder of the doctors and engineers.  Alienate the competent by extolling false virtues like making a virtue out of incompetence.  What the hell does race or sexual orientation have to do with technical prowess?  Nothing.  Fake issues that detract from important work.  The Chinese and Russians must be laughing their asses off.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

What is wrong with those as goals, exactly?  Should they be talking about maintaining/creating an inefficient economy, one that destroys our earth while excluding some people based on sexual orientation, ignoring or encouraging racism, and creating less opportunity for marginalized people?  Is that what you would prefer as their goals?

And there you are, conservative Christian, likely white (but maybe not), objecting to the gov talking about an efficient economy that won't destroy our environment, where everyone has a job - including LGBTQ+ and marginalized people, where racism isn't an issue.

If "social engineering" leads to an efficient government where everyone gets a job, I don't mind.  Would you? 

And if the Conservatives were talking about this, would you dismiss it as "vote pandering"?

It's pure social engineering and full of lies and exaggerations.  It's all about deception to get votes.  There is no "systemic" racism.  Inclusiveness is the new propaganda word of liberals and left to con the masses of immigrants, LBGT etc to voting for them.  Many will believe the big lie even though they have never experienced racism or discrimination.  Same reason they all go on the pride parades even though they have never been discriminated against.  Just because normal white conservatives don't join in the fake shaming and take part in pride parades doesn't mean they discriminate against everyone.   But liberals believe any lie their politicians tell them on these announcements.   Normal people are busy working and living their lives, not discriminating against anyone.  We're not destroying the environment either.  That's anther lie you liberals and left have swallowed.  Just an excuse to push forward their perverted progressive agenda and hit hard-working Canadians with ever more carbon taxes. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

It's pure social engineering and full of lies and exaggerations.  It's all about deception to get votes.  There is no "systemic" racism.  Inclusiveness is the new propaganda word of liberals and left to con the masses of immigrants, LBGT etc to voting for them.  Many will believe the big lie even though they have never experienced racism or discrimination.  Same reason they all go on the pride parades even though they have never been discriminated against.  Just because normal white conservatives don't join in the fake shaming and take part in pride parades doesn't mean they discriminate against everyone.   But liberals believe any lie their politicians tell them on these announcements.   Normal people are busy working and living their lives, not discriminating against anyone.  We're not destroying the environment either.  That's anther lie you liberals and left have swallowed.  Just an excuse to push forward their perverted progressive agenda and hit hard-working Canadians with ever more carbon taxes. 

Canada, the US, and much of modern western civilization is having its lunch stolen because of these bizarre attempts to lionize certain races and lifestyles.  The name of the game now, especially for heterosexual male whites who must atone for the the skin colour, sexual orientation, and gender they were born with, is to renounce opportunity, no matter how earned, because of “privilege” and to “do the work” of recognizing just how bad these biological qualities are.  It’s twisted and represents a decline of civilization.  It’s retrograde and racist.

It’s got nothing to do with equality.  Instead it creates a kind of point system that privileges certain groups based on assumed levels of marginalization, as though one can tally up how much somebody deserves to have based on perceived quantity of victimhood and “intersectionalities”.  It infantilizes certain groups such as blacks and Indigenous as helpless victims based on superficial markers like skin colour or ethnic purity.

Robin DiAngelo and Layla Saad, two very privileged promoters of this new myth, are turning governments and HR departments into the grand inquisitors enforcing this new regime.  Say the right ever-changing woke words or risk termination. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

at this point the Woke cult is doing us a favour

not only is it the implosion of the left

but Canada is already a failed state, moribund

the Woke are simply like maggots eating the dead flesh of it

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

at this point the Woke cult is doing us a favour

not only is it the implosion of the left

but Canada is already a failed state, moribund

the Woke are simply like maggots eating the dead flesh of it

bye Canada

chaos is a ladder

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...