You are not supposed to notice all of the gunfire that has suddenly materialized in your town.
1 Like
Celebrate Diversity, or you’re Hitler!
“I met a man, from a far away land
His name was Sanctimonious!”
Whats the use in being smart if you aren’t fucking funny, right?
Only a fascist would be against using public funds to import a new voting bloc from Socialist African nations with benefits far more generous than what citizens receive.
1 Like
Meanwhile, I’ll probably die doing work that the docs and nurses made clear will kill me in a vain and failing attempt to provide a decent life for my wife and son.
But some sanctimonious plagarizing fucking canadian asshole gets to preach at me from afar.
(Woops! Broke through the veil!)
You know there is a difference between being antisocial and being against socialism, right? And that sanctimonious is a word about religiosity?
If my left ventricle was weak, I might try to be less thin skinned. Just because you repeat a lot of crap does not make it true, meaningful or wise. But it is probably easier to spout nonsense than argue sensibly, especially if starting from a weak position.
The markets have spoken about future prosperity and peace. Thankfully Canadian politicians are a little less mendacious and generally know what they are doing.
Unfortunately for us, its just your brain.
Didn’t you claim to go to oxford or something?
1 Like
I agree that Canadian politicians seem to know what they are doing in the same way that Maine politicians do. I just don’t think it is a good thing and see no evidence that Democratic Socialist policies benefit society at all. I don’t think there’s a single improved socioeconomic outcome coming from their governance, unless you like just like hearing dozens of foreign languages spoken.
The only beneficiaries of this version of Socialism being implemented in the west are the imported voters (not just in Maine) who receive tremendous benefits, the politicians, and the other recipients of public funds like nonprofiteers and segments of academia. I do not understand how anyone can believe it to be a positive thing for society as a whole.
You guys are still on that path, by all appearances. I’m not just talking immigration either, but the whole shebang that’s unfolding in the UK and Germany. Speech codes, disarmament, kangaroo courts for political opposition, jailing people for peaceful political speech, making up nonsensical offenses, all while fleecing the population for everything they can get away with while keeping the host alive.
You know, not REAL Socialism.
Well, I would agree Canadian immigration has had its problems lately. I’m not sure I would agree Canada is much of a socialist country. Most G7 countries have subsidized health care, and the US does too.
What does that sanctimonious definition even mean to you, SkyzykS? You are the one who made a bunch of baseless ad hominem attacks. The average person probably would not, but chacun á son goût.
Quote them.
.
I’m sure you don’t need vocabulary lessons from a welder.
Is “equity” not the guiding principle of Canadian public policy? Does your government not aim to reshape your society along a vaguely-defined vision to correct history’s mistakes as they are perceived along racial lines? Hasn’t it succeeded?
You can either have equality, or you can have equity. They are incompatible with each other. The Nazis were big on equity, but only for ethnic Germans. Democratic Socialists are big on equity too, but only for “marginalized” racial and now social identity groups. They both extract wealth from the out-group to give to the in-group.
If I have to sum up how I distinguish American political tradition from Socialism, it’s guided by equality, not equity.
Besides, if you ask a Socialist, Democratic or National, they will always tell you that the other one isn’t REAL Socialism. Neither was Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, the Kims, or any of them. Angola isn’t REAL socialism, and on and on it goes.
Make no mistake about it, a permanently entrenched single party rule is the goal of the left in the west today. Once sufficiently rigged, there’s only ONE way out of it, and it helps to have an armed population.
Personally I am for “equality of opportunity”. It is reasonable to provide basic health care. It is good to give everyone a shot at a decent education, but different people will get different things out of that. Canadian law emphasizes equality with regard to rights. The key principle of Canada’s constitution is things must be reasonable.
I don’t know Canada like I do the USA, but that last sentence doesn’t sound like a principle at all.
I also distinguish social programs from Socialism.
Maine is a state with nominal equal rights, but in practice equity guides the government, especially when it comes to spending priorities. My barber got a good lesson in equity when the government removed her daughter from the bus she was seriously beaten on.
Had three white children beaten a Somalian child who was then removed from the bus while the white children remained, it would be a worldwide scandal.
That’s just one example of equity and how it is incompatible with equality. I suspect Canada has many similar examples.
For clarification, i call it a 3 on 1 beat down because one child was holding her while two were doing the beating. The article just says two on one.
The problem with socialism in US is you got people in the US who are brainwashed to believe they are victims and maybe they are but they strive to play that card and take advantage of that instead of turning their situation around.
Take a look at the attitude of most poor Merican city folks, do Canadians act like they do??? Do Canadians take what little money they might have and instead of feeding their kids, smoke and drink it? IDK, I’m asking……
This thread would surely benefit from defining socialism and it’s subcategories. Also defining how ”modern liberalism” (what you guys would call woke, hate that word though) is seen to be tied to it is interesting.
I personally understand socialism as a economical ideology (economical equality versus economical freedom). Surely, radical socialism is also profoundly undemocratic, but that can be said from many other ideologies as well. Radical is radical.
We don’t do “Definitions” around here.
Hahah!
That’s actually one thing that separates scientific/philosophical debate from political debate.
First one relies on common definitions so it can be clear on what were talking about. In political debate definitions change and they’re often purposefully left in the dark. It’s easier ton”win” your opponent that way.
Trying to put words around the politics happening in front of me is part of the challenge. I believe muddying up the language is a design feature of the ideology plaguing the world for the last century. It has an army of “experts” ready to explain why you can’t label this or that as Socialism, because of this or that technical distinction. For an ideology that’s never been properly tried according to the same experts, it sure has wreaked havoc on world society. The expert-class of explainers can always find ways to explain away the awful aspects of what happens as a result of radical left policies.
Given that the workers haven’t managed to seize the means of production in any Socialist revolution yet to occur, I find it pointless to try and define what’s happening right now in any kind of academic sense. Someone else will surely tackle that eventually, but probably not for a really long time.
If we look at Hitler, it has taken decades to academically sort out the question of “What in the hell was that guy actually talking about?”. Zitelmann didn’t publish Hitler’s National Socialism until 2000. Even today Hitler is commonly thought of as “far-right”, as if there is any meaningful similarities between his ideology and that of a typical Trump supporter.
Our American system, on paper at least, is completely incompatible with every form of Socialism yet implemented. That’s increasingly obvious to me with nearly every day that passes here in Maine. I can see many common denominators, and those common denominators are what I believe matters more than any rhetoric or party platform.
I’m coming to understand not REAL Socialism as a comprehensive wealth extraction scheme that depends on single-party rule. A dictatorship helps, but it isn’t necessary as long as a unified party has political power to implement their agenda. That seems true for every historical instance of Socialism, including what’s happening today in the west.
Censoring your political opponents violates the sanctity of the First Amendment, but it is present in spades among today’s left and every form of not REAL Socialism.
Instead of equality under the law, a two-tier society is also present in every form of not REAL Socialism. You need a victim class of beneficiaries and an oppressor class, along with a historical narrative to justify the wealth extraction. Again, this is present in spades among the left today all across the west.
There’s another significant aspect that makes me use the term “not REAL Socialism” repeatedly. If you look at the Maine Democrat party platform, you’ll notice a lot of very vague language and almost no concrete policy proposals. The written and spoken rhetoric is similarly vague and lofty. When they get around to actually implementing their policies, they can all be found on the Democratic Socialist of America’s party platform, explained in much more depth. That has been consistent in the last six years especially here in Maine. EVERYTHING Maine Democrats do or say is in full alignment with the DSA party platform.
That the Democratic Socialist platform isn’t adopted in full doesn’t change the fact that every policy decision has been a step in that direction. A sudden seizure of power doesn’t seem to be the plan at all, but rather a slow boiling of the populations.
Looking at Europe gives me an idea of where the ideas were headed here in the USA. I think the trap has been sprung in the UK and Germany, who now seem to be in a race against demographics if they are ever to restore their postwar 20th century ideologies that were very similar to ours. Even if they effectively ban or imprison political opposition, curb free speech, and continue to impose a two tier society, Socialists will still call them capitalists and fascists as long as political benefit can be garnered from it.
The Vance speech at the Munich conference illustrated the major ideological gap very well, and so did the reaction to it by today’s left, defending censorship and imprisoning people for “hate speech” as “European values”. They don’t want people to notice, just like they don’t want anyone to notice how identity politics is playing out in South Africa.
Forget about defining socialism for a minute, and think about trying to define “American Democrat”. You’ll get a completely different set of incompatible ideas from decade-to-decade for nearly the entire history of that party. I was one for a brief period in the 90’s and 00’s, before they adopted the incompatible policies of Democratic Socialism, specifically DEI, open borders and transgenderism.
I think Democratic Socialist is the right word for today’s Democratic party, if you have to find a word to describe it. That’s the obvious direction they are rowing in, and they are lying about it the entire way. If you time-traveled 20 years into the past and said that Democrats will want to tell little kids that they might be, can be, or should be members of the opposite sex, you would have been laughed out of any room you were in. If you suggested that they wanted to flood the country with millions of migrants and empower them to vote without attaining citizenship, you would have been called a “far-right conspiracy theorist.”
The gaslighting is off-the charts, and it is getting worse here in Maine, where Democrats who govern as Democratic Socialists are doing everything in their power to manipulate people’s perceptions of reality after being in power for so long, and it is all straight out of Orwell’s writing.
Everything happening right now has no historical precedent, and I’m sure academics will be busy for a very long time trying to find the right words to put around Democrats and Republicans of the early 21st century.
It’s hard to define a lot of political words. Terms like “left” or “right” originally came from where people physically sat during the Estates-General meetings held just before the French Revolution, where the nobles (sitting in the right wing), clergy and working class (sitting on the left side) would occasionally meet to discuss French society in the 1780s. Things have changed over 250 years. These words are completely inadequate to describe modern Russia or polarized American politics.
Something like “socialism” meant something different in 1848 than it did in 1930 or now. It probably means something different in Sweden, Canada, Russia or the United States.
Many of us can probably still agree with e e cummings definition of “a politician” - “an ass everybody has sat on except a man”.