Canada is accelerating White Genocide. Government boasts 421,000 immigrants a year in new target.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yes, each generation is brainwashed and conditioned differently, and therefore, react according to that (different) conditioning / brainwashing.

Liberal materialism WORKED back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. You are attempting to isolate an ideology as being THE crucial particular of a generation. That is flat wrong. Many many things came together to make liberalism the abomination it has become today.

Let me give you an example from Canada where I live. Up until some time in the late '90s or early zeroes, our national Unemployment Insurance program assured us of 75% of our working wages should we be out of work. Pretty liberal, right? Every paycheck, employed people would chip in to the UI program, and if/when they'd be out of work, collect 75% of normal pay until they found a job again. It worked great. People worked and worked hard, because they had been conditioned to want to be as much a productive member of society as possible.

And then sometime in the late-90s / early zeroes, the Federal Government of Canada ups and decides to cash out OUR UI PROGRAM. This was OUR money for OUR possible future unemployment. All 47 billion of it. Bear in mind that the Canadian population is 1/10th of the USA's, so it's equivalent to half a trillion if it had happened in the USA. A hell of a lot of money. Suddenly after that, the Federal Government decides that UI will now only pay out 55% instead of 75%.

Wait, what? Yes. It was working great. Then the politicians decided to screw it up. Sound familiar? I thought so. This is not a problem caused by too much liberalism. IT WAS WORKING FINE. It's a problem caused by the concentration of power by politicians who stop representing the people and instead represent their best buddies' best interests and fuck the people.

It's a problem of not having checks and balances on the REPRESENTATIVE aspect of a "representative democracy". You have the same crap in the USA. You can't blame a generation or an ideology when the scumbags-in-chief are using their positions of power to continuously rape the population up the ass. Power hoards itself, and there are none more powerful than the banksters and their clique. Until THAT problem is well and truly solved, that is, corruption of politicians and cronyism, everything else pales in terms of importance.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yes, each generation is brainwashed and conditioned differently, and therefore, react according to that (different) conditioning / brainwashing.

Perhaps I was unclear. I meant that, within a generation, different groups will react differently to the exact same cultural stimuli. Conditioning can be accepted or rejected in various ways and to various degrees. It is not a process that is experienced in a purely passive way.

Liberal materialism WORKED back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. You are attempting to isolate an ideology as being THE crucial particular of a generation. That is flat wrong. Many many things came together to make liberalism the abomination it has become today.

I am not reducing everything to ideology - the ideology is downstream from the existential condition of the people who maintain it. The boomers were vapid, materialistic and indifferent to an unprecedented degree. Even the "radical" boomers like the beatniks were the same way, only slightly less indifferent.

This is not a problem caused by too much liberalism.

When I say "liberalism", I am referring to the entire system, not to screeching college students with pink hair dye.

It's a problem of not having checks and balances on the REPRESENTATIVE aspect of a "representative democracy".

Ah, I see. You are a liberal yourself. That is probably the main source of our disagreement. Addressing your reply more broadly, a functional welfare state is not "the answer" or "the solution" either. Personally speaking, I think we can hope for more from politics than simply covering the basic material needs of the people. It is certainly a good thing to do so, but it should by no means by the end goal, in my opinion. Liberals will claim otherwise. Many would also claim that is it both impossible and undesirable to even try to achieve more through politics. I disagree.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Once again you fail to pin me down with your preconceived ideas. Checks and balances on the power of politicians make me a liberal? I am not in any way, shape or form a liberal. I'm pointing out a system that "worked" and how it got subverted by the political class and its sponsors.

At any point in time or space, if a national government system happens to exist, hardwired checks and balances have to be implemented on the exercise of power. THE PEOPLE or a Great Leader actually representing his people from soul to toes, have to be the ones with the executive power. Only in such a system can society and joe average not get shafted into oblivion.

Any socio-political/economic argument that doesn't start there is moot because it ignores the most fundamental building block of society: The individual.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Checks and balances on the power of politicians make me a liberal?

Yes.

At any point in time or space, if a national government system happens to exist, hardwired checks and balances have to be implemented on the exercise of power.

No.

I am not sure what else to say to you, since we have seriously departed from the original point of contention.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Liberals actually stand for power to the politicians WITHOUT checks and balances.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Who do you think came up with "checks and balances" in the first place? The separation of powers?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What checks and balances are you referring to? I don't see any...

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The checks and balances exist to keep you - the pleb - in your place. There are plenty of those. The very reason "checks and balances" were first institutionalised was to keep plebs in their place. They worked very well at the inception of liberalism and they still work very well today.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you are talking about something utterly opposite from what I'm talking about.

OK, welcome to my ignore list.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Childish.