Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
PIK

Canada the next venezuela.

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

No, the Crown is the diametric opposite of the proletariat, the Crown is to the far right, the dictatorship of the proletariat is to the far left.

I may not be able to stop laughing long enough to get any work done.   That said:  I understand why you would say that, but it simply flies in the face of what "left" and "right" in a business/economic sense can be defined.   Marx would have the means of production in the public hands, but in Canada, that public vehicle is a crown.   You seem to thing that the slimey limeys actually have access to those assets (which, once again, I understand that you also believe as do I that the BNA still applies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the Crown is not a vehicle of the public, the Crown waylays the public in Canada, because the vast majority of Canadians are de facto republicans now by way of immersion into American culture, so the only thing standing between me and a pack of Canaderp wannabe bolshies is in fact Her Majesty.  That's me and HM over here on the far right, with most of Canada over their on the far left, but me and HM blocking them asymmetrically, because the Canaderps can't open up their constitution lest Confederation comes flying apart, so right wing nutjobs like me and Liz Windsor got the Canaderps by the throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also bear in mind, the American republic is well to the left of me and HM, we are simply in an alliance with them, since they bailed us out in Flanders and then climbed the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, cannuck said:

 (which, once again, I understand that you also believe as do I that the BNA still applies).

Applies?   There is in fact nothing else which does apply;

VRI; Victoria Regina Imperatrix; Victoria Hanover is my Queen and Empress, Elizabeth Windsor is her rightful heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As like all Pequites, I do not fly the Liberal Party of Canada Flag, I proudly fly the Red Ensign.

I do not sing the Liberal Party of Canada Song, I proudly sing God Save The Queen and The Maple Leaf Forever.

It's actually quite easy to divest yourself of Canadian Confederation as you like, even while you are stuck with it over there in the corner, see; Quebec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 4:31 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Canada is probably the least totalitarian democracy.  Canada has a fairly loose federation with regular elections and constitutional protections against abuses. 

Canada is a good example of an elitist-controlled limited democracy, where a relatively confined set of interests and small cadre of decision makers direct the agenda and determine which issues are open to public discourse. It's mainly a tripartite mainstream party model that largely operates on an internal consensus basis whereby concerns about controversial issues and policies are generally minimized, suppressed and redirected. A narrowly controlled mainstream media environment serves to protect this system, again restricting public debate, input and commentary. It's actually a very closed system. The main reason it's not totalitarian is that Canada has no deep tradition of military interference in the country's internal affairs (with the response to FLQ crisis serving as a notable exception). But the elites don't need military muscle to assert their interests as they have the situation almost completely under control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Canada is a good example of an elitist-controlled limited democracy, where a relatively confined set of interests and small cadre of decision makers direct the agenda and determine which issues are open to public discourse. It's mainly a tripartite mainstream party model that largely operates on an internal consensus basis whereby concerns about controversial issues and policies are generally minimized, suppressed and redirected. A narrowly controlled mainstream media environment serves to protect this system, again restricting public debate, input and commentary. It's actually a very closed system. The main reason it's not totalitarian is that Canada has no deep tradition of military interference in the country's internal affairs (with the response to FLQ crisis serving as a notable exception). But the elites don't need military muscle to assert their interests as they have the situation almost completely under control.

That's not the definition of totalitarian, Canadians are indoctrinated to be totalitarian about Confederation, to try to bind the broken thing together.

Military dictatorship is not the definition of totalitarian, and in fact  most military dictatorships are simply tyrannies.

Tyranny is think what you want, just don't mess with us overtly,  as in don't try to legislate from the streets, because you will be shot if you do.

Totalitarian is thought crime, you are messing with us just by thinking and saying things which upset the established order.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there is plenty of history of the Canadian military going rogue against the Government of Canada, in favour of obeying Washington instead, which is why the Canadian poltical class has been dismantling the military very deliberately, since the military went rogue in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Otherwise known as Disarmament by Stealth.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

That's not the definition of totalitarian, Canadians are indoctrinated to be totalitarian about Confederation, to try to bind the broken thing together.

Military dictatorship is not the definition of totalitarian, and in fact  most military dictatorships are simply tyrannies.

Tyranny is think what you want, just don't mess with us overtly,  as in don't try to legislate from the streets, because you will be shot if you do.

Totalitarian is thought crime, you are messing with us just by thinking and saying things which upset the established order.

Huh? Please name some totalitarian states that have no history of military involvement in their internal affairs. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Huh? Please name some totalitarian states that have no history of military involvement in their internal affairs. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

It's not a totalitarian state, because Canada is not the state, Elizabeth Windsor is the state, and HM defends the right to not be totalitarian.

Canadian Confederation however, is a failed state, it's a fake country, and in order to hold one of those together, that's where totalitarianism comes into play.

If you speak the truth about things, for example the utterly failed and broken immigration regime, you will be attacked for that, accused of thought crime, a "hate crime", and there is force backing it up, both by civil and criminal liability.  That's totalitarian.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It's not a totalitarian state, because Canada is not the state, Elizabeth Windsor is the state, and HM defends the right to not be totalitarian.

Canadian Confederation however, is a failed state, it's a fake country, and in order to hold one of those together, that's where totalitarianism comes into play.

If you speak the truth about things, for example the utterly failed and broken immigration regime, you will be attacked for that, accused of thought crime, a "hate crime", and there is force backing it up, both by civil and criminal liability.  That's totalitarian.

Huh? Did you read my post? I said Canada isn't a totalitarian state because it has no deep history of military interference in its internal affairs. But neither is it an exemplary democracy. It's a limited democracy that operates under a elitist control model. I think that's an accurate and fair assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, there's not much you can do about civil liability, because the mechanism they use there is the "Human Rights Tribunal" Orwellian contradiction. Kangaroo court which isn't presided over by the judiciary, so a lawyer can't really help you because there are no rules, the tribunal just makes them up to ensnare you for thought crime.

For criminal liability "hate crime" under the Criminal Code, you can hire a Marie Henein or whatever, but even then, thought crime is a kangaroo court by default.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turningrite said:

Huh? Did you read my post? I said Canada isn't a totalitarian state because it has no deep history of military interference in its internal affairs. But neither is it an exemplary democracy. It's a limited democracy that operates under a elitist control model. I think that's an accurate and fair assessment.

Military interference in internal affairs is not totalitarian by default.  Even exemplary democracies can succumb to totalitarianism, Hitler was elected in the Wiemar Republic, the most liberal country in the world at the time.

So your assessments are fallacies which do not make logical sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just fyi, government  by military interference, otherwise known as a junta, is not totalitarian per se, as I said, mostly just tyrannies, and the word for that is not totalitarianism, but rather Praetorianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Military interference in internal affairs is not totalitarian by default.  Even exemplary democracies can succumb to totalitarianism, Hitler was elected in the Wiemar Republic, the most liberal country in the world at the time.

So your assessments are fallacies which do not make logical sense.

I think you're misinterpreting the point. Generally speaking, totalitarian regimes can only be sustained by military and/or paramilitary (i.e. police state) force. Hitler and Mussolini both attained power by peaceful means but neither was sustained in power in this fashion. People in countries like Germany and Italy mistakenly believed that politicians with extremist views could be controlled and moderated by democratic institutions. Canada is one of the world's most enduring elite controlled limited democracies. I believe that this assessment in entirely logical and justifiable. Please examine and critique your own (in my opinion) rather grandiose beliefs.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turningrite said:

I think you're misinterpreting the point. Generally speaking, totalitarian regimes can only be sustained by military and/or paramilitary (i.e. police state) force. Hitler and Mussolini both attained power by peaceful means but neither was sustained in power in this fashion. People in countries like Germany and Italy believed that politicians with extremist views could be controlled and moderated by democratic institutions. My assessment in entirely logical. Please examine and critique your own beliefs.

Disagree, the Nazis were not propped up by the military, the military was propped up by the Nazis.  First Hitler made the Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy, that conspiracy theory became a totalitarian political movement, which seized power by democracy, and then easily made the military kneel before them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler had his own political army which was intended to and did in fact replace the military as the Praetorians. This army was called the SS; Shutzstaffel; "Protection Echelon"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Disagree, the Nazis were not propped up by the military....

You're kidding, right? You don't think Nazi Germany was a police state sustained by the sheer brute force of state (i.e. police, military and paramilitary) power? He created one of the world's most feared paramilitary forces, the SS, and played it off against the military generals in order to ensure their compliance with and loyalty to his regime. Oh well, if you think Hitler was really a puppy dog beloved by his people for all his wonderful qualities, keep on dreaming. The SS was not in its own right sufficiently large or powerful to control Western Europe's most populous country.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shutzstaffel were not the military tho, the Shutzstaffel were civilians, like the CIA or the KGB, they had a military wing, the Waffen-SS, but the SS writ large was a security service not a military, most of them were not armed combatants at all.

None of this is how the Nazis came to power tho, the Nazis came to power first by indoctrinating the masses into the totalitarian Jewish Bolshevik Conspiracy theory, that was the source of their power, they were a populist political movement, which was voted in by the electorate, in the wake of catastrophic military defeat and economic collapse.

The Nazis were not a Junta, in fact they were preventing one, which is why the military tried to kill Hitler, more than once.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You're kidding, right? You don't think Nazi Germany was a police state sustained by the sheer brute force of state (i.e. police, military and paramilitary) power? He created one of the world's most feared paramilitary forces, the SS, and played it off against the military generals in order to ensure their compliance with and loyalty to his regime. Oh well, if you think Hitler was really a puppy dog beloved by his people for all his wonderful qualities, maybe you have bigger problems.

Hitler had an 89% approval rating, post-Reichstag, the Germans loved him like Americans loved Bush right after 9/11. Pretending like Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, is simply ahistorical nonsense.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Hitler had an 89% approval rating, post-Reichstag, the Germans loved him like Americans loved Bush after 9/11. Pretending like Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, is simply ahistorical nonsense.

Indeed, my grandmother in law came of age as a teenager in Nazi Germany, and she has confirmed to me what historical evidence suggests, which is that Hitler remained extremely popular, right to the bitter end, but certainly at the beginning, before he invaded Poland, Hitler was incandescently popular, and his nickname was actually "General Bloodless" because he had overthrown Versailles, nary a shot fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

The Shutzstaffel were not the military tho, the Shutzstaffel were civilians, like the CIA or the KGB, they had a military wing, the Waffen-SS, but the SS writ large was a security service not a military, most of them were not armed combatants at all.

 

The role of the SS included ensuring compliance with the regime's objectives by instilling fear among all the state's legitimate instruments of power, including the military and the police. Hitler and his henchmen didn't trust anybody. In fact, in virtually all totalitarian states the most relevant risks to a sitting regime come from within the military. Of course, Hitler feared a coup emerging from the military, just as do almost all totalitarian regimes. The very instruments of brute power upon which these regimes rely are also very often their undoing and logically so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The role of the SS included ensuring compliance with the regime's objectives by instilling fear among all the state's legitimate instruments of power, including the military and the police. Hitler and his henchmen didn't trust anybody. In fact, in virtually all totalitarian states the most relevant risks to a sitting regime come from within the military. Of course, Hitler feared a coup emerging from the military, just as do almost all totalitarian regimes. The very instruments of brute power upon which these regimes rely are also very often their undoing and logically so.

Only against the enemies of the state, which Aryan Germans were not, Aryan Germans viewed the SS the same way Americans would view DHS, the SS were Homeland Security.

The Waffen-SS were prized, as Teutonic Knights holding the Jewish-Bolshevik hordes back at the gates.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just projecting your Anglo-American views unto the Aryan Germans, but they didn't see it that way,  to them, we were the mortal enemy, the SS was protecting them from us, because we were all inclusive to the Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy to destroy the Aryan Race, which the masses adopted as their ideology, totalitarian, but not by jackboot, Mein Kampf was a best seller.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Hitler had an 89% approval rating, post-Reichstag, the Germans loved him like Americans loved Bush right after 9/11. Pretending like Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, is simply ahistorical nonsense.

Who said he wasn't popular? Hitler was popular up to the point where his military strategy started to go horribly wrong. That's not at all uncommon for totalitarian regimes. This week, I watched the episode on Mussolini in the PBS series 'The Dictator's Playbook'. The series highlights the similarities between many of the most prominent modern totalitarian regimes, including their reliance on police and military oppression to quash their enemies. Mussolini, like Hitler, came to power at a time of enormous economic and social crisis, which he exploited to achieve power, after which he was able to successfully suppress democratic institutions, as did Hitler. After attaining power, he used various methods, including propaganda, nationalism and military adventurism to sustain his popularity, until, well, things started to go downhill very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
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...