Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Argus said:

So far it's led to lifting billions of people around the world out of extreme poverty.

Nooooo! This has only been a very temporary uplift if anything, if we take a look back at the full expanse of the history of species on this planet. An 'uplift' that can only be temporary because it is constructed on unleashing a massive oil industry producing carbon fuels, chemical fertilizers and pesticides/while mining the last large stores of essential components - phosphates for making those fertilizers. 

So, the sudden huge increase in food/mostly grain production around the world is already bumping up to the limits of production at a time when the Earth's population approaches 8 billion. For a relatively short time, larger numbers of people were able to get enough to eat, But this system of growing has destroyed most of the topsoil in most of the grain belts (including in the US) and used up supplies of groundwater being used for irrigation. Crunch time is on the horizon, and there's nothing to fix or replace this 'green revolution' of 50 years ago. 

Aside from that, economic measurements like GDP are illusory and do not measure real wealth in poor countries.

So, in the Bangladeshi example, millions have been forced off of public lands where they lived for generations by simple but sustainable farming practices. According to GDP numbers, they had almost no income, since they were growing their own food on their own land and selling a small amount of produce at a local market.

After being kicked off the land to make way for multinational Big Ag producers....just like throughout Africa and Asia, they migrate to already overcrowded cities, where they are stuck taking lousy sweatshop jobs in dirty and dangerous textile mills making clothes for Walmart and other western buyers.

On paper, it looks like they've taken a big leap forward from their rural past, so why don't the majority who made the move to the cities see it that way? Largely because their lives are miserable!

They have to spend long hours doing lousy work for low pay, that barely provides a man and a woman enough money to buy poor quality foods at a local market, and pay the rent for some hovel that's barely enough room for a family to turn around in.

And now, it's coming to an end in this decade, and even we will see higher food prices this decade because of bad effects from climate change and over-reliance on factory farming. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 556
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Canada is one of the LEAST racist countries in the world and actively works at stamping it out.  Why would you be overly concerned about racism in Canada when the MOST racist countries are Middle

This is like asking why some Canadians steal, or rape, or murder.

Probably similar to the reasons some Muslims are so loud about their hatred of non-Muslims, gays, Jews, etc.

Posted Images

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Everyone sees the flaws of capitalism and free-enterprise, which is why almost everyone has agreed to temper it with a degree of public assistance and income redistribution for the poor.

What socialists don't ever seem to realize, however, is that their system is based on a kind of elitist academic viewpoint of how society ought to operate which completely overlooks human nature and behaviour. Whenever they try they find they have to use brutal, authoritarian 'persuasion' on the people, and this inevitably leads to a shithole of poverty and brutality.

Okay, you don't see where I'm coming from here. I'm not an academic elitist who gravitated to socialism out of concerns over fairness and utopian desires to make the world a nicer place. It's not even my concerns as a union member that the future for younger workers will provide diminishing returns no matter which industry they work in. My main concerns with maintaining capitalism is that it is at its root, an unstable system for economic management that can't function unless it is able to grow....endlessly..without end. In nature, the only creatures that live like this are cancer cells! 

Not much different when these principles of exponential growth are applied to human societies. This is most of the reason why the world is in an ecological crisis today! Industrial production and transportation of goods has increased faster than the rate of population growth in the 20th century by a long shot. The money supply has grown exponentially thanks to quantitative easing for the bankers to offload their debts on to suckers living in the future, and even the left has bought into the free money fountain economic theory, commonly known as MMT. So, it will likely continue until the system is changed or it just seizes up and unleashes chaos on a world where most of our political, military and business leaders are invested in this system and not willing to let it go. In a nuclear age, what are they willing to do to try to get their way?

Edited by Right To Left
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

Nobody said that the current system is perfect, you are just offering an alternative that goes against human nature having been tried several times in history. Give it up already, human beings do not have the DNA to be communist. 

I can already see your answer (like any student brainwashed by his social sciences Marxist professor would say): "Yah but those are dictators, that was not real communism, it was not Marx's writings". What you fail to understand is that Marx's writings lead to dictatorship because human beings at the individual level are unique and competitive. 

NO, if socialism was against human nature as you claim, then why would we as a species be innately wired to apply socialism at the local level as anthropologists have noted about small hunter-gatherer bands of up to 200 individuals living together and sharing their food and other products made without any thought given to taking the most or accumulating personal goods. 

What happened in modern times...starting in the 19th century, when the first anthropologists began studying the cultural practices of 'primitive' peoples that still lived in large numbers in the tropic zone, was that they described the high levels of cooperation and sharing that were essential for the primitive tribes, leading political philosophers like Frederick Engels to correspond and meet with some of these anthropologists to learn from them. Engels described the life of the people living in rainforests, grasslands and even deserts as "primitive communism" -- a lifestyle that was adopted naturally and considered essential. 

When Engels collaborated with Karl Marx in the 1880's, they were trying to create a modern system of living that would mirror the ways of living by our ancestors. THAT has presented a problem, for a number of reasons. One being that creating modern farming collectives or communes by putting strangers together, was not the same as the primitive groups made up of mostly extended family groups. On a larger scale, having large groups of people sharing or earning the same wages doesn't always work if they feel their work provides more value than work done by others...so they want a greater share. 

When it comes to the effects on people of capitalism and competition etc., the people who thrive under this system are more likely sociopaths that tended to be ostracized by small societies of the past, because of their selfish antisocial behavior. But on Wall Street, that's the perfect environment for a sociopath or psychopath who's only focused on winning at all costs. 

About 10 years ago, I picked up a very important and informative book: The Spirit Level by British epidemiologists - Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson. The basic premise of Pickett and Wilkinson is that when they compare sociological data from a range of quality of life stats, they find invariably that more equal societies are both physically and mentally healthier places than less equal societies. And measuring the levels of income equality within society are greater determinants than aggregate wealth. So, the wealthiest nation per capita at the time: the United States did more poorly compared with Costa Rica...the small Central American nation where per capita income was a quarter of US average incomes. But a range of measurements: life expectancy, health, addiction, violence and self-reported studies that try to determine life satisfaction all placed Costa Rica higher than the US. 

Pickett and Wilkinson don't delve in to the politics nor go into detail on economic models, trying to keep the focus strictly on income equality and inequality. Too bad this book didn't get more notice 10 years ago. But how could it! Considering who runs business and mainstream media over here! 

But, their book trashes the notion that human nature makes us selfish, and instead shows us that our increasingly dangerous, competitive, ruthless societies are making more and more people sick..both mentally and physically.

The Spirit Level

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better was published in 2009. Written by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, the book highlights the "pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, (and) encouraging excessive consumption". It shows that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Right To Left said:

When it comes to the effects on people of capitalism and competition etc., the people who thrive under this system are more likely sociopaths 

Sounds to me like an union talking point.  If it wasn't for those "sociopaths" to invest and come up with original ideas right now you would still be living in the forest with a toilet outside.

Who knows ? You communists are attracted by that minimalistic life. Now if you excuse me is 6:30 am on a Sunday and I just started working, I guess that makes me a "sociopath". 

Now you know while people are fighting to save businesses and jobs, there are people in this country that want the whole system to collapse.

P.S. Regarding crime in communist countries, of course is not that much crime because the criminals are running the system.

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

Sounds to me like an union talking point.  If it wasn't for those "sociopaths" to invest and come up with original ideas right now you would still be living in the forest with a toilet outside.

Do sociopaths come up with original ideas? Isn't it more likely they simply do what other people can't due to embarrassment and shame? Is their money honest? I would rather live in the forest with a toilet outside than steal money and potentially ruin countless of lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Do sociopaths come up with original ideas? Isn't it more likely they simply do what other people can't due to embarrassment and shame? Is their money honest? I would rather live in the forest with a toilet outside than steal money and potentially ruin countless of lives.

It requires to be open minded to understand sarcasm. That's why I placed "sociopaths" with quotes, I was referring to his generalization about capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Argus said:

Everyone sees the flaws of capitalism and free-enterprise, which is why almost everyone has agreed to temper it with a degree of public assistance and income redistribution for the poor.

What socialists don't ever seem to realize, however, is that their system is based on a kind of elitist academic viewpoint of how society ought to operate which completely overlooks human nature and behaviour. Whenever they try they find they have to use brutal, authoritarian 'persuasion' on the people, and this inevitably leads to a shithole of poverty and brutality.

This seems like a very inaccurate and mightily misguided description of, Capitalism, sort of inline with how @Marocc flagrantly blames Capitalism for inequality and poverty. Now, you also have haphazardly blamed Capitalism here, for societal ills that have nothing to do with Capitalism lol.

Me myself, I like to refer to Ricardo Hausman and Dierdrie McCloskey

...Our research has uncovered that in the developing world, there are enormous differences in productivity within countries, across their different regions. For example, in the US, the richest state, which is probably Connecticut, is about twice as rich as the poorest state, which is either Mississippi or West Virginia. The difference is a factor of two. In Mexico, the difference between Chiapas and Nuevo León is a factor of nine. Similar differences exist between the Indian states of Bihar and Goa or between the cities of Patna and Bangalore. These differences in income are mainly differences in productivity. It’s not the result of what share of the pie goes to capital and what size of the pie goes to labor. It is differences in the sizes of the pie.

So there are these enormous differences in productivity that make the productive places rich and the unproductive places poor. The poor people are not being exploited. They’re being excluded from the higher productivity activities. It’s not that the capitalists are taking a very large share of what they produce. It’s just that they produce very little in the first place.

...Many of those that worry about inequality blame capitalism for it. Even Pope Francis has been framing the issue in this way. Now, let’s define capitalism the way Karl Marx did. It is a mode of production where some people own the means of production and others work as wage laborers for them. But if this is the case, capitalism hires 8 out of each 9 workers in the USA, 2 out of 3 in Nuevo Leon, 1 out of 7 in Chiapas and 1 out of 19 in India. Places where more of the labor force works for capitalist firms are richer, because capitalist firms allow for much higher productivity.

Poor places are characterized by the absence of capitalist firms and by self-employment, employment: these are small peasants and farmers or owners of small shop. In these settings, there are no wages, there’s no employment relationship. There are no pensions. There is no unemployment insurance. The trappings of a capitalist labor market do not exist.

 

Edited by Tdot
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Independent1986 said:

It requires to be open minded to understand sarcasm. That's why I placed "sociopaths" with quotes, I was referring to his generalization about capitalism.

It might require understanding of the damage sociopaths can do, to not use sarcasm when referring to it. Anyway, sarcasm in writing is lazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tdot said:

...Our research has uncovered that in the developing world, there are enormous differences in productivity within countries, across their different regions.

That's still partly the fault of capitalism.

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

That's still partly the fault of capitalism.

Not hardly. Humans cannot just up and force [capital + labor] to develop into market entities at any old place in time somewhere out there; Necessity always has to be the mother of invention. Which then brings it back to my original argument here, last week ... that it is unfair to apply societal ills to Capitalism which have nothing to do with Capitalism and everything to do with social imperatives via legislation and law enforcement.

Edited by Tdot
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2020 at 6:22 PM, Right To Left said:

Another bullshit deflection! New York is headquarters of global capitalism and its failures and misery reflect the failure of reliance on capitalism as a guiding principle. 

And capitalism has nothing to do with democracy! When capitalism is in ascendency/ democracy either falls or becomes a pointless exercise....like the propaganda exercise the presidential sweepstakes have turned in to!

I have to make some very clear distinctions about both the left and right political and ideological alignments of capitalist and socialist dogma.  Neither system of beliefs is perfect and neither is totally bad.   And neither is fully encompassing of the simple right/capitalist - left/socialist division.  In my mind, there are five stages from left to right of economic ideology: absolute socialism, social democracy, pragmatic democracy, capitalist democracy and absolute laissez faire capitalist.   The left extreme must by example be an absolute dictatorship - such as USSR and Mao's China where the state owns virtually ALL of the means of production and as history shows, it is not sustainable nor a very nice place for most of its citizens to live.  It fails because human greed allows a tiny ruling elite to distribute wealth based on their absolute control. The second, social democracy happens when for the sake of being able to inspire people to actually work for common good, they must have some freedom, sense of choice, purpose and most of all self-determination. .  This is where China is today.   The state still owns and controls much of the means of production, but the people have freedoms INCLUDING the right to personal property and some form of self determination at the polls.   Where Mao's China was a hell hole that could not even get the people to feed themselves (starving about 100,000,000 - compare THAT with Wuhan Virus death rate) Deng's China went from zero to hero to clobber the largest economy in the world (and become that) in 30 odd very short years.  The middle ground, that I have labelled pragmatic democracy will freely take from the left and right whatever suits its needs.  Canada fits somewhere within that spectrum and has the potential to exploit that if it ever realizes the perils of the extremes on either side of it (both ideologically and geographically).  Category #4 is a capitalist philosophy that ignores the fact that social policies and systems are essential to a functioning and sustainable society.  The US started off somewhere in that category and has been drifting further to the "right" over time (note: neither political faction of the US Uniparty is any different at all...read on). It also ignores (and is ignorant of) what exists at the right extreme where wealth redistribution is once again controlled by a tiny number of people who have absolute control over virtually everything to satiate their incredible greed.  That is NOT capitalism - as capitalism implies that the means of production are privately owned for the purposes of CREATING wealth, whereas this category amends that to mean MAKING PROFIT.  Once you use the rules to redistribute wealth without adding any value (exactly what the extreme left category does) you have a cadre of people you can label "globalists", "corporatists" or whatever, but in the end they are simply greedy bastards who can take money from your pocket without doing any work and taking little risk and put it in theirs WITHOUT employing capital - just as I said, re-distributing it.  This is what Wall Street and Bay Street do and where it will take us - essentially back to enslavement.  I call this category "Casino Capitalists" because 99% of what it does - trading equities, creating completely artificial instruments (derivatives), M&A activities and most of all BUYING CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT BY OWNING THE OFFICERS AND THE CENTRAL BANK is already in place and moving the US and other parts of the world firmly away from where the democratic process gives the people control of their lives.  The "1%" protests could sense this, but did not seem to understand what was actually happening and form a cohesive and coherent response.  Yes, I am clearly stating that a Wall Street mavern or dot.com hero is no different from an African dictator - just may not use as many bullets on their opponents whom they exploit.

You will note that the common denominator throughout the three sustainable categories is democracy, and the definition of what is not sustainable is the lack of control over their lives and livelihoods by the people.  As is often said: not the perfect system of government, but by far the best one we have ever found.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Marocc ... now I do know of a way that you can legitimately blame capitalism, altho indirectly, and only because of the evil decisions by humans in charge of said Capitalism when it exists and thrives in some 1st-World region; Fascism!

In that case, wealthy powerful Fascists who own the capital and own the corporations which fuel the Capitalism, are hiring laborers or promoting laborers or rewarding laborers only according to their physical resemblance to the owners of the capital. Which means, all excluded employable citizens will unfairly suffer the ills you listed earlier ---because Capitalism is being manipulated, to unfairly deny them an opportunity.

Now again I need to reiterate that Capitalism, itself, did not cause the inequality and poverty ---whereas evil fascists controlling the region's Capitalism, did cause inequality and poverty.

Edited by Tdot
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Okay, you don't see where I'm coming from here. I'm not an academic elitist who gravitated to socialism out of concerns over fairness and utopian desires to make the world a nicer place. It's not even my concerns as a union member that the future for younger workers will provide diminishing returns no matter which industry they work in. My main concerns with maintaining capitalism is that it is at its root, an unstable system for economic management that can't function unless it is able to grow....endlessly..without end. In nature, the only creatures that live like this are cancer cells! 

The Japanese economy has barely grown in thirty years but it survives. I really don't think economic growth is necessary for capitalism to be self-sustaining. Certainly on a micro scale the individual business organizations doesn't require it. Witness the man small mom-and-pop restaurants and stores throughout the West which have operated without expansion for generations. Economic growth by companies is really only needed when they're publicly listed on stock markets because investors expect their money to be grown along with the company. Else why buy stock? That could be changed, though, to focus more on dividends, as a piece of the company's yearly profits. Expansion over the past century was really due to the increasing population - which no longer is - increasing, that is. Except by immigration. And I'm more than willing to lose that and see what happens.

The only real need for expansion we have is due to the continued government borrowing at all levels. Government borrows and borrows year after year and relies chiefly on expansion to make that debt seem smaller. We need to stop borrowing and simply pay for what we want and can afford.

In any event, it is, like Democracy, the worst system except for all the others. And that most certainly includes Socialism, for it has failed miserably everywhere it's been implemented.

 

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Nooooo! This has only been a very temporary uplift if anything, if we take a look back at the full expanse of the history of species on this planet. An 'uplift' that can only be temporary because it is constructed on unleashing a massive oil industry producing carbon fuels, chemical fertilizers and pesticides/while mining the last large stores of essential components - phosphates for making those fertilizers. 

So, the sudden huge increase in food/mostly grain production around the world is already bumping up to the limits of production at a time when the Earth's population approaches 8 billion. For a relatively short time, larger numbers of people were able to get enough to eat, But this system of growing has destroyed most of the topsoil in most of the grain belts (including in the US) and used up supplies of groundwater being used for irrigation. Crunch time is on the horizon, and there's nothing to fix or replace this 'green revolution' of 50 years ago. 

Aside from that, economic measurements like GDP are illusory and do not measure real wealth in poor countries.

So, in the Bangladeshi example, millions have been forced off of public lands where they lived for generations by simple but sustainable farming practices. According to GDP numbers, they had almost no income, since they were growing their own food on their own land and selling a small amount of produce at a local market.

After being kicked off the land to make way for multinational Big Ag producers....just like throughout Africa and Asia, they migrate to already overcrowded cities, where they are stuck taking lousy sweatshop jobs in dirty and dangerous textile mills making clothes for Walmart and other western buyers.

On paper, it looks like they've taken a big leap forward from their rural past, so why don't the majority who made the move to the cities see it that way? Largely because their lives are miserable!

They have to spend long hours doing lousy work for low pay, that barely provides a man and a woman enough money to buy poor quality foods at a local market, and pay the rent for some hovel that's barely enough room for a family to turn around in.

And now, it's coming to an end in this decade, and even we will see higher food prices this decade because of bad effects from climate change and over-reliance on factory farming. 

What those people need to do in those third world poor countries is to first stop having big families. Most of those people living in countries like Bangladesh have way too many children and practice archaic religions, like treating cows like sacred gods. They should have one or two at most children, and then try and get those children educated in the hopes that those children will try and build up their own countries into better productive countries, and finally find a way to get out of poverty and hunger. Nobody in all of the western countries of the world has 5 - 10 children anymore. If they did we would be just as bad off as those in those 3rd world countries are today. If some did then they would not be able to properly feed and clothe and educate their children enough to help them to make it in the world. The population explosion in the third world is what is causing poverty and hunger and killing them. Sadly for them they think that having more children will work for them. Now how dumb is that, eh? They have a brain but they just do not seem to know how to use that brain. Their problem, and not mine. If Canadians can limit themselves to one or three children, then so can they do the same thing also. They just need to stop breeding like flies. Hello? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Argus said:

...the man small mom-and-pop restaurants and stores throughout the West which have operated without expansion for generations. Economic growth by companies is really only needed when they're publicly listed on stock markets because investors expect their money to be grown along with the company... Expansion over the past century was really due to the increasing population - which no longer is - increasing, that is. The only real need for expansion we have is due to the continued government borrowing at all levels.

Here is where, basically, You plagiarized my earlier scholarship I posted at you here :) but it's cool tho. I quoted you above, where you flip-flopped here (on the absence of Capitalism 'expanding' being its only problem re: Equality & Poverty) as you regurgitated what I posted at you earlier today re: "Ricardo Hausman & Dierdrie McCloskey"

lol

I am proud to see...that even though your feelings are hurt, by me, at least you still covet the scholarship I output here.

Edited by Tdot
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cannuck said:

 

You will note that the common denominator throughout the three sustainable categories is democracy, and the definition of what is not sustainable is the lack of control over their lives and livelihoods by the people.  As is often said: not the perfect system of government, but by far the best one we have ever found.

Winston Churchill's famous remark, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, taxme said:

What those people need to do in those third world poor countries is to first stop having big families.

The western nations are not more developed because the people are having less children, but they are having less children because the nations are more developed. 1 baby born in the US spends 100 times more of the earth's resources than 1 baby born in Bangladesh.

Edited by Marocc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are some freshly picked apples from any orchard bad? why does it rain on different days of the week? what kind of question is this? there exists blatant loud racism in every country , every culture on every part of this planet . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Marocc said:

1 baby born in the US spends 100 times more of the earth's resources than 1 baby born in Bangladesh.

Maybe that's why 27 babies out of every thousand die in Bangladesh and only 5 out of every thousand in the US.  In Bangladesh, 8% of the total deaths among women of reproductive age are from dying in childbirth.

Quote

The western nations are not more developed because the people are having less children, but they are having less children because the nations are more developed.

Societies seem to do better when women are treated as the other half of the human race instead of just as breeders.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sillywalker said:

Why are some freshly picked apples from any orchard bad? why does it rain on different days of the week? what kind of question is this? there exists blatant loud racism in every country , every culture on every part of this planet . 

But far less here than most countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Marocc said:

The western nations are not more developed because the people are having less children, but they are having less children because the nations are more developed. 1 baby born in the US spends 100 times more of the earth's resources than 1 baby born in Bangladesh.

Well, it should be catch up time for those living in the third world. If a western country is more developed than countries like Bangladesh that is probably due to the fact that the people in the Western countries are having less children, and then that should be a big wake up call and an hint to those in countries like Bangladesh to start doing the same dam thing. Stop breeding like flies and start having smaller families. Otherwise, stop taking some of my tax dollars and giving them away to people who are just to stupid to try and figure and help themselves out. Now this has nothing to do with racism, but more to do with common sense and logic. 

Enough of these sob stories about people living in the third world countries. I live in Canada, and that will be my only concern. If people believe in foreign aid, then let them donate their own money to foreign aid. Stop using my tax dollars for foreign aid. I am not my brothers world's keeper. My opinion, and my own opinion works well for me. ;)

More from you and your anti-American communist nonsense again.Why are you bringing up what one American baby costs the earth's resources for anyway? Who cares? And what about Canadians? How much of earth's resources are Canadians and Europeans using? Just curious. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sillywalker said:

Why are some freshly picked apples from any orchard bad? why does it rain on different days of the week? what kind of question is this? there exists blatant loud racism in every country , every culture on every part of this planet . 

Well, according to the leftist liberal and socialist media, especially here in Canada, racism only exists in western countries like Canada. The CBC(communist broadcasting corporation)will hardly ever talk about racism in third world countries. All they seem to be more interested in is and want to do is always just look for racism in western countries like Canada. Indeed, every country on earth has some racism going on inside their borders. 

If people in the western countries of the world are so racist, than why in the hell are they all flooding their western countries with millions and millions of third world immigrants every year? Immigration from nonwestern countries should be way down to zero if that were the case that all Western countries are racist, and full of western racists. Personally, I believe and think that Canada should become a bit more of a racist country because of our present day immigration policy that appears to be in favor of more non-western immigration rather than western immigration these days. If our present day immigration policy continues we may just start to see some racism picking up speed in Canada. Hey, we never know, eh?

There are plenty of people in this western country called Canada who are starting to think this way that they are starting to find themselves being outnumbered by foreigners of too many foreign and different cultures and beliefs. Aw well, what more can be said at this time. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2020 at 4:04 PM, taxme said:

There are plenty of people in this western country called Canada who are starting to think this way that they are starting to find themselves being outnumbered by foreigners of too many foreign and different cultures and beliefs. Aw well, what more can be said at this time. ;)

I wish I was made of Teflon, but everytime I get a little racist, I get complete shit for it. I will say this... Canada has way too many Asians. I didn't seem to mind before, but now i'm hearing CCP run gangs like the United Front trying to drive a wedge into Canada. If we don't want our politics to end up like China, maybe we should be a hard limit, on the amount of new Asians coming in. Since China has become a totalitarian dystopia... It would be nice to distance ourselves as much as possible. Mass immigration is bad for national security.

Edited by ProudConservative
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

I wish I was made of Teflon, but everytime I get a little racist, I get complete shit for it. I will say this... Canada has way too many Asians. I didn't seem to mind before, but now i'm hearing CCP run gangs like the United Front trying to drive a wedge into Canada. If we don't want our politics to end up like China, maybe we should be a hard limit, on the amount of new Asians coming in. Since China has become a totalitarian dystopia... It would be nice to distance ourselves as much as possible. Mass immigration is bad for national security.

Massive 3rd world immigration is going to kill our British/European Canada. I am at a total loss as to why we have so many stupid politicians who believe that mixing dozens of different foreign 3rd world languages, religions, cultures and traditions is going to somehow make Canada great. What it will do is eventually start up tribal or ethnic turfs where this culture will live over here, and the next culture will live over there, and so on and so on. And many of those cultures cannot get along with those other cultures. Thus, racism and ethnic conflicts could spring up all over Canada and creating more problems for this once great British/European nation. And with the stupid pro massive immigration leftist politicians that we have already, one would have to get the impression that this is their plan all along. Cause division and hatred, and one can control the people. If one wants to save their country from too many incompatible foreign cultures and invasion then one must start to show a bit of racism just to try and save their country from foreign invaders. One must start to show more patriotism and nationalism racism if they want to save their western homeland from becoming what could turn out in the end to become just another 3rd world hell hole.  

Our dear comrade leader Teflon don Trudeau loves and admires his communist China. How can any leader living in a Western free country say and admire a communist country like China? China is a threat, and is enemy #1 to the rest of the world, and China must have plenty of sanctions placed against it just like what was done with apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid was eliminated because of sanctions placed against SA, and if we put heavy sanctions against China, communism in China could be eliminated. Hey, we never know, eh?       Btw, do you know where one can find and buy some snowflake repellent? Just asking.  ;)

Edited by taxme
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.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...