• Agree 2
  • Disagree 5

You disagreed. (Undo) (Show Numbers)

29% agree
71% disagree

Source: very good read. here is a left wing leaning libertarian, warning you about the real dangers of what liberals are doing. unless you live in an echo chamber, you'd do well to read it. very good read. here is a left wing leaning libertarian, warning you about the real dangers of what liberals are doing. unless you live in an echo chamber, you'd do well to read it.

Swipe to go to another post.

Wow. So first of all the irony of echoing this post while accusing others for living in an echo chamber notwithstanding...

The first key point the author makes is "Trump will only turn out to be more dangerous in the short-term if he blunders his way into a nuclear war." Key words 'the the short term'. The writer clearly understands that the policies of the right wing have very negative long term implications as history has proven time and again.

His first real argument is: the word that immediately comes to mind (re: Trudeau) is twit. The writer supports that argument with this fact: it is exactly how I feel. Good one!

The basis of the next phase of his theses (two to three paragraphs in fact) can be summed up as nationalism. He claims because Trudeau doesn't 'echo' nationalist claptrap that he must hate his country. Whatever. You can love your country and still support open borders. Hardly the rhetoric filled rant about "nihilistic, and suicidal desire to transform our country into a borderless, ghettoized, and completely unrecognizable country" offered with no evidence other than one time he said "diversity is our strength", which by the way, is as true today as it was when the French and English joined with the native peoples (later joined by Germans, Poles, Italians and Chinese) to create this powerhouse of a continent. The writer then goes on to claim diversity = weakness using a misquoted dictionary definition. The whole argument falls apart on the face of historical evidence and the failed regimes that have sought to purify their bloodlines.

He goes on spewing similar arguments about the horrors of political correctness, diversity and tolerance 'echoing' the same arguments used by Pol Pot, Hitler, Aung San Suu Kyi and Kim Jung-un.

I'm wanted this to be a good article that made me think, but it is just more 'keep Canada pure' echoes.

+2   3  Reply

VicZinc 4 months ago

Honestly, I don't know enough about the politics over there to know whether I agree or disagree, certainly not enough to voice an opinion but it's an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

+2   2  Reply

OzSurfer 4 months ago

Trudeau, along with most other western leaders and lawmakers, are dangerous. Well-meaning, perhaps, but dangerous nonetheless. In fits and spurts of doubleplusgood bellyfeel they are eroding the very foundation of western societies...freedom of expression, and increasingly thought, are being criminalized.

I have no problem with immigration. I have no problem with diversity. I have no problem with compassion. I have a huge problem with the idea that people should be forced to accept, without the freedom to even complain, when immigrants wish to fundamentally change their society; when people can be fined and/or incarcerated for not using arbitrary labels; when one person's diversity infringes upon another's rights; when questioning, seeking other viewpoints, stating one's opinion, or even believing differently from the officially approved narrative is the only unacceptable form of "diversity".

As always...JMHO

+5   5  Reply

Bozette 4 months ago

I was surprised the author, and evidently many others, have a problem with the statement "diversity is our strength". To me it seems a rather innocuous statement about tolerance; not some Orwellian slogan designed to undermine rational thinking.

I found the main proposition of the article, that Justin Trudeau is far more dangerous than Donald Trump, to be preposterously false. Rather than 'diversity' the author should have looked up the definition of 'dangerous'.

The only way Trudeau is more dangerous than Trump is if he has the authority to launch Russia's nuclear weapons.

+1   2  Reply

PhilboydStudge 4 months ago

In response to “I was surprised the author, and evidently...

"Diversity" is something both necessary and antithetical to any collective human endeavor. Whether it is the former or the latter depends upon degree. Marriages, partnerships, clubs, organizations, societies, and nations are formed primarily through commonalities. A small degree of diversity is indeed desirable, as the weaknesses of each (individual or segment) can be compensated for by the strengths of the other(s). From couples to countries, complimentary differences form stronger unions. Fundamental differences, however, do not.

As an example, a couple with one spouse who is a charismatic evangelical fundamentalist who wishes for as many children as God will bless them with is not likely a good mate for an atheist whose primary concerns are overpopulation and anthropogenic climate change. The same is true no matter the size of the group. Countries where the populations are largely homogeneous tend to be happier and more successful societies. Hence the reason Scandinavian countries, especially, have long rated high on such scales. That is beginning to change, and the change is directly attributable to a large influx of people who wish to change those societies, rather than integrate. When borders are arbitrarily drawn, without the homogeneity of the people factored in, we see volatility and/or a dominance of one people over others within the country...just look at the countries in the ME for proof, from those formed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement to modern-day Israel.

It is human nature to gravitate to others like us. A certain amount of diversity is desirable, a larger amount can be accommodated, as the "melting pot" model proved here in America. The "salad bowl" works great when each ingredient is a separate society/country. Our differences can then be enjoyed and celebrated through travel, trade, and diplomatic relations...but we will never truly live the 'Kumbayafest' dream of the globalists. Trying to force such a society destroys both the individuality of people groups that is their beauty and any goodwill that originally existed between such groups.

Trudeau, like many Western leaders, is trying to force just such a society. A uniting factor among many Trump voters was his call to mind our own business. Unfortunately, he inherited a situation borne of long decades of American interference in other nations/regions of the world. How he handles that inheritance will define both how dangerous he is and ultimately his legacy...both of which remain to be seen. Trudeau and Merkel and the like promote an insidious danger, one that is likely to have a far greater and longer-lasting effect upon the world.

Again, as always...JMHO.


Bozette 4 months ago