Traitors Among Us Is A Book For Further Reading On This Subject.

What a charmingly simplistic analysis of Canadian history. Yet another attempt by the left to claim exclusive ownership of the "Canadian identity" by wrapping itself and its social democratic agenda in the mantle of peace, order and big...uh, good government.

"Canada, has been championed as an alternative society to 'America' since time immoral."

I'm sure the author meant "immemorial", which is an odd claim, given that the lifetime of both Canada and the US as distinct political entities can be measured in only hundreds of years, with a pretty clear historical record documenting the progression of both. Perhaps the individual defines immemorial as being before the founding of the CCF.

"As Canada has evolved, since its cultural-political inception since 1535, the essence of its society has taken a distinctively socially progressive national identity."

I'm sure there are some aboriginal leaders who would challenge that claim.

And of course, the author proceeds to the usual tearing down of another country to make us feel better about ours. Honestly, does one have to think of oneself as better than another to justify being different from him?

Our lack of a unifying national identity (which is, for better or worse, what the much maligned "melting pot" did for the US) has led to a tug-of-war over which template to adopt. Social democrats push us to emulate Sweden, traditional Tories cling to the Union Jack, and modern conservatives look more to the US. Surely there's a better model for nation building than cut-and-paste. For whatever faults the American system may have, at least they built their own.

Canada's struggle with identity undoubtedly has much to do with the way in which the country was conceived. We were given such a negative, cynical and ignoble founding mission - to serve as a human fence to keep those nasty republican hordes from advancing north. Britain eventually warmed up to the US and started neglecting us, but we kept the old family feud going, because we didn't have any other real reason to exist.

I will admit that there is a tendency towards statism in Canada that runs throughout Canadian history, from the old Tories to the Pearson/Trudeau Liberals to even Brian Mulroney, who liked big government as much as any Liberal. That's not surprising for a young country. But as we have matured as a society and an economy, many of us have come to believe that it is time for Canada to take the training wheels off.

Hey! indie
Good to see you back
come to get beat up again?


When you run out of responses for the warmongers you always scurry off


---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

OOPS! How rude of me, I forgot your gift<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/evilempire/">http://www.fourmilab.ch/evilempire/</a><p>---<br> [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]<br />
<br />
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" <br />
<br />
lex ferenda

OK Indie, I fully agree that Canada should take the training wheels off and have been championing it for decades.

But which way should Canada go, when its economy is controlled from abroad through the phoney theories of "free trade" and "foreign investment", in other words colonization with the perceived power of imaginary money. Especially with worthless US dollars.

Canada is one of the few countries on Earth that could go independent and self sufficient. But that would never be permitted by the "righties" and those who still believe in the conquering and collectivizing rights of power elites. In the name of "individualism", or course. Just as Hitler and Stalin were claiming the promotion of "freedom".

So, what is better, which way should Canada pedal without the training wheels, "statism", or "globalization under mega corporations"?

Ed Deak.

Canada is one of the few countries on Earth that could go independent and self sufficient. But that would never be permitted by the....?

I'm not certain that just governments and big corporations lead Canadians on their destiny. Canadians have followed the sheep herder for several decades. Canadians react to "what is" but seldom for what "is to come". Most Canadians appear complacent and reactionary but rarely individualistic. Perhaps Canadians can start thinking on their own and doing more themselves rather then waiting for big brother. The traitors amongst us is sometimes ourselves.
You, yourself, Ed has been in a position where you and only you saved your life and livelyhood. You didn't demand from the government to gain what you gained. Personaly I get tired of listening to people who don't try but begrudge those that do. Canadians have to stand up on their own feet and defy those who are trying to put them down. We have done so in the past.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Nobody is more individualistic than I am, but this can only be achieved in democracy, where people's right to be reasonably free, within limits, is protected and respected, with the word "protection" being the most important one.

I was sentenced to death once, and then to the gulags , saved by miracles in both cases, because the state was in the hands of criminals and there was nobody to protect me and millions more, suffering the same fate.

What I can see now is the creeping poison of corporate fascism taking over, and I know the smell of it only too well, having grown up in and with it, always under the guise of criminal ideological economic theories, empowering power elites to search, conquer and destroy.

Just last night we saw a clip on TV about one of the chocolate biggies, I think it was Hershey, closing their factory in Montreal and moving it to Mexico, with 600 jobs lost. This started with Gillette closing up in 1988, 2 or 3 days after Mulroney's 43% majority victory, with the passing of the FTA assured and this crime wave hasn't stopped since.

We have the ideal form of freedom and democracy here with our neighbours, all in the cattle business. We keep our fences in good repair, if our animals stray over to the others we sort them out, fix the fences and bring them home. We visit each other, have dinners, without demands on others, and if I'd pick up the phone right now, dial one number and shout in "Help!" there would be a string of pickups tearing down our road in 5 minutes.

This is how it also should be between societes and nations.

Individualism and freedom doesn't mean the freedom of interference, taking, or giving orders, and stealing the eyes out of others.

Canada had a pretty good system going in the 50s and 60s, with a reasonable division between wages and profits and enough protection to give everybody a chance to pursue jobs and professions suitable for their inborn talents.

This has been destroyed by a pseudo priesthood of economists preaching exploitation and fraud, used by ruling class of crooks, exactly as religions have been used before by aristocracies, with the unrestricted power to enslave and steal.

When I see railway workers getting killed by worn out equipment, while, at the same time their foreign CEO is pocketing $13. million in a year, I think it is time to ask, what the hell is going on here?

Think globally and be enslaved !

In my long held opinion, economic systems should work on the principle of road systems, where all vehiclas, big, or small, are free to travel anywhere, within strict laws, protecting life and property, enforced by an independent authority, which should be the elected government, who are now selling our hides off to the buyers who offer the most lucrative string of directorships.

Ed Deak, ........dyed in the wool protectionist, but not isolationist.

What's the matter Diogenes? Were you getting bored reading all those posts from people who agree with you?

I do have a life outside of this. I participate when it's fun, and refrain when it's not. Unlike some others, I don't delude myself into thinking that I can change the world by ranting on an online forum.

And as for getting "beat up", this sort of debate is like people hitting each other with foam mallets. Nobody actually gets hurt, and little gets accomplished other than a little venting. I do pretty well seeing that I'm taking on a pack, but the pack is unlikely to echo that assessment.

I know I'm not likely to change any of your minds, so I'm not going to be disappointed when I fail to do so. All I can do is continue to point out your hypocrisy and skewed moral sense when it comes to your views on the United States, and your presumptuousness in labelling free enterprise and promotion of individual liberty as anti-Canadian.

Oh, am I being outrageous again?

The problem is, you're not promoting free enterprise, or individualism, only repeating time worn slogans to destroy and replace it with the dictatorship of a self imposed power elite, using the perceived power of imaginary capital, instead of the bayonets of the GPU, to colonize and enslave.

Once you discover what free enterprise and individualism really mean, perhaps we can have some meaningful exchanges.

Ed Deak.

Only in your world would a couple of folks giving you slight notice constitute agreement.
The problem with your idea of pointing out hypocrisy is that it is hypocritical to ignore one form while targeting another, the same goes for what you call a skewed moral sense.
America is now taken the place of Nazi Germany in the world view and you champion that?



The posters here have made it a point of speaking out about the attitudes of American legislators, as they do with Canadian legislators, and not of the American people, something ignored by you.

indie, dear Boy, in or out of rageousness … its all the same with you.
Your assertions have been knocked down at every turn.

Ever since 9/11 America is hardly the poster country for liberty.









---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

"For whatever faults the American system may have, at least they built their own."

Yes, and until it was taken over by the corporate elites and their minions it was a damn fine system.

Now the ownership class, so well represented by the current US "commander in thief", wants to destroy the very Constitution that made the United States great in the first place.

And yes, Canada does need to take the training wheels off.

And part of this process involves taking back both direct ownership and control over this nation's strategic resources; and if that means telling the corporately controlled US government to go f*ck it's collective self, then so be it.

That means Canada first, no exceptions.

Unfortunately for us, Harper and the rest of his dogmatically inbred kind think that giving everything we have to a foreign power at fire sale prices is the best thing that could happen to Canada.

Under their careful care and stewardship, Canada has been systematically betrayed at every turn.

That certain parties here on Vive are under the spell of these cretins is no longer my concern; for all I care, these parties can die in their ignorance.

I have no beef at all with the American people in general.

I do however have serious issues with the ownership class of both Canada and the United States, and those who are it's willing servants.

Anyone who mindlessly buys into their propaganda is neither free, or deserving of being so.


---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

"For whatever faults the American system may have, at least they built their own."
OH Really?
Did they now?
and the evidence to support this claim is...?

You really have No IDEA of what you are talking about,none zip, zilch, zero, Nada.

Exactly who are the "they" ?


---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

Hate playing the "devil's advocate" here, but I think Indy means the Americans.

Now, whether or not he's actually referring to the founding fathers is something I do not know.

That I was referring to the founding fathers should be obvious.

If I were an American, I would be a staunch Constitutionalist.

What Individualist is I will not try to deduce. Instead I will let you judge that based on what Indy says himself.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Yes, and until it was taken over by the corporate elites....... snip
.......is neither free, or deserving of being so.

Very well said, Deacon!


---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

"The posters here have made it a point of speaking out about the attitudes of American legislators, as they do with Canadian legislators, and not of the American people, something ignored by you."

The original post in this thread very clearly criticizes American culture, values and institutions, not simply the attitudes of American legislators. It's plain to see you are no better at reading English than you are at writing it.

I'll try to explain this in a manner that perhaps even you can understand. If I were to write a piece lauding the virtues of Christianity by comparing it to Islam, and in the process throw broad criticisms at Muslim values, history and culture, would Muslims not see it as an attack upon themselves as a people? If I were to make a similar critique of Quebecois culture in relation to Anglo-Canadian culture, would Quebecois individuals not take similar offense?

I take great care to not equate criticism of the Bush administration or American corporations with anti-Americanism. I liked how Deacon distinguished between the American system as originally conceived and the flawed way in which is it currently operating.

I don't object to people calling the Bush administration evil. I do object to comparisons to Nazi Germany, because I consider that regime, along with the USSR, to be unique and extreme examples of militaristic, totalitarian evil. The "great powers" of the colonial age invaded and conquered countries. I don't think that simply being warlike or imperialistic is sufficient cause to pin the hakenkreutz on a country.