Pierre Poilievre... Wood Grows on Trees but Money Doesn't

bigplinker said:
There might not be an 'ultra right' wing of the CPC party, but there are plenty of people out west here who are ultra right and calling themselves conservatives. Or what do you call the notion of WEXIT and the yellow-vests?
Click to expand...

What’s your definition of “Ultra Right”?. I’m genuinely curious.
 
Jeff_C said:
I don't know what the ultra right wing people are hoping for? The majority of Canadians are not ultra right wing. So there are few options:

1. CPC moves left and has a chance to win an election
2. CPC moves right and never wins an election
3. CPC splits and therefore splits the vote and never wins an election.
Click to expand...
If it smells like a pig, if it behaves like a pig, and if it looks like a pig... it's certainly a pig.
 
GMC403 said:
What’s your definition of “Ultra Right”?. I’m genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

Not perfect, but it'll do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

The idea that 'the west' is going to separate from Canada is barmy, yet gaining traction; just a sign of the times. Usually spouted by the same people that, among other things, think the natives have no right to complain or protest BUT believe the same natives will be perfectly willing to shirk one set of treaties that are ignored for another.
The Canadian yellow vest movement though, that's just a whole new kind of special.

As far as the OP, the guy speaks the truth. Which alas has no place in today's politics.
 
bigplinker said:
No, that's what the ultra right would like to think, and convince you of. Spouting Rule of Law and Free Economy, to cover up their inherent bigotry and racism, and trust of any system that puts the many before the few.
Click to expand...

Included in your rather divisive definition, do you lump anyone right of Trudeau as 'ultra right'? If so it follows you conclude someone must be 'all in left' when it comes to economy, law, nationalism and, yes, immigration and multiculturalism. Any questioning makes you a bigot racist deplorable even when all the evidence points to legitimate concerns. Seems like a clever way to divide people up and shut down debate. Pretty slick if it's your ideology you want to promote.

Or asking it another way, must you be left or by definition an inherent bigot and racist, and trust any system that puts the many before the few (did you mean few before the many?)? Some media like the CBC and the Liberals sure think so.
 
Politics and religion. Start chatting about either/or, and you're guaranteed to get a heated discussion. How boring.

Back to the first comments of this thread. Pierre should have run for the leader of the Conservatives. Sorry Erin. With Pierre at the helm, Junior Trudeau would have lost, regardless of his kiddie following. I wish I could have seen how Covid would have been dealt with, with Pierre in charge........................
 
bigplinker said:
Not perfect, but it'll do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

The idea that 'the west' is going to separate from Canada is barmy, yet gaining traction; just a sign of the times. Usually spouted by the same people that, among other things, think the natives have no right to complain or protest BUT believe the same natives will be perfectly willing to shirk one set of treaties that are ignored for another.
The Canadian yellow vest movement though, that's just a whole new kind of special.

As far as the OP, the guy speaks the truth. Which alas has no place in today's politics.
Click to expand...


Interesting, Thanks for your perspective.
 
bogusiii said:
Included in your rather divisive definition, do you lump anyone right of Trudeau as 'ultra right'? If so it follows you conclude someone must be 'all in left' when it comes to economy, law, nationalism and, yes, immigration and multiculturalism. Any questioning makes you a bigot racist deplorable even when all the evidence points to legitimate concerns. Seems like a clever way to divide people up and shut down debate. Pretty slick if it's your ideology you want to promote.

Or asking it another way, must you be left or by definition an inherent bigot and racist, and trust any system that puts the many before the few (did you mean few before the many?)? Some media like the CBC and the Liberals sure think so.
Click to expand...

Those are some pretty giant leaps in logic there I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. As the man said, religion and politics have become boring. Used to be they weren't even part of polite conversation. And one thing I've learned is talking about them has never changed ANYONE'S mind.

Let's just say that, personally, I've lost faith in the political system of this country. Liberals throwing away money like it's free and changing the very fabric of this country without any concept of the consequences. PC's doing nothing to avert this change, instead just patting themselves on the back for 'jobs well done', when honestly they haven't done anything in 25 years except sell, work with no one, and leave us without a foot to stand on.

I'll pay my taxes and continue to live in the country (the amount of conservatives I'm meeting making the move back to were they/their family came from in the world, or where they think the rule of law is more idealistic, is kind of mind numbing), with the knowledge that the current predicament we find ourselves in will also change, for better or worse. I've lived a lot of places on this planet, and Canada is still the greatest country in the world. It's just come down a bit from where it once was.
 
bigplinker said:
Those are some pretty giant leaps in logic there I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. As the man said, religion and politics have become boring. Used to be they weren't even part of polite conversation. And one thing I've learned is talking about them has never changed ANYONE'S mind.

Let's just say that, personally, I've lost faith in the political system of this country. Liberals throwing away money like it's free and changing the very fabric of this country without any concept of the consequences. PC's doing nothing to avert this change, instead just patting themselves on the back for 'jobs well done', when honestly they haven't done anything in 25 years except sell, work with no one, and leave us without a foot to stand on.

I'll pay my taxes and continue to live in the country (the amount of conservatives I'm meeting making the move back to were they/their family came from in the world, or where they think the rule of law is more idealistic, is kind of mind numbing), with the knowledge that the current predicament we find ourselves in will also change, for better or worse. I've lived a lot of places on this planet, and Canada is still the greatest country in the world. It's just come down a bit from where it once was.
Click to expand...

My leaps of logic and your stereotypes aside, I think we generally agree on the rest my friend.
 
bigplinker said:
Not perfect, but it'll do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics
Click to expand...

It's always laughable to see an ideology of "national socialism" be classified as "far right", especially as the Soviet propaganda of the time was similar :-/

Far-right politics can lead to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, or genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.
Click to expand...
Yup, also happened in the USSR... Stalin, Mao, Pot, Kim, Xi and consort must belong to the far right then...
 
essorx said:
It's always laughable to see an ideology of "national socialism" be classified as "far right", especially as the Soviet propaganda of the time was similar :-/


Yup, also happened in the USSR... Stalin, Mao, Pot, Kim, Xi and consort must belong to the far right then...
Click to expand...

I found the 'article' incoherent in places and conflating a number of political precepts. I believe the intent was to collect a number of pejorative elements that were intended to miscast aspects of right-wing thinking. Similar to what a number of 'progressive' people do today, hurling labels such as 'racist' or 'homophobe' in order to shutdown reasoned debate on contentious topics.
 
Anthony Nardelli said:
I believe the intent was to collect a number of pejorative elements that were intended to miscast aspects of right-wing thinking. Similar to what a number of 'progressive' people do today, hurling labels such as 'racist' or 'homophobe' in order to shutdown reasoned debate on contentious topics.
Click to expand...

Y'think????????

But then we have essorx busy labelling and categorizing. No doubt that sort of thing will fix it up right quick.
 
bogusiii said:
Y'think????????

But then we have essorx busy labelling and categorizing. No doubt that sort of thing will fix it up right quick.
Click to expand...

It runs a little deeper than that. Progressive academics were determined to distance early American Progressive ideology from NAZI/Fascist ideology in the aftermath of WW II. The association was created by them to harm their rivals on the right and is perpetuated today, although it is generally done in a less cultivated matter. Most people do not know the roots of the political spectrum and simply accept what has been declared by select theorists; the characteristics of various ideologies has drifted as the decades pass. To be blunt, socialism is to be considered to be on the left side of the political spectrum and Communism, Fascism, and Nazism are simply different forms of socialism.
 
Last edited:
Anthony Nardelli said:
It runs a little deeper than that. Progressive academics were determined to distance early American Progressive ideology from NAZI/Fascist ideology in the aftermath of WW II.
Click to expand...
Do you have any good reading about this ? I'm genuinely interested to learn more about that.
 
bogusiii said:
My leaps of logic and your stereotypes aside, I think we generally agree on the rest my friend.
Click to expand...

'My stereotypes'? I posted a definition from Wikipedia (with the caveat it's close enough, which is to say it's not ideal), and referenced personal experiences working in the oil field, talking with people who literally have no idea how economy and politics work, cohesively or not.
You care to argue with it, you can literally go in and edit it yourself. Just be prepared to back up your assertions. They're kind of important when you're writing the definition of something.

And can people PLEASE stop referencing totalitarian regimes as being an example of any spectrum of the political sphere. And lumping Nazism and Fascism in with Socialism? Anthony Nardelli, you're crazy, (which hey, is fine, we're called gun nutz for a reason), but more importantly, you think everyone else is an idiot, which is more than just insulting.
If you're going to educate yourself, maybe you should include the really important part of any education, which is getting graded on your understanding of the knowledge you pertain to understand. The so called Peer Review part of legitimate academics. I'm thinking you left that part out.
 
Last edited:
bigplinker said:
And lumping Nazism and Fascism in with Socialism?
Click to expand...
Do you even realize that Nazism is short for german "Nationalsozialismus", literally National Socialism. It's in the freaking name, ffs. A. H. was opposed to capitalism and while also opposing communism praised Stalinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics
During World War I, German sociologist Johann Plenge spoke of the rise of a "National Socialism" in Germany within what he termed the "ideas of 1914" that were a declaration of war against the "ideas of 1789" (the French Revolution).[113] According to Plenge, the "ideas of 1789" which included the rights of man, democracy, individualism and liberalism were being rejected in favour of "the ideas of 1914" which included the "German values" of duty, discipline, law and order.[113] Plenge believed that ethnic solidarity (Volksgemeinschaft) would replace class division and that "racial comrades" would unite to create a socialist society in the struggle of "proletarian" Germany against "capitalist" Britain.[113] He believed that the "Spirit of 1914" manifested itself in the concept of the "People's League of National Socialism".[114] This National Socialism was a form of state socialism that rejected the "idea of boundless freedom" and promoted an economy that would serve the whole of Germany under the leadership of the state.[114] This National Socialism was opposed to capitalism due to the components that were against "the national interest" of Germany, but insisted that National Socialism would strive for greater efficiency in the economy.[114] Plenge advocated an authoritarian, rational ruling elite to develop National Socialism through a hierarchical technocratic state,[115] and his ideas were part of the basis of Nazism.
Click to expand...

Also : https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

[...] he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed. The state could control, after all, without owning, guided by a single party, the economy could be planned and directed without dispossessing the propertied classes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom