• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Values do not include Canada for younger generation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Got a question and need some military straight up no-nonsense thoughts or maybe even if possible, facts. Let me know if its opinion or fact on this.

Has anybody heard of the mega-rich George Soros? Apparently all over facebook that he is super wealthy and supports everything liberal or "left-sided"

There is rumblings he backed Trudeau and is backing Mrs Clinton. Thoughts on him? Info?

I put this question here because all the allegations seem to indicate he is a "string puller" of the world puppets or this just conspiracy garble?

On that note, does anybody know of some alleged UN agenda 2030 to make the world all one happy place (where everybody but the super elite are equally depressed)?
 
ArmyRick said:
Got a question and need some military straight up no-nonsense thoughts or maybe even if possible, facts. Let me know if its opinion or fact on this.

Has anybody heard of the mega-rich George Soros? Apparently all over facebook that he is super wealthy and supports everything liberal or "left-sided"

There is rumblings he backed Trudeau and is backing Mrs Clinton. Thoughts on him? Info?

I put this question here because all the allegations seem to indicate he is a "string puller" of the world puppets or this just conspiracy garble?

On that note, does anybody know of some alleged UN agenda 2030 to make the world all one happy place (where everybody but the super elite are equally depressed)?

George Thoros is just a really rich guy. He uses his considerable money and influence to support various causes that he personally identifies with. He's supports various pro-democratic movements, and his a huge philanthropists.

Many people assume that this means he is part of a huge global conspiracy to shape the direction of world politics. I think he's just a guy with a lot of money throwing it and things that he thinks are important. The only difference between him and the people on this site is that he actually has money and influence. I don't see any conspiracy or anything wrong with him.
 
Many of the various foundations which are directly or indirectly supported by Soros do end up in Canadian politics.  Vivian Krause has documented this (one article here, but this has also been extensively documented in the National Post.

Avaas, a spinoff of Moveon.Org, also entered Canadian politics in the 2011 elections, in an attempt to influence voters against the Conservative Party. And much of the influence peddling that Krause and others document involve chains of payments resembling money laundering so a "Canadian" group can fund activism without seeming to be the puppet of an American organization.

And Soros funded organizations all fall on the hard left end of the political spectrum.

While it is his money and he is free to fund whatever he wants, it is a bit chilling to know that at least $300 million dollars is being spent by foreign lobby groups to cripple a resource sector worth 8% of Canada's economy, or that while rabid calls are constantly being made in the United States to "eliminate big money" from politics, one of the biggest money sources seems conspicuously absent whenever big donors are being publicly brought out for shaming attacks.

So while Soros isn't the head of SPECTRE or anything like that I would suggest he is certainly an individual who should be watched and reported on much more.
 
Thucydides said:
Many of the various foundations which are directly or indirectly supported by Soros do end up in Canadian politics.  Vivian Krause has documented this (one article here, but this has also been extensively documented in the National Post.

Avaas, a spinoff of Moveon.Org, also entered Canadian politics in the 2011 elections, in an attempt to influence voters against the Conservative Party. And much of the influence peddling that Krause and others document involve chains of payments resembling money laundering so a "Canadian" group can fund activism without seeming to be the puppet of an American organization.

And Soros funded organizations all fall on the hard left end of the political spectrum.

While it is his money and he is free to fund whatever he wants, it is a bit chilling to know that at least $300 million dollars is being spent by foreign lobby groups to cripple a resource sector worth 8% of Canada's economy, or that while rabid calls are constantly being made in the United States to "eliminate big money" from politics, one of the biggest money sources seems conspicuously absent whenever big donors are being publicly brought out for shaming attacks.

So while Soros isn't the head of SPECTRE or anything like that I would suggest he is certainly an individual who should be watched and reported on much more.

:goodpost:

The contentious issue is, IMO, that the "head of SPECTRE" is exactly how a lot of people (including some on this site) view George Thoros. A polarizing figure to say the least.
 
Jed said:
Thank God there are many youth who resist the trend and are blessed with critical thinking and common sense.
Please ask them to join this site.  ;)
 
The US version of this discussion http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/children-revolution
 
Thucydides said:
... Bernie Sanders could easily have said "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, niente contro lo Stato." and millions of Bernie Bros would have fallen all over themselves ...
And if you don't know where the bit in yellow came from, it wasn't from a socialist ...
Journeyman said:
Please ask them to join this site.  ;)
And post!  ;D
 
>And if you don't know where the bit in yellow came from, it wasn't from a socialist ...

Benito and Iosef didn't differ much.  Substitute "party nomenklatura" for "aristocracies" and you're all the way there.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>And if you don't know where the bit in yellow came from, it wasn't from a socialist ...

Benito and Iosef didn't differ much.  Substitute "party nomenklatura" for "aristocracies" and you're all the way there.
... and uniform colours, but agree 150% - while some might disagree, totalitarian is totalitarian is totalitarian ...
 
Lumber said:
:goodpost:

The contentious issue is, IMO, that the "head of SPECTRE" is exactly how a lot of people (including some on this site) view George Thoros. A polarizing figure to say the least.

And the left have their own bogymen in the Koch Brothers.
 
milnews.ca said:
And if you don't know where the bit in yellow came from, it wasn't from a socialist ...And post!  ;D

Mussolini always considered himself a "man of the Left", and Fascism is a subset of Socialism (the "Fascism is Right Wing" trope is Soviet era propaganda from the 1930's, although Stalin may indeed had felt that things like Fascism and National Socialism were to the "right" of International Socialism).

And I wouldn't have been shocked at all to hear Bernie Sanders proclaim "Tutto nello Stato,niente al di fuori dello Stato,nulla contro lo Stato", since there is effectively no other way to fulfill his promises.....
 
I see that he was kicked out over a disagreement on support for the war.  I didn't see anything which proclaimed the Italian Socialist Party to be the arbiter of who is and is not "a man of the Left".

The problem remains: recycling old ideas without recycling old totalitarianism.
 
On today's agenda:

The ownership of the means of production;

The brotherhood of man;

The role of the church.

Yes or no?
 
Thucydides said:
You owe me a new keyboard!!!!!

Well apparently you all owe me a new audi for my birthday and $2,900/mo.. if I can get like 3 or like 4 sponsors.. I am GOLden!
 
Colin P said:
the problem is that people might start identifying purely on a regional basis, possibly going smaller and smaller till you get a tribal society and we have seen what they are like. Global thinking is for the relaxed and well fed. Modern society can degenerate very quickly as it is very dependent on everything working. Nationalism got bad rap but it was better than what came before.

Band tribalism is the natural state of man, the ability to see and hourly connect with one's confers as we were in pre-history, as we are in today's social settings is a normal state.  The Nation state has run it's course, it no longer provides protection under law and order because of liberalized justice, it no longer provides economic opportunity because of globalism, it is no longer homogeneous because of liberalized immigration, it is no longer safe because war is now played out on it's streets on it's citizens.  Other than a hollow "I am Canadian" which means dynamically opposite things depending on which Canadian you talk to, there is actually little that binds us beyond the fear of taking the next step of dissolving ourselves.

Edit:  All humans are out for themselves to some extent.  We train them to be something more but we train a very small portion of the population.  This generation is not seeing the benefits of being Canadian.  There are no quality jobs with pensions and benefits, there is no home ownership, there is no vacations, none of the future their parents and grandparents enjoy. The lack of opportunity for the majority is incredible and more incredible how quickly it came about, less than one generation we sold our prosperity.  In 1977 I was looking forward to a life of steady job at the local plant making high union wages with minimum education.  In 2016 my grandkids are looking at minimum wage with high education in the hopes of competing for one the few high wage jobs that still exist locally.  We mismanaged our nation for the short term gain of ourselves.
 
Lightguns said:
Band tribalism is the natural state of man, the ability to see and hourly connect with one's confers as we were in pre-history, as we are in today's social settings is a normal state.  The Nation state has run it's course, it no longer provides protection under law and order because of liberalized justice, it no longer provides economic opportunity because of globalism, it is no longer homogeneous because of liberalized immigration, it is no longer safe because war is now played out on it's streets on it's citizens.  Other than a hollow "I am Canadian" which means dynamically opposite things depending on which Canadian you talk to, there is actually little that binds us beyond the fear of taking the next step of dissolving ourselves.

Edit:  All humans are out for themselves to some extent.  We train them to be something more but we train a very small portion of the population.  This generation is not seeing the benefits of being Canadian.  There are no quality jobs with pensions and benefits, there is no home ownership, there is no vacations, none of the future their parents and grandparents enjoy. The lack of opportunity for the majority is incredible and more incredible how quickly it came about, less than one generation we sold our prosperity.  In 1977 I was looking forward to a life of steady job at the local plant making high union wages with minimum education.  In 2016 my grandkids are looking at minimum wage with high education in the hopes of competing for one the few high wage jobs that still exist locally.  We mismanaged our nation for the short term gain of ourselves.

Speaking as a "fairly" young person, I don't really think young people have as bleak an outlook as some of you have on this site.  There is plenty of work out there, people just have to want to do it. 
 
Humphrey Bogart said:
Speaking as a "fairly" young person, I don't really think young people have as bleak an outlook as some of you have on this site.  There is plenty of work out there, people just have to want to do it.

That may be the biggest part of Canadian and American social problems, and the reason there are so many migrant workers in both countries; increasing the calls for Immigrants.  There are jobs out there, but too many think that those jobs are "BELOW" their social status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top