ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
What I'm really opening for is that we may get an Overton expansion to the right, a CPC re-absorption of the PPC, and open calls for very low levels of immigration and the end of DEI/affirmative action. Anything that puts those ideas into the mainstream is a win.
If there's anything that's going to happen in that regard, it's going to be provincially.
I am already lamenting that we wont get a confident and high-agency Western government with a large majority to reverse the damage Big City Easternism has wrought.
[O'Toole] was much more palatable to the average Canadian and far less vulnerable to the changing of the winds.
Lol, lmao even. That flip-flopping is part of what cost them the election in '21- on the right flank, it's worth noting.
So I guess I'm hoping for a small Liberal minority that chides the Liberals and forces them to do a better job.
The last 6 years suggests this will not happen.
The only other thing to add is the real loser in all this might be the NDP.
Yeah, polarization (an American cultural import) means the Western Socialists are no longer viable. The Bloc is the same way when the people of Quebec get scared the rest of the country's going to take away their toys, which is why the Liberals are doing that well in the polls in the first place.
The other half of me finds it a bit galling that the Liberals might escape ten years of misrule and divisive politics without punishment. They are for better or for worse the natural ruling party of Canada
Upper Canada, its interest party, and those who voted it in have done nothing but destroy the future of this country and its culture without consequence, and I hope the trade war they (and it is exclusively they) are insisting we wage destroys it forever. Fortunately, the manner in which they will wage it has a higher likelihood of doing that.
As discontent with their governance rises, so does the probability of a serious secessionist movement.
It's worth noting that the polls (that show Upper and Lower Canada once again uniting to fuck up the rest of the country) show the West voting even harder for their regional interest party. Once the Alberta metro areas start seriously considering this, and extended trade war applied in sufficient quantities (on the Canadian side- tariffs are federal, and the LPC and its voters will gladly burn the nation down this way for ego reasons) will accomplish this, it's over.
If Alberta votes to secede, they will be backed by the full weight of the American establishment, up to declaring war if necessary.
The best ending for us at this point is that the West leaves Canada for good, and becomes part of a full free-trade economic union with the United States but still a nation in its own right. I don't think the Alberta public will accept outright joining the Union as a new State, at least at first; actually, I don't think BC, SK, or MB will either. This is for the same reason that some US territories outright reject Statehood. Ottawa and Toronto will be able to apply more pressure on the parts of Ontario that are not them so it'll take them longer and Atlantic Canada is utterly dependent on government handouts for survival so they'll never leave willingly. There are far more entrenched economic interests in the East compared to the West, and the ones that do exist out West are more heavily enmeshed with American interests.
And then there's the matter of who they'd be voting for in US elections with full Statehood, and the fact that being under American dominion means American institutions, and American institutions means American grievances, and American grievances are wrong and bad (witness how much damage they have done to the whole of Canada already!) so if we can limit the damage they do that's good.
The ultimate problem for AB right now is that it's landlocked, so it needs to be able to cut a path to the sea to sell its wares (the closest warm-water port is Kitimat and it would become a nation away should it leave the Dominion). Having no border between it and the states to its immediate South will help with this, but it'll still be at a disadvantage.
Imagine Vancouver becoming a city-state, we'd pour money in, we'd guarantee their sovereignty
Vancouver will only become a city state should the rest of the province seek a divorce. This isn't a hypothetical when you look at the election map: the current government has literally zero seats outside the GVRD and Island yet the interest party for those areas forms a majority government. Clear evidence of irreconcilable differences, much like the West is to (Upper and Lower) Canada as a whole.
Again, there are certain trade levers that can be pulled to make that happen; the US dropping its softwood import tariff conditional upon desired political realignment and ensuring northern reserves of natural gas are legal to extract would be one of them.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
I don't think we should defund religious soup kitchens because the people doing them are religious, and I don't think we should get rid of libraries because the people who show up are on the other team.
But the fact they're religious doesn't make their [secular context] mission of "offering soup" worse, and we're generally not using government funding to run them (though it does still happen occasionally; most of the handout comes in the form of being tax-exempt though).
The same cannot be said for the librarians- and the problem is that most of what they like has no literary value. When we were more neutral, those beliefs had to pay rent (so to speak); gay literature is perfectly acceptable (and the pretense that it isn't because muh socons has finally worn out its welcome) but it first and foremost has to succeed on its merits. We pay for those salaries and programs directly with government money, too.
I initially thought Obi-Wan's hyperdrive ring in Attack of the Clones was something that got improved upon for the Imperial era
Jedi Starfighters are fucking tiny and are designed more as infiltration ships than to be actual fighters.
The A-Wing is the closest Imperial age fighter to it, was designed by the same manufacturing firm as a mass-issue version of those design concepts (you kind of need to have better avionics if you aren't using the Force and it still requires absurd skill from its pilots), and has integrated hyperdrive, but it's also physically larger.
N-1s
N-1s are kind of a meme though. The Nubian government's idea of a defense was to send 12 fighters against a Trade Federation battleship and the only reason any of them survived was for bullshit Jedi reasons- they spared no expense with those fighters and it shows because they had no money left over for any other planetary defense.
(Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go play an old game.)
But forcing crossings of St. Lawrence River and the Niagara River is far easier than crossing an ocean
Again, calling these "rivers" is a bit of misnomer. This isn't the Rio Grande where you can more or less just walk across- it's at least half a mile across (miles in some areas), and it's not fordable. It doesn't freeze in the winter any more either, so that's out too.
If you want to invade you need a green-water navy (to get your transports from the Eastern seaboard through the open water, down the mouth of the Seaway), and only then can you start ferrying gear across. This is not a trivial problem- in fact, I argue that the relative difficulty of crossing this body of water until the mid-20th century is the main reason the Canadian identity exists distinct from the American one in the first place.
(This is, of course, ignoring the fact that this would probably all be done by air; the US can drop more tanks out of C-5s in a day than the Canadians have in their history ever fielded.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
The 40% of Canada that doesn't live in Toronto has virtually no political power, and this has been true for the past 150 years.
The controlling empire being American rather than [Upper] Canadian would change relatively little.
You need tanks and planes mobilized on the border.
Something that a lot of people tend to forget is that there is no land border between Canada and the United States. Tanks aren't going to do the US much good here, and that's even if the average Canadian tank wasn't broken down.
Now sure, you can say "but the Western border", and it's true that isn't defensible in the slightest, but it also isn't really Canada, it's just a territorial possession. The people who live there will all say that too, by the way- they vote like it, those who opposed Canada violently in the past are venerated, etc. Just like Quebec, for that matter.
In truth, Canada is (as it was originally, back when it was called Upper Canada) defined as "the peoples who live in the area constrained by 2000km of vast, relatively impassable Ontario wilderness to the West (there is one road, and a lot of bridges along that road), the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence to the South and East, and the French to the North (and they are similarly surrounded by water and wilderness)".
As far as the peoples unprotected by the natural barrier of the St. Lawrence go (where you can just drive across), the fact of the matter is there's nothing out there worth taking that the US doesn't already have. Halifax is strategically significant because there's a warm-water port there, and the Great Lakes ports are not (or at least, they aren't yet). Everywhere else is about as populated as the Territories are: PEI has less than 200,000 residents, and NS only has a million.
Thus, Canada is literally an ocean away from the US (in the absence of those bridges, which for all the faults of the Canadian military they will still have the capacity to destroy in open warfare with the US). And sure, while their tactical situation is completely untenable for other reasons- modern artillery has range sufficient to just sit on the US side of the border and dismantle Canadian industry completely unchallenged, something that wasn't possible in 1812- it's going to take the US long enough to actually get their military pieces into position for foreign military aid to arrive.
While it's likely that Canada would still lose extremely quickly due to a complete lack of will to prosecute a war against an ally offering better terms to its soldiers than the Canadian government ever would, the destruction of Canadian industry in that area would nullify Canada's value as an ally. This isn't a war that can be realistically won by the US primarily with a traditional exercise of military power.
Were I to attempt this I'd exploit the fact that the West is unwilling to fight a war the East gets itself into. Thus, I would target industry most commonly found in the East with a competitive advantage against American industry due to its dirt-cheap power, that being steel and aluminum production, and wait for counter-tariffs and a political split to get the West to the table. And I'd offer the most powerful Western province special treatment- a comparative exemption on tariffs to its strategic resource- to suggest that provinces willing to deal independently of the federal government may have other payoffs (and to further drive a wedge between the West and the East, for the East hates petrochemical development).
Which is probably why those things are happening.
If I were looking for a gotcha passage showing Jesus giving priority to men or being demeaning of women, I feel like I could do better.
That was the impression I had from the exchange (though even if it was 100% true, which I honestly don't believe it is, I'm expecting a first-century Jesus to act in a way common to a first-century people where it isn't conflicting with the job He is doing; that's just the way it works). I'm not bothering to discuss the latter half of the NT because we both know they contain a bunch of this (or at least, the excuse to justify a bunch of this; there's still a lot of 'male should lead and be household's head' too with the implication that it's not a job suitable for women, which gets used as an excuse to underperform or fail to delegate then make that failure the woman's problem).
Interestingly, I find that if you read those letters in a slightly more sophisticated/charitable manner it contains a lot of relatively standard group dynamics stuff. Everyone is aware of, or at least able to conceptualize, someone not being able to shut up during the sermon, and odds are you conceptualize this person as female even if you're a woman. So that + cultural outlook = "women should be silent in church"; it's applying the cultural meme in brain-dead fashion to people for whom it isn't true that creates the issue, but t'was ever thus.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
It's because he's going about it in the worst way possible.
The people who feel the most insulted are also the ones who screwed up the country with their (and it has been exclusively their) idiotic economic policies. I have zero problem with the complete destruction of their culture and their political power, because they have had zero problems with destroying mine.
And I suspect that, should they win again (for the sole purpose of fighting this stupid trade war), that the Western provinces are going to get good enough at foreign diplomacy that this might occur regardless of what Ottawa wants. Alberta in particular has had some success in this and I think that's a bigger deal than others recognize.
The first order of business should be trying to get all tariffs and duties down to zero in both directions, and negotiating some kind of Schengen-style agreement to get rid of border controls.
Of course it should, but if we're going to do that, having some actual political lever to pull for economic policy will be useful. Hence the suggestion that Canada should join the European Union.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
So like 95% of Canada by land mass is already, then. Nothing would change for most of the country if this occurred.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
We've run this experiment and it didn't work.
Flophouses were common in the early 20th century and before.
Living conditions were poor, but they worked just fine.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
portrayals of gay characters in other media
The average middle-schooler is aware of media portrayals of lesbianism. Actually, the upper half of elementary too provided they have an older male sibling. They won't admit it to you, of course, but they do know.
how they live virtuously despite adversity
The actual issue isn't "muh gayness".
Actually, it isn't even the naked people[1].
It's the fact that, more than anything else, it's oppression pornography. It hopes to show oppression, either real or imagined, as the only virtue you need. Hence, if you can find some oppression (the demand vastly exceeds supply in modern societies), or identify with some oppression, then you have the cheat code to life.
That is the harmful message, why people whose political identity is wrapped up in being as much of a victim as possible love reading and writing these books, and they should be removed because books that are written like this are inherently garbage.
[1] Adult traditionalist men usually call this "pornography", but that refers to media that's supposed to be sexually stimulating, and these books are very far from that. Everyone but them understands this instinctively, though, so that complaint falls on deaf ears.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
9: This is rule by dickgirl the "put your money where your mouth is" voting scheme. You buy votes based on what you think will make the polity better, and if it does (by some metric or aggregation of metrics), you get richer. Keep guessing wrong, and you get poorer.
The problems with that are obvious when you think about it for 5 seconds (being that you can just abuse the definition of those metrics and that you can just outright buy laws if you have the cash to do it), but it's an idea.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
For your statistics, I...
- Understand: 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19.
- Certain I've encountered, but I'd have to look up to be sure: 4, 17
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
I'd guess you're thinking of Genesis 2:20, and the idea of the woman as a 'helper' or 'support' for the man?
This is still suggesting inferiority on plain reading. It doesn't have to be, of course... but then we read a little further and we see "your desire shall be for your husband, and he will rule over you". Sure, the context is describing a curse, but that doesn't make it any less pre-ordained to occur.
So this is a real viewpoint, it's backed up relatively well by the text (both testaments), and even Jesus himself backs it up (by the way he addresses the woman at the fountain). Which means that the wicked, and wicked men in particular, will latch onto it and abuse it even in societal conditions that don't obey that fundamental curse as strictly as they once did.
The Church has to find a way to deal with those wicked men in a way that won't drive off the wise or damage the life script for the simple (they're running closer to biology, and traditionalist ways are objectively best for those people). Their success is mixed.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
but then whither Canadian identity?
What Canadian identity? This is a post-national country.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
full social conservatism and progressive economic policy
Of course they wouldn't pivot to this: modern "social conservatism" is progressivism, and the Blue party is their political arm. One only need look at what progressive economic policy is- that being "never develop anything, ever"- to see that.
“Make the rich pay” always comes back into style when the going gets tough
Hence why the Blue party was elected in 2020. Progressivism defines {man, white, straight} as "the rich", and their literal mission statement(s) are about making them pay.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
The parent's less likely to notice the one gay book in the normal stack, and even if the parent does notice, it's likelier to be dismissed as a harmless aberration.
They're also more likely to be actually a decent book (since they had to at least try and be convincing). Now, it's just taken for granted that the gayness makes the book good (since the group progressives form their identity around hating takes for granted that the gayness makes the book bad, and they think that reversed stupidity is intelligence), so you just get a bunch of Chick tracts.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
What do you think makes this predictable though?
Honestly, maybe I'm reaching a bit outside of the standard reactionary "fuck you men, reeee" (though I definitely think this is a major part of it, and understandably so), since that's the only mechanism of action I can come up with.
There was definitely a problem with sexism towards women, something that Christ explicitly warned against.
The problem with sexism in the Church is that on plain reading the Bible outright justifies it. So, the wicked can point to any number of verses that says "women exist for the benefit of men"- like, say, Genesis 1- and have a solid argument that takes words words words to defeat. "Lean not on your own understanding" is fucking catnip to a traditionalist because it means you can do nothing and call it devotion (which the progressives have their own carbon copies of re: "alternate ways of knowing").
It's like the whole point is to grow together, where the interests of one converge into the interests of the other like some sort of... marriage or something. Not sure why the Church would know anything about that, though.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Yes, yes, and yes. Though I hesitate to call them "the new right" because they don't have anything to conserve yet, no entrenched interests to inflate; they're still on the upswing so that hasn't come out yet.
Traditional conservatives have a problem where 2000+ years of sociobiological truth was upended basically overnight 100 years ago- that men and women are a lot closer in socioeconomic standing than the Bible had anything to say about. So you have a pivot away from a civil religion that had no answer for that to one that could- and predictably, the one that won out almost immediately was "women good man bad".
Christianity has had no productive answer to that ever since. It's not something they're equipped to handle proceeding forward as they have been, and since these are traditionalists we're talking about they're going to be even slower on the uptake.
and will collapse back into progressivism
The liberal position is fundamentally unstable because the type of people it privileges cannot be entrenched in the same way a religious or identarian movement can. "Correct" is not an identity, though genetics have a non-trivial role to play in who is more often to be correct, and who is less- hence the movement's emphasis on making sure people who have genes that predict correctness are pushed so that they are correct more often and more productively.
And yes, this means that if there are differences here between subpopulations, they're going to get magnified. This will offend progressives, who are statistically more likely to be on the losing end of this (as part of why they're progressives). But if you can at least create and keep that cultural standard you'll at least be back at the point where you have enough seed corn that eating it becomes a possibility again.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Freemasons.
Ah, so that's why they call government agents G-Men!
you err in assuming that a propensity for child abuse is primarily an aberrant genetic mutation that affects desire, as opposed to a willful choice to perform a transgressive evil for the sake of it.
I don't actually think [the former], and as such should have chosen my words more carefully; this is all molestation, not pedophilia, since the details are (as you mentioned) completely incidental and [from the supplemental videos linked in other comments] it's all about who presents the easiest target of opportunity. Though, I will point out that of all the things you could get up to, "fucking a willing 16 year old of the opposite sex" is probably the least actually destructive one (and the stupidest "transgression", since the social opprobrium over it is fake and gay anyway) you could ask for in a shadowy elite.
You have to be on the record participating in the sadistic torture and execution of a few innocent people before they let you into the big leagues, and you need to seem to enjoy it, too.
They generally have established patterns of that behavior beforehand so I'm not sure "being willing to do that, except with a slightly cuter human being" is really helping them. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, but these are already bad dudes.
much as with homosexuality
lol
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
Is there a transformation going on in the right?
Yes- the people who drove "the right" are being transformed into corpses daily at a rate far in excess of people converting to progressivism. If their subsociety's memes are going to be allowed to survive (because the progressives will stamp them out given the opportunity, and to a large degree already have), they would be wise to throw their support behind the people who are going to treat them as a relatively benign curiosity rather than an existential threat.
Naturally he wants a reassertion of the traditional worldview.
Yes, but the problem is that there's only room for one traditional-type worldview, and the one that now fills that niche is dead-set on the destruction of the traditionalist worldview. Narcissism of small differences, and all that.
So now his side's only hope are the liberals. Because while the liberals of old did contribute to the rise of progressivism (in the sense that liberal mockery weakened traditionalism- which is why religious countries have anti-blasphemy laws), they're also by definition more likely to tolerate/get along with/not try to actively destroy less-orthodox family configurations, of which traditionalism now finds itself.
and a newer set, which regards parental behaviour as largely unimportant, and instead prioritises genetic predisposition.
Yes, this has been a traditionalist/progressive vs. liberals tension for a long, long time. Traditionalists argue that good behavior and virtue (i.e. cultural aesthetics) are terminal values, liberals argue the only terminal value are results, and the world turns.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1mo ago
But why does man-made beauty need to be something normies hate?
Well, there was that one study where architects actually are psychologically incapable of seeing beauty like a normal person. (I know it was linked on here, but I can't find it).
But really, it's all about how the general public perceives the designer's intentions. Dropping an intentionally-ugly structure in the middle of the city is basically a giant fuck you to its residents, whether the designers meant it that way or not (and given the demeanor and... political persuasion of the average artist, I think this happens more than anyone wants to admit).
We already know government buildings are designed with brutalist architecture in mind simply to make them seem more imposing, powerful, and official, so it's not exactly far-fetched that rich patrons (or groups of patrons) commission [modern] art for that purpose as well.
Don't think I have to say anything more than that, really. There are no checks and balances to prevent them from screwing up the rest of the country like there are in the US, which is why this divide is permanent in a way it really isn't there. It's the same problem all one-party states suffer from.
At this point I don't think there's any compromise.
More options
Context Copy link