July 01, 2019

Canada's greatest strengths are under attack by Justin Trudeau

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

Happy Canada Day!

Or Dominion Day, as it's properly called. Look, we like to complain, but that's part of politics. But really, this is the best country in the world. Friendly, peaceful, safe, beautiful, large and it's our home. For a media company that criticizes, it's worth taking time to praise.

But the reason we criticize is because many of the things which we love about Canada are in jeopardy. Trump ran a “Make America Great Again” campaign to reflect the general malaise at home and the disrespect from abroad.

At The Rebel, we own the rights to the slogan “Make Canada Great Again,” and sell hats to that effect. It was a bit of a lark on Trump's slogan, but under Prime Minister Trudeau's leadership it rings truer with every day.

Trump commands the respect and the friendship of many world leaders, especially in the global wave of populist nationalists.  Further, his presidency has boosted oil and gas production to the point where the US is a net exporter, which puts pressure on Putin and OPEC dictators. 

Trudeau is not organizing foreign leaders in the same way. One powerful Sikh governor in India, Captain Amarinder Singh has called for sanctions against Canada to protest Trudeau's chummy relationship with Sikh separatists.

Then there's China, which has been holding two Canadian hostages for more than half a year. In recent days, Chinese military jets have flown aggressively close to a Canadian warship, and imports of our agriculture products have been banned.

So foreign affairs are not going well, but most of our lives as Canadians is in Canada. Not only has Trudeau bungled foreign relationships but he's written off entire regions, entire industries, namely oil, gas, pipelines and mining, all to indulge kooky Catherine McKenna and her legislation that calls for gender analysis on new mining projects.

The Trudeau-led Liberal Party government is replacing care for our important resource sector with crony capitalism hand-outs to his friends, like the 12 million to Canada's richest family, the Westons, who own Loblaws. We started calling them the Libranos after Tony Soprano's mafia family during Chrétien's bribe-riddled tenure. And Trudeau has been continuing this tradition of corruption with SNC-Lavalin.

With his hand-outs to the media, independent news and criticism is down to us and a handful of other outlets. And you, of course. Grassroots Canadians.

Over the next few weeks we'll show you some exciting new changes that we're bringing to the Rebel, including, believe it or not, a new name, a new logo and a brand new website. On top of that, we have special new projects in the works that only we in this country are equipped to direct. We are not afraid to help make our country stronger.

NEXT: Columnist Barbara Kay joins me to talk about transgender ideology in schools.

FINALLY: Your messages to me!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-07-10 13:16:08 -0400
I’ve said before I dont’ watch videos. If your evidence is so strong, there should exist written versions, well annotated with external references to support the claims being made. Navel-gazing on youtube isn’t evidence.

Do you feel that Mao correctly interpreted Marxism, given what he did to the Proletariat?
commented 2019-07-10 13:01:51 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
Every prophet claims to tell you the truth, Al.
-—————————————
Who is this , “Al” of whom you speak?

You are the master sophist. You can cram so much irrational and illogical BS into one sentence that it would take 10 pages to refute it. But her goes nothing.

Nah, you opined extensively, and supported it with further opinions. You have yet to offer actual concrete evidence of anything beyond the propensity of Youtube types to enjoy the sound of their own voice.
-—————————————
You still haven’t examined the evidence. You are expressing only an opinion that “you tube types” express only opinions. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

But in refusing to watch them you have no authority on what they contain. That is only a why do call them again…? Oh, yeah. An opinion. But for some reason you think your opinions are facts while other people’s facts are opinions.

I provided you the evidence of recognized experts in the field from a recognized reliable source- Brittanica. It has been the gold standard for information for eons. But your opinion and hubris takes precedence over them. You are one self-absorbed and deluded nincompoop with a huge god complex.

All that you have stated is your opinion. You have provided nothing of an evidentiary nature.

i.e. more lies.
commented 2019-07-10 11:01:53 -0400
“I just proved you wrong but you won’t examine the evidence.”

Nah, you opined extensively, and supported it with further opinions. You have yet to offer actual concrete evidence of anything beyond the propensity of Youtube types to enjoy the sound of their own voice.

“So what. You conflate him with his ideas. "

As one might, given that it’s named after him. At some point the derivation becomes so distant that your ideas become a different philosophy. “Cultural Marxism” does not resemble anything he said. it’s a marketing term. It is meaningless.

“Jesus never said to build schools and hospitals and yet his followers have done that likens other group because his ideas and commandments lived on after him and there are obvious implications of his teaching”

Jesus couldn’t have, because such institutions did not exist in his era. Formal educational institutions (vs. informal tutelage) were a medieval invention (at least from a Eurocentric perspective) and grew only as secular thought became more popular toward the end of that era;, and hospitals only slightly older. and thus his opinions must naturally be obsolete. People can project intent on him, but as in Marx, you can’t assume he would endorse it nor project such concepts. I’m not sure why you bring this up; neither type of institution is inherently a Christian phenomenon attributable to the Church or core Christian philosophies.

“See. What I just provided is called evidence from a recognized authority. "

Marxism interpreted by Mao or Trotsky is Marxism interpreted by Mao or Trotsky, not Marxism as stated by Marx. I think you’d have a hard time arguing Mao was particularly sympathetic to the plight of the Proletariat, given how many of them died as he pursued his own power, and a group whose empowerment was a core tenet of Marxism.

Every prophet claims to tell you the truth, Al. I suggest you view such claims with a grain of salt.
commented 2019-07-09 13:34:04 -0400
Cultural Marxism isn’t real, Al. It’s a strawman set up by certain elements of the Right, who need an overarching enemy to fight in the supposed “culture wars”,
===
I just proved you wrong but you won’t examine the evidence. This is your opinion with no corroborating evidence. The very thing you accuse me of. I present evidence. You don’t. you spout your opinion as fact. As one who supposedly relies on observation and scientific method you readily abandon it when it doesn’t support you preconceived ideas.

Marx, however, has been dead for rather more than a century.
-———————-
So what. You conflate him with his ideas. His ideas live on long after him and the unintended consequences follow after him. There are many forms of communism but hey all their roots in his ideas. Therefore his ideas outlived him and evolved as all philosophies do.

Jesus never said to build schools and hospitals and yet his followers have done that likens other group because his ideas and commandments lived on after him and there are obvious implications of his teaching. Just like Marx, Heidegger, Rousseau, Dewey and others. You have a very interesting sliding scale that always moves to suit your preconceived ideas.

You claim that philosophy does not evolve while also claiming that everything is relative. But some how Marx is exempt from relativism. Are all things relative or not?

Also notice that the philosophy (Marx was way more than an economist. His economics resulted from his philosophy) is called an “-ism” i.e. marxism.

Here is some more evidence you can ignore and dismiss under your god-complex:

“Marxism, a body of DOCTRINE developed by Karl Marx and, to a lesser extent, by Friedrich Engels in the mid-19th century. It originally consisted of three related ideas: a PHILOSOPHICAL anthropology, a theory of HISTORY, and an economic and POLITICAL program. There is also Marxism as it has been understood and practiced by the various socialist movements, particularly before 1914. Then there is Soviet Marxism as worked out by Vladimir Ilich Lenin and modified by Joseph Stalin, which under the name of Marxism-Leninism (see Leninism) became the doctrine of the communist parties set up after the Russian Revolution (1917).

Offshoots of this included Marxism as interpreted by the anti-Stalinist Leon Trotsky and his followers, Mao Zedong’s Chinese variant of Marxism-Leninism, and various Marxisms in the developing world. There were also the post-World War II nondogmatic Marxisms that have modified Marx’s thought with borrowings from modern philosophies, principally from those of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger but also from Sigmund Freud and others.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism

See. What I just provided is called evidence from a recognized authority. You might want to try doing likewise sometime. OF course, you have no evidence for you position which is why you resort to plain old opinion.

No unexpected for someone who claims to be a scientist but believes that babies are parasite contrary to all scientific evidence. “So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” "

BS? Not so much.

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.”

Why do you want to believe and disseminate lies?
commented 2019-07-09 12:36:31 -0400
“That’s very convenient even thought his disciples reference him for their positions and views. Whatever supports the lies, I guess. "

What lies are those, Al? That Marxism should only be defined by what Marx actually said? That strikes me as rather more of an opinion than an objective fact, and a reasonably defensible one at that. His “disciples”, the ones that actually self-identify as such, are generally economic Marxists, or Marx-minded communists.

(As a fun aside:go see if you can recognize anything from Trumponomics in Marx’ writings – the Deplorables are essentially the disenfranchised Lumpenproletariat right out of Marxist economic theory!)

Cultural Marxism isn’t real, Al. It’s a strawman set up by certain elements of the Right, who need an overarching enemy to fight in the supposed “culture wars”, without acknowledging that it’s mostly a bunch of 19 year olds with too much time on their hands and largely grassroots/not centrally organized (something that would be anathema to marxism anyway)

“Interesting how you are a relativist one minute and an absolutist the next. How is that “science evolves” but not philosophy. Any lie in a storm , I guess.

Science evolves as new observations are made, building upon the old. It is always changing.

Marx, however, has been dead for rather more than a century. His philosophical output has therefore been reduced somewhat in recent years. His ideas can’t evolve further. He is dead. Any re-interpretation is a bastardization of what he may have said, it’s speculation. And, again, most of the accusations leveled about “cultural marxism”, are something else entirely, falsely attributed to him, and often invoking theories that don’t actually exist.
commented 2019-07-09 03:21:04 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
Science evolves as our knowledge base improves. Much as Newton’s laws were superceded by relativity as the flaws in the older theory accumulated…

Ah, so Cultural Marxism is indeed something invented half a century after Marx himself died.
-———————
Interesting how you are a relativist one minute and an absolutist the next. How is that “science evolves” but not philosophy. Any lie in a storm , I guess.
commented 2019-07-09 03:06:47 -0400
Ah, so Cultural Marxism is indeed something invented half a century after Marx himself died.
-————-
Wrong again. It is the development of the underlying philosophy of marxism. You know- its “evolution”. You would have known that if you would examine the evidence but you like to wallow in ignorance.

I’ll limit my Marxism to things Marx actually said.
-————————————-
That’s very convenient even thought his disciples reference him for their positions and views. Whatever supports the lies, I guess.

So your calling people Nazi’s can hold no water either, then since Hitler is long gone.

I don’t really want to believe anything.


That is obvious. Thanks for the admission. Now finish the statement with- “Not truth, that’s for sure”. Whatever supports your preconceived feelings, thats for sure.

I look at what I see, and I see nothing to support it.
-———————————
If you don’t look at the evidence (by your own admission) then you couldn’t “Look” at anything so you have nothing to see. So I’m not surprised that you see nothing to support it.

You are lazy and a non-thinking pseudo-intellectual.

And you believe him?
-—————————-
I believe the evidence that he presents and that you just admitted you don’t watch.

But you still believe that babies are parasites in spite of all the contrary evidence. so you’re hardly a the paragon of truth. One thing Marx did say that you obviously hold to is that, “Communists preach absolutely no morals.” Hence your desire for believing lies.
commented 2019-07-08 23:03:12 -0400
Ah, so Cultural Marxism is indeed something invented half a century after Marx himself died. I wonder why Horkheimer is not credited. Perhaps because his name does not bear the emotional load of Marx.

“Bill Whittle showed the history and the evidence for it. It is easily corroborated. You must not have watched it. There is a direct connection obvious to anyone who doesn’t believe babies are parasites. "

And you believe him?

I have said before I don’t watch videos. I find them very limited in that they only convey the information the editor wants to convey, versus written pieces where you can go laterally yourself. Great if you’re looking to be spoonfed, not so much if you want to actually think about it.

I’ll limit my Marxism to things Marx actually said.

“It is obvious that you do. I have never disputed that. But that is only an unstudied opinion so what you think is worthless. You don’t actually think. You emote and that is why you want to believe lies. I spent 7 years to get my Master of Divinity degree so I studied both the pros and cons.”

I don’t really want to believe anything. I look at what I see, and I see nothing to support it.

Seven years is a lot. Most people are reluctant to abandon that sort of sunk cost. Et tu?
commented 2019-07-08 15:52:28 -0400
On Max Horkheimer one of the proponents of the No-existant Frankfurt School and its No-existant cultural -marxism:

Max Horkheimer, (born February 14, 1895, Stuttgart, Germany—died July 7, 1973, Nürnberg), German philosopher who, as director of the Institute for Social Research (1930–41; 1950–58), developed an original interdisciplinary movement, known as critical theory, that combined Marxist-oriented political philosophy with social and cultural analysis informed by empirical research…

In the early years of its existence, Horkheimer described the institute’s program as “interdisciplinary materialism,” thereby indicating its goal of integrating Marxist-oriented philosophy of history with the social sciences, especially economics, history, sociology, social psychology, and psychoanalysis. The resulting “critical theory” would elucidate the various forms of social control through which state-managed capitalism tended to defuse class conflict and integrate the working classes into the reigning economic system… Throughout the remainder of the decade, he sought to keep the flame of critical theory burning by writing a number of programmatic essays for the Zeitschrift. Among the most influential of these works was “Traditional and Critical Theory” (1937), in which he contrasted what he considered the socially conformist orientation of traditional political philosophy and social science with the brand of critical Marxism favoured by the institute.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Max-Horkheimer

So, yes, Mr-Babies-Are-Paraties, cultural marxism is a real thing and you are a proponent of it.
commented 2019-07-08 15:25:30 -0400
Right wing alternative media that are trying to tie two unrelated phenomena together.
-—————————-
Marxism is the noun. “Cultural” is the adjective that modifies the noun, “marxism”. Anyone with a grade 3 education understands they are related because cultural is describing the kind of Marxism.

Cultural marxism isn’t real.
-——————————-
Bill Whittle showed the history and the evidence for it. It is easily corroborated. You must not have watched it. There is a direct connection obvious to anyone who doesn’t believe babies are parasites.

More willful blindness. Why do you want to believe and promulgate lies?

Correct, truth is being true, but I trust modern observations of the world far more than some ancient superstitions.
-—————————
That is why it is called the fallacy of chronological SNOBBERY. You think you are so much smarter than they were. You think they are all a bunch of superstitious hayseeds. Based on no evidence.

Could it be that i think the Bible is bullshit ..?
-————
It is obvious that you do. I have never disputed that. But that is only an unstudied opinion so what you think is worthless. You don’t actually think. You emote and that is why you want to believe lies. I spent 7 years to get my Master of Divinity degree so I studied both the pros and cons. I weighed the various arguments. I read Ayn Rand and Sartre and a host of non-christian writers and philosophers. I came to my own conclusions based on the evidence. Not comforting lies.

What you think of anything does not change the truth.

Life is precious.
-————————

Agreed, life is precious. But only if it has ultimate goal or end (telos). If we are both going got be worm food what we do in this life is ultimately meaningless anyway whether or not I pray to a mythical god. However the evidence is overwhelming that life does have a purpose and a goal. Therefore it is precious and only then is it precious. That’s why I intend to continue it in the New Earth:

“You will show me the path of life. In your presence is fullness of joy. At your right hand there are pleasures forever.”
Ps 16:11

Again, if you can prove the resurrection didn’t happen I will stop believing. My faith is built on evidence. Not wishful thinking like yours is. You are a lazy thinker who refuses to examine the evidence and you spout off your “opinions” as facts.

Why do you continue to insult and stigmatize my identity as a Duke and not a commoner?
commented 2019-07-08 11:37:49 -0400
“You gotta be one dense clod. Where do you suppose the word “Marxist” in both comes from? What a lying dolt. Either that or an uneducated dolt. Here is some reading for you: "

Right wing alternative media that are trying to tie two unrelated phenomena together. Your citation of a right wing think tank highlights that pretty nicely. Marxism is an economic argument against capitalism. Cultural marxism is a bunch of right wingers upset that cultural values are changing and trying to attribute it to an organized cause rather than simple societal drift.

“Not a straw man. Conflation again. You are moving from cultural marxism to economic marxism without saying so. Most leftists are both. "

Texbook definition of strawman, Dukey. I’ve already pointed out that the conflation does not arise on my end. Cultural marxism isn’t real. What do you base that last sentence on? My guess is, nothing more than speculation. Most is not all anyway.

" Age is irrelevant to something being true. "

Correct, truth is being true, but I trust modern observations of the world far more than some ancient superstitions. Your own leaders even call it “faith”, in that you just have to believe it’s true.

" Why do you keep doing this when I have pointed out to you time and again that this is an invalid approach to biblical interpretation? Could it be that you like to believe lies? "

Could it be that i think the Bible is bullshit and you’re wasting your life, your one chance at this, praying to an imaginary god? You’re probably worm food at the end, Al. Life is precious. Don’t waste it on fantasies.
commented 2019-07-08 01:15:31 -0400
So now we come full circle. The diseases you spoke of earlier and the destruction of society are why God doesn’t like homosexuality. Again, you blithely lump OT contexts of the nation of Israel with he NT context. Why do you keep doing this when I have pointed out to you time and again that this is an invalid approach to biblical interpretation? Could it be that you like to believe lies?

Which society killed them? There were a lot of societies then as now. Conflation again. Some of these societies were bacchanalian debauchery fests. Not unlike pride parades today. Israel was unique among the nations except when they followed the nations around them. You really should learn a bit about what you’re talking about and can the vague generalizations.

Again you are putting words in my mouth. When did I say I don’t like queers? I have several in my family and I love them like the rest. Unfortunately one has AIDS from his "normal " activity. Again, you conflate a dislike of homosexuality with a dislike of homosexuals. In fact what you imply is a hatred of them. Hence the "killing them " reference immediately before hand. Why do you keep using that lie? 3 Pillars perhaps?

It looks ridiculous if you paint the situation the way you do. But you paint it that way full of logical fallacies, distortions and lies because you hate the truth. Why is that?
commented 2019-07-08 01:13:49 -0400
What did I say that was false?
-———————————————
We were talking about things present and future. You conflated it (once again) with things ancient.

You’re just taking the linkage for granted. I am unconvinced. “Cultural Marxism” is unrelated to the economic Marxism actually proposed by Marx.
-——————
You gotta be one dense clod. Where do you suppose the word “Marxist” in both comes from? What a lying dolt. Either that or an uneducated dolt. Here is some reading for you:

“In 1923, Lukacs and other Jewish intellectuals associated with the Communist Party of Germany founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute, which became known as the Frankfurt School, was modelled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. In 1933, when Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled. Most went to the United States.”

“The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticise the bases of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms, known collectively as Critical Theory, were reflected in such works of the Frankfurt School as Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and The Dogma of Christ, Wilhelm’s Reich’s The Mass Psychology of Fascism and Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality.”

https://www.europeanfreedom.com/2019/03/31/the-historical-roots-of-political-correctness/

And here is a video that will explain it all to you but I know you will not watch it because you do not want to be confronted by the truth and by facts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhugUzUuPkE

I’m not going to waste much time on a lengthy work of fiction.
-——————-
Logical fallacy of assuming the point at issue. IF it is a work of fiction it should be no problem to disprove the resurrection and which would destroy the Christian faith. Why is that?

I live in today’s world, not a millennia-old fantasy.
-—————————-
Wow. You’ve outdone yourself. Two fallacies in one- the fallacy of chronological snobbery and the the same old assuming the point at issue.

it’s a strawman, you’re arguing against an opponent you’ve created to argue against, rather than your actual opponent. Not all “leftists” are Marxists or socialists.
-—————————————
Not a straw man. Conflation again. You are moving from cultural marxism to economic marxism without saying so. Most leftists are both.

large parts of it were derived from tribal mythologies in the Bronze Age (an era which ended, depending on region, around 1000BCE, well into the era of much of the Old Testament/Torah).
-—————————
Care to give an example of this? Again, two fallacies in one. Chronological snobbery again. Age is irrelevant to something being true.

What happens if it was literally just a bunch of ancient fairy tales? That’s predicated on the belief that it’s true.
-———————————-
You are once again assuming the point issue. The age of it does not determine if it is a myth or fairly tale. The evidence does. And we both know too will not examine the evidence, Because you like to believe and promulgate lies.

Notice that I said “IF” as a conditional sentence that assumes for the sake of the argument that it is true. You have not followed the line of the argument but ducked around it so that you don not have to deal with it. IF it did actually happen it would still be true even in a liner ted geographical area. The whole of humanity started in the area around the Tigris and Euphrates. SO the whole of humanity knew the truth and chucked it.

“Of what? "
Supposedly natural laws, such as those of gender or appropriate family structure. Again, limiting yourself to a small part of the world loses sight of the fact that the Abrahamic version is just one way people lived. If there were some natural lifestyle, that variability wouldn’t exist.
-————————-
See the answer above regarding people abandoning the truth. There are many universal turrets shared around the world. Almost all societies have a family unit similar to that of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. Man+woman (sometimes more than one woman + children. Show me one that isn’t.

If we’re talking a divinely inspired natural law, should it matter which part of the text you read? Shouldn’t it all be consistent?
-————————————————

The message is consistent. But there is a far more tribal context in the OT than in the NT. There is an old saying among those who study literally interpretation: A text without a context is a pretext. This would require the exercise of discernment but the 3rd Pillar of Leftiedom precludes you doing so. I think the whole thing is a house of cards predicated on the belief that your little historical fiction is somehow real, fundamentally something that has no actual independently real basis.


What you “think” is irrelevant because then you’ve never actually studied the evidence so your opinion is invalid. There are opinions and studied opinions. Yours is the former. Mine is the latter. And again you are assuming the point at issue. How many time have you done that in this post alone?

You are the master of sophistry. But it raises the question about why you have to resort to it? Or, to pr horse it another way, why do you want to believe and promulgate lies about things you have obviously never studied? Coles notes don’t count.
commented 2019-07-04 12:05:32 -0400
“Why, then, do you resort to falsehoods and calumny? "

What did I say that was false? lol, you’re deflecting again. Can you name one other modern disease that is caused by inadherence to Christian norms?

“We are discussing philosophy. Marxism is a philosophy. It is the foundational philosophy of the left and its delusions of reality. Not a distraction at all. "
Can you elaborate? You’re just taking the linkage for granted. I am unconvinced. “Cultural Marxism” is unrelated to the economic Marxism actually proposed by Marx. Which do you even refer to? Does classical Marxism even have anything to do with “natural law”, which is what we were originally discussing?

" It is the encapsulation of why leftists keep on with their delusions of socialism (derived form Marx) in spite of the evidence that it doesn’t work. "

it’s a strawman, you’re arguing against an opponent you’ve created to argue against, rather than your actual opponent. Not all “leftists” are Marxists or socialists. I’m not, for example, I’m comfortable with free markets where open competition is possible (which is to say, not in natural monopolies or when some aspect needs to be propped up by the government anyway).

“Here, your lack of education on the Bible is showing.”

I’m not going to waste much time on a lengthy work of fiction. I live in today’s world, not a millennia-old fantasy. The writers were not the product of a modern civilization, and yes, large parts of it were derived from tribal mythologies in the Bronze Age (an era which ended, depending on region, around 1000BCE, well into the era of much of the Old Testament/Torah)

“So what? If that’s where God revealed Himself and worked that’s just the way it is. ’

Big if. What happens if it was literally just a bunch of ancient fairy tales? That’s predicated on the belief that it’s true.

“Of what? "
Supposedly natural laws, such as those of gender or appropriate family structure. Again, limiting yourself to a small part of the world loses sight of the fact that the Abrahamic version is just one way people lived. If there were some natural lifestyle, that variability wouldn’t exist.

“Again, you blithely lump OT contests of the nation of Israel with he NT context. Why do you keep doing this when I have pointed out to you time and again that this is an invalid approach to biblical interpretation? Could it be that you like to believe lies? ’

If we’re talking a divinely inspired natural law, should it matter which part of the text you read? Shouldn’t it all be consistent?

“It looks ridiculous if you paint the situation the way you do. But you paint it that way full of logical fallacies, distortions and lies because you hate the truth. Why is that?|”

Do you actually hold the “truth”? I think the whole thing is a house of cards predicated on the belief that your little historical fiction is somehow real, fundamentally something that has no actual independently real basis.
commented 2019-07-04 01:12:21 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON

Tell that to the victims of the Plague.
-—————————————
Thou varlet! Thou knave!. Were we not speaking of hippies and post modernism?

“I’m close friends with epidemiologists, and yes, there are probably nasty, untreatable things on the horizon. You never know what’s going to pop up out of the jungles of Central America or Africa, and even common bugs are getting nastier and evolving resistance to treatment. HIV was quite unique though, being an emerging disease that let you live long enough to spread before it killed you”.

All present tense.

Why, then, do you resort to falsehoods and calumny?

You’re getting distracted. We’re not discussing Marxism,
-——————————————————————————————
We are discussing philosophy. Marxism is a philosophy. It is the foundational philosophy of the left and its delusions of reality. Not a distraction at all.

Similarly, you can yell about the Pillars all you want; it’s a deflection and we both know it. Cut it out.
-————————
I’m not sure how one yells in typed form. All caps, I guess. Which I rarely use except for emphasis.

It is not a deflection. It is the encapsulation of why leftists keep on with their delusions of socialism (derived form Marx) in spite of the evidence that it doesn’t work. So I intend to keep informing the masses of your leftist delusions in like manner. I shan’t “cut it out”.

The Bible’s experience and evidence is largely derived from the experiences of a couple of Bronze Age tribal societies in the Fertile Crescent.
-—————————————-
Here, your lack of education on the Bible is showing. As is your hubris in tell us that it was during the Bronze Age (the chronological fallacy). It covered far more that the Bronze Age. And that it was form a tribal group. (Only the some of the OT was tribal. You are trying to denigrate the truth of it by slandering the people of that time as a bunch of superstitious hayseeds. They weren’t.
It actually covered a huge area from Egypt and Ethiopia to Persia and to Greece and Italy. It quickly spread to India and other outlying nations.

It omits a huge chunk of human history and the vast majority of human experience…
-—————————————
So what? If that’s where God revealed Himself and worked that’s just the way it is. In fact the biblical account shows that all people originated in the Tigris/Euprates area (which science verifies) so they all knew God at one time and perverted the truth that was revealed.

..which has resulted in dramatically different interpretations…
-—————
Of what?

…which is not what you’d expect were there some self-evident absolutes out there) and by virtue of being unchanged and unchangeable for nearly two millenia, cannot learn from its mistakes – did society peak then?
-———————————
Not sure if this is a word salad or just a run on sentence. No idea what you are trying to say here.

“Natural law” is predicated on some objective truth existing. What’s the basis for it? The existence of some divine, who you just have to believe exists, supported by a mythology that you just have to believe is true. Without that vague hope that the whole thing must be true because it must be true, it falls apart.
-——————————————
I have tried numerous times to get you to examine the evidence but you won’t do it because…wait for it… you want to believe and promulgate lies. I have never stated a position remotely like what you are claiming about me. Why do you lefties read things in that I am not saying?

Let’s simplify the whole thing and reduce it down to one simple (?) task- prove the resurrection didn’t happened I will be forced to stop being a believer.

We are left in a state where we must instead approach things objectively.
-—————————————
This would be great except that objectivity requires absolutes and you don’t believe in them.

What is the best option, the empirically supportable one, the fairest one?
-————————————-
Obviously the first one. I’m all for empirical evidence. Christianity is built on it. But you will not examine the empirical evidence so that you can remain living in your manufactured world.

Fairness is irrelevant to truth. Truth, is, whether or not it is fair. It has something to do with that objectivity thing that you throw around but don’t believe. 2+2 =4 is truth. How can fairness enter into it?

…prognostications of a millennia-dead prophet as he sat on his rock by the Dead Sea.
-————————-
So now you are shifting from a philosopher sitting on a rock to a prophet prognosticating on a rock. Trying to use conflation again. Sorry not the same thing. A prophet is not a philosopher. A prophet speaks the words God gives them. God’s words are true for all time. Kind of goes with the position. And you are also dipping into chronological fallacy again as though someone dying destroys all the truth they held and revealed. Somehow that doesn’t apply to Karl Marx though.

He didn’t like queers, his society killed them, and thus you don’t either.
-——————————————
So now we come full circle. The diseases you spoke of earlier and the destruction of society are why God doesn’t like homosexuality. Again, you blithely lump OT contests of the nation of Israel with he NT context. Why do you keep doing this when I have pointed out to you time and again that this is an invalid approach to biblical interpretation? Could it be that you like to believe lies?

Which society killed them? There were a lot of societies then as now. Conflation again. Some of these societies were bacchanalian debauchery fests. Not unlike pride parades today. Israel was unique among the nations except when they followed the nations around them. You really should learn a bit about what you’re talking about and can the vague generalizations.

Again you are putting words in my mouth. When did I say I don’t like queers? I have several in my family and I love them like the rest. Unfortunately one has AIDS from his "normal " activity. Again, you conflate a dislike of homosexuality with a dislike of homosexuals. In fact what you imply is a hatred of them. Hence the "killing them " reference immediately before hand. Why do you keep using that lie? 3 Pillars perhaps?

It looks ridiculous if you paint the situation the way you do. But you paint it that way full of logical fallacies, distortions and lies because you hate the truth. Why is that?
commented 2019-07-04 00:16:29 -0400
“Observable evidence is subjective to feelings” is how I loosely interpret your views.
Its not a religious or archiac thing to base science and philosophy on what is observable as to be productive."

Science is objective. These things exist, “productive” or not.

Al Peterson:
“This is why Judeo-Christian morality makes sense at all times and in all places. These nasty diseases are the result of perverse lifestyles of the left and lying.”

Tell that to the victims of the Plague. Was Medieval Europe not Christian enough? Nasty diseases are often the result of non-human pathogens evolving the ability to leap to humans, can be bad before they evolve into less virulent forms . Most of the time there’s no rhyme or reason… it just happens, and the circumstances are rare enough that it’s not that common. Antibiotic resistance is the big one we’re watching now – there was some underestimation of how quickly bacteria evolve and transmit resistance to each other. The big plagues are usually airborne when they occur, sometimes vector-borne, HIV was unusual for being sexually transmitted.

“Marxism was a philosophy born of a leftist philosopher. The Bible is not philosophy it is experience and evidence. Hence Natural Law is simply the organization of history into categories. Marxism has produced at least 200 million deaths in the 20th century as result of trying it over and over with the same result. i.e. never earning form their mistakes or the mistakes of others. "

You’re getting distracted. We’re not discussing Marxism, and your attacks on his theories does not automatically defend “natural law”. Similarly, you can yell about the Pillars all you want; it’s a deflection and we both know it. Cut it out.

The Bible’s experience and evidence is largely derived from the experiences of a couple Bronze Age tribal societies in the Fertile Crescent. It omits a huge chunk of human history and the vast majority of human experience (much of which has resulted in dramatically different interpretations, which is not what you’d expect were there some self-evident absolutes out there) and by virtue of being unchanged and unchangeable for nearly two millenia, cannot learn from its mistakes – did society peak then?

“Natural law” is predicated on some objective truth existing. What’s the basis for it? The existence of some divine, who you just have to believe exists, supported by a mythology that you just have to believe is true. Without that vague hope that the whole thing must be true because it must be true, it falls apart.

We are left in a state where we must instead approach things objectively. What is the best option, the empirically supportable one, the fairest one? Letting people pick their own identity is a fairly major case where the fairest option differs from the long-propagated prognostications of a millennia-dead prophet as he sat on his rock by the Dead Sea. He didn’t like queers, his society killed them, and thus you don’t either. Step back and think about how that looks from the outside – ridiculous, no?
commented 2019-07-03 18:55:48 -0400
John Wick,
You forgot the rest of my quote.
Just obvious gossip. Nothing if substance.
commented 2019-07-03 17:05:19 -0400
A couple of minor corrections about Pavlik Morozov.

First of all, he was killed by his family for his betrayal. That’s why he was considered a “martyr” for the “revolutionary cause”, not because he “told on the parents”. But telling by itself indeed was an important “teaching moment” for the kids in the Soviet Union, with the idea that the parents should be betrayed if they are “class enemies” to the state, so to speak.

The Soviet youth (the “pioneers”) never had a lapel pin with Morozov’s face. The only one close enough was a lapel pin with the face of baby Lenin which was worn by the kids younger than the “pioneer” age (i.e., before 9 y.o.) – so called “Oktyabryats” (from the word “October” – the month when anniversary of the October Revolution was celebrated).

Also, the Soviet Union fell in 1991, not in 1989.

Otherwise your commentary is right on the spot.

Keep good works, Ezra, keep bringing these issues to the surface! I’m one of those who’ve experienced the totalitarianism first-hand, and that’s why I don’t want to see this happening in Canada.

Anthony
commented 2019-07-03 15:06:11 -0400
“Natural law” is again predicated on the navel-gazing of some philosopher sitting on a rock thousands of years ago and reflects a very incomplete understanding of the world. It’s completely baseless, and represents the triumph of philosophy over observation.
-————————————-
Andrew, you know as much about philosophy as you do about the Bible- pathetically little. The new age of leftism began effectively under Jean Jaques Rouseau "sitting on a rock and positing, " Man is born free. Everywhere he is in chains". There are no more pompous bunch of self absorbed pseudo-intellectuals than on the left. Every misery the modern world has created has started in the minds of the Leftists.

Marxism was a philosophy born of a leftist philosopher. The Bible is not philosophy it is experience and evidence. Hence Natural Law is simply the organization of history into categories. Marxism has produced at least 200 million deaths in the 20th century as result of trying it over and over with the same result. i.e. never earning form their mistakes or the mistakes of others.

People with two functioning braincells learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others. They also learn to discern right from wrong. Leftists refuse to do any of these three. Hence the Three Pillars of Leftiedom.

Here is a short course on reality but being one who wants to believe and disseminate lies, I know you won’t watch. David Horowitz on “What the Left Believes”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBucK8YQf08

And, “How Should We Then Live” by Francis Scheaffer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdknOTld6CY&list=PLP0lSOp9RORx7W0REI8SVK2CNIrMjhS_T&index=7

Both show the results of post modernism from the foundation it was built on.

Too bad you love lies so much that you will not educate yourself.
commented 2019-07-03 14:50:30 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
I’m close friends with epidemiologists, and yes, there are probably nasty, untreatable things on the horizon. You never know what’s going to pop up out of the jungles of Central America or Africa, and even common bugs are getting nastier and evolving resistance to treatment. HIV was quite unique though, being an emerging disease that let you live long enough to spread before it killed you.
-—————————————-
This is why Judeo-Christian morality makes sense at all times and in all places. These nasty diseases are the result of perverse lifestyles of the left and lying.
commented 2019-07-03 12:37:25 -0400
Karen Macleod,

You don’t have to like Canadaland – but they posted a nice little article about the reason why a bunch of Rebel contributors left using their own quotes. You liking Canadaland or not is irrelevant to the facts in that article. Unless you are like Liza and like to ignore reality and facts on a daily basis.
commented 2019-07-03 12:37:23 -0400
Rebels, its a really, really, REALLY good idea to hire “Yes Margaret”.
That boxed blonde Marilyn Monroe wanna be has done a few marathons with her running mouth.
Its a good way to forget Faith Goldie and Lauren Southern.
Plus, I think she’s desperate for attention!
Real bad in my opinion.
Could she cuck Ezra’s reputation worse than Goldie? In a heart beat.
Is she smart enough not to? I’d like to see her try.
Anyways…
Bye bye.
commented 2019-07-03 12:18:56 -0400
Andrew Stephenson,

I’m not even going to call your views “psycho-bable”.
“Observable evidence is subjective to feelings” is how I loosely interpret your views.
Its not a religious or archiac thing to base science and philosophy on what is observable as to be productive.
Anyways, I hope the Rebel hires “Yes Margaret”.
She is hard on the head but she would be good business for The Rebel.
She’s kinda useless imo but if they want someone entertaining… And pretty… Volia.
commented 2019-07-03 11:29:32 -0400
LIza Rosie:
“Post-modernist relativism is what ever you want it to be Andrew. Have-at-er.

There is never any point in trying to debate someone who refuses to accept the concept of natural law, which is objective truth so I won’t.

At least Andrew is close to staying on topic, I will give her that."

Science evolves as our knowledge base improves. Much as Newton’s laws were superceded by relativity as the flaws in the older theory accumulated, observations about human nature have evolved as strict Biblical interpretations become harder and harder to reconcile with the increasing body of knowledge; of what we know about ourselves.

Yes, most people are genetically one sex or the other, but that doesn’t always reliably translate to physical sex or mental identity It’s not post-modernism to admit that that occurs – it’s observable reality. We don’t know why it happens, but not understanding the underlying mechanism doesn’t mean it doesn’t’ exist.

“Post-modernism” is like RINO. It’s a meaningless accusation meant to end debate without getting into inconvenient facts.

“Natural law” is again predicated on the navel-gazing of some philosopher sitting on a rock thousands of years ago and reflects a very incomplete understanding of the world. It’s completely baseless, and represents the triumph of philosophy over observation.
commented 2019-07-03 11:15:39 -0400
Karen Macleod: I don’t think it was Faith Goldy that did them in. I think it’s that successful political newsmagazines actually include news and make themselves into one-stop web homepages. The Rebel is a glorified opinion column and doesn’t even try to cover the news they opine on. Even given an opportunity to do some actual investigative journalism (sending someone to the Philippines) came back with absolutely nothing novel beyond the standard ultra-political boilerplate and some vague posturing about cadmium emissions from incinerators. There’s really no value-added from doing that, nor of the syndicated American coverage which seems a relic of the failed international expansions into markets that were already well-covered.

Glenn Craig:
“ANDREA…..we all wanted to keep on hippying…the stopper was in the 1990’s….AIDS "

I wonder if it was more basic. You get married, buy a house, have kids, and get old. There’s always the stern cynicism driven by people who think everything’s peaked. (think of Trump, whose entire MO is rebuilding a past version of America, not a future one) It’s interesting to see how poorly they handle leaders who exude optimism about the future.

I’m close friends with epidemiologists, and yes, there are probably nasty, untreatable things on the horizon. You never know what’s going to pop up out of the jungles of Central America or Africa, and even common bugs are getting nastier and evolving resistance to treatment. HIV was quite unique though, being an emerging disease that let you live long enough to spread before it killed you.
commented 2019-07-03 02:33:59 -0400
“And I consider every dollar I donated to the CPC after the stolen election of Andrew Scheer to have been taken under false pretense” I feel the same way. As soon as he bagged leadership he started picking off everything he was voted in on, threw them to the wayside, one by one. It felt like a grift. I felt swindled.
commented 2019-07-03 02:28:01 -0400
Oh BTW Mr Collingsworth…does Andrew know you are posting on theREBEL?…..tsk tsk tsk….

You bring shame on Mr Scheer and the CPC…you CIS gendered heterocentric heterosexist homophobic white supremacist poopy bum
commented 2019-07-03 02:12:31 -0400
Mr Collingsworth….

Whipping the vote on the “islamophobia” motion
Whipping the vote on the Paris climate accord
Whipping the vote on the UN convention on migration
Wimping out on supporting a commitee member who called BULLSHIT at bringing back section 13 (which I fought tooth an nail to bring down)
Wimping out on freedom of speach

All of the positives you noted Max is in favour of and has more starch in his spine to see them through…

I AM NOT A WIMP!!!
NOBODY WHIPS MY VOTE!!

And I consider every dollar I donated to the CPC after the stolen election of Andrew Scheer to have been taken under false pretense….CUSS ME OUT ANY MORE AND I WILL VOTE LIBERAL!!!
commented 2019-07-03 01:58:57 -0400
Glenn Craig: Yeah supply management. Milk and some scraps of food is all you got. Guess what? Bernier has much more to lose in the dairy game, compared to Scheer.

Firearms Ombudsman to stonewall any attempt at taking the rights of gun owners away? I am all for it.

A family man who has clearly stuck to his Catholic roots and cares about his family? I am all for it.

Getting tough on the Saudis and dropping their oil in favour of Alberta oil to be delivered to the East coast.

Getting tough on the Chinese and eliminating our economic need for their crappy inferior products.

Repairing relations with Donald Trump, the leader of the free world.

So let’s talk about Supply Management some more. Tell me all about it

Scheer 2019!!!!
commented 2019-07-03 01:35:53 -0400
D.L. COLLINGSWORTH commented 3 mins ago
Andrew Scheer will stick it to the Saudis and the Chinese. Scheer 2019!!!!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Mr Collingsworth….I WAS a CPC supporter….I went over to MAX. I even attended a meeting in my riding and got elected/acclaimed vice president of our riding association….I now realize that we here in PEI were fooled by pretenders who wanted to undermine MAX….just like Kevin Vickers pulled a fast one on New Brunswick liberals…such is the nature of Machiavellian politics

The tory running in my district is Julius Patkai….he is a food export broker so he doesn’t agree with Max on supply management…..that sin is small compared to those of Justin so I will hold my nose and vote for him…

Scheer disgusts me…but not nearly as much as Trudeau.