How leftism destroys the minds of our young

Young people attend universities to gain the theoretical knowledge needed to guide their practical actions throughout the rest of their lives. But today universities have no interest in such methodology. They in turn teach the countries most impressionable minds that it’s impossible to say anything positive about reality (metaphysics) as “true reality” is distorted by our senses and tainted by our biased mind. And because all knowledge is relative to environments and minds, this serves the purpose of making it all equally relevant and thus ultimately, irrelevant (epistemology). This logically leads earnest students to their predictable conclusions: knowledge is subjective and biased towards social-economic background, which makes ethical (ethics) statements naïve, as they’re the extension of this flawed knowledge. Finally political (politics) statements, are nothing more than the culmination of these individual subjective whims and simply put “whose to say what’s right”! A mind trained with this type of philosophical foundation characterizes the university’s most inquisitive and conscientious minds.The everyday activist is only expounding on the doctrines he’s been taught, treatise which eventually produce the expected existential temperaments of fear and depression, conditions which typify the apologists of relativism, collectivism and existentialism.

It was Kant that first explained so artfully that which is known to us about the world is only known through the filters of our senses, thus leaving us unable to say anything about nature’s true reality. The inability to know or be able to say anything substantial about the real world, amounts to metaphysical nilhism, or said differently existentialism, which, for the sake of its own epistemology, states, that since all knowledge is flawed and relative, the only relevant truth is man's own subjective truth. And we’re surprised that a worldview like this, one in which uncertainty and instability is our usual state, produces citizens filled with neurosis, panic, and insecurity, clinging to collectivist agendas for their dear lives. Reason as a means to fight back has been choked by the philosophical traditions stemming from Kant, Hume, Rousseau, Comte, Dewey, Camus and Chomsky, and today, professors, students, and the left wing in general are all slavish products of this original fatalist philosophy.

Professors lecture under the hip banner of pragmatism. They stake their iconoclastic rebellion on the fact that they take no moral stands, are unwilling to express any viewpoints, and endorse teaching methods that consist of leaderless “group discussions” with the epistemological justification that “there’s no such thing as truth, man”, and “its wrong to judge”.They ignore the idea that a university’s goal should be to equip its students with the ability to judge and evaluate, instead adopting a anti-philosophical base that renders all paradigms of thought as useless. This succeeds only in frustrating and depressing the most eager minds, condemning them to an endless maze of contradiction, hypocrisy and inconsistency, with little chance of discovering any solutions. It’s a tragic situation, worthy of Shakespearean consideration, that students were smart enough to understand the necessary outcomes of what they had been taught, but not independent enough to reject the theories themselves.

These intellectual values have left students without any resources in which to counteract the unknown, for their only resource, the mind was disavowed by their vacuous mentors. Reason is man’s mechanism for comprehending his complex reality. The faculty of reason separates man from common animals and thus is his metaphysical reality: a rational animal, and not one fooled by perceptual knowledge on a consistent basis. Using reason lets man form complex conceptual relationships about reality (perceptual data), allowing him to make objective and abstract conceptual models about reality. Understanding this rationality, man knows his true individuality lay in the fact that he makes his own choices.

This inherent individualism declares he’s a sovereign individual able to make rational choices for himself, which leads to logical respect for other human beings as other rational sovereign individuals, thus affording everyone certain inalienable rights: the right to exist, to be self-sustaining and self-generating. The logical belief in individual rights eventually takes on a political meaning when the question of organization arises. The belief in and respect for individual rights rationally leads to laisser-faire capitalism. Capitalism is the only political system that consistently rewards reason and punishes irrationality. It guarantees freedom and equal opportunity. It bars force from relationships, as all actions are contractual and voluntary. It was capitalism that abolished the aristocracy, eliminated the caste system, and ended slavery. North America is not free by chance, but by choice.

This type of philosophical system produces confident minds able to discriminate between fact and fiction, valuing self-determination over other imposing, corrupt and inefficient forms of organization such as socialism and mixed economies.Instead our intellectuals academics and teachers refute this logic supporting a philosophical base that teaches students, as Ayn Rand once said “existence is an uncharted realm, an unknowable jungle, where fear and uncertainty are man’s permanent state, where skepticism is the mark of maturity, and cynicism is the mark of realism, and above all the hallmark of an intellectual is the denial of the intellect.”

Why Every Proff I ever had was a leftist

Capitalism tends to provide an objective set of standards for determining "worth". Good products are easily distinguished from bad ones, good ideas in a free society after time defeat bad ones IE nationalizing industry was seen as lucrative from the 40's to the 70's and now it is seen as economically destructive. A free (capitalist) society is built upon the the premis of the"competition of ideas". Good ideas and methods are contantly replacing innefficient practices and beliefs. In a Capitalist society those with the most influance tend to be those that are most productive thus the cliche "money talks." Production is open to everyone and is not dependent on just one single trait (you can make money based on creativity, work ethic, brains, technical understanding, connections... the list is endless as long as you have one of them then you are free to capitalize on this trait in a free society.)

Academic leftism isn't based on the economic evidence of wealth redistrobution, or philosophical truths rather Liberals prefer leftism de-facto because of their hatered of capitalism (their love of Socialism isn't based upon Marx's theories of suplus and capital-- few have even studied marx -- Thanks D'Souza for writing Illiberal education). Liberals believe that the largest share of wealth in a society should be controlled by its most intelligent citizens-- namely proffessors, artists,bureacrats, the over educated, planners and regulators-- themselves!

Liberal Elites cringe to see an unkept redneck Albertan with sagging jeans and a sweat stained T-Shirt pulling out his wallet packed with hundreds. They see it as unjust that someone so uncouth could aquire so much capital. Think about this. The same Socilaist that champions the causes of the worker has disdain for him once he acquires wealth.Leftism exploits the disenfranchised in its conquest for control The unproductive sycophant preaching Marx for $100 000 is trying to acheive power through the only way he has been trained-- by the manipulation of society.

Medicare Quacks

Friends of Medicare and Socialist tyrants everywhere are trumpeting proudly over the collapse of the Albertan “Third Way”. The Medicare tyrants believe our healthcare system promotes justice benefiting the common Joe when in fact their ignorance of markets and the principles of freedom endanger the very people they claim to protect.

I want to present two actual scenarios and ask the lefties out there to respond. I would like to hear about their subjectively concluded definition of fairness.

I work with a man who has spent 30 years in the oil patch and now needs both of his knees replaced. His knees are destroyed and at the young age of 51 he spends everyday dealing with chronic pain and has to take a shitload of pills to deal with it. Well you say get his knees fixed then. Well the doctors won’t do it because he is too young for the surgery. Our benevolent healthcare system doesn’t want to do the surgery twice. So if they replace them now then he will have to have them replaced again before he dies. So between the still productive of ages of 45 to 57 they have expected him to live in constant pain so that when he is an old man he will have good knees. This is a man that made good wages his whole life, paid taxes his whole life and now he is expected to suffer. How has the Canadian way helped him?

I know another man that was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was told further testing would be needed to confirm the initial diagnosis. The tests couldn’t be done for another nine weeks. The doctor told him that was too long and he should go to the States if he could afford it. He re-mortgaged his house to pay for the testing down south. It was lucky he did because the American doctor told him a nine week wait would have probably killed him. He paid for the surgery and was back home within a week. How did free healthcare help this man? Does anybody ever calculate how many people have tied in a waiting line in Canada? Do you think this survivor resents the fact he had to re-mortgage his house in order to save his life? No. He resents a government that makes it illegal to save his own life. It is illegal in Canada to pay for your own medical costs! This is immoral.

How did the friends of Medicare help these men? Should the Friends of Medicare be held responsible for this needless suffering? Why is it illegal to take care of your own health needs?

It still needs to be said...

And why is paris rioting?

So there is rioting in the most “progressive” country in the western world and people want to know why, but once again thinkers have their heads up their proverbial asses. In an era where anyone with the ability to read has a plethora of historical, economic and cultural texts at their finger tips, it's amazing that so few people can correctly explain why the riots are happening.

The leftist intelligentsia blame the growing division between haves and haves not and the dogmatic right is pointing to the exceedingly high amount of immigrants in France.This is amazing that both sides could be so far off the mark.

The riots are not race motivated (although this may further motivate them), but instead are caused from inequality. But while recognizing inequality as their cause they fail to recognize the causem of this inequality is not unfair job laws but rather it is class of rigidity--- which is a direct and predictable consequence of the rampant socialism France and leftists triumphantly endorse.

Ignorantly they blame capitalist exploitation and unfair labor law as its cause. It is socialism that prohibits upward mobility, so if you arrive as a poor immigrant, you are most likely to die as one, as terribly so, are your children. And how could this evil exist in the most progressive country in the world? France, fighting for the working man, endorses Unions, guilds, occupation licensing, high education requirements-- even for things like being a clerk France endorses educational requirements--, plus massive amounts of civil servants and bureaucrats.

Every single one of these institutions has the common tendency to restrict membership in to their club-- for the purpose of increasing their member‘s hourly worth which translates to artificially high wages-- but meaning if you want to be a plumber, better have a dad or uncle that is already in the union. You see in a free country, if you want to be a plumber, you have to work hard to establish yourself as a competent plumber, but in France instead of knowledge and hard work you need connections. If you want to be a bureaucrats, better be friends with or have family in the civil service. If you are a poor Cambodian immigrant that want to be a beautician, well better have an extra $25,000 required for the licensing fee to become an “approved” beautician. All of these policies-- and there are countless more of them (affirmative action, rent control, easily accessible welfare.. etc.) restrict class movement promote high unemployment (France is always around 15%), plus promoting segregation.

People immigrant for the right of “equal opportunity“, the chance to succeed, or for their children’s chance to succeed. But it is impossible to succeed when class rigidity is mandated and enforced by law. And what do they get in exchange for this indentured racism and slavery… a few scraps of subsidized bread, poor, yet free schooling, a utopian moral smugness.