Previous  1  2  3  Next

Of course, if you want to see the real (though unacknowledged) bible of the urbanist movement, you can find it here. Hint: it wasn't written by Jane Jacobs.

http://www.americandeception.com/index. ... pdf&id=573

Jane Jacobs was a misguided, but non-ideological person who thought every neighbourhood should be Greenwich Village. The left-wing urbanists hollowed out the old woman's carcass, filled it with Marxist-inspired twaddle and turned her into the central figure of a cult so profoundly up its own ass that its members still think of themselves as plucky rebels fighting the ghost of Robert Moses rather that just the latest iteration of him or Le Corbusier.

   

Of course the Downtown Consensus isn't as deserving of the name as it's predecessor, because one of the major parties isn't on board. What made the Laurentian Consensus so pernicious was that even the Progressive Conservatives of the era (e.g. Clark and Stanfield) bought in. The main argument within this multi-party elite was how best to accommodate Quebec - by giving them more autonomy or by giving them more control over the ROC. The closest thing to an outlier in that chummy circle was the NDP, which still had some Western Canadian DNA that hadn't yet been suppressed by the Toronto Annex crowd.

But now it's all about cities and how to get those evil lawn-mowing suburbanites out of their cars and get those backward rural hicks to stop trying to have a say in things. Sunny ways.

   

Guess Justin hasn't entirely abandoned his Laurentian Consensus roots, as he's going to bat for that perennial parasite Bombardier. But in this latest contest, I'm on Boeing's side. Not because I like the company particularly, but I would support Old Nick himself if he were going up against Bombardier. And no, I don't give a crap about nationalists still butthurt over the Avro Arrow. Apples and oranges.

   

As I acknowledged in another thread, the transition from the Laurentian project to a more urban-focussed one never really happened, at least not fully. Justin has gone full Laurentian, defending Bombardier to the hilt and mixing intersectional identity politics into his father’s multicultural stew, and as always defending Ontario’s and Quebec’s dominant position in our “post-national state”.

But my observations about urbanism above have become newly relevant, given that Jennifer Keesmaat, Toronto’s former Chief Social Engineer, is now running for mayor of Toronto on a platform of secession from Ontario.

While the idea of Toronto forming its own province has merit, and as a resident of “the rest of Ontario”, I’d be happy to see Toronto take it’s virtue-signalling social elites out of my province, the idea of a professional anti-car, anti-suburb activist running as a would-be premier in a mayoral election is all kinds of messed up. Of course, the fact that the amalgamated Toronto contains Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York by itself makes a Keesmaat win unlikely, given her barely concealed contempt for suburban living. It does however reflect a growing siege mentality among the Canadian left, a tendency to retreat to defensible fortresses, be they geographic (downtown Toronto) or institutional (academia), “safe spaces”, if you will.

Doug Ford certainly seems to have stirred the pot.

   

Make no mistake though. The Toronto Keesmaat wants to carve out from Ontario isn’t the post-amalgamation one. What the urban left craves more than anything is a jurisdiction in which there are no suburban or rural voters. If they can’t politically neutralize rural Canadians or infill and bike lane the suburbs out of existence, the next best thing to to retreat behind a cultural and political wall. Kind of a Galt’s Gulch for Arts grads.

   

I have no problem with Toronto separating from Ontario/Canada.
Let them, better for everyone.

And build a wall !

   

Pardon me for interrupting your conversation with yourself but the trolls succeeded at derailing your thread. I am having trouble reading it.

Could you give us the Cole's Notes version?

   

Sure....he wrote some stuff.

   

What used to the Laurentian Consensus, the idea that Quebec and Ontario rule Canada,
has changed to an urban consensus, where you control the country only by taking the
urban/suburban ridings in an election.
Fuck the farmers and small town dweebs, they count for nothing.

Therefore, pandering to femnazis, immigrants, and the LGBTP vote is enough.

   

   

^ This statement and this whole endless monologue of a thread presumes that suburban lifestyle and values are the only true and natural values and that anything else is artificial and part of some kind of vast worldwide conspiracy to....well it’s not really clear but it’s a worldwide conspiracy Itell ya! The irony is of course that the suburban environment is the most artificial,contrived and centrally planned environment humans can invent and as far as “conformity” goes every suburban house looks the same, every street and neighborhood is the same,every store and restaurant is the same the whole thing it’s just one homogeneous blob. You can’t tell the difference between two suburban towns on opposite sides of the continent they’re so identical if you went to bed in one and woke up in the other you’d hardly notice. Probably designed and built by the same mass developers too. OTOH cities are organic and reflect the infinitely diverse character of the different people who pass through, every shop, house, street and neighborood is different and unique, and constantly changing.

Martins comments above also suggest that he thinks it’s unnatural for feminists, immigrants or LGBTQ people to have any say or vote and therefore he thinks any party that includes them or their concerns must be part of said sinister worldwide plot.

   

Reading comprehension just isn't in your skillset, is it?

   

Doesn't seem like it to me

   

This is, like, one of 20000-odd posts I've made that I've completely forgotten I even wrote.

   

I think it might not be yours. I stand by what I said you just failed to grasp it

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next