Friday, August 25, 2017
actually, if you listen to white supremacists, it's clear that even they don't actually believe in it anymore.
the original nazis were all about how superior they were. they wanted to wipe out or enslave all of the other races, to make room for themselves. and, remember: they weren't even white supremacists- they were strictly german nationalists. the french were franks, but they had a real hate on for russians and the british, too. they even thought the poles (who live right next to them and in fact probably founded berlin) were subhuman. they were bellicose, arrogant and certain in their delusions - they were superior, and all others would be defeated by their superior intelligence and superior tactics. naturally.
today, white nationalists are all about protecting the fragility of their endangered race and their threatened culture. they talk of a "white genocide" on the bottom end of an inferiority complex. listening to them talk, it's weird to even call them supremacists at all.
of course, the truth is that they don't understand history: this white race that they've imagined never actually existed. white people probably came from central asia and intermixed with all kinds of indigenous people as they migrated into europe. in the historical period, europe has seen large scale levels of immigration from the middle east and from asia and more recently from africa. the closest thing you're gone to find to a pure white person is probably somebody off the finnish bottleneck, but even they speak an uralic language.
so, you can't even define what they're claiming is superior. what's ever come out of ukraine?
but, if you forget about that, how do you want to do this? if white people are superior, how can they be being exterminated in a genocide? now, ignoring that you can't define white, you have to find a way to define superior. well, if superiority is determined through natural selection, a white genocide suggests white people are not superior. if it's over brawn, it still doesn't work; and, if it's over brain, white people are getting outsmarted, too.
so, what these so-called white supremacists really have is an inferiority complex and a fear of not holding up. what they want is a safe space where they can breed without being polluted, because they know they're too weak to dominate the people around them - like putting a critically endangered species that can't adapt into a wildlife enclosure in a zoo.
it's the reality of it.
the original nazis were all about how superior they were. they wanted to wipe out or enslave all of the other races, to make room for themselves. and, remember: they weren't even white supremacists- they were strictly german nationalists. the french were franks, but they had a real hate on for russians and the british, too. they even thought the poles (who live right next to them and in fact probably founded berlin) were subhuman. they were bellicose, arrogant and certain in their delusions - they were superior, and all others would be defeated by their superior intelligence and superior tactics. naturally.
today, white nationalists are all about protecting the fragility of their endangered race and their threatened culture. they talk of a "white genocide" on the bottom end of an inferiority complex. listening to them talk, it's weird to even call them supremacists at all.
of course, the truth is that they don't understand history: this white race that they've imagined never actually existed. white people probably came from central asia and intermixed with all kinds of indigenous people as they migrated into europe. in the historical period, europe has seen large scale levels of immigration from the middle east and from asia and more recently from africa. the closest thing you're gone to find to a pure white person is probably somebody off the finnish bottleneck, but even they speak an uralic language.
so, you can't even define what they're claiming is superior. what's ever come out of ukraine?
but, if you forget about that, how do you want to do this? if white people are superior, how can they be being exterminated in a genocide? now, ignoring that you can't define white, you have to find a way to define superior. well, if superiority is determined through natural selection, a white genocide suggests white people are not superior. if it's over brawn, it still doesn't work; and, if it's over brain, white people are getting outsmarted, too.
so, what these so-called white supremacists really have is an inferiority complex and a fear of not holding up. what they want is a safe space where they can breed without being polluted, because they know they're too weak to dominate the people around them - like putting a critically endangered species that can't adapt into a wildlife enclosure in a zoo.
it's the reality of it.
at
19:01
the tactic in canada is to slow them down until it's not profitable and they pull out.
this is a step forward.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/24/energy-east-pipeline-review-will-include-carbon-emissions-a-first-for-canada_a_23166201/?utm_source
this is a step forward.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/24/energy-east-pipeline-review-will-include-carbon-emissions-a-first-for-canada_a_23166201/?utm_source
at
02:47
this is somewhat of a surprising position from ashton & caron. the article does a good job of explaining the context, and the idea of quebecois sovereignty being paramount does make sense in a canadian context.
i don't agree with the narrative that the ndp's fall in quebec was about the niqab. the liberals had the same position as the ndp. the article makes more of an attempt to cycle around this by providing a more complex narrative, but i still think it's ultimately flawed. rather, what happened in quebec in the 2015 election was that the bloc pulled enough support away from the ndp to allow the liberals to leapfrog them; the bloc and the ndp split the left-of-liberal vote, and the liberals came up the middle. a lot of these ridings were won with 25-30% support as a consequence of truly competitive four-way races that were almost impossible to predict beforehand, but what i pulled out of the trending was a bloc bump - and that bloc bump was really mere percentage points away from leading to a return of the bloc, which would have also left the liberals with a minority government. that's what i predicted, anyways, and it was really the only error i made (i underestimated liberal seat counts by the amount that i overestimated bloc seat counts, helped by the fact that i saw the ontario sweep coming when nobody else did).
there does remain some possibility that a resurgent bloc could return the liberals to minority status in 2019. this is a far greater threat to the liberals than andrew scheer is. the ndp is a complicated player in this, as they exist between the two parties in multiple ways and can consequently pull support from either party - it is the fight between the ndp and the bloc for the left sovereigntist vote in quebec that will probably determine the outcome of the next election.
attempts to be more appealing to quebec voters are consequently extremely rational.
nor do i agree that quebec's silent revolution is unique to the province, or that canadians outside of quebec have a different viewpoint on this. rather, i'd argue that the western provinces - primarily alberta - are isolated, here, and even that is potentially an overstatement. canada is an overwhelmingly secular society, from coast-to-coast.
what is different about quebec is merely the political dynamic at play, which gives a stronger voice to nationalist parties. but, these nationalist parties are actually comparably tame. if a nationalist party of the sort were to pop up in alberta, it would be of the sort that they are warning against, not the sort they are cautiously accepting under the parameters of quebec sovereignty. nor is it clear that this is outside the realm of realistic probability. ezra levant remains popular on the canadian right; the conservative party's attempt to distance itself from him may potentially even backfire.
but, what the sovereigntist dynamic in quebec allows for is a vehicle to discuss things that does not (currently) exist elsewhere. both error bars are correct here: the spectrum in quebec amplifies voices to emulate the systems that exist in france, while the spectrum in the rest of the country silences those voices. scratch the surface, and you'd be unlikely to find a real difference.
my advice to the ndp was to avoid this. and, you'll note something that the pundits seem to forget: the values charter underlying the debate has actually failed every vote that has been centered around it. quebeckers have, in fact, consistently rejected the values charter. the existing provincial government's mandate is partially based on it's rejection of it!
recent history has demonstrated that the handful of seats that are up for grabs in rural quebec are in fact not worth abandoning the island over.
the best thing to do is to avoid this debate. but, charlie angus has the right electoral strategy, if the goal is to actually win. quebeckers, themselves, do not actually support this.
what do i think about the substance of the policy, though?
well, i'm partial to the idea of banning religious symbols on public service employees - that is crosses or crescents or stars of david. but, here's the thing: the niqab isn't actually a religious symbol. it's a fashion decision rooted in cultural hubris, sure, but it's not actually a part of islam.
...and, i'm opposed to the fashion police.
the constitution isn't likely to uphold any laws of the sort, but they can always use the notwithstanding clause, and no doubt will, as they did with the language laws. but, the fact is that there isn't even a logical connection between upholding a ban on religious symbols and enforcing a ban on niqabs and burqas. it's just not what these things actually are.
they're just scarves. really.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/24/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-split-on-religious-rights-in-battleground-quebec_a_23177599/
i don't agree with the narrative that the ndp's fall in quebec was about the niqab. the liberals had the same position as the ndp. the article makes more of an attempt to cycle around this by providing a more complex narrative, but i still think it's ultimately flawed. rather, what happened in quebec in the 2015 election was that the bloc pulled enough support away from the ndp to allow the liberals to leapfrog them; the bloc and the ndp split the left-of-liberal vote, and the liberals came up the middle. a lot of these ridings were won with 25-30% support as a consequence of truly competitive four-way races that were almost impossible to predict beforehand, but what i pulled out of the trending was a bloc bump - and that bloc bump was really mere percentage points away from leading to a return of the bloc, which would have also left the liberals with a minority government. that's what i predicted, anyways, and it was really the only error i made (i underestimated liberal seat counts by the amount that i overestimated bloc seat counts, helped by the fact that i saw the ontario sweep coming when nobody else did).
there does remain some possibility that a resurgent bloc could return the liberals to minority status in 2019. this is a far greater threat to the liberals than andrew scheer is. the ndp is a complicated player in this, as they exist between the two parties in multiple ways and can consequently pull support from either party - it is the fight between the ndp and the bloc for the left sovereigntist vote in quebec that will probably determine the outcome of the next election.
attempts to be more appealing to quebec voters are consequently extremely rational.
nor do i agree that quebec's silent revolution is unique to the province, or that canadians outside of quebec have a different viewpoint on this. rather, i'd argue that the western provinces - primarily alberta - are isolated, here, and even that is potentially an overstatement. canada is an overwhelmingly secular society, from coast-to-coast.
what is different about quebec is merely the political dynamic at play, which gives a stronger voice to nationalist parties. but, these nationalist parties are actually comparably tame. if a nationalist party of the sort were to pop up in alberta, it would be of the sort that they are warning against, not the sort they are cautiously accepting under the parameters of quebec sovereignty. nor is it clear that this is outside the realm of realistic probability. ezra levant remains popular on the canadian right; the conservative party's attempt to distance itself from him may potentially even backfire.
but, what the sovereigntist dynamic in quebec allows for is a vehicle to discuss things that does not (currently) exist elsewhere. both error bars are correct here: the spectrum in quebec amplifies voices to emulate the systems that exist in france, while the spectrum in the rest of the country silences those voices. scratch the surface, and you'd be unlikely to find a real difference.
my advice to the ndp was to avoid this. and, you'll note something that the pundits seem to forget: the values charter underlying the debate has actually failed every vote that has been centered around it. quebeckers have, in fact, consistently rejected the values charter. the existing provincial government's mandate is partially based on it's rejection of it!
recent history has demonstrated that the handful of seats that are up for grabs in rural quebec are in fact not worth abandoning the island over.
the best thing to do is to avoid this debate. but, charlie angus has the right electoral strategy, if the goal is to actually win. quebeckers, themselves, do not actually support this.
what do i think about the substance of the policy, though?
well, i'm partial to the idea of banning religious symbols on public service employees - that is crosses or crescents or stars of david. but, here's the thing: the niqab isn't actually a religious symbol. it's a fashion decision rooted in cultural hubris, sure, but it's not actually a part of islam.
...and, i'm opposed to the fashion police.
the constitution isn't likely to uphold any laws of the sort, but they can always use the notwithstanding clause, and no doubt will, as they did with the language laws. but, the fact is that there isn't even a logical connection between upholding a ban on religious symbols and enforcing a ban on niqabs and burqas. it's just not what these things actually are.
they're just scarves. really.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/24/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-split-on-religious-rights-in-battleground-quebec_a_23177599/
at
02:29
i'm going to side with the union.
i can tell you that the right honourable sir john didn't remember much of his own history.
in fact, do you know who the closest contemporary figure to sir john a mcdonald really is, in terms of ideological persuasion? rob ford.
that's right: sir john a. mcdonald was a hopeless drunk and an open racist. and, when he wasn't involved in a massive corruption scheme around building a cross-country railroad, he was pretending to rail against the gravy train.
imagine your great grandkids walking into rob ford public school. well, you shouldn't feel much better about sir john a. mcdonald.
teaching your kids the history is important, but that doesn't have much to do with what you name your school after.
how about this: how about we name our schools after neighbourhoods instead of after divisive historical tyrants?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wynne-john-a-mcdonald-schools-1.4261433
i can tell you that the right honourable sir john didn't remember much of his own history.
in fact, do you know who the closest contemporary figure to sir john a mcdonald really is, in terms of ideological persuasion? rob ford.
that's right: sir john a. mcdonald was a hopeless drunk and an open racist. and, when he wasn't involved in a massive corruption scheme around building a cross-country railroad, he was pretending to rail against the gravy train.
imagine your great grandkids walking into rob ford public school. well, you shouldn't feel much better about sir john a. mcdonald.
teaching your kids the history is important, but that doesn't have much to do with what you name your school after.
how about this: how about we name our schools after neighbourhoods instead of after divisive historical tyrants?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wynne-john-a-mcdonald-schools-1.4261433
at
00:30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)