woahwoahwoah, let's make sure we understand what i'm saying, here.

while i identify as a socialist and a communist and an anarchist, and seek eagerly to seek out like-minded people to organize with, i completely denounce and reject anything to do with progressivism, anything to do with religion, anything to do with tradition, anything to do with fiscal conservatism, anything to do with the "middle class" and anything do with ethnic nationalism. you don't need to tell me i'm not in your club - i will tell you i'm not in your club. i don't want to be in your club, and you can't ban me because i stormed out. 

we do not have common cause. and, i am not on your side.

but, i am not going to cede ground on the left - i am not going to go away. rather, i am going to win this debate and drive you and your progressive conservatism into the fucking sea.

got it?

no, i've actually made the argument in the past that india is a natural ally for canada, being that we're both commonwealth nations. and, i want to challenge the veracity of the idea of canada as a colonial power here, so i don't draw the commonwealth comparison in a superior tone, but rather with the legitimate intent to draw a commonality. i've been critical of canadian attempts to repartition india; that was painful, if necessary, let's not do it again. while colonial interests have no doubt operated in canada, a sober analysis indicates that they operated in canada in a way that was, in truth, very similar to the way they operated in india. canada is more of a colonized state than a colonial one, and the high growth rate in the indigenous community suggests some upcoming demographic renewal in the colonized population. the future of canada, as well as of australia (and new zealand), may intertwine quite substantively with that of india, in a more sinocentric world. we may find ourselves in economic convergence due to those shared histories as a colonized state more so than a colonizing one.

the colonizing nations - which includes the united states, as well as the european powers, including russia - will have a different role to play in the overseeing of the transfer of wealth, which countries like australia and canada have really only ever been colonial outposts of, more like india in terms of scope than the homeland. we shouldn't be too confused about ethnicity when we talk about empires. america only became a colonizing power by brute force, something the other colonies have quite distinctly avoided. we're for sale, in the end, although the americans may also find themselves aggressively interested in determining the buyers. whether the money flows outwards to one continent or the other, canada still remains colonized, in the end.

and, that's the difference between colonized and colonizer, whether the money comes in or out. canada was a colony of france and then of britain, meaning that profits found their way back to owners in europe, particularly in england or a little slice of germany that the ruling family in england descended from. canada has long served the purpose within the empire of transforming raw canadian resources into products for export, to generate taxes and revenues for the elite in britain. everything went out of canada, nothing came into it, except people. for that reason, canada actually has an argument that it deserves reparations from the british state, for all the wealth it extracted from the country. that puts us on the same side as a country like india in these international negotiations, rather than on the side of the colonizing states. i wish that was better understood.