the foreign born subset of the petite bourgeoisie in canada is a more conservative and more aggressively competitive subset of the petite bourgeoisie than the domestically born nouveau riche, as the aristocratic class uses advanced data and technological screening methods in their immigration policy to isolate potential migrants as conservative and competitive with the explicit intend to expand the petite bourgeoisie, as that broadens their tax base. liberal and conservative governments pick new immigrants with the intent of them becoming new members of the petite bourgeoisie, which is a marxist term that is largely equivalent to the capitalist term "entrepreneur", because they want to tax them as bourgeois, and not as proletariat. 

the disconnect is that the canadian pseudo-left relies almost entirely on american analyses that use american economic data. however, the united states has very rarely adopted similar policies. immigration policy in the the united states is largely a legacy of slavery and is primarily intended to increase the size of the proletariat in order to drive down wages, not to increase the size of the petite bourgeoisie to increase the tax base. canadian immigration policy is rooted not in hispanic/arabic slavery but in british colonialism, which sought to populate new regions with free british citizens that could generate their own wealth, with the purposes of taxing them.

if the canadian pseudo-left wants to reconnect with the canadian proletariat, it needs to start by using canadian economic data that is relevant to the canadian proletariat, and stop relying on american data and stop trying to apply distinctly american social theories that are rooted in the legacy of slavery and are not relevant in canada.

canadian voters don't care about this one way or another, they care about who they think will help them survive in an increasingly difficult economic reality, and they can correctly realize that out of control immigration is harming their economic status. there's no contradiction in building a bigger tent that focuses on the economic concerns of the proletarian majority and listening to the mostly unrelated concerns of special interest minority groups unless you want there to be one to advance your own political career.

but this framing of left and right is backwards. macpherson sounds more like marx than avi lewis does, here. marx would not let special interest groups that represent petite bourgeoisie economic concerns and are focused on non-economic issues overpower the economic rights of the proletariat class. avi lewis sounds more like a red tory type conservative, who is protecting the interests of the immigrant subset of the petite bourgeoisie against the populist demands of proletariat workers.

it's not really the contemporary pseudo-left's fault, as they are inheriting framing left to them by the orwellian movements that developed out of the "new left" in the 1960s, and which sought to redefine the left in orwellian language. however, the complete irrelevance of the contemporary pseudo-left in the lives of proletariat voters, who have subsequently turned to conservatives or liberals that do no represent their economic interests, is giving the ndp the choice to determine whether it wants to abandon it's historical position as a sanctioned proletariat opposition, or whether it wants to become the mouthpiece of an immigrant subset of the petite bourgeoisie, which is what it has increasingly become since the death of jack layton.

the so-called racialized groups being spoken of are not struggling or oppressed minorities in canada and in most cases have never been, as they only began entering the country after changes to immigration in the 1960s, and have little to no history in canada as substantive entities in the pre-modern era. over the last ten to fifteen years, the ndp has attempted to position itself as the party of educated immigrants, who delusionally see themselves as marginalized groups, but are in truth privileged groups with high incomes and in many cases have special rights that the rest of the population does not. this premise that the proletariat is increasingly made up of racialized groups is actually racist, as it's based on racial assumptions that are rooted in american culture and not upheld by canadian economic data; the ndp's attempt to reach out to what it assumes are racialized groups but are actually privileged groups, because it is a racist party, has led it to become a mouthpiece of this subset of the bourgeoisie that was not born in canada. it then continues to delude itself that it's representing oppressed racialized minorities instead of privileged bourgeois immigrant groups when challenged on this point, largely because it's beholden to the funding it receives from wealthy immigrants. the result is that it's lost party status, as it is simultaneously abandoned by the proletariat and the groups it is trying to reach out to, which are predictably voting in favour of their own class interests, which are bourgeois and not proletariat. it might get wiped out soon altogether, leaving the proletariat as disenfranchised, and destabilizing the base of canadian society.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ndp-leadership-rivals-at-odds-over-purity-test-framing

the government has regularly cut taxes after every election cycle for the last 30 years. the result is that it is so underfunded that it's unable to support it's most vulnerable populations, and is instead resorting to scapegoating them in backwards reagan-era propaganda about senior welfare queens.

the government should raise taxes on the "middle class" to ensure it has enough revenue to fund it's spending obligations as an oecd country.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-urged-to-cut-old-age-security-spending-in-upcoming-budget

unless he's announcing reparation to the indigenous population, the pope should shut the fuck up about canada.

the pmo should call the pope to tell him to fuck off and go back to worrying about mumbling at walls.

i would support israeli annexation of the west bank.

the only viable path towards enforceable palestinian rights law is as full citizens in an israeli state. any theoretical palestinian state, as unlikely as one ever is, would be another backwards theocracy that oppresses it's own citizens, and where people have no civil and legal rights to deviate from violently enforced religious norms. it would be another brutal dictatorship in the region, and gaza under hamas is the inescapable model for it.

refusing to allow israeli annexation of the west bank continues to indefinitely and endlessly render the palestinian people as stateless and rightless until they simply cease to exist at all, which is the inevitable outcome of the status quo, and leaves them with no democratic influence into the events unfolding around them.

if you are opposing annexation out of concerns about what israel calls a "demographic problem", you at least have a position rooted in logic, but it's fundamentally incompatible with the values of secular democracy and a position i would strongly oppose. if you are opposing annexation because you worry about the possibility of palestinian extremism destabilizing the region, which is the position held by local governments, you are in truth probably right. but if you think that opposing annexation of the west bank by israel advances the rights of the stateless individuals living there, most of whom are hebrew in ancestry, you are an absolute idiot.

19th century european ethnic nationalism is a foolish model to colonially enforce on 21st century populations on the periphery of european civilization. in the modern world, states have diverse populations that speak multiple languages.

mr trump will not have his friends ridiculed by the common soldiery.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/israel-version-saturday-night-live-224244449.html