Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Why voting NDP is better than Sask/Conservative or Liberal Parties...

Recommended Posts

If anyone has seen or heard what I've written or spoken, you'd know that I have an issue against Multiculturalism here in Canada since I disagree with ANY cultural type laws because they ALWAYS lead to some form of discrimination no matter how 'well-intentioned' it could be.

All parties here support culture because those WITH culture always have more intense interest to be actively participant in politics, especially where their concerns are stronger. Those cultural groups who have the 'normal' power presently, prefer conservative politics because it preserves their cultural interests best. In contrast, those cultural groups who have less present power, can't compete in isolation and so require giving leniency towards other groups in similar 'weakness' if only to get the power through collective cultural coalitions.

This does not mean that any of each of these cultural groups lacks 'conservative' interests. I've called the interest of those who most prefer some cultural interest WITH one's associative inheritances, "Nationalism", since this collectively covers the idea that they FAVOR some aspect of conserving one's ethnic beliefs, not simply culture per se. That is, with respect to culture, a Nationalist is one who favors at least SOME form of ethnic preservation in opposition to contemporary PROGRESSIVE cultures in which people voluntarily form or opt into without concern for any ethnic bias. As such, ALL parties of any political persuasion will inevitably have Nationalists among them.

So what do we do if we believe we are 'free' to choose our culture but all parties in politics tend to be some force against this? If you are 'white', this accidental inheritance tends to be favored by our present conservatives where they are more predominantly 'white'. In contrast, the more non-conservative interests tends towards favoring those Nationalist groups who are most in opposition to those who ARE 'white', even if those parties do not necessarily intend this bias. This is because for the collective Nationalists disenfranchised, they lack the essential compassion to favor those they intrinsically believe are defaulted to be favored regardless of any potential flaw in this thinking. Any compassion threatens their own purposes where they interpret the nature of others to prefer the same KIND of Nationalistic thinking they intrinsically hold 'true' of themselves.

It makes it difficult for those of us without Nationalistic interests but belong to some group of which those Nationalists of one side of the political spectrum interpret us to belong to.

Given that I'm social democratic in principle, my preference is to vote NDP here in Saskatchewan in our upcoming election. But what I DO fear is that should this party become empowered, all the collective Nationalists among them will likely push for laws that will tend to posit special laws that empower their groups and in such a way that also prevents at least some groups from having the same privilege. Such laws are often proposed to only appear to FAVOR some in-group rather than to NEGATE some out-group. The problem is that this WILL occur in such a way that ALWAYS discriminates. Also, while it is relatively 'true' that at present our 'white' cultural Nationalists will continue to foster favor for those who are 'white', the ones who are white who are NOT Nationalists and NOT with power in fact, will be the only ones who lose to any Multicultural laws. That is, if one is white AND supports present liberalisms (NDP or Liberal party), those of us who do not belong to the Nationalists of most interest in these parties will become the sacrifices.

It is this reasonable fear which makes those of us to be most confused at who to vote for. If we vote for what we believe, we are doomed as sacrificial lambs FOR those Nationalists in a majority there. And if we vote for the present conservative mono-cultural parties, or, as with the Liberals, a small subset of specific groups, we lose in that we don't get what we want, BUT we at least don't also get sacrificed or harmed the more 'white' we are and the more mono-culturally favorable parties favoring 'whites'.

Conservatives are not necessarily biased in principle either by many. In fact, the ones who ARE of the present 'non-white' status who also favor the more capitalistic ideals of the right-wing parties ALSO have a similar problem but in reverse. This makes non-whites at present who are preferentially leaning to the right damned too regardless of how they vote. These particular non-whites though will more likely be at least more economically 'safe' as this is usually why ones tend to favor capitalistic economic liberal views with priority.

Given these facts, the sacrifices of ones who are white and more liberal, will still be potentially penalized for voting more left-wing, in a worse way than those non-whites sacrificing who opt to favor non-liberal party views. What are we then supposed to do?

I hope at least you could see why I'm so adamantly against Nationalism. But I believe that our NDP, while still likely to have more Nationalists against whites, the nature of multiple groups competing will have a better means to defeat the Nationalists of any parties. This is because those of us disenfranchised still have a potential to at least overcome the biases against us by exposing the logic I'm presenting here. I DO NOT believe in creating another posited group FOR some 'whiteness' as this only amplifies (or feedbacks) the very causes of Nationalism that threaten all of us in a renewed cycle of social abuses.

So I believe our best chances are to still vote for NDP if we favor more liberal beliefs. But we also need to be clear to also vocalize this concern I present very LOUDLY! We need people of all backgrounds who believe in sincere PROGRESSIVE views, to make a stance against ANY form of Nationalisms and also in a way that doesn't foster FAVOR FOR ethnic preservation. "Ethnicity" is the combined connection of one's genetic as well as cultural inheritances. I am not against one choosing culture. But if one believes one's ethnicity entitles them to some kind of 'ownership' right in law because of this accidental factor, it IS Nationalism, even if they don't or won't acknowledge it.

Let's fight to defeat Nationalistic views regardless of which political persuasion you hold based on economics. But, we have the best chance to be successful if we favor the NDP for those of us voting in the upcoming elections since right-wing parties have a natural tendency to foster Nationalism with more fervor. It is in the nature of "conservatives" to do whatever it takes to conserve the ethnicity of the majority to the extreme when those Nationalists among them are most empowered to make this happen. And don't be fooled by our Liberal party's apparent modesty to be partially kinder. Their favor is for a Catholic (Anglican or French-Roman) Nationalism of our founding established powers and their acceptance of other groups is limited to the ones which most enables them to keep power and distribute their past faults they 'own' among the general population instead. So they attempt to foster Nationalisms of targeted disenfranchised groups sufficient for their more 'liberal' ethnic, but biased interests.

Thank you.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Hussain
      Can you ever imagine a country like Canada not having clean drinking water? In the 1970s the Canadain government promised to bring clean drinking water to all of Canada. Now in 2020 100% of cities of clean drinking water and 99% of rural areas have clean drinking water. the 1% which is missing is the Indigenous reserves. People living on the reserves don't have access to clean drinking water. They are poorly funded. Now the question of what would the Canadian government do if Toronto had no cleaning drinking water?
      BTW if you guys want to know more about me and my youtube channel check it out. I interview high profile politicians including Former PMs and MPs and Senators. 
    • By Scott Mayers
      Defining a Semantic meaning to a concept intentionally understood by those using the term within politics

      I define Nationalism as the preferential stance to conserve one's ethnicity distinctly from all others with political force (in a set of formal laws) that is based on some assumed 'Natural Law' [or Divine Power, or God] making it valid by them to segregate groups of people with unequal forms of treatment. That is, one proposing a favor for "Nationalism" favors some group of people (never all) for some belief they are unique as a group based on both a genetic ancestral connection AND some culture, tradition, religion, etc, as if the environmental and arbitrary factors are 'owned' (or shared as each member in that group as their 'own'), AND that they deserve laws that both serve them uniquely for their beliefs as well as to preserve such uniqueness at the expense of some other group they may believe risks their own in an opposing extreme.

      As a simple example, consider one's immediate and extended family that had some common set of traditions and beliefs that was passed down. 'Naturally' we understand that to favor one's own in this way is NOT a fault. But if one intrinsically believed their family and its tradition is also patently 'owned' such that they believe laws of the community at large must respect them with absolution to their right to have those that specifically foster their selective segregation at the expense of some or any part of the community, even if such discriminates against outsiders unequally, this treats this or other accepted groups as 'beyond' reproach from others to question.

      The biggest problem is that it creates classifications of groups based on ethnicity even for those who have similar heritage but disagree to such traditions. It disfavors progress by commanding all future people to keep specific past traditions and have them tied protectively to specific people based on their genetic heritage, not choice. Ones who opt out of their 'natural' roots and cultures for other ones are deemed outsiders and thus by definition no longer count as a member of that 'Nation' which only preserves the 'purity' to the Nationalist belief. That is, you may 'freely' opt out of such a classification but then no longer get recognized as an authorized member of the group. But this assures by definition that the Nationalists remain committed by defining OUT those who democratically may disagree to those traditional associations imposed upon them.

      Also, such Nationalism MUST come at the expense of at least some non-member to be defaulted NOT to be privileged to the same exceptional treatment. If the treatment was universal, the National concern would not exist except as the whole of ALL people within the political boundaries.
      Note how the assumption of Nationalism to sometimes be attributed to the land arises. This land-based understanding though is included in ones ethnicity if one assumes they have original or Ab-original (Native or Natural) claims of their ethnicity also to the land for which they desire their laws to be uniquely favored. But Nationalism is NOT simply one's land-claims but to their traditions, cultures, or other things they associate with as an identifying group regardless of whether they are referencing a right to special land-claims. What matters is that their claim to the lands where they exist is based on their ethnic roots, the genetic AND cultural heritage (inheritances) by historical accident.

      Nationalism treats people as distinct as species regardless of any claims to the contrary. It should be expected that if one is aiming to support their in-group exclusively in law, that it would be unusual and less favorable by those outside to accept such groups to exist had they sold their intent to be of universal compassion. It would be self-defeating unless such a group were of the powerful majority. So those who ARE Nationalists cannot be expected to be honest about what the logical implications of Nationalism are: segregation, division, ...ethnocentrism, discrimination, racism, and intolerance. Instead, many will attempt to sell it off as supporting things like 'diversity'. The problem is, this "diversity" respects only such groups officially accepted, NOT ALL GROUPS, nor those non-associated with such group-think beliefs, the ultimate of which is the individual.

      Nationalism plays on presuming what one favor does not imply disfavoring others by contrast. But unlike normal descriptive classifications, the Nationalist bases their defining in-groups by properties that don't uniquely disqualify others of inclusion. Yet these properties they are claiming are 'owned' in their mind as specific (as a 'species') in such a way that is NOT TRUE. This 'ownership' is assumed to be a function of their species that deserves laws that both demand they have the right to keep these arbitrary set of behaviors as well as to impose restrictions of those outside these groups from 'co-opting' them, as though their behaviors are also a copyright. But this 'copyright' has no limit and is deemed perpetual.

      On Definitions of "Nation" and "Nationalism"

      While we use the term "nation" to describe one's country, the term is not precisely mapped to territory alone as it implies not only those within the defining boarders but to some minimum culture based on their Constitutions and so is appropriate with respect to the set of all countries in the world. But the specific meaning of "nationalism" does not imply that all people supporting ones' country makes them a "Nationalist". We use the term "Patriotism" to describe one's pride in their country and its 'national constitution' but it does not NECESSARILY require one to favor a particular ethnicity. But some countries, like Israel DO support both pride in their 'country' as well as to their ethnicity. And this makes them "Nationalistic" with the intentional meaning as applied politically.

      The Nazis also were "Nationalistic" too and where their name partially comes from.
      In our country, Canada, "Multiculturalism", is the formal term to define a collection of distinct cultures and when or where this is applied in law, becomes a form of "Nationalism" as well, since it specifically creates laws for or of peoples based on tradition and cultures and their genetic heritages.....that is, ethnicity. So while Nazis or Zionists may be Nationalistic, these 'right-wing' states of belief are just Mono-cultural, where our Multicultural form here is more 'center-and-left-wing' forms of Nationalism. It might be best to describe these as either Socially Liberal to Multi-nationalists versus Socially Restricted to One Nationalist group.

      Thus, I interpret Nationalism as prevalent in all political persuasions. I also believe that it is this one factor that significantly prevents ANY form of political government from ever being able to competently succeed no matter how these other main ideals could possibly exist without. It is the cause of failure of all Constitutions because the tendency of those who believe in Nationalisms are sufficiently powerful enough even if in significant minority to act with such extremes that act to divide even the most compassionately collective soul of us all.
      Nationalism in all its forms are THE cause of all problems and division. They also contribute to economic differences in the world because those Nationalists in power will tend to favor those of their believed unique species apart from those who are not. They command the attention in poor communities as well in what we refer to as 'gangs' where ghettos are concerned. However, where POWER is also favored by default to those Nationalists of the more wealthy, this makes them most at 'fault' because the ones in struggling communities only act out BECAUSE of desperation, and not necessarily BECAUSE they originally had some intrinsic belief in any common ethnic factors. The extremes foster the new Nationalists from one group in antithesis to some other who at least appears to prevail.

      And should one Nationalist group of some previous generation suffer based on some Nationalists of some extreme opposite in power, when and if the 'weaker' group(s) becomes empowered, they tend to amplify their own Nationalism with more strength becoming the next extreme in POWER who foster other new Nationalists on the opposite spectrum in a never-ending cycle of abuse.
      Nationalism must be challenged for what it is everywhere. Unless we ever rationally do so, we are doomed to perpetually repeat these mistakes and will never have a chance to make any political view stand out as better than others with sufficient long-term success.

      Edit: Spelling on one of two words and added two words (I saw the other misspelling but can't find it now and will edit again if I do).
    • By Exegesisme
      How About Merging NDP and Green?​
      By Exegesisme
      What does new democracy mean? To my observation, NDP shows nothing new about democracy. NDP needs to make the meaning of its name real to Canadian people. New democracy, should not be just two words in the name of NDP, but means something our Canadian people hope for, our Canadian people want to work for, and so, our Canadian people want to vote for.
      The actual meaning of the words new democracy, is something in my mind the people ask for in their future. If it is only something they ask for in their past, such thing certainly is not new. So, new democracy, first should have the ability to predict what Canadian people need in their future. In my knowledge, nothing is more important than environment in human future, so is in past, so is at now, and so is in future. However, only in future, the people realize this more clearly than any other time.
      The demand to live in a good environment will become the first desire for all peoples, I believe so do Canadian people, then new democracy and green mean the same, and the two parties share the same value. Therefore, why not they do merge together? After merging, they need a new name, environmental humanism party. A new party represents a new philosophy, leads Canadian people live an environmental humanism life. What's your opinion?
    • By kraychik
      So the "environmentalist" (i.e. "pro-science" Luddites) NDP seizes control in Alberta due to faux conservative prior leadership, and now massive profits have turned into massive losses. Well, at least now Alberta's NDP has an extra billion dollars laying around with which to purchase votes - which is what it's all about.
    • By cybercoma
      Harper and Trudeau are similar in a great many ways. Trudeau supporting bill C-51 just one example of that. The Liberal leader has also said he has no interest in joining a coalition with the NDP. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voiced concern about the "socialist" NDP forming government. I predict that an NDP win in the next election will lead to the Tories and Grits seriously considering a coalition to keep Canada from having a "socialist" government. If not a coalition, they would certainly force an election in a minority situation. Does anyone else think this is a possibility? Personally, I think either outcome would be disastrous and lead to a subsequent NDP majority, but I'm not as sure about that as I am the possibility of a Liberal/Conservative coalition. What do you guys think?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Create New...