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).
How About Merging NDP and Green?
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?
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.
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