Previous  1 ... 10  11  12  13  14

Yes, but nobody's asking you to do that.

Speaking for myself I would only like clarification of what exactly you're proposing.

Near as I can figure, you're telling us that the 'Powers that be' create something you're calling culture or you're at least saying they choose what bits of this prefered "culture" they find useful then use it to justify what they're really about which is exercising power. And this you tell us can't work because other smaller groups will always have different "cultures."

Now I look at that within the framework of our current leader telling us "diversity is our strength" and I'm still not sure where you're coming from or where you're going but I have a suspicion.

I suspect you would simply say Justin's clicky little saying is simply a reflection of the "culture" he wishes to use to empower his control over the rest of us.

Below is a debate. It's on the open borders question. One person is saying some controls are necessary. The other is saying they are not. What makes it interesting though is the guy taking the open border's side isn't arguing it from a "what's good for my party" perspective. He's some sort of Libertarian anarchist. That's his position. I suspect it's also yours. Give it a view if you have time. Tell me I'm wrong.

   

The “open borders” policy is simply Justin’s continuation of his father’s policy of doing anything to weaken or dilute Anglo culture in Canada for the purpose of making Quebecois culture stronger and more cohesive in comparison, and by virtue of that more dominant. There are constitutional limits to how much a federal government can de-Britannicize the institutions of our federal state (including the Monarchy), so that leaves Justin only cultural levers (social engineering) to continue his father’s project of effectively reversing the outcome of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.

   

That explanation seems more plausible to me than the globalist/UN/Soros conspiracy stuff. That might be Butts’ deal, but I think it’s something closer to home for Justin - “This country, Canada. It belongs to us.”

   

You are wrong.

The Anglo versus Franco divide is a smoke-screen to distract Canadians away from discovering the truth: Trudeau is the front-man for the people who plan to fuck everybody.

   

Good it's been years since I had a good fuck.

   

And predictably, Maxime Bernier is being called a racist for daring to suggest that Canada is something other than an empty cultural vessel for newcomers to pour their home country identities and values into or that there is anything positive to say about Canada as it existed before the era of PET. This reframing of Canadian history and culture is social engineering worthy of the Soviets.

I am certain that no one immigrating Canada has ever asked or expected this country to negate itself in order to accommodate them. This is all the work of academics, politicians and activists from within Canada.

   

You're married too, eh?

   

That "culture" by governments who opt to use laws regarding them ARE merely indirect reference to supporting religion with an extension to mean PARTICULAR favoritism for or against other officially unaccepted groups OR...more relevantly...individuals who don't conform to CONSERVING those particular groups. They are more often tied to actual official religions, like the Catholic or Anglican Churches here, but extend olive branches to those other groups to which these major ESTABLISHED cults PERMIT.

"Culture" of the individual as well as to those affiliated with groups are basically those sets of behaviors related to ARTISTIC expression, ETIQUETTE (like believing it inappropriate of one to say specific voluntary words of expression where they OFFICIALLY insult the favored groups).

Culture is reduced to expression of art, religion, or ideas in a subjective preferential way by individuals and to individuals collectively associating with groups.

SO, ...given these facts, a government that is enabled to create laws regarding culture is a theocratic dictatorship because it dictates protection for specific forms of subjective expression and thus is counter to FREE SPEECH and EXPRESSION!!




The rhetoric of 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism' are actually trademarked hidden agendas to conserve the specific powers of the Anglican/Catholic, and French/English 'cultural' beliefs about OFFICIAL RIGHTS of this country now and into perpetuity. I believe that Trudeau may be relatively naive. But given what the logical intents that our system permits, I cannot presume his innocent naivete as it is irrelevant to what our system of Multiculturalism actually serves.

The rhetoric and actions about 'diversity' that extend to other believers of cultural supremacy are means of buying select groups that coincide with the established OLD CANADIAN inheritors of the English/Anglican, French/Catholic powers and other supporting accepted groups, some of which stay below the radar of notice. The extension to the Natives as a "NATION" of distinct beings is intended to take control of the mindset of the larger pluralities of the poor who present the largest future risk against that OLD CANADIAN establishment. Its function is to take the larger pluralities of similar culturally-conservative thinkers to ISOLATE them from the logical classes they would normally align with. It promote forms of sub-nationalists that aim to deviate from the expected stereotype beliefs of those groups. They don't want, for instance, independent Natives aligning with other poor people outside of those groups.

Example, by enticing a Native group to embrace their ancestors' culture is a means to help isolate them more when they promote a pride in themselves as a GROUP with beliefs that their GENETIC link to their ancestors behaviors (cultures) are OWNED by those with those genetics uniquely. They promote reviving old languages to promote what they want in order to raise the popular support of things like Quebec to have such arrogant distinct status. If the majority of people naturally tend to mix through interracial lines and cultures, the concern is that that majority will recognize and alter the PERPETUITIES GUARANTEED to an inherent racist Nationalism set in the Constitution to preserve the right of the selected "PURE" Canadians.

This may seem counter to some of the behaviors, like those unlimited open borders. But this too is intended to dilute the KIND of non-Nationalistic thinkers that most people voluntarily evolve to (a melting-pot). By permitting in all those ethnicities knowing they will have more natural tendencies to isolate and also be more nationalistic, our system is intended to permit a system that makes SEGREGATE LAWS for SPECIAL people NOT based on real or economic distinctions that governments should be based on but by those Nationalistic ideologies.

Does this explanation help better?

Governments should NOT make laws that favor nor disfavor PARTICULAR artistic/cultural/religious ideology. Supporting GENERAL expression requires no means to bias anyone regardless of their personal choices. Culturalist laws are arrogant racist and sexist forms of laws that grant 'diverse' LAWS about people based on supremacist beliefs (contrary to their stupidity that they aren't)


[Thank you, I will watch that suggested video, something that may be interesting, but I don't believe that their focus is my own. I have friends who do support anarchic ideals but disagree way more than agree for the myth that governments are not required and that we would naively 'volunteer' to be good to one another. They think this about economics though, not simply culture. And many would also still prefer to maintain a government that ONLY deals with culture laws,....especially those who are most religious. So those arguments are not mine.]

   

Previous  1 ... 10  11  12  13  14