Scott Mayers

Is it that you don't believe in God, but you assume to know what *it* that doesn't exist would be if it did exist? And the people who do believe, by evidence of the Holy Scripture know, that we cannot comprehend God. But you who know that *it* doesn't exist, know exactly what *it* that you know doesn't exist and never did, would be like if it did exist. Atheist logic. Religious texts themselves were more likely from secular NON-religious ideologies that have devolved into ludicrous interpretations upon interpretations such that it BECAME something idiots embrace and tend to FORCE upon others to obediently believe with risk for NOT doing so. "God" for instance, is a word that comes from 'good' and was what some thought of NATURE as, ....without the comprehension because it lacked logical consistency. Even earlier, the original words for this would be translated as "nature" or "X" (for the unknown), or the "source" (as YHWY == ye ovah ....the egg), or the 'force', as "Ra" (which comes to us as 'ray'), etc. Note that the taboo against speaking the name is a perfect example of how such devolution to absurdity that religion creates: the original thinkers wondered if this "source" came from nothing at all. As some did, they interpreted the contradiction of being able to 'speak' of coming from an absolute nothingness was thought of as potentially rational but non-the-less something we cannot literally understand. Thus the original concept of the term, "YHWY' or "Jehova", was that Nature itself was just an unknown mystery, not a literal being. The original source of this came from Egypt as "Nile" (....nihil..) as "Nil" for the 'waters below' (meaning 'fluid' in thier understanding) and "Nut" (...not,....nothing) of the sky. Thus the stupidity of the latter interpretation of the term as being 'taboo' was falsely TRANSFERRED to an example of religious imposition. Religion, as based upon history and scripture, wasn't meant to be literal. The way it was written with characters, like Adam and Eve, were intended to give a secular justification of humanity in general, not particular people. Many languages then shared the meaning of "adam" to mean "anything of the Earth as a solid (versus, Aten, was the perfect form of SOLIDS being the circular container of the sun.) I could go on. But the point is that the very meaning of "God" is NOT even a 'supreme being' outside of assuming that the mystery of Nature itself caused us all, ...and to us,....was a 'good' thing: thus the term "God". "Allah" also literally meant, "the one", in a similar to "YWHY" of the neutral 'source' (rather than giving it the quality of 'goodness', that is). All animals, of which humans are one, are born without a 'religion' and are rightfully "atheists" in the meaning, "not theists". Any atheist is at least one who doesn't claim some religious set of beliefs in the same way one is born without them. You learn your religion and in fact are forced to it where your parents and political leaders IMPOSE them upon you. Just because most people tend towards religion, it doesn't mean that the atheist requires a counterstance against irrational beliefs that require disproving all the various claims of gods. These are endless claims that is a result of our artistic (art-ificial) expression and so would be impossible to disprove them all. I happen to be one kind of atheist that CAN argue against some of the general Judaeou-Christian-Muslim beliefs. Because there can be no one religion in common for all without force and destruction, we require a secular system that votes upon what morals we share in common. Governments require being secular even IF people are religious so as to prevent dictatorial authorities (who are PEOPLE) from commanding their will simply because they SAY they have some secret direct line to God (or even Nature neutrally).

Ha ha! I'm partially with you on this but think that this is also true of humanity as a whole!! A good proof of this is how the Middle East itself demonstrates. The cradle of "civilization" falls in light of evolution and time merely by the differences inherent in wealth that the mere land supplies. Once our fixed resources are gone, we are sure to fall to war regardless of any apparent 'wisdom' we seem to have. Don't let it eat you though. I'm not trying to insight defeat. We just need to first recognize the facts.

I'm concerned most about the 'independence' of the moderators (censors) who don't require being employed directly by government but indirectly through third-party interests of a political nature we are not able to determine. The CBC's site censors like this. I think that with regards to government, that NO censorship should be permitted in online activity.. If they want to alter people's opinions, they should compete logically with those they disagree with and not distinctly apart from those they disagree with. IF they want a right to censor, then they have the power to manipulate WHAT we see and know, how we think, etc. For government sites, they should NEVER be censored in the least becasue the mere manipulation of HOW they permit some posts over others can falsely present some people's actual position to make them look what they want them to appear as, contrary to their efforts. As for terrorist activities, those who want to affect change should challenge them by participation. THE largest reason FOR people acting out is mere neglect by things such as 'ghosting', for example. People need open platforms to speak freely. Then they need to be LISTENED to in order to first understand what might be the reasons behind their thnking. When laws are made to censor, they lead to it being a means of the policing to BECOME more than just enforcers but politicians and adjudicators. In fact, I think censorship actually is a type of weapon that gets used TO CREATE some terrorists (or even less extreme but troubling behavior).

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ntnl-strtg-cntrng-rdclztn-vlnc/index-en.aspx This was slipped in pretty fast and while it claims to be defending "anti-terrorism" views, it can and WILL be used to spy on and redirect anyone's Google searches ....regardless of 'terrorist' claims. That is, everyone here who has alternative views of whomever is empowered to censor here and is at risk of losing our freedoms. I think, for instance, that I'm being redirected for looking up the "Honeybadgers and Karen Straughan". This particular example could be something else. But the fact that this law is in place raises this concern. Those Youtubers argue against the modern 'feminism' views that go against those like Trudeau. Does anyone else here notice any odd unfounded search redirections? note: this includes anyone searching merely to learn ABOUT some issue that is controversial to the secret censors. This is a threat to our freedoms online and trends towards what even those creating these laws would hold against a country like China for their own similar behavior. This is hypocritical and dangerous for anyone even without any extreme views in the least.

The image where he's whereing a Turbin, he's dressed up as Aladin and likely has 'blue-face' if the photo was color. Would that still be a racist sample?

The tax alone is NOT what reduces fossil fuel abuses. The taxes should just map to the cost of implementing the changes related to the laws used to reduce the abuses. @ the OP's topic, I thought about this before and opted to see if you could infer what "SNC" even means through media coverage at that time. I found that our media here in Canada presumes the viewers are all loyal watchers from the start who know what this scandal is from the start. The viewer on such coverage needs to be treated as though they are potentially new viewers at all times. [note to Admin: I find that I CANNOT highlight anything in a post I'm editing that begins with a quote without starting anew. For instance, I wanted to replace the "@ the OP's topic" ahead of the quote from Rue. It is impossible to place a cursor before any initial quote. You also cannot highlight correctly to cut and repaste the beginning part at the end.]

Whether Justin Trudeau nods to his own guilt of being 'racist' or not for 'brown-face', I find the presumption that such an act is symbolic of anything full of shit. If "brown-face' is racist merely for one attemting to look like someone else OF another kind, then the same stupidity of assumption should apply to anyone dressing up as ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEMSELVES! This would mean that one who cross-dresses to another gender is racist. Down with all those 'furies' too: how horrifying must it be for some real bear to see a human dare to dress up as Teddy Bear! ? And what about all those Trekies attempting to dress up as some alien race. The stupidity of this thinking can at best point out Trudeau as being hypocritical. Other than that, a belief in "cultural appropriation" is itself proof to me that those offended are arrogantly BEING racist or sexist because they'd have to presume that an external phenotypical GENETIC related factor is NECESSARILY tied to one's internal artistic thoughts and capacities.

I'm not against the Royalty as such today, either, even though I'm against the principle. I think the Royalty now also is against the concept but in a Deistic way too. We owe this to the U.S. though. Britain just hasn't formally dropped this out of the same problem: pride. But technically, if the Queen lost her mind and thought to become demanding, our system is defined to accept this officially. We still treat this 'secularly' okay when we idolize the Disney-like treatment of Princes and Princesses. I share the 'simulation' idea. But I'm logically nihilistic (meaning I recognize nature has no favored value to be something rather than nothing, NOT that we should act without assigning values morally). I'm working on a physics theory that can be derivable from logic with nothing as its initial 'input'. I'm guessing that you hold favor only to the traditional sense, like how I might still have fond memories and value to Christmas with Santa taking center stage? [Did you know that YHWH is "yeh oveh" which when translated more direct in the Greek at the time is "Je Ovah" which means "I egg" or "the egg", and both, in general, mean "the source", without original religious meaning. It was nihilistic: Given the source comes from absolutely nothing by the time of that scripture, it was considered something "unable to speak of" directly because it was relatively contradictory. This devolved today to mean "that which you are not allowed to speak of"....a taboo or curse, by many!]

A "republic" is any system that has a representative government that elects an intelligence class (an educated 'college') to further be responsible to elect the formal government. "For the people" but indirectly "by the people". The idea was expanded to oppose Greek "democracy" for its rule by the masses where the masses themselves are composed more of relatively incompetent thinkers for being more gullible to popular irrational appeals rather than logical ones. [and why the general 'democratic' versus 'republican' divide there now] Plato's Republic defined this through Socrates as a means to elect a 'philosopher king', someone who was duty bound to lead based upon wisdom but NOT personal will. They are unwillfully elected by others due to their intellect. Thus, even the old Soviet Union and China were/are 'republics'. We are like that in that the old Feudal system meant to do this too. As such, we are also 'republican' in an older interpretation during the Middle Ages. But the British then intrinsically believed that the wisdom of the leaders were inherent genetically to the Royalty. So ours is a form of 'For the people' but questionable to whether the actual 'kings' are/were intellectually elected through or by the people. The people ruled are 'commonors' and is actually quite insulting for presuming genetics predefines intellect absolutely. You are correct about the 'Diest' thing. But 'atheism' was still then unacceptable to almost all religions then as now. Our country though is 'catholic'. The Anglicans are the first wave of protestors (and thus "Protestant") but still believers of the authoritarian system of the Romans. "Catholic" means "cat- (w)hole" or of all people universally. It has the same structure but the Anglican replaces the Pope with the King (Queen when without) AND still with authoritarian levels of Bishops, etc. That is what I meant. I'm using the more philosophical expression. The W.A.S.P. Protestants protested ANY catholic (universal) authority and permitted more lenient interpretation of the Bible, especially in the vernacular of local language translations other than Latin or the King's official Bible, for England. The U.S. adopted this. Notice that the Anglicans don't officially exist there because of this. Instead, they became the "Episcopal Church" to evade official loyalty towards Britain then. To American Protestants, Anglican is just a form of catholic church.

I have mixed links to here and the U.S. too. My preference is to the U.S. in principle to its foundations. I think Canada is falsely interpreted as being more accepting when it is not. The U.S. just gets more notice for speaking out and being the first ones to not be afraid to make mistakes for trying to be challenging as much. But now I think we may require being more Global rather than Nationalistic as may are thinking today. When, precisely in Rome, btw? (pointing out that they changed in different times due to challenging what 'Rome' was defined as in earlier periods.)

I agree about how the United States constitution favors the individual better. But they also have devolved in part. The original foundation and Amendments were NOT religious but anti-religious. The idea was to separate the means of making laws from any particular artistic interpretation, such as one's religion or cultural association. This has changed to some degree in Post-Modern times. (The "Modern" era was the period marked by science and rationalism beginning in Newton and ending approximately by WWII,.) I also agree that we don't have many rights on a technical level. To me this is precisely because of religious imposition in Constitutions and lawmaking. Our country is technically a type of authoritarian dictatorship (friendly and relatively weakened in actual force today). We are also a type of theocracy of select forms of religious affiliation in formation. But the particular beliefs of origins are coincidental still. That is, there is no LOGICAL connection to our foundation and to something uniquely special about some culture and/or related religious insight by the originators.

This is what I mean is your error. (as well with most regardless of which culture you believe in). You assume we owe some kind of allegiance to something cultural and religious, not secular. 'WE' are not all White Anglo Saxons, nor Protestant. (In fact, our nation is actually small 'c' catholic, not W.A.S.P. in its foundation. The Americans are more originated by that standard historically Canada is not.) How does anything uniquely Brittish or Protestant mean anything? That is merely coincidental and arbitrary. Do you believe that if we found some other world that evolved human-like beings that they'd be British and Protestant if they succeeded in the same kind of evolution to our present civil society?

Whew!....So the RCMP can cancel their raid on you now!! I share the same kind of thinking in essence. But so do many if not all. The problem is where the upper limit is to what the whole represents. To many, the whole is their cultural Nationality, roots or their religion only. I'm for the individual as the only miniority and the universal or absolute wholes. So for just Canada, it would mean that I support each (individual) and every (the collective whole) Canadian. Of course, this extends to all Earthlings when not specifying merely our country as a whole. I think of people also without connection to their cultural identity because culture to me (as with any associated religion) is just an artistic expression of the secular individual.

I'm arguing back and forth with you and Dougie here. I apologize ahead of time if I erred on something you differ upon his views. I am against any specific pride being used to justify why or why not some law or policy should be made or changed against the immigrant. For instance, if one says that they don't like the immigrant for not adopting some presumed "Christian" view, for instance, as assumed universal among us, this rationale is biased, not representative of the whole, and counter to a logical appeal to others outside of those of your own particular shared beliefs. A law made on this rationale, for instance, is equally biased as those who may come in with the same. It cancels out the force of appeal by argument here or anywhere to those not Christian (as this example instance) AND not of the particular Immigrants' personal similar religious beliefs. say, for instance, Muslim.

I lack any allegiance based upon religious and cultural beliefs. I am an Earthling and don't need others dictating that I must 'float' or join some particular irrational cult in order to find ground. It wouldn't work for those who believe there is something 'genetic' about one's particular cultural associations. I could join in but would require accepting some inferiority status among those presuming it there regardless. And then you'd still look down on me for not having that quality of wanting to 'kill and die' for my own selfish beliefs. Do you think, based upon your belief in killing and dying for your selfish beliefs, that those who act in similar extremes are warranted when or where they lash out in the violences we see from the many shootings that occur by such lone individuals? I don't demand that you surrender your 'allegiance' in your head. But if you disagree with the immigrant to carry their own with them as well, and believe some anti-immigration POLICY should be implemented to deny these people, then should this not also be something the Natives here should also be adopting with equal 'pride' against you for being just such a similar immigrant? Are they cowards for NOT fighting back in the same vein? The distinction I am making is not about what you have in mind and expression but to any laws that you may believe should be imposed against an immigrant ON THE JUSTIFICATION of your own particular culltural beliefs and pride?

It is acceptable for YOU to accept or dismiss whatever stereotypes you want. But it is not up to you to demand that I accept your beliefs as MINE. You'd be imposing your own if you argue that the immigrants can come but must adopt to YOUR PARTICULAR narrative of what some 'we' are here in Canada, when I disagree with your perception also born here. I don't owe allegiance to anything by your perception of who we are as though we ARE of one kind of belief by nature.

I was born on this Earth too buddy. And that I happen to have been born here doesn't require that I owe some allegiance to some cult you have special pride in. You are only proving WHY there is a problem at all: if you hold 'pride' of your own when it is absolutely unable to be PROVEN universal by the nature of its religiousity, then you don't have a competent rationale that you can hope to appeal to others of a different opinion than your own outside of FORCE itself. And if force is alright, then so too is it normal for both the outsiders entering our country to carry with them their own discriminating beliefs but for the Aboriginals too to rise up against those who arrogantly take exception of their own prior immigrating families of the past who caused them such grief of their own progeny.

But what about laws, say, that demand outsiders embrace some ideal you believe is defining of Canadians, like many who assert us as being "Christian"? What about how our system is NOT mono-linguistic? Given we have a unique binary linguistic formal system, this automatically assures our system's definition is biased to a favoritism IN LAW (the Constitution, for instance) because it isn't ALL languages. I'm against a system that defines its constitution as favorable in law to any 'culture' specifically. It is counter to the intended ideal of the American's first Amendment that was to isolate special non-universal cultural/religious beliefs from being imposed upon individuals ....because any posited stance of a governing body for some religioun or culture begs a negative stance to expression of anything negative towards that protected cult.

Yes, IF you accept the stereotypes though, then you have to accept the negative ones in equal measure, is what I am saying. But most do not. For those who do embrace this though, they tend to become the extremes who overtly announce their 'pride' and often become the obvious represented counterproductive groups of society, ...like the Neo-Nazis, for instance. They, for instance, overtly assert the logical validity of their bias and believe intrinsically in competing to go against those opposing it with whatever authority they can impose. Thus, for me, I think abandoning stereotyping at all in social or political forms. The stereotyping WHEN enforced in laws is itself a problem, whether FOR or AGAINST some class of people based upon 'cultural' ideals.

Unfortunately, then you contribute to the problem and assure that it cannot be resolved. I don't share your 'pride'. I was adopted at birth and was treated by them as somehow distinct as though my genetic roots are still something that makes me who I am. And yet to the culture(s) that I am supposedly related to genetically (Natural genetic family), I also don't share. So if you don't belong either to some cult of genetic nor environmental heritage, are we the ones required to be forced to associate to some 'pride' outside of our individualism? Your homage to some historical group should be personal and not imposed upon others, including your own children, as far as I'm concerned. THAT would solve the problems. But neither you nor those immigrants from distinctly different similar faith in 'pride' and authority over your own or others is equal in arrogance. You presume something 'superior' (that 'good pride') about who you are that you think others should share MINUS any possible negative ones. If you can at least begin to see the logical problem, then we could try to find the next steps is acting for change. Some HAVE drawn the line. These are those who simply and overtly assert their distinct status and demands they be privileged with exception to others in an authoritative way.

This is the anti-logical problem that assures that the problem will never go away. It is fine to have good stereotypes for oneself....we call a pride in oneself. But to DEMAND others to perceive you the way you perceive yourself in only a positive way is lost the moment you express this demand because you could only hold such a stance if you DID NOT APPROVE of how others behaved towards you. But this would mean that you may be simply having a negative stereotype yourself about the very outsiders you perceive are being negative towardes you. And if you assert that you are somehow more correct about your perception, this asserts that those disagreeing ARE the negative people who alone need to do the changing. To give a relative example regarding economics, we here think it is alright for an individual to inherit some personal wealth (a 'good' factor passed on) without limits, yet we also think it is NOT alright to inherit a debt in the same way. This thinking by ancient standards looking at us would make us look like we devolved. The reasoning in the past was that IF you believe in inheritance at all, you have to first accept the debts of your parents if you are to accept the benefits. We do have this in law to some degree: the law would say that if you accept the benefits of an inheritance, you first must pay any associated debts. But we don't permit by law that any individual accept an inherited debt. Instead, we distribute this loss to the whole. Why should an individual who has an accidental fortune inherited to them not have a greater burden to accept the associated debts that are forced upon those of which most of them LACK the same fortune? This assures that some people are forced to inherit the debts based upon those inheriting the benefits to an unusual degree. Nature still has balance and so any unit gain by one requres an equal and opposing loss to at least one other. Stereoyping oneself, for good or bad, as an individual is fine. Imposing others accept your perception of favorable stereotypes requires you have negative stereotypes about others that you expect to be ignored unfairly.

That's because our country does NOT have a prideful origin as our present Constitution presumes. Our country's origins are based upon Brittain and shaped by the formation of the U.S. So it is impossible for most of us to actually have a sincere 'pride' in our own country because our formation is contingent upon outsiders with an usual degree compared to others. Our original domain was formed by a coalition of people PROUD of their distinct other-country origins along with their religions who were not WANTING to be 'free' as the U.S. ideal was evolving. We were made up of the defectors against the idea of American freedoms and comprised of mostly the 'British Loyalists' of authoritarian believers and the abandoned children of those believing in Church and States Monarchies of France prior to their revolution. To repair, we'd require starting anew by relinguishing any traditional adherence to some 'Canada' that existed prior to the present. We'd need to first establish an identity made up of individuals and NOT the groups,....especially those based upon a corelated religious affiliation to some tribal association to countries afar. I don't know if this could occur especially now because PRIDE is something that is demanded by the religious-cultured groups with more power than individuals in this era. Individualism that lacks any 'traditional' association is squashed dead with ease because the individuals are precisely individual by definition for BEING most distinct and disempowered for not willing to align to some stereotype of some group as defined by those groups.

I agree with you on this. My question is to dialamah's or to others perceiving an anti-immigrant sentiment as being unusually unfair, is to whether we do not already do this of ourselves? If we do, then the immigrant is not being treated exceptionally bad compared to how we treat each other. As such, the bias would then NOT be about immigration but to something internal, like that Multicultural doctrine. If we are somehow more abusively discriminating against the immigrant here in Canada (versus our own) as some normal "tradition", then what ideal country by contrast does not do this? I don't think positing 'pride' in ourselves as the U.S. may do better solves the problem. I agree that our historical origins actually have fault. Those redesigning the Constitution 1982 actually entrenched something presumedly 'proud (or 'pride-worthy') by the actual originators regardless of their faults. But this was a selective bias by those (like the Trudeau's) who have literal family links to the specific historical relationships of their own idea of what 'Canada' means. I think they are like children who have fond memories of going to the lake with their cousins and can't accept that their 'parents' infighting among the diverse intermarriages from distinct English/French or Catholic/Anglican philosophies clash. Given the power to interfere with their parent's faults, they've just formulated a Constitution that at least conserves their OWN family's unique interests without sufficient justification on how this rationale affects others outside their OWN joint clans. As such, PRIDE itself proves to only enhance the problem because it still posits STEREOTYPES. While attempting to advance positive associations to their own groups is rational from a self-centered perspective, it is still impositional to expect all others to accentuate the positive while ignoring the negatives. Thus 'pride' IS the problem. Presuming it is relatively good to have positive stereotypes of outsiders towards you, this cannot logically occur without accepting the 'negative' ones also. Nature operates like physics: For every action, an equal and opposite reaction exists. Similarly, for every demanded 'positive' some group expects outsiders to accept of them as a whole, how can it be appropriate to expect others to assign a positive stereotype without the negative ones when the problem is actually STEREOTYPING at all? When an immigrant (as with anyone) demands a proud interpretation of others about themsleves AS IF THEY ARE ONE KIND OF PEOPLE, then they are setting themselves up FOR requring the negative associations to ride along with them. So, for instance, if one coming in presents themselves as say, "Saudi Muslims" with pride, they are asserting they believe in their segregated interests if they want to hold onto some posited stereotype but are hypocritical if they demand the negatives be ignored.

For emphasis, "Spreading anti-immigrant sentiment is a time honored tradition in Canada, along with blaming immigrants for not integrating when they are told, in ways big and small, that they "don't fit in". " How is Canada so uniquely discriminating compared to any other state? What other country lacks this problem? If blaming immigrants as 'not integrating' is unusually true and a bad thing regarding immigrants, should this behavior AMONG default citizens not also be considered 'bad'? That is, do you imply that we treat the immigrant any different than our own regardless?

I'm tired of the group-favoritism that derives most strongly from and by those who believe in (a) a presumed 'cultural identity' of an inherent genetic association, and (b) that these groups are the only minority that counts (versus the individual). Because those belonging to a select group always supersede the individual, only those among groups (in general) get represented when it comes to politics with the greatest priority. While logical, the problem isn't about the class identity of people so much as to the KINDS of beliefs about those associating to groups based upon STRONGER or extreme beliefs most specificaly about inheritance. That is, the extreme believers IN segregated structures that are more religiously defined take precedence to media and poltics who define their ingroups as genetically related and with the presumption of some uniformity among the classes they define as members....even if all 'members' defined by them do not agree nor associate with the particular believers. Example, the belief that one who is "First Nations" is anyone who has a genetic ancestry to some North American tribe prior to modern civilization from European peoples. How does one's genetic link to some ancestor relate to one's NATURE? I mean, it is understandable that if you have squirel DNA, that your tendency to collect nuts and bury them might be rationalized upon learning that you HAVE squirel DNA. But within a species, how does one having a genetic ancestor to say, a Cree Nation, mean that whatever WAS 'Cree' 500 years ago relate to who you are as a human being today, outside of others' imposed associations upon you? It reminds me of a commercial for those sites that link you to your genetic ancestors where one guy says that he had to trade in his Scottish skirt for German lederhosen when he discovered that he was German and NOT Scottish. Why does it matter? AND, considered some of us are adopted, what does that imply about us if our adopting parents have no genetic relation to us? Are we supposed to be treated as distinct outsiders for not having this association? Do you owe homage to the family who raised you OR to the family who abandoned you? This kind of question doesn't get raised because most people AREN'T adopted normally. But this should give you some idea of the absurdity of this 'normal' thinking by most, ...even if they may not presume they themselves are against differences of people. What about mixed genetic associations? If you have a mixed genetic makeup, which one do you owe homage to IF you are expected to pick one? Note that the presumption of ANY cultural identity based upon genetics is biased against anyone who does have this split regardless of their potential denial because they still presume there is some logical relevance outside of some mere historical fact. We ARE all related to some degree. So why would, say, being Mexican, matter, when upon seeking to earlier roots you may discover that you are Spanish,.... and before that, French or Arabic, or ...? So, I am tired of all of you who think that being X of some 'heritage' matters at all. Yet, most of you take this arrogant stance and have the POWER for simply having this type of strong belief in 'culture'. AND, this is prevalent in ALL parties today. All go against the individual that has no binding association to 'culture' nor 'race' nor 'sex', etc. "Diversity" by its word means variable. But it doesn't self-define those supporting it as supporting different INDIVIDUALS but rather different GROUPS. And, like I already mentioned, they are based upon a 'religious' kind of belief that one's genetic roots MATTER! The differenct is the right to left parties today are about those different groups only. The 'right' wing believes in the group or groups that are presently empowered and who most strongly associate to IDENTITY but fear competition. They presume some 'we' they assign to all those that look like them on the outside. For instance, those of you who assume that 'we' are a 'Christian' and 'white' nation are believers in some superiority of some 'us' that you drag all those who are generally similar to the racial groups you also share, even if the potential majority of them are NOT associated to you. On the left, you have just all those groups with anti-association to the particular favored group BUT still think the same way. You just know that the means to empower your own arrogant and racist viewpoint is to side with the other groups of similar disempowerment UNTIL you at some point in the future COULD get the sole power. "Diversity" by our government is only officially meaning that you are either Catholic French or Anglican or, to prevent notice of present bias, the collective 'First Nations'. Other groups based upon religious-genetic associations (hideously titled as 'cultures') are accepted for embracing similar kinds of 'nationalism' (meaning here, the belief in one's genetic with cultural association regardless of where you actually live on Earth). While I believe that I represent the majority, such a majority are spoken for THROUGH the guise of those 'nationalistic' thinkers. As such, the power never belongs to individual 'diversity' but to cults. I notice that even on this site, people mostly belong to some such cult. When I think that one may be arguing for something relatively 'fair', for instance, I often discover that they still hold some bias to some cult in which they are not interested in the logic of the arguments universally but to whatever merely makes their opponent alone seem hypocritical. It makes it hard to nod to some argument you agree to in some part when they too would place you in some outsider's box should they be more empowered. As to the topic of something like immigration, where I notice many think it 'inappropriate' to resist them, I agree where it relates to the logical problem associated to it: When you take on your abusive neighbor's kids, often by taking them in without concern to their parents, you only relieve the abuser's economic problem momentarily to allow these 'parents' to have a free night to themselves ...long enough for them to proceate and have a new generation of kids to abuse further. Also, when you already 'favor' some of your own kids over others, when you bring in new ones from outside, it represents you having even more favoritism that competes against those kids who are already presently ignored. So it is no wonder why those hated kids of your own will more likely be the ones to complain about newcomers being welcomed compassionately without restrictions. By the way, I happen to get along better to most immigrants over those here already because I know the actual struggles involved. The apparent compassion for the 'children' are as irresponsible to me as those who ONLY adopt puppies or kittens but don't think twice about dropping the unwanted full grown dogs or cats in some neighborhood they think will embrace them. Isn't this the same logic of those abusive governments that enable their own to go else where?