Anti-White Buzzwords And Codewords

Thursday, 25 October 2018

The British Columbia Left: Our Useful Idiots On Proportional Representation

by Tim Murray

The starting gun has fired. The race has begun. And the stakes are high. BC NDP leader John Horgan and BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver joined hands on stage yesterday to promote Proportional Representation (PR), which is being put to a referendum this month. It seems that this time, the PR lobby has the momentum, and victory is at hand. Finally.

The BC Liberals, however, are against it. Their leader, Andrew Wilkinson, warned that PR would allow, in his words, "extremists" to get elected. By "extremists", he means people who dare to challenge the bipartisan extremism of 'progressive' laws and policies that professional politicians fear to challenge.

The BC Liberal leader is right. But unfortunately for him, the NDP and Green Party brass is too stupid and parochial to see his point.

If PR goes through, we "extremists" will have a chance we've never had before. A chance to form or back a small party without wasting our vote. A "fringe" party that can, at some point, grab the first rung of the ladder that leads to the wide broadcast of our agenda and growing influence. That first rung will likely be 5% of the popular vote. Not an impossible dream. Not for a party that if it plays its cards right, can harvest the vast subterranean anti-immigration vote.

The potential consequences of this achievement are wonderful to contemplate. Politicians who share some of our views will not be so shy in promoting them---or welcoming us into the fold. Politicians of ALL parties will realize that they can NEVER form a majority government, and so there is little sense in tempering their message or compromising their policies. In fact, they will understand that watering down their platform during an election to appeal to that mythical "centre" constituency of swing voters will only diminish their bargaining leverage when the post-election coalition government is being constructed.

The principle is no different than a home seller negotiating with a home buyer. If he drops his asking price even before he hears a counter offer, then he will surely get less than he hoped for. By contrast, by staking out a more extreme or strident position, a political party will be more confident of securing its base and driving a harder bargain with potential coalition partners after the election. As it stands now, under First-Past-The-Post, the centre-left and the centre-right parties, tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, do their best to shut out or shout down dissident voices in their ranks so as to deny their opponents to seize on the statements of dissidents as proof of how extreme the other party is. The result is an oligopoly of copy-cat parties that deny both ends of the spectrum the opportunity to speak out. Both Liberals and Conservatives insist that theirs is a "Big Tent" party with room for a range of different perspectives. So "Let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend." Yeah right. If you are Conservative politician, try questioning the prevailing Residential Schools narrative, or voicing opposition to gay marriage or transgender ideology or "Free choice" or "Diversity". And if you are a Liberal MP, try speaking against abortion, or the absurd concept of "Islamophobia". And if you are in the NDP cause, try taking just about any position that displeases the party whip. These parties aren't "big" tents, but pup tents.

We know that we cannot achieve a majority government. Not now, not 20 years from now. Not under PR. So what is our end game? Primarily, it is to gain a foothold in parliament so that we can gain a VOICE. An outlier in parliament with a powerful voice whose views resonate with many voters can punch far above his weight. Voters can see him on the parliamentary TV channel, and when they do that, they instantly realize that he is not the boogeyman the MSM says he is. Just watch a you tube of the leader of the Swedish Democrats speak in the Rikstag and you don't see a monster, but an ordinary guy who speaks in reasonable tones and common sense.

Voters in Austria and Germany and Hungary can see the same thing. As his audience grows, so does his party's popular vote. If and when it reaches a tipping point of say, 20%, look out. That is when the anti-establishment party not only has a voice in parliament, but eventually, the ear of another party that needs their support so that it can lead a governing coalition. Right now, PR proponents in BC argue that that will never happen. "Look at Sweden", they say. "The other parties refuse to cooperate with them. They refuse to cross that moral rubicon of making a deal with racist parties."

To this line of argument, I will say two things. Firstly, history shows that when things get rough, when there is a national emergency, or conflict on the streets, conservative parties do reach out to the devil. In good times, it is easy for them to mount the moral high horse and righteously boycott the populist party. But wait until there is a crisis. Wait until things fall apart. Wait until all other options have been exhausted. Think about it, how many times have governments and leaders vowed "never to negotiate with terrorists", and then a decade later, they negotiate with those "terrorists". Northern Ireland was a case in point. When they needed the cooperation of Gerry Adams and the Sein Fein, suddenly they stopped calling Gerry Adams a "terrorist". I can see this happening in Sweden. In fact, there were rumours some while ago that the Swedish Conservatives were thinking of working out an arrangement with the despicable Swedish Democrats.

Secondly, we haven't reached that point yet. Let us cross that bridge when we come to it. It will take years for a populist party to build up and snowball. In the meantime, the globalists will do everything it can to demonize them. The problem for the quisling alliance, however, is that if they demonize populist parliamentarians, it will give the populist party MPs more publicity and attention. Our focus now should be on getting ONE member in the House. Just one MP to give voice to the majority public view that immigration intakes must be cut back. Australia had such a member, Kelvin Thomson, until he retired. And now they have One Nation reps in the Senate. Leading up to Brexit, UK had UKIP, which, thanks to PR, won seats to the EU parliament.

I am ecstatic that the Left in this province is so strategically illiterate. Did they never stop to ask themselves why Social Democracy in Europe is dying? Do they not realize that their working class base is crumbling, and that many ordinary workers are jumping ship to support the populist parties because they recognize that is only these parties which are fighting for what they have long supported? That the "new right" in fact is the traditional Left? Do they not realize that ordinary workers in Europe are looking at Germany, France and Sweden and realizing that the mass immigration of unskilled labor will not only suppress their wages and take their jobs but crush the welfare state with their demands? Workers in Ontario and Quebec, Toronto and Montreal, know first hand how costly refugee settlement is. They don't need to read stories about Syrian refugees breaking the bank in Germany, or imposing what will be a trillion euro expenditure in the coming decade on German taxpayers. They know that massive numbers of migrants will strain our social safety net to the breaking point.

But they don't have a political party that will channel their concerns. Not under First Past the Post. The Angus Reid poll of August of this year provides proof that these people exist, and that they share our fears. Yet they can't really register them. They lack a political vehicle. Thus, 4 in 10 of NDP voters who favour a reduction in immigration intakes---and the three in four who do not want to see them increased as do all parties in the House---currently have nowhere to go. Neither do 49% of Liberal supporters or 67% of Conservative supporters who also want reduced immigration. The fact that 8 in 10 of Canadians---including 3 in 4 NDP voters--- do not want increased immigration while not a single MP of any party in the House will represent them on this major issue constitutes an appalling indictment of both First Past the Post and the lack of free votes in parliament.

I think nationalists in BC should hold a discreet conference to discuss the implications of PR in this problem, and how best we can exploit it. The Social Conservatives (re-christened Freedom Defence Canada) did that in Parksville in October of 2016, but PR was not on the horizon. Now it is. We will have an historic opportunity. We have to come together, and plot our moves.

Information on the 2018 Referendum on Electoral Reform.

No comments:

Post a comment

The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of CEC or its contributors. Please follow the netiquette.

Our Twitter Our Gab Our Youtube Our RSS feed