I'm surprised that the government of Canada doesn't want to tout him a notable cultural icon for our country. He's pretty much THE Canadian ambassador for KZfaq.

I wonder what would happen if one of his videos does get an actual award?

Y'know what, I'm gonna make an award show just to give a J.J. video an award.

I thought he had won prizes... Was it a joke after all?

@@mookosh If Canada ever goes Republic it would be so cool if JJ served as President even if it’s only a symbolic position.

Me too, I love the episode where he goes through his cartooning process. Got me into watercolour pens.

I've forgotten the name of the style but either way I love to see it!

I know! He's such a talented artist.

@@Steadyaim101 Oh my! What's the video? I can't find it

JJ is a brilliant teacher. He transcends political interests to explain things in a interesting fashion.

RPG? No. Fighting game.

@@diestormlie that, or a strategy game

That game is called Disco Elysium

Someone get on this!

I would Play the shit out of it no matter if it was an RPG, Fighting or Strategy Game lol

Boy have we got a product for you

That's a very profound insight. Because the compass has been divorced from its original purpose, and is now used as this sort of generic sorting mechanism, it has normalized the idea that what are supposed to be pejorative categories are actually just generic options.

Very good point! Building on that, I think the design of the grid kind of inflates our perception of how normalized fringe politics are. For example, if you put Stalin in the upper left and say Trudeau in the kind of mid-left of the box, the visual implies that these people represent equally popular positions. In reality, political identities fall on a 'normal' bell curve, with say Trudeau representing a much more average and widely supported position than Stalin. I guess I'm trying to say that politics is more or less normally distributed, but the compass gives the representation that all of the infinite positions on the grid are equally represented in the population when in reality the edges of the compass are extremely unpopular and the fact that we can more readily think of examples like Stalin or Mao is because they go so strongly against the grain.

@@Steadyaim101 That's so true. And moreover it seems to imply, that there are ''correct'' versions of politicall ideologies, as in, if you know like 5 of my opinions, you will be able to fit me in the 'correct'' political identity, and if I were to protest this, I'd be ''wrong'' or ''don't understand politics''.

@@sempersuffragium9951 In social stats, we would call this variable rather than person-centred approaches to prediction. In a variable-centered approach, we identify someone's position on a few key dimensions and infer how well those dimensions work for predicting someone's 'political category' based on how reliable the ratio of people who, for example, rate 4/5 agreement on X political ideal self identify as being part of Y pre-defined political category (e.g., social conservative). Say that based on our measure of 4 or 5 broad political ideals we can reliably guess with 80% accuracy whether someone will indicate Y or Z category, that's generally good enough for most researchers. This is generally what most social science research looks like. With person-centric approaches, we instead look at how a person rates themself on those 4 or 5 dimensions, then how thousands of others do to. With enough people, you will start to see 'clusters' of people who rate similarly to each other emerge, and then we label that cluster based on the characteristics of the people within it. It's generally a much better approach but computationally and logistically it's insanely hard to do.

@@Steadyaim101 Yes, I understand that, but there are several problems with this: 1. You don't have constant axes. What matters most, and is therefore going to be a point of contention, varies through space and time. A typicall example might be enviromentalism now VS 30 years ago. 2. It gives the impression of clearly defined borders. E.g. it gives the impression that Johnson would have more in common with Adolph than with Sir Keir, just because they are in the same quadrants. 3. The shape suggests that all levels of libertarianism are about equally "wide" left to right. Which leeds to absurdities like "anarchist left" vs "anarchist right" which is clearlly nonsense. In total anarchy there will be only one state and regardless of what you would like. Similarly all dictatorships will look broadly the same, due to the machinachions of dictatorial regiemes. Which promotes another misconception, that dictatorships even have a political spectrum, which is obviouslly false, but it gives the kids today the idea that, dictatorship is bad, because it might contradict my politics, rather than: dictatorship is bad. For everyone involved. Period. I don't want to be to harsh on the social sciences, but I do feel, that maybe the scientific method isn't up to the task of analising human society. Just recently, for example, I was following this election, where every poll was predicting a narrow two way race, but anyone with basic understanding of politics could have predicted a landslide, and sure enough, a landslide it was. And I do believe the scientific study of politicall ideologies is fundamentally flawed, because ideologies aren't what drives the left-right spectrum - it's narrative. Usually the narative of strenght vs compassion/kindness. All policies just stemn from these naratives, and are themselves completely random (or at least heavily conditioned by location, time, history,...)

For all their similarities, both countries are still quite different, yeah. Our conservatives can roughly translate to your Dems, but our spectra diverge more with respect to our left not being represented in the US and the US right not really existing here outside of fringe groups. One thing I would jokingly point out is how even your framing puts all comparisons in terms of an american basis -- a very american move!

@@TheDSasterX No shit an American would look at is through an American basis. They're American. Was he supposed to compared it to Trinidad?

@@TheDSasterX "One thing I would jokingly point out is how even your framing puts all comparisons in terms of an american basis -- a very american move!". 🙄 Maybe H Polli felt that your country sharing the world's longest border with a global juggernaut and most of its population living within 100 miles of that historically porous border might have some influence on its politics. I would also like to say that the act of framing another country's politics through the lens of one's own nationality is certainly not unique to Americans.

@@TheDSasterX You Canadians are extraordinary 😂 just as nationalist and ludicrous as we come off lol

@@TheDSasterX They don't "roughly translate" to the Dems at all. The Conservatives translate to the Republicans.

Someone already did it on pcm, basically: 1)The tankie (middle class hypocrite) 2)Zoomer socialist (implies is in a phase) 3)Mansphere zoomer (hardcore fan of Andrew Tate, Gary Vanderchuck, etc) 4)The Contrarian (always against what's 'popular' good or bad) 5)(Blue state) Confederate sympathizer (or unironic Nazi/fascist) 6)Chicken-hawk (boomer draft-dodging war monger) 7)Union democrat (conservative dem) 8)Black nationalist 9)Blue dog Democrat (centrist dem) 10)MAGA voter (implies personally loyal to Trump over US) 11)Vatnik ("useful idiot" for Russia or China) 12)Anti-worker (freeloading NEET) 13)Consoomer (marvel/Nintendo/ etc is their religion) 14)berniebro (crying wojak) 16)Rust belt factory worker (desiccated wojak) 17)Boomer Democrat (NIMBY, thinks Biden is the greatest leader of all time) 18)Never-Trumpers (RHINO looking dessicated) 19)Swing voter (NPC face believes whoever spends the most money on politicals ads) 20)alt-right influencer fan (brainlet wojak) 21)Evangelical (implies a boomer obsessed with trannies) 22)green party voter (smug pepe, due to dems thinking he's "taking votes from Biden!") 23)smug liberal (smug that other leftist, that dislike Biden, have to vote for him) 24)SJW activist (protests/complains but doesn't vote or buys things they attack) 25)New-Atheism follower (implies hes either "I am so smart" egotist or mad at religious parents) 26)New ager (implies clueless flakey people) 27)druggie (thinks "everyone is addicted to something" like them) 28)conspiracy theorist (thinks gov/aliens stop him from getting a tradwife/job/etc) 29)doomer (apathetic person) 30)militia member (fat/old guy who thinks he's a navy seal) 31)INCEL (blames women for own problems) 32)tinder girl (perpetually dissatisfied) 33)libertarian (thinks they're a 3rd party but always support Republicans) 34)Luddite (prepping, hording gold & rations)

that would be very interesting

I believe it.

I think it is indicative of it's importance and cultural relevance. Especially now that the effects are easely visible with incredibly extreme and varying climate patterns becoming more and more common, and the rise of the sea level anyone with more than 15 years and fairly close to a coast may have noticed

@@berni1011 case in point

I even get this in my Psych research methods class. Every year over half of my students will talk about things like 'an epidemic of anxiety and depression disorders due to the impending doom of climate disaster!' Except for 2020 because then all they wanted to talk about was why some people follow Covid rules or not and the effects of social isolation.

It will work itself out because as they get older they will see yet another moral panic doesn't pan out (overpopulation, global famine, peak oil, etc.) and become more skeptical of the next one.

13:45 - The Trucker kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bph0fbh1uMW3Z40.html I bet that's where he actually took it from.

Amazing work! What about the Quebec anglophone?

Tag yourself I'm the conspiracy theorist

@@captainobscurity491 some mix of Red Tory, urban voter, orthodox conservative, and support our troops guy (minus the standard issue military moustache)

Can someone do the chapters-split-up-thing to this video?

This is what I was going to say as well. I live in a strong NDP riding which became NDP mostly because of the CN rail yards and the union way back in the past. People vote NDP because their parents voted NDP and marry other NDP voters because everyone here is an NDP voter.

it's amazing that more people don't consider our potential extinction to be the number one most pressing matter.

@@zhou_sei humans have faced potential extinction throughout all of history. This isn't much different. I don't understand why you would allow yourselve to become despaired over something you have no power to change. We are going to continue burning fossil fuels until we run out. It's that simple. I suggest listening to byorn Lonborg on this issue.

@@JM-wx5nm i don't have to be in despair in order to put it at the top of my political importance list. there ARE things we can do, and burying our heads in the sand is not a solution.

@@JM-wx5nm Humans that faced potential extinction threats did things to make sure they survived said threats. This is like saying in a fire "Oh, I know people have been saved from fires previously! I don't need to hurry and use the fire escape!"

I'm more neutral on this one. I support the development of green technologies, although im not a huge fan of the doom and gloom of the climate activists. These aren't even the hottest temperatures in history!

Just adding to the collection of award winning videos

i get the joke, but does he actually have any award-winning videos? just curious

@@Lucas-fg9yc smh, clearly not a true JJ fan 😤 he’s pointed out the numerous award winning videos he’s had throughout his backlog

@@uydagcusdgfughfgsfggsifg753 very true

That was 8 years ago, you'll be doing it soon if you aren't already. Time flies!

@@jonhanson8925 I graduated high school in 2017, when I was 17. I don't feel old compared to anybody, maybe because I was born in 2000, which is still in this century and look younger than many born in 2001- 2008.

@@mapofthesoultagme7143 sometimes I forget people where born after the year 2000.

Funny enough, I'm not a multigenerational NDP voter, but I can't bring myself to vote for any of the other parties. Can't do "lesser of two evils".

@@wandererstraining NDP is the only party in Canada who's not evil. So, gotta vote for them lol.

@@k-sooyaalove206 Yeah, ha ha. They're not perfect, but I don't consider them evil, unlike the big two.

@@k-sooyaalove206 this is ironic right?

Name checks out.

I like JJ too, I do know of very many Canadian KZfaqr's but I love how he showcases Canadian Politics to the world, even if we don't share the exact same views on Politics.

It's nice to talk about politics without involving yourself in them, that's what I like most about this channel

You're thinking of Neocons. The political movement gained steam in the 1960s during what Republican historians consider to be the 4th great party realignment (those being Lincolnite "Stalwarts" -> Half-breeds, Half-breeds -> Rooseveltian Progressives, Progressives -> Conservatives, Conservatives -> Neocons, Neocons -> Trumpian Populists). It's most popular among the Baby Boomers who brought its existence about in response to the Hippies. Hippies, for their part, gave way to the moderate "Blue Dog Democrats" in part due to their disastrous defeat after running McGovern. The Blue Dogs' last hurrah is Biden, who, like Nixon, is a slippery snake who just champions the most dominant ideology in the party to not appear left behind by the times.

Though Harper didn't win solely through the West, he also needed the suburbs of Toronto, which is the reason why recently the Tories have failed to beat the Libs, they are still holding onto the West but they are losing the more moderate suburbs in Ontario to the Libs. Of course, relevant to this is that Harper won leading the newly united Conservative party that brought together the members of the Western socially conservative centered Reform Party with the remnants of the Progressive Conservatives, whose base was in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. This gave Harper a coalition of moderate Tories in Ontario with more populist conservatives in the West. The Liberals have in recent elections peeled away a lot of the former Progressive Conservative votes by painting the Tories as anti-gay, anti-muslim, and anti-abortion. Harper kept a tight lid on the more radical members of the Western wing of the party that tend to scare away Ontario voters, but without Harper the conservatives have had tension with their political base around Toronto. As evident that during the whole trucker fiasco Ford and the Ontario conservatives were happy to work with the Federal Liberals while the Federal Conservatives wanted to appear sympathetic to the truckers. The Ontario Conservative Party is governing much closer to the centre than the federal Conservative party would. The Liberals were also weaker at the time in Quebec in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, but they've recovered a lot of their seats in the smaller Quebec urban centres that they didn't have under Harper's minority and majority governments. It's not clear right now that either the Liberals or the Conservatives are capable of forming a winning coalition of voters without some kind of shift. The Liberals are best suited to win a majority if they can steal support on the left from the NDP and Bloc. The Tories need to win back the suburban voters in Ontario, which is most likely to happen if the economy is struggling and enough anger builds against Trudeau.

And the rural NDP voter

@@mister_salmon5693 I'm curious about this suggestion, being a labour voter myself in a part of Britain that has (in recent years) tended to vote more conservatively. Are the leftwing rural Canadians more likely to vote NDP over just voting for the Liberals because they reckon the NDP will do more for them, or is more just to spite the Liberals for not being leftwing enough for them? Not that it can't be both, of course. I was just trying to imagine what their primary motivation is.

@@freakishuproar1168 mostly they vote NDP because of the old NDP supported the miners unions and local industry and such also now the NDP are very popular in the native communities up north, but a lot of them don’t care about the social views so that’s probably why the liberals aren’t popular since they are the same socially but more right wing economically. Also they probably feel like the big parties don’t care about them only the big cities. And the same 15-20 seats have been voting NDP for the past 20 years almost but now the NDP party is really progressive and those seats are becoming more and more conservative just because of the NDP starting to favour climate change restrictions which are agains industries that drive these communities like mining lumber and fishing and being more of a liberal alternative rather than a socialist party.

@@mister_salmon5693 p’´´´p’ li k

P

This was my thought as well.

Excellent comment. J.J.'s perspective is interesting, if not very cliché, at least in the US. I have to say, I lost some respect for J.J. because it appears that he can only view things in his own particular way and not consider that other people might not view things the same way.

yeah if you vote the same way always your vote means less i think.

I was similarly disappointed by his reaction to that mentality. We should vote in what we believe in.

@@j.s.7335 Proimmigration and pro-life positions together are more popular among Catholic populations, so it's not as incoherent as JJ thinks. Definitely not the only view or majority view, but it can occur.

@@Frankthegb the „i live here so i know everyone in the country“ canadian. Probably ottawan mf who doesnt leave ottawa🤮

The more Laurentian Canadian. It's almost ear cancer to me.

An Australian video would be interesting

@@madeline7272 the cities, the farmers, Bob Katter

I......... Is that Andrew Scheer?

@@supersejkaj3093 yes

I am surprised JJ did not add them. That's probably the most important voting block in Canada nowadays because it's probably the biggest accessible pool of voters who live in competitive ridings. A good indication of these seats is basically those who are Conservative provincially right now in Ontario but Liberal federally (the opposite was true in 2011). They are mostly in Ontario (the 905 area code) and BC federally with a few ridings in Manitoba and suburban Alberta.

@@matvail2002 I actually did have one originally but I got rid of it because it seemed too generic.

Aww, now you changed it. :( Still a solid thumbnail, but not quite the same.

@@GeoDGeo what was the original?

@@declaniii6324 better

what was it

-the Berlin-SJW-Hipster -The Eu-Federalist -the Person-cultist "i vote for:" ...Linder; ...Wagenknecht, ...Söder , ...Kretschmann -the "everything used to be better" vote

I feel like you can make 35 for Berlin alone lmao

Well in Germany the classical tribes are nonetheless Swabians, Bavarians, Franconians, Rhinelanders, Thuringians, Upper Saxons, Hessians, Frisians, Märker, Silesians and Pommeranians, Pfälzer, Schleswig-Danes, Sorbs, Lower Saxons as well as Mecklenburgers.

I am a polish as well, live in Poland, have nothing to do with Canada, yet this dude is speaking in such an interesting way that I still watch his Canadian politics videos

How great is polish politics. No left wing sjws . Nationalism dominates.

@@HecClaytos4956 cringe

@@HecClaytos4956 it is not great at all, one of the most childish and agressive ones of europe. Also, to your despair, quite a significant left wing party (polling at about 10%) exists, there’s a lot of liberal parties with a huge support etc

@@HecClaytos4956 Tell me you've been brainwashed without telling me you're brainwashed:

I mean, I think Texas has threatened to leave once or twice, but I'm just a Canadian with 3rd-hand information so I could be talking nonsense

Hopefully Puerto Rican separatists gain more traction

@@UNSCPILOT Texans love America and their culture is deeply American. It’s not like Quebec where the people are very culturally isolated and are quite oblivious to Canada.

@@UNSCPILOT There's like 5 people who take it seriously but the rest of us do like playing it up as a joke.

Neo confederates, black nationalists white nationalists

Gross yet utterly predictable. When Canada beat the United States for the gold medal in hockey in 2010 in Vancouver I remember Canadians literally stomping on US flags in the street.

Jealousy to be honest

I think you should boo imprealists

@@CartoonCastro you would need to boo Canada as well. Maybe a quieter boo, but a boo nonetheless.

@@Austin-gj7zj I guess that's fair

Man I loved Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie. My favourite games when I was a kid.

Also, I think he used Jamjars for "support our troops". Very fitting.

yes people do indeed die eventually

^We're all glad that you get the joke there.

As a fellow NDP masochist, I can’t agree with you more.

Came here to say this, I'm left-leaning and I'm not going to vote for the Liberals because the Liberals aren't a left-leaning party. They tend to be status-quo centrist do-nothings, more often than not.

I don't think you give yourself enough credit. It may be debatable but you provided three strong examples. Another problem with JJ's analysis (though just to clear, I really enjoyed the video and understand it is purposefully simplistic) is he takes the sort of "winner takes all" analysis that many identify as a major problem with Canadian democracy. If the party you vote for isn't the winner, than is it really a complete loss? When 15-20% of the voters choose a left-wing progressive party, that sends a clear message to the winning party that a large chunk of the population desires. Not to mention even non-NDP voters often find NDP positions to be reasonable, meaning their policies are more popular than just the federal vote would imply. I have historically voted liberal when they adopted NDP policies that were important to me, because I thought the liberals were more likely to win. But....having been burned on electoral reform (among other things), I find myself increasingly turning into the NDP masochist. Now I vote for a third place candidate because at least I can feel like I voted for the party I want. This is where JJ's assessment of 'moral satisfaction' in the NDP masochist is, unfortunately, correct.

Yeah, I think it also promotes compromise and accountability, in a majority government, the libs can get away with a lot more, but being forced into a coalition holds the possibility of a fractured coalition.

Conservative Diefenbaker got the ball rolling on universal healthcare, so it was Conservative Diefenbaker, Liberal Pearson and NDP Tommy Douglas who each played important roles.

Tories are mostly popular with the English and British people lol

Yeah, I think it's also quite popular to use it for moderate Labour politicians more generally. And of course Scottish Labour have done the same thing and call the SNP 'Tartan Tories'

It's not just a Scottish thing, here in England we called Blair/Brown era New Labour "red Tories" during their administration.

I'm pretty sure they're Animal Crossing voices

Banjo Kazooie

He does use video game sounds in his videos.

To be fair, the US has a lot of influence in Canada, even political influence, increasingly so now that everyone is on the internet. The trucker faction was in part influenced by recent American politics

@@bodymuezik that doesn’t mean they get a say in American politics

Similar to what Honoré says, there sort of are consequences because I used to feel what happens in the US often is reflected ~5 years later in Canada. Not always exactly the same, but often fairly similar.

@@michaelbodell7740 I think that’s kind of just a rationalization. A lot of Canadian pundits, especially on the far left, just treat American politics like an ARG. They show little sign of knowing or caring much about Canadian politics, because it’s too complicated and less ideological.

@@JJMcCullough I imagine that's the case for most of them. But one friend I had back in high school is also a leftist who cares mostly about American politics, and we got into a couple of conversations about whether our focus should be on American or Canadian politics. And his argument was that American politics has a larger impact on Canada than even our own politics do, and so, while our ability to impact American politics is much smaller, it's still more important to focus on that. I still disagree with the take. But I can understand how someone would stand by it. Especially if they have global or metropolitan leanings like a lot of progressives seem to, as opposed to the more local views of conservative types.

Very true! A big shocker I think for a certain class of White, prosperous urban voters is that on the whole immigrant communities in Canada are fairly split between the Libs and Cons, with some ethnic groups like Chinese and Indian immigrants actually being more Conservative than the average population. IMO this might be an effect of Canada's immigration system prioritizing wealthier, more enterprising immigrants that come to Canada for economic opportunity and just want government out of their way. Their kids on the other hand tend to be a different story.

Immigrants can often come from cultures that are generally more socially conservative than their new home, and that can manifest in interesting political contradictions, where a pro immigrant left can capture voters whose social ideology would make them a better fit for the right.

@@Croz89 yeah but it also kinda makes sense. if the socially conservative party also runs on anti immigration policies, then theyre naturally not gonna get as many votes from immigrants also may just be a result of left wing politicians often putting in more effort to win over the immigrant vote. thats at least the case where i live. the most conservative party here borders is pretty openly xenophobic and thus their policies usually never win over immigrants, instead they secure seats via the rural lower middle class mostly

@@Steadyaim101 im a kid of Indian immigrants and i can confirm what you said. I’d say my generation has voting patterns closers to other native born Canadians. My parents values wise would fit perfectly in with the conservatives but they vote liberal based on who they think is better on immigration and also they don’t mind social safety nets cuz thats a thing they assume should exist in a first world country. That and economic opportunities is why they came here

@@Croz89 Until the invasion of Iraq, American Muslims tended to vote GOP because of said social conservatism

Good luck on your studies!! Anthropology is my major and as an admitted people nerd, this discipline actually allows for all the complexity of human existence

@@jessicaclakley3691 Thanks! I’m going into computer science though, anthropology is more of a hobby like my fiction writing.

Thank you so much my friend!!

Good luck on your studies!!!

Anthropology, for second I had no idea what that had to do with politics and then I was like “oh it’s JJ” lol

Buddy you should not have used the acronym

Amogus

Wow that's pretty *S U S*

The Canadian Liberal party arose from the Chartist movement just like UK Labour, so they're essentially politically quite similar actually. Pierre Trudeau, for example, was an avowed social democrat who lead the party in the 70s. The Libs, like New Labour, shifted to the right during the 80s. Regionalism explains Canadian politics a lot better than ideology. The NDP were the product of the Social Gospel Movement (Christian socialists) from the prairies so they've always had their base in the west of the country, they made some headway into strong union towns in parts of Ontario but they are basically a non-entity east of Toronto. The Liberals are ostensibly centre-left but more flexibly social democratic than most "liberal" parties are. A common criticism of the NDP is that policy wise they are indistinguishable from the Liberals. Though of course this over simplifies the history. Prior to the 1950s the Liberals were largely a party whose driving ideology was Canadian Nationalism and political alliance between Ontario and Quebec, which carried on into the 60s and 70s into the left-wing nationalism characteristic of Canada (note the adoption of a Canadian national anthem in place of God Save the Queen and a new flag being products of Liberal policy in the 50s). Conservative governments prior to this tended to be focused on reinforcing ties with Britain, but public support suffered a major blow after WW1 was perceived as a hubristic conflict driven by European stupidity. The Tories were dominated by the Liberals politically for most of the 20th century because of that.

@Paul Gauthier I would not consider the Liberals to be firmly neoliberal. They invest heavily in public works programs, do not cut taxes, and support broad social programs. Even in their most recent platform they ran on increasing taxes on the top 15% of earners, and more investment in public healthcare. They were also willing to enter into a confidence supply agreement with the NDP for universal pharmacare and dental. They are just as centre-left as New Labour, and while the NDP has strong union support in Ontario from autoworkers, many unions endorse the Liberals as well.

It helps if you think of it like this: it has long been the dream of the Canadian NDP to become the #2 party by displacing the Libs into #3, because this resets the pattern to make Canada like the UK. The NDP can then take power alone (like Labour) once the center (the Libs) permanently become a marginal force (like the Lib-Dems). That has not happened, though many NDPers were drooling over it in 2011; the 2015 election was the telling moment - if the Libs had failed to become the chief anti-Harper party, then the NDP might have finally succeeded and dealing a UK-like death blow to the party of the center. Instead, the old pattern of Libs above the NDP reasserted itself. Though truthfully, you cannot look at Canada's parties as just a single axis of left and right anymore; the two or "two and a half" party configuration has been dead for some time, and only the FPTP voting system keeps that left/right positioning in play.

@@ifeeltiredsleepy I disagree. I think the Liberal Party and Conservative changed in reaction to the Quiet Revolution / rise of Quebec separatism, and the Cold War., respectively. While the Conservatives changed from their roots as a firmly British Empire party to being a firmly pro-American party, and every iteration of them since then has continued being the party of Americanization. The Liberals had to change away being the free trading more Whig-type (or Americanizing) party, and champion federalism / Canadian unity, and social programs (under Pearson and Pierre Trudeau). Conservatism got destroyed in Quebec for a generation, but the Conservatives built back by tapping heavily into Quebec nationalism in Quebec and anti-Francophone resentment elsewhere, while becoming deeply pro-American all over the place. (Basically, if the Libs became the national unity party, the Cons began to champion disunity - regionalism, separatism, provincialism.) Perhaps it was the alignment of wealthy WASPs that changed alignment from UK to US, and the Conservative Party (parties) simply reflected that change as it happened. The question is: did the Liberals (battling Conservatives outside Quebec and separatists inside it) change their nature first, and prompt adaptation in their foe, or was it the other way around ? It would seem the two parties changed their nature so that their rivalry with each other could continue.

@@wyldhowl2821 I think that ignores that the Libs were already the party of national unity in the 19th century. They have from their inception been a Montreal-Toronto alliance between French and English Canada. Like I wouldn't say the Libs were American-style free trade advocates because that didn't really exist as an American ideal at the time either. The Libs were continentalists vs the Tory support for imperialism (as articulated by Canadian political philosophers of the time like Stephen Leacock). The Libs wanted to strengthen Canadian independence and republican government through dismantling British trade preferences for closer ties to the US, while the Tories invisioned a global federated British empire of semi-autonomous colonies. The real start of the shift was Laurier and the Manitoba schools dispute/Riel execution. The urban French Libs had trouble appealing outside Montreal because they were perceived as secular elitist. But the Tories alienated Francophones so badly that the Libs were able to build a nearly insurmountable political alliance accross Ontario and Quebec for most of the next 100 years.

Strangely, JJ and I have nearly identical points of view but I see myself as on the left whereas JJ sees himself on the right.

I don't think he did a very good job. His sneering and dramatic pauses let you know which groups he approved of and which he didn't even though the script he was working off of did seem pretty neutral.

one thing I don't like about this channel is that he never talks about the Maritimes even in videos when he has to he speeds through it to get to the next thing.

@@justinsprague8606 the maritimes are completely insignificant, literally just a oldfolks home / welfare program

The reason that Quebec is still Canadian, lol

Why is liking someone's haircut gay lmao

I read that as "in the 60s" by accident. So I was trying to think of why you would be speaking from pre-civil rights perspective

How so

@@JJMcCullough and he was never heard from again

@@JJMcCullough This is going to be an extremely long comment, but this is the Aussie equivalent to the 35 tribes of what you suggested: Social Conservative: basically the same, but a lot more religious, quite Christian. They're basically the current base of the Liberal Party. Red Tory: we call these teal voters over here, often rich voters who are economically conservative, but socially liberal. Cos there's an election going on, there's serious suspect that these would be moderate Liberals are going to vote for independents, which is something much more common here. They absolutely loved our last PM Malcolm Turnbull, but hate our current PM Scott Morrison. Climate Doomer: As a country with a Murdoch press and which has done basically nothing on climate change, I feel that personally. (Yes I count as a zoomer) The ethnic vote: You see a lot of articles about this, especially where the ethnic vote is basically expected to consistently vote Labor, but it's a lot more varied. Yes pollies do the ethnic appeals in the same way mostly, except being much more hostile to immigration. The Quebec vote: I would say this is the first real difference between you and us, but the closest I can think is maybe WA caring about only WA interests, especially in regards to mining. The Union Man: the base of the Labor Party pretty much. The Trucker: For us, that is basically the anti-lockdown protesters especially in my home state of Victoria, who became kind of these folk heroes on the far-right. Their Justin Trudeau is my premier, Daniel Andrews. The Wonk: maybe a bit less of a thing here, but generally seen as a part of the Labor party here, kind of the Kevin Rudd types of politics. The Future American: I like to call them, people who think they're the 51st state. Will often talk about their 1st amendment rights, that they don't have. The Rich: The shadow emperors of this country. Mostly made their money on resources. The Quebec seperatist: that's not a thing here. SJW: considered to be the base of our Green Party, which at least in Outlook is much very similar to your NDP. But much less successful. But basically the same pretty much. Conspiracy theorist: really depends on outlook, one set i'll get too later, the other is kind of tankie adjacent, basically positing that everything wrong with Australia is the Yanks fault, not our own. Laurentian elite: our phrase to describe that is called the 'Canberra Bubble', basically positing the pollies don't care about the battlers out in the sticks (I.e. queensland). The other thing slightly like that is that everyone not in Sydney hates Sydney. Swing voter: much more important here because we have mandatory voting, so these sort of people are characterised here as kind of aloof, and disconnected, I.e., they'll believe about politics what 7 News tells them, or Alan Jones. Land Back: we prefer to call it unceded or always was always will be. Pretty much the same though. Boomer Nationalist: Similar, but with more of a right wing tinge than a left wing one. Orthodox Conservative: basically everyone who's a Young Liberal, who basically all look like yound Mr Burns. Oil über allies: Replace Oil with Coal, but it's the exact same. Except both sides have to essentially bow down to coal to win power. Healthcare über allies: there was a well-done scare campaign by Labor in 2016 around privatising Medicare, that nearly won them power 3 years after they lost. So basically the same. Our system guys: Yeah, mainly talked about in comparison to America, saying that our system is so much better than America. Unrelated, but our senate is so much better than yours. Gun Man: quite uncommon here, but a lot more rural than in canada. Famously, John Howard banned the gun in 1996 after a mass shooting in Port Arthur. That event is quite idealised in Australia NDP masochist: basically the base of the greens. Often called tree torys, mainly because they're seen as being sons and daughters of Liberal Voters, who will always tell you Labor is a sellout, and the greens are the only true party of the progressives. They're the kind of people who have their politics as their identity. I'm not a massive fan. Non-Quebec french: not a thing here at all Bernier Bro: these are the supporters of the UAP. The UAP was formed by this mining billionaire named Clive Palmer, and currently, it's a lightning rod for basically the anti-mandate/conspiratorial set, qanon freaks and all that jazz. They are quite loud and proud online and physically, but aren't really that popular. The Rural Vote: we have a whole party for that called the nationals! Very right wing, probably farmers rights and anti environmentalist movements. Often seen as being quite backwards by inner city folk. Foreign Policy wonks: A lot more right wing, the kind of people who like to engage in sabre rattling with China, but don't have the power to back it up. Very common in the ruling government Proud Boy: that's kind of a thing everywhere, but often young, not that political really, and just want to get in a fight for reasons. Not as common though. Protectionist: not common, because we shut down all our industries, but kind of similar to the bring back jobs to Australia set you'll sometimes see on the left and right. Often there's more of a focus on completely closing borders to immigrants. Extremely Online Leftists: Either tree torys or Friendlyjordies viewers. Bilingualists: not a thing Support Our Troops: see foreign policy wonks Prairie Nationalist: there is a movement in Western Australia that does want to seceed from Australia called WAxit, but it's not that popular, a lot more based around, 'give us more of a cut of GST' and stuff like that. Republican: not a type of person, but definitely a movement with popular support, but won't happen until after QE2 passes away because no-one likes Charles. Jesus that took a long time to write, but if you were wondering what equivalent provinces to states between Canada and Australia are, it goes like this. NSW = Ontario Victoria = BC Queensland = Quebec SA = Nova Scotia, NB and PEI. WA = Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba Tasmania = Newfoundland NT = all the northern territories ACT/Canberra = Ottawa I would actually be quite interested in an Australia video from you similar to your Indian Politics video from a few years back, considering there's an important election in three weeks from now. Hope you read this all, sorry it took such a long time to write. Hope you found it interesting!

@@theheaph7929 That was a very informative read, thanks for writing it!

Just commenting so I can come back to read.

Same lmao Btw, Lucas, when's 2022 video coming? 😉

@@dead.dummy678 I already have a script and a couple of drawings :) Gonna film it soon... I think. 😅

Most americans are well aware we have no official language, and less people become angry at hearing Spanish than media would have you believe. Spanish is increasingly spoken everywhere:

@@cardenova i’d have to agree, i’m from southern california and spanish is everywhere

@@cardenova not being able to at least passibly speak a second language, or at least like if the other person treated you as a young child is sign of small brain. europeans and many other places in the world are bilingual at minimum, with trilingualism being the average.

@@dankmemes8619 Another snobby European, I think it’s time we address the elephant in the room regarding this topic. the rest of the world (including europe) learns to speak a second language because they have to, politically and financially. not out of morality. during the middle ages, French was the most powerful language in the continent for centuries so about 1/3 of Brits continue that legacy. As for Canada, only Quebeckers are bilingual. Only 16% of Anglophone Canadians are actually bilingual. Australia and New Zealand have extremely low rates of bilingualism too. I wonder what all these countries have in common that Europe doesn’t 🤔 watching all your languages gradually go extinct due to American (and historically British) power fills me with pure joy. Also, all Americans are taught Spanish in school. Most retain some of it into adulthood.

@@cardenova cope

I'd like it as a poster tbh.

What's he like??

@@JJMcCullough well....lol I refer to the sharp / quick wit of course

Thanks so much for the kind words my friend they brightened my day! I honestly think a lot of it is just my training as a journalist, not just being on tv, but writing too. When you write as a columnist you have to write with a right word count and I think that forces you to think about what actually needs to be said and be more economic with your words.

@@JJMcCullough that makes a lot of sense. I remember that in HS I had a teacher who would purposfully assign short word counts on some assignments to bate the class into thinking they could get it done quickly, but he would tell you write about things, like say the Hindenberg disaster (this was a histoey class btw) in 30 words or less, which sounds very easy until you try to actually write something that doesn't sound basic and kind if similar to everyone elses. I think his idea was to strengthen our ability to concisely express our ideas. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts

Maybe in that two hours, he’ll have somehow a minute or two of positive things to say about us. I enjoy most of his content, except for his reductive depiction of us.

I’ve seen his channel, he talks about how horrible canada is when he runs out of ideas or how to talk about how horrible America is