home

October 10th; about voting reform, occupying wall street, birth of a country, etc

Here is a scribble to the Fair Vote canada e-mail list. It is good enough to pass on to the blog.

Hello, fair vote people.

Two things.

One, I do not like the idea of using the "occupy a wall on the street" as an "outreach opportunity".

I have largely given up on public demonstrations as a way to get anything accomplished. There are too many creeps out there who want to manipulate them for nefarious purposes. If you are in a public place, you cannot control who shows up and since you are doing something the police do not like you have little recourse if somebody starts attacking you.

It is not just the "comrades" you need to worry about, but police provocateurs. So, I want to know more about exactly who is running this "movement". I have some information that it is already largely infiltrated, at least in the states, by people who are really only talking about fake reforms which the Wall street banksters would turn in their favor. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26915

It baffles me that three years ago even some business newspapers were seriously talking about nationalizing the banks. Now you can not even get the "radicals" in the streets talking about it. And guess what folks; that is the only thing that is going to solve the financial crisis in the "Atlantic world"!

I predict that most of the people at this event will see it as a distraction or diversion. I think they would be right. I think a more important thing at the moment is to demand taxes on the rich and on corporations, for the purpose of greatly increasing public revenues, for the purpose of greatly increasing job and social stability creating public spending without increasing public debt. Clear enough?

Now, I should add a third point to my agenda, although I think I have already made it before, briefly, on this list. Now we have a minority government in Ontario, and now is the time to also push for PR. The strongest point about PR is that it leads to better and more open government. This is shown by the Ontario minorities in the 70's and 80's, and the federal minorities of the 1960's. However, this point was obscured by the idiotic behavior of the liberal party during the Harper minorities.

We must also point out that most of the countries in Europe which are being delivered up to international financial looting by their governments, are proportional systems. PR is not a magic solution. It is still a very limited form of democracy. It is still possible for powerful elites with unlimited money to corner government through bribery, intimidation, and deception.

To return again to the demo, forcing popular sovereignty on the plutocrats and their minions is going to be very, very bloody. The reactions of those who control the police in those countries shows how delusional the idea of "non-violent" protest is. I don't think older or vulnerable people want to be at these proceedings, unless there are hundreds of thousands of people on the streets ready to fight. If you are going there be very aware of the situation and of who seems to be trying to move things in certain ways.

Third topic. I wonder how many people saw the John A: birth of a country show on CBC lately. I did not see it when it first aired. I recorded it and just got around to watching it. I do not know if the film makers were trying to make this point, but I see similarities to the situation in the Canada of the 1860s and of today.

Back then, people were stuck with a system which just did not work, which had been imposed on them by Britain. It was leading to permanent deadlocks that made it impossible for the union government to do anything. I think the show plays down the intense hatred of that time, of the Orangemen for the Catholic French Canadians, and the French Catholic Ultramontanes for the Protestant British. This hate was pumped by those who did not want the system to work.

But it seems that back then we had a few leaders who had enough vision, or maybe were just tired of beating their heads against a wall, and decided to work together to get out of their dilemma. So they came up with the 1867 confederation. Whatever libertarian cranks were around then, were not able to prevent their nightmare, a government that worked. It seems that was what this Sandfield MacDonald was.

You certainly do not have this kind of "wisdom" in the states, where the old constitution has clearly broken down. In Canada, it has broken down but the failure is not clear yet. It is interesting that the cause of failure is the inverse of what it was in 1864. Then, there was polarization between irreconcilable extremes. Now, one form of extremism has cornered power and cannot be dislodged by just changing parties.

Maybe in the near future in Canada we can get some wised up politicians like John A, Cartier, and George Brown to get together and make change. I know what everyone on this list thinks is the right change. I think it goes further than that.

That is why I am looking closely at Greece, Spain, etc. to see what they finally do to achieve popular sovereignty. Someone has to find the formula for making government adhere to the public, rather than private, interests.

Eat lots of turkey, everybody. Then in the next months get after the turkeys in the legislature. TR