Naomi Wolf argues in this video that effective protests are being blunted and becoming “fake” because of an excess of bureaucracy and “permit-icization” (i.e., excessive requirement of permits for legal protests).  She argues that this is the result of an “oligarchy” in power, which knows that a mass protest “ALWAYS WORKS” (emphasis hers) and is trying to limit democratic expression.  Protests which “stop traffic” are currently outlawed, because “if protests are going to do anything, they have to stop business as usual”.  She alludes to the effective use of mass action in ending the Soviet Union, contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and even the intent of the Founding Fathers, referring to direct action in the name of liberty as being an “American mandate”.

What Ms. Wolf doesn’t seem to understand is that the laws against disruptive protests actually protect a democratically elected government against undue influence by large crowds.  (Of course, Leftists like herself argue that the Bush administration is not a legitimate, democratic government).  Could she imagine, for a moment, what would happen if pro-life groups decided to wage a campaign of disruption in the name of revoking Roe v. Wade?  What if Proposition 8 were not passed through democratic measures, but through disruptive street protests?  Would Ms. Klein regard these as legitimate expressions of “the people’s will”?  I have my doubts.

But if what Ms. Wolf says is true, that disruptive protests “ALWAYS WORK”, then if the government allowed them by law, then any group willing to use disruption for their cause would do so immediately, without hesitation.  Government policy would start changing week-by-week, depending on whoever had been the most recent group to shut down a city.  If a better recipe for anarchy exists, I’m certainly unaware of it.  Such a policy would itself lead to “the end of America”, as it would tear the country apart, “brick by brick”.

The best way to view these limitations on protests is through the lens of the First Amendment; not in the broad sense of “freedom of speech”, but through the eyes of the Founding Fathers and how they dealt with the multitude of religious factions which threatened to tear the country apart before it was even formed.  The Constitution which they agreed upon did not just guarantee freedom of expression and religion, but that the government shall take no notice of religious differences.  The same appears to be true with regards to protesters: they could be pro-life, gay liberation, or Ku Klux Klan; the government takes no notice of their cause, but limits all of them in terms of their influence via direct action.

True believers, whether they be religious or political, are always convinced that their causes are righteous.  What any responsible government should do is make sure that their citizens do not subvert the democratic process through direct action.  After all, if direct action can enable freedom, it can take it away just as easily.

I then learned about the Trotskyist doctrine of “Permanent revolution“, which argues that socialism should not be confined to one state, but rather when one country revolts against its oppressors (be they internal or external), then other countries around the world are very likely to follow suit; in other words, the greatest threat is a good example.  For the Neoconservatives, the threat of a good example is that of a working, pluralist federalist democracy in the heart of a region where dictatorship, whether secular or theocratic, is the norm.  To sum it up in a single word: Iraq.

Because of the seemingly close connection between these two trains of thought, it is my argument that Neoconservatives are actually Trotskyists who still hold to the socialist principles of solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the world.  In fact, they go even further: they don’t regard foreign intervention as the de facto hallmark of an oppressive imperialism.  Like classical Trotskyists, who argued for an alliance between the proletariat and bourgeoisie in order to effect revolution, the Neoconservatives believe in allying American military power with (often suppressed) domestic political forces in other countries in order to remove authoritarian or totalitarian regimes from power and bring forth progressive, democratic rule.

The sad thing is, in modern times it is the socialists of the West, and not the imperialists, who have chosen to ally themselves with reactionary forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  In the case of the War on Terror, Leftists are choosing to apologise, if not give actual verbal support to terrorist factions which want to turn their home countries into theocracies, wherein half the human species (i.e. women) is held in bondage; where universal suffrage (i.e. voting) is outlawed; and where homosexuals and “adulterers” are killed outright.  All the while they condemn Israel, the only country in the Middle East where there are free elections, multiple political parties, multiracial representation in government, and the only Gay Pride Parade in the entire region.

To deny rights to others while demanding them for oneself is chauvinistic at best, and bigoted at worst.  This is nothing less than a treasonous betrayal of all that socialism used to stand for, and though I no longer hold to utopian socialist ideals, I nevertheless side with the values of solidarity with the Third World demonstrated by the Bush administration and modern conservative thinkers.  For this reason, I have chosen to ally myself with Neoconservatives, whom I regard as the last true Socialists.

“There’s probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Here are the links to several news stories about it:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/01/16/8047631-cp.html

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n011638A

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/01/27/no-god.html

http://topicagnostic.com/2009/01/27/atheists-take-over-canada/

The problem is this: the people running this campaign presume that religious people have a natural fear of God and divine punishment; ie., that they conceive of God in a totalitarian way…which is in fact exactly how Atheists view God.  It is their concept of God, (for example, Christopher Hitchens’ reference to a God-created and -controlled universe as a “celestial North Korea”) which is at the heart of such an ad campaign.  So, really, these ads are not (or at least should not be thought of as) targetign religious people, but rather as trying to convince Atheists to stop worrying about the existence of God.  Honestly, if one were to talk to a religious person who is not, excuse me, old and set in their ways (which have more to do with their curmudgeonly personality than their theology), they would likely respond by asking: “What am I supposed to be afraid or worried about?  God loves me, and He wants the best for us.”  Again, it is Atheists who are worried about the possible existence of God, and, as I have just argued, they are the ones who should be regarded as the real targets of this campaign.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090125/technology/indonesia_religion_atheism_internet_feature

I think it’s important to note that there is a difference between saying that other societies should be just like ours (culturally, religiously, etc.), and saying that their majorities should be as tolerant of minorities as we are of ours. Some (and I stress, SOME) conservative Christians believe that the world would simply be a better place if everyone were Christian; this, unfortunately, overlooks the progress which is being made in the Muslim world, to a more tolerant attitude towards minorities. This is something else I plan on doing in my blogs: hilighting signs of moderation in the Muslim world; sort of a complement (i.e., supplement, addition) to the wonderful work of Robert Spencer and David Horowitz on the websites jihadwatch.com and dhimmiwatch.org. I think that it’s also important, after reading about all the bad things going on between Muslims and the West (as we should), to also take note of all (or any) of the good things happening in the Muslim world (both in society and online).

Not that things aren’t bad, but there is a glimmer of hope and optimism.

After years of being bugged by my best friend, I’ve finally decided to start a blog.  I resisted doing this for years, using the excuse that “Hey, who wants to know my every thought?”  But then I realised, at last, that my insights might actually be valuable to others.  If that’s ego, then so be it!  No more of this pussyfooting around the fact that I actually have something positive to contribute to political life in this civilization, and perhaps the world.  So, without further ado, here’s my introduction to me, the political animal.

I first got into politics in grade 12, around the spring of 1998, when I picked up a copy of “Chomsky for Beginners”.  The idea that the media were not telling the public the truth fascinated me, and so I bought more of Chomsky’s works, and other Leftie publications about how evil the press is, manipulating people to serve the government’s agenda, etc., etc.

I eventually got involved with the International Socialists, which published the Socialist Worker newspaper.  I listened to Rage Against the Machine, though unlike most of my friends, who got into politics through Rage, I myself got into Rage becuase of my politics.  I still have a few of their songs in my iTunes playlist, though for reasons which will become clear as you read on, I actually ended up physically destroying my whole Rage collection years ago.

I watched the television show Counterspin with Avi Lewis religiously, especially around the time of the Anti-globalization protests in Seattle and Washington, D.C.  I, myself, took part in the Quebec City demonstrations against the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) in April 2001, going right up to the 3.8 metre fence which had been erected around the downtown core to keep protesters away form the actual trade delegates and national leaders.  And yes, I was tear-gassed along with my fellow Left-wing “comrades”; a most unpleasant experience which I wouldn’t care to repeat.

I took part in protests over the killing of a young activist in Italy, who was shot by policemen after he seemingly threatened to hurl a fire extinguisher at them; I took part in the Labour Day parade that year, and was all fired up, as a young political science student, to take new courses at York University, with the goal in mind of achieving a PhD…

…Then came September 11, 2001.

Suffice it to say, I didn’t eat much that day, or sleep much that night.  I was not sure what was going to happen; whether nuclear war was about to start; whether more terrorist attacks were coming; nothing seemed certain.  After I got my bearings, I went out to an “emergency meeting” of the International Socialists a few days after the attacks.  There, a man in his mid to late 30’s, dressed in flannel and blue jeans, got up and spoke to us.  It was eight years ago, but I can still recall the substance of what he said that evening:

“On September 11, just a few days ago, nineteen hijackers crashed four airplanes into targets across the Northeastern United States, killing thousands of innocent civilians.  But we are Marxists.  The terrorists claim that they are acting in the name of God, to oppose American oppression in their home countries and because of the decadence of our society.  But we are Marxists.  The government is talking about new terrorist attacks that may be coming, and is mobilizing its army and its police forces to help combat this new enemy.  But we are Marxists.”

On and on it went for about five minutes; a litany of statements of headlines from the news, punctuated by a repetition of the mantra about how we are all Marxists.  And I remember very vividly thinking to myself:  “But I’m not a Marxist; I don’t know anything about Marx, or his writings.”  It was at that point that I realised that something was definitely wrong with this picture.

I began talking with my socialist colleagues about the attacks, and found them giving Bin Laden and his followers the benefit of the doubt, even after the video of him claiming responsibility for the attacks surfaced.  It got to the point where I asked them flat out whether they actually thought that President Bush had been involved somehow in the attacks.  They said they did, which sent alarm bells going off in my head.  I then went a step further, and asked them whether they thought, by extension, if Bush would be willing, in their estimation, to detonate a nuclear weapon or two on American soil, and then blame it on the terrorists in order to impose martial law on the country.  They replied, matter-of-factly, “Oh, of course he would; without a doubt.”

These were not just the rank and file members of the socialist organization I happened to belong to; these were two of the key organizers of the prominent and prolific International Socialists on York University’s campus.  It was at that point that I abandoned the Left, because all the leftists I knew simply responded to the 9/11 attacks with a sort of knee-jerk anti-Americanism, and what would soon after be referred to as “9/11 Truth”, an Orwellian term if there ever was one.

Suffice it to say, I’m now what I would consider to be a moderate conservative; I believe in gay marriage, and I’m willing to concede to the use of the “morning after pill”.  On issues of political liberty, however, I am an adamant supporter of the principles of the United States Constitution, in spite of the fact that I am Canadian, and have no familial ties to America.  I agree with the Euston Manifesto‘s statement of socialist principles, especially that of solidarity with the peoples of the Third World, and I’m disgusted at the apparent willingness of many Leftists to abandon their supposed values of women’s rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, universal sufferage, etc., and instead apologise for some of the worst regimes in the world simply because they are America’s opponents.
Posted in Uncategorized ]]> http://republicancanuck.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/hello-world/feed/ 0 asteventon