Domestic Terrorism

I’ve been struggling for weeks to describe and understand what has been happening in the country I live in, Canada. I live a mere two hours from the capital, where the “Freedom Convoy” has been allegedly protesting vaccine mandates. The convoy made a pit stop in my town on its way nearly a month ago, so I even had the opportunity to see and hear from them directly. My opinion here is not second hand at all.

It is not a protest. As Leah Gazan spelled it out recently through a twitter post, sharing her words from parliament, even the purpose and message touted by this movement is not what it seems to be. There is something deeper and more insidious taking place.

This pandemic has been challenging for me not because there is a new disease on the scene that can dish out severe suffering and death upon large amounts of the human population. It has been challenging because it has forced humans to look at things they have spent decades, centuries, even millennia avoiding and dismissing. Cultural and systemic problems that have been left to fester for ages. Worse yet, those problems have been encouraged.

The problem is of sophistry and rhetoric. It is of people manipulating other people. Those who have the skills and abilities to see and understand have, by and large, been manipulating those who cannot see or understand (or who chose not to) to perform functions and activities that are against the best interests of people, society, and the world as a whole. There are people in this world who seems to simply want to see the world burn.

The problem is the lack of a level playing field. We are not equal. We simply cannot be equal. There are things I am good at, and there are things I am not good at. Similarly, there are things you are good at, and there are things you are not good at. Given a particular situation, I may out perform you, but given a different situation you may out perform me. Neither particular situation suggests that you are better than I am, nor that I am better than you are. However, what should be taken from this knowledge is that we are different, and that there will be times one of us can leverage the situation to our own advantage.

The wealthy are wealthy for three reasons: their skills happen to be focused in an area that is conducive to the accumulation of wealth, they are a part of an inter-generational effort aimed at the generation of wealth, and they are lucky.

The first reason generally flows from the second reason, which in turn follows from the third. Their skills and abilities are conditioned and trained in them from their relatives and ancestors (with varying degrees of success I might add). Their parents understand that to be wealthy requires certain traits, and so their parents train them to develop those traits. Traits like viewing people through the lens of a class system, where not all humans should be treated equally. By convincing them that people who are not wealthy simply choose to be that way. They are definitely not trained to cook or to clean; after all, that is the work of the lesser classes.

The accumulation of wealth generally does not take place all at once, but over time. The more time one has to spend on the accumulation of wealth, the more they are able to do so. As is so often demonstrated in works of fiction, if an individual could be immortal, they could simply place their savings in the most basic financial institutions at virtually the lowest interest rates, and after several hundreds of years, a small amount will have become a large amount. Douglas Adams even jokes about this when suggesting that everyone can afford the insanely expensive restaurant at the end of the universe, because all they needed to do was to put aside mere pennies in their current time to do so.

While there are no immortal humans that I am aware of, there is another sort of immortality that exists to allow for such accumulation of wealth to take place: names. Family names to be precise. Blood lines. When a family works cooperatively over the course of many generations, they are able to save and invest for the future generations. The common term for this is “old money.” If a family has this sort of forethought, it will be important to train their offspring in such a manner to continue the future facing investment.

Finally, there needs to be luck. By luck, I mean that the situation and circumstances these people find themselves in must be such that they are able to continue their long ranged plan. Those in the front lines of war have a rather high risk of injury and death, regardless of their level of wealth. Thus, if one wants to ensure the continuance of their blood line, it would be helpful if they were able to somehow prevent their offspring from being selected to participate in such dangerous activities. Or, if they will be expected to participate, they should be given skills and abilities that allow for them to take jobs that could be a bit further away from all that danger.

Over the years, I’ve learned a lot about luck. Luck, to me, is simply a fancy way of describing how one has leveraged decisions in order to minimize the risk of detriment, and maximized the possibility of benefit. The common phrase of “being in the right place at the right time.” With practice and training, one is actually able to control their own luck, to some degree. I have witnessed this first hand in others, and have even figured out how to do this myself.

The point of all this is simply that those with power and influence and wealth have not gotten to where they are by magic or destiny. They have through hard work, patience, and luck. They have, over many generations, spent their time learning to manipulate and influence others in order to position themselves and their friends in such a way as to preserve their way of life. We have records of this going back to ancient Greece. This is precisely the concern raised by Socrates himself (of the problem of sophistry being used to push agendas without the support of evidence).

The “Freedom Convoy” is a well orchestrated movement created by those of wealth, manipulating those without wealth to push their agendas. What’s most disheartening is that the individuals who have (and continue to) participate in this movement do not realize they’ve been manipulated. They honestly seem to believe they are fighting for their own freedom, when they are in fact fighting for the freedom of the elite. You’d think that being charged criminally, their assets and personal wealth being confiscated, and their lives ruined would be enough to show them this.

It is not a protest at all.

We have a way of describing people who take other people, strap bombs to their chests, and instruct them to walk into heavily populated areas and detonate. The sacrificed individuals are told they will reap the greatest of all rewards in heaven, earning thousands of virgins and an afterlife of bliss.

The “Freedom Convoy” is a terrorist movement.

Understanding Democracy

I really have no idea what I should think or feel about everything going on. What I do feel is confused and lost. Particularly because I thought I understood what the state of things was. I thought I understood what the majority of people wanted. The “silent majority” as my father used to call them. Now, I’m not so sure.

Let’s start with the basics here; what is democracy? Well, the etymology can help us here. Democracy comes from the greek “dêmos” and “krátos.” “Dêmos” translates to people or citizens, while “krátos” translates to rule or strength. Putting them together, you get an idea of people ruling, or the strength of a community coming from the people. In these modern times, we have the idea of governing by the people or the citizens. That is, it is the people who collectively come together to decide the rules and laws that ought to govern the community as a whole.

So it seems to suggest that in democracy, you have a group of people who somehow come to agreement regarding the ways in which they coexist among one another. This in contrast to other situations where perhaps a small subsection of the group is in charge while the remainder simply submit to the subsection’s authority (oligarchy), or perhaps the subsection is simply a lone individual that everyone else submits to (dictatorship). In a democracy, everyone has a say in how things will be in the community as a whole.

In nations such as the United States or Canada, it is believed that the society is organized as a democracy. In Canada, individuals exercise their freedom by voting representatives, who in turn will vote other representatives, who will ultimately speak on behalf of all the people in Canada. Thus, in some ways it seems like an individual is making decisions while everyone else is expected to submit, but the manner in which the nation is organized, that top level representative has to be re-elected regularly in order to affirm that they are continuing to appropriately represent the people who elected them. In this way, it is understood that the representatives are always working in the interests of the people as a whole.

It is true that from time to time there will be representatives who abuse the power they are given by the people they are meant to represent. Sometimes with malicious intent. But that is supposed to be the exception, and not the rule. In general, representatives try to actually represent their constituents and further the constituents’ projects. But how can we be sure?

This is where an aspect of democracy is uncovered that I believe is not always recognized, especially by the very same people who are claiming to support democracy. In any democracy, there are many people with many differing opinions and ideas regarding how things should be done. There are many different projects that will be proposed, all with different priorities and different levels of importance. If I represent 100 people, then I have to somehow decide which of the 100 projects they all wish me to progress to actualize. I may be able to push forward several projects, but it is unlikely I can actualize all 100. Multiply this issue to the size of Canada, where there are about 38 million people, with 38 million different projects and ideas about what should be done.

Almost certainly you know how such things are decided: the majority rules. That is, those participants in the democratic process come together to vote on which projects ought to be undertaken. Those projects who have the greatest support are actualized. Those projects that are not supported sufficiently are not. If one person in 38 million wishes a particular project be undertaken, while the remainder do not, clearly the democratic group will decide against following through with such a project.

In these situations, where a minority of the population wishes a particular project be undertaken and are defeated by a vote from the majority, what ought the minority do? As one who often finds himself among the minority, it is my understanding that I have to simply suck it up and move on. That is, my desired projects are not to be undertaken. I may spend some time trying to convince others to take up my projects. I can use strategies such as protest to increase the awareness of my desired projects, utilizing appeals to emotion to try and sway others. But if, in the end, those who support my projects still only represent a minority, ultimately, I need to simply let it go and move on.

This is how I necessarily must behave. If I support the idea of democracy, I have to accept the fact that I will not always get what I want. In fact, as I am a part of a rather large community, it is very likely that I will rarely get what I want. Most of the time, I will have to simply accept the opinions of others and go along with them. As a single individual among millions, my opinions and desires do not count for very much.

This brings me to this whole “freedom convoy” business. The challenge I am having presently is that it is my understanding that the individuals who are participating in this so-called protest are representing a minority of the whole population. For example, their alleged primary point of concern is that they are against vaccine mandates, especially for truckers who are primarily responsible for maintaining the supply chains between Canada and the United States. If the information I have uncovered is to be believed, upwards of 90% of those truckers are fully vaccinated and continuing to (try to) do their jobs. Thus, the protesters, assuming they represent those truckers who do not support the vaccine mandate, are representing about 10% of the truckers in question. Basic math tells us that 10% is much, much less than 90%, and thus constitutes a minority.

Don’t get me wrong. As they represent a minority, within the laws and rules we have set out in our democratic society, they are definitely entitled to protest and attempt to sway to their side those who presently do not agree with them. The problem is that they have long since already made this point and presented their case (or at least had the opportunity to). So why are they still “protesting?” Worse, why have they escalated their “protest” to include further disruption of the very same supply chain that they claim the vaccine mandates are distrupting?

As anyone who has been following this story should already be aware, this “freedom convoy” is clearly about much, much more than simply vaccine mandates for truckers. In fact, it seems like the movement itself is distracted with hundreds, and possibly thousands, of other intentions and projects. When these “protesters” are waving American confederate flags, nazi flags, and banners supporting their desired candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election, putting aside my level of agreement or disagreement with them, this tells me that their intentions are far more diverse than simply concerns about vaccinating truckers.

This is where I would like to point out what I’ve been talking about regarding democracy and about accepting the decisions of the majority. In this case, it seems to me, the majority of people in Canada support vaccine mandates. It seems to me that the majority of Canadians recognize the significance of supporting their healthcare system in trying to keep as many people safe as possible during a pandemic. It seems to be that the majority support the idea that a vaccine mandate is probably a good thing. The “freedom convoy” has made their point, and they’ve presented their side of this issue. Why the hell are they still at it? And why are they escalating their disruptive behavior? Are they not actually in support of democracy, in contradiction to what they seem to be shouting about?

Many of them suggest their primary interest is in “freedom.” But who’s freedom? They are disrupting the freedoms of all sorts of other individuals with their actions. They are disrupting the supply chains and making it far more challenging for the rest of Canadians to go about their lives. I can promise that those who’s lives have been disrupted do not believe their freedom is being supported; I imagine they believe their freedom is being striped and infringed upon. Is it the “freedom” of the “protesters” that the “protesters” are concerned about? Once again, this will represent a minority, and once again this ought to be dropped.

I do NOT support the “freedom” of the “protesters” whatsoever, primarily as they have outright dismissed and attempted to crush my own. I support the authorities in doing whatever actions they deem necessary to put an end to this ridiculousness and allow the majority of Canadians to attempt to return to some semblance of normalcy.